4 ms·

Because context is everything. It is easy to lead someone to draw the wrong conclusion by only providing part of the picture, when the context would lead one to

Because context is everything. It is easy to lead someone to draw the wrong conclusion by only providing part of the picture, when the context would lead one to a very different set of conclusions.

malvosenior 9y ago
Wikileaks provides context that wouldn’t exist without their exposure of data. More information being available to the public is a good thing.
- karmajunkie 9y ago
  In general, I think most people would agree with a blanket statement like that. But we don't actually know that wikileaks is providing context at all, because you don't know what isn't released. For example, sure, they've got 30k emails pilfered from Clinton. That paints a terribly unappealing picture of the Clinton campaign. But what about emails taken from a GOP-controlled server? What kind of context would those provide? Do they exist? What would they tell us about the other side of that question if they do? And crucially, what would it tell us about Wikileaks themselves if we knew they existed and weren't released? Because that last scenario is the one I find extraordinarily likely.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    Even if the scenario you describe is true (and there is no proof of that so this is purely a thought excersise), would you rather the Clinton emails weren’t released at all? Was there nothing to gain by learning that Clinton and the DNC worked against Sanders? That they had direct access to a very supportive media? At least we know that now.
    - karmajunkie 9y ago
      There's not a good answer for that. Given hindsight and the knowledge that releasing them contributed directly to the election of Trump, yes, I'd say that I'd rather that they had not been released. If the opposing candidate had been a sane Republican the calculus might be a little different. However, I think its self-deception of the highest order if you think either Wikileaks or the supplier of the Clinton emails is not also sitting on a great deal of incriminating evidence from the Trump campaign and/or the RNC.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
        My values are consistent regardless of who is involved. More information is always better. I also don’t think it’s worth speculating on what information WL may have. That they exist at all is a huge service, that they’re not releasing the kind of information you imagine exists (and happens to help your political goals) doesn’t make the info they do release any less valuable.
appleflaxen 9y ago
not only has there not been a documented falsehood that WL propagated, but there has not been an example of something leaked to them that was subsequently withheld due to an agenda. Unless you have evidence of either of these two things happening, you will not change my opinion that they are a force for openness in a very opaque political scene. The fact that they release more that is anti-whatever says more about who is leaking than it does about WL.

Because context is everything. It is easy to lead someone to draw the wrong conclusion by only providing part of the picture, when the context would lead one to a very different set of conclusions.

malvosenior 9y ago

Wikileaks provides context that wouldn’t exist without their exposure of data. More information being available to the public is a good thing.

karmajunkie 9y ago
In general, I think most people would agree with a blanket statement like that. But we don't actually know that wikileaks is providing context at all, because you don't know what isn't released. For example, sure, they've got 30k emails pilfered from Clinton. That paints a terribly unappealing picture of the Clinton campaign. But what about emails taken from a GOP-controlled server? What kind of context would those provide? Do they exist? What would they tell us about the other side of that question if they do? And crucially, what would it tell us about Wikileaks themselves if we knew they existed and weren't released? Because that last scenario is the one I find extraordinarily likely.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  Even if the scenario you describe is true (and there is no proof of that so this is purely a thought excersise), would you rather the Clinton emails weren’t released at all? Was there nothing to gain by learning that Clinton and the DNC worked against Sanders? That they had direct access to a very supportive media? At least we know that now.
  - karmajunkie 9y ago
    There's not a good answer for that. Given hindsight and the knowledge that releasing them contributed directly to the election of Trump, yes, I'd say that I'd rather that they had not been released. If the opposing candidate had been a sane Republican the calculus might be a little different. However, I think its self-deception of the highest order if you think either Wikileaks or the supplier of the Clinton emails is not also sitting on a great deal of incriminating evidence from the Trump campaign and/or the RNC.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      My values are consistent regardless of who is involved. More information is always better. I also don’t think it’s worth speculating on what information WL may have. That they exist at all is a huge service, that they’re not releasing the kind of information you imagine exists (and happens to help your political goals) doesn’t make the info they do release any less valuable.

appleflaxen 9y ago

not only has there not been a documented falsehood that WL propagated, but there has not been an example of something leaked to them that was subsequently withheld due to an agenda. Unless you have evidence of either of these two things happening, you will not change my opinion that they are a force for openness in a very opaque political scene. The fact that they release more that is anti-whatever says more about who is leaking than it does about WL.