3 ms·

With WikiLeaks you get the original documents. Please show me _any_ news organization that provides original source documents for inspection by the public. Wik

With WikiLeaks you get the original documents. Please show me _any_ news organization that provides original source documents for inspection by the public. Wikileaks deserves some critical commentary, granted. But comparing it to "news organizations" like boingboing just makes it seem like it's falling out of favor with the "internet intelligentsia".

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Sure, so that makes it possible to tell when their link-bait headlines are "not backed by evidence" (aka full of shit). However, these are confidential sources that nobody has access to and may or may not be confirmed in public. That moves the problem one level of indirection. How do we know if/when wikileaks decides to make things up out of whole cloth? How do we know if/when wikileaks' sources decide to make things up? The point I think I'm trying to make is this: what value does wikileaks bring to the table that, say, pastebin or dropbox doesn't? Increasingly it's looking like that value is actually negative. Which is important to make note of, and disconcerting.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm possibly the person on HN who is most vocal about their (current) failings, and even I don't think they're just making things up. I do think, however, that it was a calamitous decision for them to start editorializing. It wasn't a small mistake; it's been devastating to their credibility. Even in a case like this, the subtexts are all wrong. Why is Wikileaks summarizing anything about this release? Why are they playing it up anywhere? Anyone can read it and see that it's not newsworthy (the issue of reciprocity in extradition isn't just years old, it's decades old!). It's not that any of their sources are false; it's instead the issue that who knows what they're not publishing? Surely, nothing that hurts their narrative!
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Sure, I don't believe they're making things up either, yet. But my point is, how do we know? How can we tell? Their editorializing makes them much more vulnerable to being gamed by people who are willing to make things up (even CBS had this problem). Again, I'm wondering what the value-add of wikileaks is. The access? That seems very outmoded in today's hyper-connected age.
- dsplittgerber 16y ago
  Their value, despite spinning thir leaks, lies in publishing original, often secret, sources after all and also in exerting distinct pressure on certain players who have something to hide from the public (e.g. government, julius bär case etc). The public is much better off for the existence of the Afghan War Logs. No need to trust embedded journalists or the government anymore, but access to direct source material.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    It is far from clear that the public is better off for the existence of the Afghan War Logs. The claims in favor of them are about as credible as the claims against them. Maybe they're a revelation on the same scale as the Pentagon Papers. Or, maybe they're a raw running transcript of a phenomenon (AfPak becoming a counterproductive slog) even the government itself acknowledges. Maybe they're putting tens or hundreds of informants who worked against the Taliban --- or even people who just have similar names to those people --- at risk of assassination. Or, maybe that's never going to happen and Wikileaks did a good enough job sanitizing the release. It's also one thing to suggest that we shouldn't trust "embedded journalists", and another to suggest that there is no value in filtering, contextualization, and summarization by experts. Maybe most of our "mainstream" experts suck, but I think you'll have a hard time with the argument that all of them do, or with the idea that people in general will do a better job with "the raw feed". Look at the Tea Party, the Cordoba House controversy, and the "Obama is a muslim" meme for evidence that backs up my side of this argument.
ax0n 16y ago
WL is very agenda-driven. It's easy to see. It's not the same agenda as we see in traditional US media, but it's an agenda all the same, and it's not altruistic. Assange and co. attempt to paint WL as a puppies-and-rainbows bastion of human rights. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
wooster 16y ago
Cryptome has being doing this for years: http://cryptome.org/ http://cryptome.org/

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Sure, so that makes it possible to tell when their link-bait headlines are "not backed by evidence" (aka full of shit). However, these are confidential sources that nobody has access to and may or may not be confirmed in public. That moves the problem one level of indirection. How do we know if/when wikileaks decides to make things up out of whole cloth? How do we know if/when wikileaks' sources decide to make things up? The point I think I'm trying to make is this: what value does wikileaks bring to the table that, say, pastebin or dropbox doesn't? Increasingly it's looking like that value is actually negative. Which is important to make note of, and disconcerting.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm possibly the person on HN who is most vocal about their (current) failings, and even I don't think they're just making things up. I do think, however, that it was a calamitous decision for them to start editorializing. It wasn't a small mistake; it's been devastating to their credibility. Even in a case like this, the subtexts are all wrong. Why is Wikileaks summarizing anything about this release? Why are they playing it up anywhere? Anyone can read it and see that it's not newsworthy (the issue of reciprocity in extradition isn't just years old, it's decades old!). It's not that any of their sources are false; it's instead the issue that who knows what they're not publishing? Surely, nothing that hurts their narrative!
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Sure, I don't believe they're making things up either, yet. But my point is, how do we know? How can we tell? Their editorializing makes them much more vulnerable to being gamed by people who are willing to make things up (even CBS had this problem). Again, I'm wondering what the value-add of wikileaks is. The access? That seems very outmoded in today's hyper-connected age.
dsplittgerber 16y ago
Their value, despite spinning thir leaks, lies in publishing original, often secret, sources after all and also in exerting distinct pressure on certain players who have something to hide from the public (e.g. government, julius bär case etc). The public is much better off for the existence of the Afghan War Logs. No need to trust embedded journalists or the government anymore, but access to direct source material.
- tptacek 16y ago
  It is far from clear that the public is better off for the existence of the Afghan War Logs. The claims in favor of them are about as credible as the claims against them. Maybe they're a revelation on the same scale as the Pentagon Papers. Or, maybe they're a raw running transcript of a phenomenon (AfPak becoming a counterproductive slog) even the government itself acknowledges. Maybe they're putting tens or hundreds of informants who worked against the Taliban --- or even people who just have similar names to those people --- at risk of assassination. Or, maybe that's never going to happen and Wikileaks did a good enough job sanitizing the release. It's also one thing to suggest that we shouldn't trust "embedded journalists", and another to suggest that there is no value in filtering, contextualization, and summarization by experts. Maybe most of our "mainstream" experts suck, but I think you'll have a hard time with the argument that all of them do, or with the idea that people in general will do a better job with "the raw feed". Look at the Tea Party, the Cordoba House controversy, and the "Obama is a muslim" meme for evidence that backs up my side of this argument.

ax0n 16y ago

WL is very agenda-driven. It's easy to see. It's not the same agenda as we see in traditional US media, but it's an agenda all the same, and it's not altruistic. Assange and co. attempt to paint WL as a puppies-and-rainbows bastion of human rights. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

wooster 16y ago

Cryptome has being doing this for years: http://cryptome.org/ http://cryptome.org/