4 ms·

How is wikileaks a credible source these days? https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileak

How is wikileaks a credible source these days? https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora...

btilly 9y ago
The fact that you don't like what they do doesn't mean that they don't accurately report on the information that they receive.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  They don't, though. Their reporting and editorializing of leaks has been inaccurate quite a few times. That said, there is no evidence indicating the content of their leaks isn't genuine, so it is probably best to look at the leaked content itself rather than the analysis WL writes alongside the leaks.
  - empath75 9y ago
    It’s easy to create a false impression with selective releases of information. I’ll note that Wikileaks has published absolutely nothing from the fsb.
    - codedokode 9y ago
      Maybe FSB has less technologies to leak or less people willing to do so.
      - toufka 9y ago
        Or as Assange himself has said, they have no Russian speaking staff.
      - empath75 9y ago
        These weren’t ‘leaked’ by some whistleblower, come on.
      - travmatt 9y ago
        Maybe it has to do with the death threats from the FSB, then the TV deal Assange signed with Putin?
    - ionised 9y ago
      Russia doesn't pretend to be a bastion of freedom and liberty though, so what would be the point?
- TehCorwiz 9y ago
  There seems to be evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release. This would conflict with their stated goals and I think is what's hurting their credibility the most right now.
  - throwahey 9y ago
    There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that (outside of the Clinton camp and Podesta) and given Wikileaks track record, it's highly unlikely.
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      I think some wires are being crossed here, as there has been recent evidence of modifications to earlier leaks from Guccifer 2.0 of DNC documents. These were not published by WL but they are often grouped with WL due to Guccifer 2.0 claiming to be a WL source
  - yahnonono 9y ago
    "There seems to be evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release." [citation needed] For many/most of the released emails, there is evidence that they were NOT edited prior to release. The emails have a DKIM signature. Unless you are claiming that Google's private keys were misused, the emails simply WERE NOT EDITED. Additionally, there is NO EVIDENCE of a suspicious pattern of emails not being signed. So please, provide a citation for "evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release". Because the only evidence I'm aware of is evidence which clearly demonstrates the emails COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY WIKILEAKS.
ryanlol 9y ago
How is Wired a credible source these days? >In the last two weeks, the font of digital secrets has doxed millions of Turkish women This is simply a lie. It's still in there, in a year old article, not retracted. This article is nothing but a particularly poorly written hit piece.
- dionian 9y ago
  it's propagandish, it's less outlandish to suggest that wikipedia is propaganda than how this article presents the issue, something along the lines of "once they started leaking stuff about DNC it seems fishy!" ... seems silly. why is the line crossed at DNC leaks?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    It’s not just propagandish. The author is straight up lying, making entirely fabricated claims about Wikileaks releases. This isn’t something you could get wrong by mistake. >WikiLeaks has endangered individuals before, but their release of the so-called Erdogan Emails was particularly egregious. The organization said that the infodump would expose the machinations of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan immediately after the attempted coup against him, but instead turned out to be mostly correspondence and personal information from everyday Turkish citizens. Worse, it included the home addresses, phone numbers, party affiliations, and political activity levels of millions of female Turkish voters. This is a complete fabrication and something you would expect people to get fired for. Wikileaks simply never published such data, and the criticism of the emails (which they actually released) is disingenious at best. Nobody attacked them like this when they released private emails of Sony or Hacking Team employees. >WikiLeaks’ moral high ground depends on its ability to act as an honest conduit. Right now it’s acting like a damaged filter. Here it seems like she’s suggesting that Wikileaks has been holding back stuff handed to them, I sure hope she has something to back that up! Somehow I seriously doubt the author would’ve written a similar article had wikileaks been releasing RNC emails instead...
- greglindahl 9y ago
  If it's a lie, how do you refute: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdo...

How is wikileaks a credible source these days? https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/ https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-mora...

btilly 9y ago

The fact that you don't like what they do doesn't mean that they don't accurately report on the information that they receive.

willstrafach 9y ago
They don't, though. Their reporting and editorializing of leaks has been inaccurate quite a few times. That said, there is no evidence indicating the content of their leaks isn't genuine, so it is probably best to look at the leaked content itself rather than the analysis WL writes alongside the leaks.
- empath75 9y ago
  It’s easy to create a false impression with selective releases of information. I’ll note that Wikileaks has published absolutely nothing from the fsb.
  - codedokode 9y ago
    Maybe FSB has less technologies to leak or less people willing to do so.
    - toufka 9y ago
      Or as Assange himself has said, they have no Russian speaking staff.
    - empath75 9y ago
      These weren’t ‘leaked’ by some whistleblower, come on.
    - travmatt 9y ago
      Maybe it has to do with the death threats from the FSB, then the TV deal Assange signed with Putin?
  - ionised 9y ago
    Russia doesn't pretend to be a bastion of freedom and liberty though, so what would be the point?
TehCorwiz 9y ago
There seems to be evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release. This would conflict with their stated goals and I think is what's hurting their credibility the most right now.
- throwahey 9y ago
  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that (outside of the Clinton camp and Podesta) and given Wikileaks track record, it's highly unlikely.
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    I think some wires are being crossed here, as there has been recent evidence of modifications to earlier leaks from Guccifer 2.0 of DNC documents. These were not published by WL but they are often grouped with WL due to Guccifer 2.0 claiming to be a WL source
- yahnonono 9y ago
  "There seems to be evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release." [citation needed] For many/most of the released emails, there is evidence that they were NOT edited prior to release. The emails have a DKIM signature. Unless you are claiming that Google's private keys were misused, the emails simply WERE NOT EDITED. Additionally, there is NO EVIDENCE of a suspicious pattern of emails not being signed. So please, provide a citation for "evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release". Because the only evidence I'm aware of is evidence which clearly demonstrates the emails COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALTERED BY WIKILEAKS.

ryanlol 9y ago

How is Wired a credible source these days? >In the last two weeks, the font of digital secrets has doxed millions of Turkish women This is simply a lie. It's still in there, in a year old article, not retracted. This article is nothing but a particularly poorly written hit piece.

dionian 9y ago
it's propagandish, it's less outlandish to suggest that wikipedia is propaganda than how this article presents the issue, something along the lines of "once they started leaking stuff about DNC it seems fishy!" ... seems silly. why is the line crossed at DNC leaks?
- ryanlol 9y ago
  It’s not just propagandish. The author is straight up lying, making entirely fabricated claims about Wikileaks releases. This isn’t something you could get wrong by mistake. >WikiLeaks has endangered individuals before, but their release of the so-called Erdogan Emails was particularly egregious. The organization said that the infodump would expose the machinations of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan immediately after the attempted coup against him, but instead turned out to be mostly correspondence and personal information from everyday Turkish citizens. Worse, it included the home addresses, phone numbers, party affiliations, and political activity levels of millions of female Turkish voters. This is a complete fabrication and something you would expect people to get fired for. Wikileaks simply never published such data, and the criticism of the emails (which they actually released) is disingenious at best. Nobody attacked them like this when they released private emails of Sony or Hacking Team employees. >WikiLeaks’ moral high ground depends on its ability to act as an honest conduit. Right now it’s acting like a damaged filter. Here it seems like she’s suggesting that Wikileaks has been holding back stuff handed to them, I sure hope she has something to back that up! Somehow I seriously doubt the author would’ve written a similar article had wikileaks been releasing RNC emails instead...
greglindahl 9y ago
If it's a lie, how do you refute: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdo...