3 ms·

Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.

by drcode 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
In spite of their ambition to be seen as a 'news organisation' I don't agree with that. Wikileaks is just a dumb pipe that vets information for basic correctness and then throws it before the wolves. They shouldn't change the data in any way because that would mean a measure of editorial control and hence responsibility, also, once you start censoring some of the data you are on a slippery slope. What they did with their collateral damage video was utterly stupid, it has reduced their status tremendously in my opinion. Their latest play to become the CNN of leaked data is a further move away from what they stood for. They're now actively turning themselves in to an anti-war propaganda machine. Maybe we need one, I don't know but wikileaks was an invaluable resource the way it was, it has become strongly tainted.
- drcode 16y ago
  I agree that their past editorialism hurts their credibility. As you say, it really undercuts the "big dumb pipe" argument as a defense whenever there is collateral damage from leaked information. I really hope Julian Assange can figure out how to navigate the many minefields involved in a site like wikileaks.
- pasbesoin 16y ago
  I recently heard Wikileaks described as "a source", and that terminology works for me (as opposed to "a news organization"). The difference is that this source is connected directly with the public (world-wide). Its material is unfiltered (1) -- meaning what it does provide, rather than that what it provides is complete. There is also the feedback loop of direct, public attention. ---- (1) Actually, recent interviews with the New York Times and particularly the Guardian reveal that they sat down with Assange and -- over many hours -- reached an agreement to withhold some materials that would per their determination truly be damaging. (I guess that doesn't include the names of indigenous assets, though. :-( ) http://www.wpr.org/kathleendunn/index.cfm?strDirection=Next&dteShowDate=2010-07-26%2022%3A00%3A00 http://www.wpr.org/kathleendunn/index.cfm?strDirection=Next&... [Particularly the second half of the show.]

Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.

by drcode 16y ago

Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.

jacquesm 16y ago

In spite of their ambition to be seen as a 'news organisation' I don't agree with that. Wikileaks is just a dumb pipe that vets information for basic correctness and then throws it before the wolves. They shouldn't change the data in any way because that would mean a measure of editorial control and hence responsibility, also, once you start censoring some of the data you are on a slippery slope. What they did with their collateral damage video was utterly stupid, it has reduced their status tremendously in my opinion. Their latest play to become the CNN of leaked data is a further move away from what they stood for. They're now actively turning themselves in to an anti-war propaganda machine. Maybe we need one, I don't know but wikileaks was an invaluable resource the way it was, it has become strongly tainted.

drcode 16y ago
I agree that their past editorialism hurts their credibility. As you say, it really undercuts the "big dumb pipe" argument as a defense whenever there is collateral damage from leaked information. I really hope Julian Assange can figure out how to navigate the many minefields involved in a site like wikileaks.
pasbesoin 16y ago
I recently heard Wikileaks described as "a source", and that terminology works for me (as opposed to "a news organization"). The difference is that this source is connected directly with the public (world-wide). Its material is unfiltered (1) -- meaning what it does provide, rather than that what it provides is complete. There is also the feedback loop of direct, public attention. ---- (1) Actually, recent interviews with the New York Times and particularly the Guardian reveal that they sat down with Assange and -- over many hours -- reached an agreement to withhold some materials that would per their determination truly be damaging. (I guess that doesn't include the names of indigenous assets, though. :-( ) http://www.wpr.org/kathleendunn/index.cfm?strDirection=Next&dteShowDate=2010-07-26%2022%3A00%3A00 http://www.wpr.org/kathleendunn/index.cfm?strDirection=Next&... [Particularly the second half of the show.]