7 ms·

Wikipedia published information it received, would you say the same about any journalistic organization?

by jascii 7y ago

compuguy 7y ago
If the journalistic organization knew that the information they acquired was from a foreign government (Russia) that wanted to manipulate another countries election, would they still publish here-said information?
- jascii 7y ago
  If they can confirm a reasonable credibility, then yes, they should. Preferably with as much openness about the source as is safely possible. As far as I know Wikipedia has always maintained that they did not receive the information from russia, but from anonymous internal leaks. While I personally have some doubt about that, I feel it takes more than "personal doubt" to attack a journalistic organization.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  If it’s publishing authentic information, and this impacts voter choice, how is that a negative? This criticism has never made any sense to me, and usually regresses to a non-sequitur comment like, “they didn’t publish any emails from the Republicans or the Russians”. If people found out what Hillary’s campaign actually did and said, and decided that this didn’t align with their values in a President, that’s not Putin or Assange’s fault. That’s Hillary’s fault.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Narratives about people’s motivations and goals seem to hold much more weight than the objective facts, which is that he published information that was true, that the public did not have prior.
iudqnolq 7y ago
WikiLeaks chose what to publish to further their agenda > 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. > ... Approached later that year by the same source about data from an American security company, WikiLeaks again turned down the leak. “Is there an election angle? We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We don’t have the resources.” (Note that quotes come from different parts of story, refer to different companies. This in second isn't subj of first.) 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...
- jascii 7y ago
  Yes, sadly they do have a bias. Equally sadly, so do Fox, The NY Times, etc, etc.. Still, we need journalism. Attacking journalistic organisations just because their bias doesn't fit yours is a slippery slope.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    I'm not attacking a journalistic organization for having a bias, because WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization. One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.
    - jascii 7y ago
      Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this? > Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't. Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
Not only that, but it was eye opening for Bernie supporters at the time.
gjmacd 7y ago
Show me WikiLeaks that are critical of Russia in a way in which makes Putin look like he's the problem... Yet, we've got hundreds of anti-US (or other countries) leaks that when you read them help the cause of Russia and Putin. Assange was a Russian operative, willing or unwilling.
- ampersandy 7y ago
  If I criticize the US but do not criticize Russia in the same breath, does that mean I'm a Russian operative? Your logic does not make sense. If leaked Russian documents surface and Wikileaks refuses to publish them... that's a different story.
  - compuguy 7y ago
    Another person in the comments linked to an article mentioning them turning down Russian government leaks: 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...
    - monocasa 7y ago
      Wikileaks has said that they didn't accept them because they couldn't verify their authenticity.
- monocasa 7y ago
  An English language website almost entirely run by five eyes citizens would immediately get called out as propaganda by most Russians. That being said, they do have a Russian section on their website, it's just not a priority for the reason above.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Assange targeted America, because America is actually doing the most evil in the world. Its heinous Coalition essentially started World War 3 in 2003, and it is consistently meddling in the sovereignty of other states, to the extent that their civilisation is doomed, entirely, to the whims of the American oligarchical classes. So yes, America #1 Problem in the World, Russia .. #5? #6? Maybe after dismantling the American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, Wikileaks will go on to tackle China, #2. There is clear activity still happening in that regard. One thing is for sure, if Assange dies from the chemical lobotomy that he's currently suffering in Belmarsh, the gloves will be coming off. From Assange' suffering, will come many, many more leakers ..
akira2501 7y ago
> Wikipedia published information it received They lost that cover when they decided it would be a good idea to have an "insurance file." They're clearly willing to pick and choose _which_ information they pass on based upon what benefits _them_. > would you say the same about any journalistic organization? I would not, but then again, due to the above, I don't see them as a journalistic organization anymore.
- jascii 7y ago
  I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes you not a journalist?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Hiding major stories to protect yourself seems somewhat antithetical to being a journalist. Hiding major stories when you're journalist cred is "expose all the secrets" is, at a minimum, you not being who you say you are.
    - jascii 7y ago
      Ok, so now we have people claiming Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation for "just dumping the leaks" and people claiming the exact same thing for the completely opposite reasons.. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.. What on earth makes you think Wikileaks is "Hiding major stories to protect yourself"? Is there a single shred of credible data suggesting that? And even if that's what in the "insurance file" can you fricking blame them for trying to protect their lives?! I don't know what's in the "insurance file", I doubt you do either. Maybe it's a major story, maybe it's data of no public interest but still extremely inconvenient to the powers that be. Maybe it's nothing -- just an empty threat. All I know is that I won't condemn Wikileaks solely based on speculations or verifiable smear-campaigns.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Wikipedia published information it received, would you say the same about any journalistic organization?

by jascii 7y ago

Wikipedia published information it received, would you say the same about any journalistic organization?

