5 ms·

You seem to really dislike Wikileaks. What is it about them that bothers you so much?

by jgg 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
I think, in order of importance to their mission, they are: * A publicity vehicle for their founders. * A left-wing political cause (note: I say this as a left-liberal). * A "fuck-you" to the mainstream media. * An honest broker of leaked information. I think when you hang up your sign offering to handle the most sensitive information people have to offer, it's incumbent on you to be above reproach. Clearly, Assange doesn't believe that: he's editorialized their most publicized disclosure to date, throwing their bias and handling of everything they do from this point forward into question.
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  Sadly, I have to agree. They have, nonetheless, done some good and interesting things; but with Iceland's new "Wikileaks" law, I'd be perfectly happy to see some "competitors" spring up...
- Natsu 16y ago
  > it's incumbent on you to be above reproach I don't think it's possible to be above reproach in this day and age. Can you name even one famous person who doesn't have haters, deserved or otherwise?
- Rod 16y ago
  In a recent interview, Assange mentioned that in the first days of WikiLeaks they used to make the leaked files available, without trying to publicize them. The result was that nobody noticed them. They soon realized that they needed to become editors too, otherwise they would have little impact. Whether you like it or not, Assange's drama whoring has allowed him to become very powerful and to deliver quite a bit of impact. Drama is a means towards an end, and Assange has exploited people's craving for drama in a very smart manner. You say that their goal is to publicize themselves, but to me it seems they're mostly burning bridges with the rest of the world. So, what does publicity buy them? Fame is useless if you can't monetize it, or at least extract something worthwhile out of it.
tbrownaw 16y ago
I think their actions show them as primarily an anti-establishment group (or possibly a "give us money" group) that has chosen to operate by means of leaking information, rather than a information leaking / transparency group that just happens to often piss off the government and needs a bit of funding to keep going.
eli 16y ago
I think the problem is that Wikileaks is not journalism and the people running it don't even claim to be journalists. There's also an issue that I think the author of the (lengthy, but worth it) New Yorker profile nailed: Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution. If you haven't read it: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...

You seem to really dislike Wikileaks. What is it about them that bothers you so much?

by jgg 16y ago

You seem to really dislike Wikileaks. What is it about them that bothers you so much?

I think, in order of importance to their mission, they are: * A publicity vehicle for their founders. * A left-wing political cause (note: I say this as a left-liberal). * A "fuck-you" to the mainstream media. * An honest broker of leaked information. I think when you hang up your sign offering to handle the most sensitive information people have to offer, it's incumbent on you to be above reproach. Clearly, Assange doesn't believe that: he's editorialized their most publicized disclosure to date, throwing their bias and handling of everything they do from this point forward into question.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Sadly, I have to agree. They have, nonetheless, done some good and interesting things; but with Iceland's new "Wikileaks" law, I'd be perfectly happy to see some "competitors" spring up...
Natsu 16y ago
> it's incumbent on you to be above reproach I don't think it's possible to be above reproach in this day and age. Can you name even one famous person who doesn't have haters, deserved or otherwise?
Rod 16y ago
In a recent interview, Assange mentioned that in the first days of WikiLeaks they used to make the leaked files available, without trying to publicize them. The result was that nobody noticed them. They soon realized that they needed to become editors too, otherwise they would have little impact. Whether you like it or not, Assange's drama whoring has allowed him to become very powerful and to deliver quite a bit of impact. Drama is a means towards an end, and Assange has exploited people's craving for drama in a very smart manner. You say that their goal is to publicize themselves, but to me it seems they're mostly burning bridges with the rest of the world. So, what does publicity buy them? Fame is useless if you can't monetize it, or at least extract something worthwhile out of it.

tbrownaw 16y ago

I think their actions show them as primarily an anti-establishment group (or possibly a "give us money" group) that has chosen to operate by means of leaking information, rather than a information leaking / transparency group that just happens to often piss off the government and needs a bit of funding to keep going.

eli 16y ago

I think the problem is that Wikileaks is not journalism and the people running it don't even claim to be journalists. There's also an issue that I think the author of the (lengthy, but worth it) New Yorker profile nailed: Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most—power without accountability—is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution. If you haven't read it: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...