5 ms·

I wish Wikileaks would just dump the contents, and leave the analysis to the rest of the world. By doing selective "analysis" and redaction, they're basically d

by ajays 16y ago

oomkiller 16y ago
I think the main reason they redact thing is to protect the innocent, and more so, themselves. I do agree they should stop picking on the US though.
jerf 16y ago
I would have almost immeasurably more respect for them if they did this. I'm not saying I love the corruption in the US which clearly exists, but giving away only one piece of the puzzle is Opinion Manipulation 101, which I think is the core reason there's rather a lot of us who don't really trust them. I won't even claim the US is nebulously "better" then others, I'll simply claim that I think if you could see everything clearly you wouldn't be able to credibly argue that the US is clearly "worse", and I would certainly bet the "uniquely evil" position a lot of people hold is completely unfounded.
Cushman 16y ago
So now all we need is a leak at NYT.
lfnik 16y ago
Assange has claimed he is about to release information that targets the Russian government and Russian businessmen (reported 10/26). The thing is, even if he does release it, most Russian citizens won't hear about it or won't care. Anything even remotely incriminating published about Russian businessmen and I can tell you he will probably want to find a good hiding place.
- varjag 16y ago
  Russian society is thoroughly corrupt, no one there will even blink if more incriminating material is published on businessmen or government. It's just the default assumption really.
BCM43 16y ago
Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other countries are no angels either. Are you offering to leak this information? Remember, they do not break into US systems to get this information. They need someone to leak it to them.
- yters 16y ago
  Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.
  - rtra 16y ago
    Do you have reasons to suspect that wikileaks has withheld leaked non-US documents?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    True. Remember Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB officer and Putin critic who somehow wound up with a lethal dose of polonium 210 while in Britain? Just you try leaking documents embarrassing to the Russian government, Mr Assange. Speaking of which, why haven't I heard anything about Russia in this leak? Surely there must be some interesting diplomatic cables into and out of Russia?
  - archgoon 16y ago
    > It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or another. PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women... Dawkins: http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam-carries-the-death-penalty http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-... Hitchens: http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens-about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12 http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitche... The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely, you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against their own beliefs). Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be afraid of them. My apologies for going OT.
psn 16y ago
what we need here is more internet: http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html and search for "Japan".
btmorex 16y ago
Releasing the raw contents without any redactions would probably be a disaster. Remember that a lot of these documents name spies/confidential informants. This is also at the level where people are actually killed. I guess what I'm saying is a complete, unedited release would almost certainly put some blood on wikileaks "hands".
- adolph 16y ago
  Well, hopefully Wikileaks has better document security than the US, otherwise whoever really wants to know the identity of the spies/informants probably already does.
poet 16y ago
I wish Wikileaks would just dump the contents, and leave the analysis to the rest of the world. By doing selective "analysis" and redaction, they're basically doing exactly what they claim to be fighting. Either release all the information, or withhold it. Don't play sides. Now that's just illogical, plain and simple. You don't expect Wikileaks to do some verification and sanity checks? You object to the fact that they take a quick look over the documents to make sure they don't leak anything that will get massive amounts of people killed? Wikileaks doesn't edit to play sides, they edit so they can maintain some form of legitimacy as a journalistic entity. From what I've read, two things happen during the editing phase: (1) fact checking and (2) checks to make sure lives aren't put in danger by the leak. No sides are being played; it's simply common sense practices that journalistis have been doing for several centuries.

by ajays 16y ago

oomkiller 16y ago

I think the main reason they redact thing is to protect the innocent, and more so, themselves. I do agree they should stop picking on the US though.

jerf 16y ago

I would have almost immeasurably more respect for them if they did this. I'm not saying I love the corruption in the US which clearly exists, but giving away only one piece of the puzzle is Opinion Manipulation 101, which I think is the core reason there's rather a lot of us who don't really trust them. I won't even claim the US is nebulously "better" then others, I'll simply claim that I think if you could see everything clearly you wouldn't be able to credibly argue that the US is clearly "worse", and I would certainly bet the "uniquely evil" position a lot of people hold is completely unfounded.

Cushman 16y ago

So now all we need is a leak at NYT.

lfnik 16y ago

Assange has claimed he is about to release information that targets the Russian government and Russian businessmen (reported 10/26). The thing is, even if he does release it, most Russian citizens won't hear about it or won't care. Anything even remotely incriminating published about Russian businessmen and I can tell you he will probably want to find a good hiding place.

varjag 16y ago
Russian society is thoroughly corrupt, no one there will even blink if more incriminating material is published on businessmen or government. It's just the default assumption really.

BCM43 16y ago

Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other countries are no angels either. Are you offering to leak this information? Remember, they do not break into US systems to get this information. They need someone to leak it to them.

yters 16y ago
Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.
- rtra 16y ago
  Do you have reasons to suspect that wikileaks has withheld leaked non-US documents?
- hugh3 16y ago
  True. Remember Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB officer and Putin critic who somehow wound up with a lethal dose of polonium 210 while in Britain? Just you try leaking documents embarrassing to the Russian government, Mr Assange. Speaking of which, why haven't I heard anything about Russia in this leak? Surely there must be some interesting diplomatic cables into and out of Russia?
- archgoon 16y ago
  > It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or another. PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women... Dawkins: http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam-carries-the-death-penalty http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-... Hitchens: http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens-about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12 http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitche... The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely, you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against their own beliefs). Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be afraid of them. My apologies for going OT.

psn 16y ago

what we need here is more internet: http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html and search for "Japan".

btmorex 16y ago

Releasing the raw contents without any redactions would probably be a disaster. Remember that a lot of these documents name spies/confidential informants. This is also at the level where people are actually killed. I guess what I'm saying is a complete, unedited release would almost certainly put some blood on wikileaks "hands".

adolph 16y ago
Well, hopefully Wikileaks has better document security than the US, otherwise whoever really wants to know the identity of the spies/informants probably already does.

poet 16y ago

I wish Wikileaks would just dump the contents, and leave the analysis to the rest of the world. By doing selective "analysis" and redaction, they're basically doing exactly what they claim to be fighting. Either release all the information, or withhold it. Don't play sides. Now that's just illogical, plain and simple. You don't expect Wikileaks to do some verification and sanity checks? You object to the fact that they take a quick look over the documents to make sure they don't leak anything that will get massive amounts of people killed? Wikileaks doesn't edit to play sides, they edit so they can maintain some form of legitimacy as a journalistic entity. From what I've read, two things happen during the editing phase: (1) fact checking and (2) checks to make sure lives aren't put in danger by the leak. No sides are being played; it's simply common sense practices that journalistis have been doing for several centuries.