If the journalistic organization knew that the information they acquired was from a foreign government (Russia) that wanted to manipulate another countries election, would they still publish here-said information?

jascii 7y ago
If they can confirm a reasonable credibility, then yes, they should. Preferably with as much openness about the source as is safely possible. As far as I know Wikipedia has always maintained that they did not receive the information from russia, but from anonymous internal leaks. While I personally have some doubt about that, I feel it takes more than "personal doubt" to attack a journalistic organization.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
If it’s publishing authentic information, and this impacts voter choice, how is that a negative? This criticism has never made any sense to me, and usually regresses to a non-sequitur comment like, “they didn’t publish any emails from the Republicans or the Russians”. If people found out what Hillary’s campaign actually did and said, and decided that this didn’t align with their values in a President, that’s not Putin or Assange’s fault. That’s Hillary’s fault.
- sneak 7y ago
  Narratives about people’s motivations and goals seem to hold much more weight than the objective facts, which is that he published information that was true, that the public did not have prior.

iudqnolq 7y ago

WikiLeaks chose what to publish to further their agenda > 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. > ... Approached later that year by the same source about data from an American security company, WikiLeaks again turned down the leak. “Is there an election angle? We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We don’t have the resources.” (Note that quotes come from different parts of story, refer to different companies. This in second isn't subj of first.) 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...

jascii 7y ago
Yes, sadly they do have a bias. Equally sadly, so do Fox, The NY Times, etc, etc.. Still, we need journalism. Attacking journalistic organisations just because their bias doesn't fit yours is a slippery slope.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I'm not attacking a journalistic organization for having a bias, because WikiLeaks isn't a journalistic organization. One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't.
  - jascii 7y ago
    Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this? > Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't. Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

Not only that, but it was eye opening for Bernie supporters at the time.

gjmacd 7y ago

Show me WikiLeaks that are critical of Russia in a way in which makes Putin look like he's the problem... Yet, we've got hundreds of anti-US (or other countries) leaks that when you read them help the cause of Russia and Putin. Assange was a Russian operative, willing or unwilling.

ampersandy 7y ago
If I criticize the US but do not criticize Russia in the same breath, does that mean I'm a Russian operative? Your logic does not make sense. If leaked Russian documents surface and Wikileaks refuses to publish them... that's a different story.
- compuguy 7y ago
  Another person in the comments linked to an article mentioning them turning down Russian government leaks: 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...
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Wikileaks has said that they didn't accept them because they couldn't verify their authenticity.
monocasa 7y ago
An English language website almost entirely run by five eyes citizens would immediately get called out as propaganda by most Russians. That being said, they do have a Russian section on their website, it's just not a priority for the reason above.
fit2rule 7y ago
Assange targeted America, because America is actually doing the most evil in the world. Its heinous Coalition essentially started World War 3 in 2003, and it is consistently meddling in the sovereignty of other states, to the extent that their civilisation is doomed, entirely, to the whims of the American oligarchical classes. So yes, America #1 Problem in the World, Russia .. #5? #6? Maybe after dismantling the American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, Wikileaks will go on to tackle China, #2. There is clear activity still happening in that regard. One thing is for sure, if Assange dies from the chemical lobotomy that he's currently suffering in Belmarsh, the gloves will be coming off. From Assange' suffering, will come many, many more leakers ..

akira2501 7y ago

> Wikipedia published information it received They lost that cover when they decided it would be a good idea to have an "insurance file." They're clearly willing to pick and choose _which_ information they pass on based upon what benefits _them_. > would you say the same about any journalistic organization? I would not, but then again, due to the above, I don't see them as a journalistic organization anymore.

jascii 7y ago
I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Journalists get imprisoned, killed, etc all the time. Somehow taking steps to mitigate those risks makes you not a journalist?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Hiding major stories to protect yourself seems somewhat antithetical to being a journalist. Hiding major stories when you're journalist cred is "expose all the secrets" is, at a minimum, you not being who you say you are.
  - jascii 7y ago
    Ok, so now we have people claiming Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation for "just dumping the leaks" and people claiming the exact same thing for the completely opposite reasons.. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.. What on earth makes you think Wikileaks is "Hiding major stories to protect yourself"? Is there a single shred of credible data suggesting that? And even if that's what in the "insurance file" can you fricking blame them for trying to protect their lives?! I don't know what's in the "insurance file", I doubt you do either. Maybe it's a major story, maybe it's data of no public interest but still extremely inconvenient to the powers that be. Maybe it's nothing -- just an empty threat. All I know is that I won't condemn Wikileaks solely based on speculations or verifiable smear-campaigns.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago