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

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.]