4 ms·

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 the

• 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...