4 ms·

No. The point of wikileaks is that they verify the authenticity of things they publish, and the veracity of past leaks gives credibility to future ones. Regard

No. The point of wikileaks is that they verify the authenticity of things they publish, and the veracity of past leaks gives credibility to future ones. Regarding accusations of bias, I have yet to see an example of authentic non-public information wikileaks refused to publish. Do you have one?

philipodonnell 8y ago
The accusation they are biased in what they published does not require them to have refused to release anything, merely that the original sources of information only made biased information available to Wikileaks to publish, or that they only solicited or acted to confirm information from biased sources.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  I don't think the original sources choosing what to leak counts as bias on the part of Wikileaks. As for them only acting to confirm leaks in a biased way, do you have any examples of leaks that were published elsewhere because wikileaks refused due to bias?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Yes: "Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report." https://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992 https://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-... "In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records." https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... Don't forget the time they came out against anti-Trump leaks: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
    - ramblerouser 8y ago
      From the article in your comment: >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down. So the source was trying to piggyback on the well earned publicity Wikileaks publications get to bring attention to an old leak by adding some uninteresting documents to it. I suspect if his addition had contained revelations, we would have heard about it, especially given the anti-Russia bias of the corporate media lately. On the Syrian payment, why is Russia giving money to an ally something I should find questionable? How much money did the US give Israel that year alone?
krapp 8y ago
>The point of wikileaks is that they verify the authenticity of things they publish, and the veracity of past leaks gives credibility to future ones. How, exactly, does one verify the authenticity of illegally obtained, classified information? Other than to just publish it and see how angry the government gets, I mean.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  You vet the source, you corroborate with other sources, you check against unclassified info available, etc. In many cases, you can ask the government if they want to comment before you publish. Sometimes they will (and sometimes it'll be "on background" or "an anonymous source"), other times they'll ask you not to publish, sometimes they'll just shrug their shoulders. National security reporters do this pretty much daily.
  - krapp 8y ago
    National security reporters have credentials, Constitutional protection and a working relationship with the military and intelligence, often coming from that world. Wikileaks is considered an espionage organization and Julian Assange is hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy, probably avoiding the windows. I don't think he or his organization gets the same leeway as, say, CNN or Reuters when it come to that.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Sure, but that only prevents the "get a comment" part... and that you could probably get around if you had a friendly relationship with a reporter. The "verify against other sources, public info, etc." stuff is still entirely doable. In the case of Collateral Murder, info about the incident was already public, making the video something you could vet... and I'd imagine plenty else in Manning's leaked info was vettable.

philipodonnell 8y ago

The accusation they are biased in what they published does not require them to have refused to release anything, merely that the original sources of information only made biased information available to Wikileaks to publish, or that they only solicited or acted to confirm information from biased sources.

ramblerouser 8y ago
I don't think the original sources choosing what to leak counts as bias on the part of Wikileaks. As for them only acting to confirm leaks in a biased way, do you have any examples of leaks that were published elsewhere because wikileaks refused due to bias?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Yes: "Wikileaks withheld a batch of emails showing a $2.2 billion transaction between the Syrian regime and a Russian government-owned bank, according to a Daily Dot report." https://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-documents-from-1786445992 https://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-may-have-withheld-key-russian-... "In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records." https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l... Don't forget the time they came out against anti-Trump leaks: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    From the article in your comment: >“As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time. >In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down. So the source was trying to piggyback on the well earned publicity Wikileaks publications get to bring attention to an old leak by adding some uninteresting documents to it. I suspect if his addition had contained revelations, we would have heard about it, especially given the anti-Russia bias of the corporate media lately. On the Syrian payment, why is Russia giving money to an ally something I should find questionable? How much money did the US give Israel that year alone?

krapp 8y ago

>The point of wikileaks is that they verify the authenticity of things they publish, and the veracity of past leaks gives credibility to future ones. How, exactly, does one verify the authenticity of illegally obtained, classified information? Other than to just publish it and see how angry the government gets, I mean.

ceejayoz 8y ago
You vet the source, you corroborate with other sources, you check against unclassified info available, etc. In many cases, you can ask the government if they want to comment before you publish. Sometimes they will (and sometimes it'll be "on background" or "an anonymous source"), other times they'll ask you not to publish, sometimes they'll just shrug their shoulders. National security reporters do this pretty much daily.
- krapp 8y ago
  National security reporters have credentials, Constitutional protection and a working relationship with the military and intelligence, often coming from that world. Wikileaks is considered an espionage organization and Julian Assange is hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy, probably avoiding the windows. I don't think he or his organization gets the same leeway as, say, CNN or Reuters when it come to that.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Sure, but that only prevents the "get a comment" part... and that you could probably get around if you had a friendly relationship with a reporter. The "verify against other sources, public info, etc." stuff is still entirely doable. In the case of Collateral Murder, info about the incident was already public, making the video something you could vet... and I'd imagine plenty else in Manning's leaked info was vettable.