4 ms·

You make a good point. Sure Assange is self-aggrandizing. Some may even call him flamboyant, but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? I recall similar critic

You make a good point. Sure Assange is self-aggrandizing. Some may even call him flamboyant, but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? I recall similar criticism of Jimmy Wales. Wales acts like a rock star and he, like Assange, is a master fundraiser and aficionado of private jets. Despite mass defections of editors, and the enduring pompousness of Mr. Wales, Wikipedia is better than ever. Sometimes a greasy-haired, eccentric diva is the best person to represent your cause.

ErrantX 16y ago
> but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? Honestly, yes. Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda. But Assange does very much have those things. The reason Wikipedia is good is because the community decision process is very strong (mostly through being slow and laborious); they, obviously, have a lot of respect for Wales but he can't influence things dramatically without being called on it (look at the fuss over the commons porn images). Wikileaks doesn't have that sort of critical buffer of individuals (from what I have gathered about his personality Assange doesn't strike me as someone who would take any criticism at all). Sure there are volunteers but from my understanding it all works through Assange.
- Rod 16y ago
  "Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda." Why? Where's the argumentation? Your opinion is not fact, mister.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Well, yes, this is always opinion (I refuse to constantly add "in my opinion" to all statements :P it stifles the flow). But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims. On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not least reputation).
    - Rod 16y ago
      Assange is aiming at maximum impact. He knows human nature well enough to understand that people love polarization, and he exploits human weaknesses in order to accomplish his goals. Who has ever heard of Cryptome or Steven Aftergood? Very few. By contrast, everyone knows Assange these days. You may find his approach distasteful, but you can't claim it's not effective. In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal. Ultimately, I don't blame the soldiers, for they were following orders. I blame the American people for blindly trusting their government and failing to demand accountability from the morally challenged elected officials. A docile populace is the first step towards tyranny. If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. Anger in the face of tragedy is preferrable to utter indifference. If Assange is self-aggrandizing and has an agenda, I am fine with that too, for he has done a great job so far and it would be enormously unrealistic to demand zero self-interest from a person who has amassed such immense power in such a short period of time.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal I think this is the core of our disagreement; because while I agree with you I abhor the idea of pushing an agenda and opinion on anyone. The video could have stood for itself; instead I believe Assange weakened it via it's presentation in an effort to raise the profile of Wikileaks. If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. It matters; it matters a lot. Because the editorial was gleeful and gloating. It was saying "screw you US government" - and that is silly because the video stands for itself. That Wikileaks has an agenda is, in my mind, wrong - when the information you present/possess comes from secret sources and contains highly controversial material it should be treated objectively. I don;t care of Wikileaks languishes in obscurity like Cryptome; enough people know of it that anything seriously big (like the video) will make the media. These sites are important simply by existing because they present a critical danger to those who want to abuse government positions; I don't want someone aggrandizing and pretentious and seemingly biased as those politicians presenting the information.
- fleitz 16y ago
  In a perfect world wikileaks would be wholly unnecessary.

ErrantX 16y ago

> but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? Honestly, yes. Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda. But Assange does very much have those things. The reason Wikipedia is good is because the community decision process is very strong (mostly through being slow and laborious); they, obviously, have a lot of respect for Wales but he can't influence things dramatically without being called on it (look at the fuss over the commons porn images). Wikileaks doesn't have that sort of critical buffer of individuals (from what I have gathered about his personality Assange doesn't strike me as someone who would take any criticism at all). Sure there are volunteers but from my understanding it all works through Assange.

Rod 16y ago
"Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda." Why? Where's the argumentation? Your opinion is not fact, mister.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Well, yes, this is always opinion (I refuse to constantly add "in my opinion" to all statements :P it stifles the flow). But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims. On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not least reputation).
  - Rod 16y ago
    Assange is aiming at maximum impact. He knows human nature well enough to understand that people love polarization, and he exploits human weaknesses in order to accomplish his goals. Who has ever heard of Cryptome or Steven Aftergood? Very few. By contrast, everyone knows Assange these days. You may find his approach distasteful, but you can't claim it's not effective. In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal. Ultimately, I don't blame the soldiers, for they were following orders. I blame the American people for blindly trusting their government and failing to demand accountability from the morally challenged elected officials. A docile populace is the first step towards tyranny. If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. Anger in the face of tragedy is preferrable to utter indifference. If Assange is self-aggrandizing and has an agenda, I am fine with that too, for he has done a great job so far and it would be enormously unrealistic to demand zero self-interest from a person who has amassed such immense power in such a short period of time.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      In any case, why shouldn't the "collateral murder" video have been editorialized? I don't care if the soldiers were obeying the ROE and had the right to defend themselves. They still are the invaders, and the invasion is still illegal I think this is the core of our disagreement; because while I agree with you I abhor the idea of pushing an agenda and opinion on anyone. The video could have stood for itself; instead I believe Assange weakened it via it's presentation in an effort to raise the profile of Wikileaks. If Assange stokes the masses and gets people angry, I am perfectly fine with that. It matters; it matters a lot. Because the editorial was gleeful and gloating. It was saying "screw you US government" - and that is silly because the video stands for itself. That Wikileaks has an agenda is, in my mind, wrong - when the information you present/possess comes from secret sources and contains highly controversial material it should be treated objectively. I don;t care of Wikileaks languishes in obscurity like Cryptome; enough people know of it that anything seriously big (like the video) will make the media. These sites are important simply by existing because they present a critical danger to those who want to abuse government positions; I don't want someone aggrandizing and pretentious and seemingly biased as those politicians presenting the information.
fleitz 16y ago
In a perfect world wikileaks would be wholly unnecessary.