3 ms·

The problem that I have with Assange is that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Wikileaks is an organization that promotes government transparency. Assange

by cube13 15y ago

The problem that I have with Assange is that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Wikileaks is an organization that promotes government transparency. Assange, on the other hand, does not seem interested in just providing sources. Wikileaks, under what I assume was his direction, has turned into more of an editorial service, cherry picking information that they present to make certain parties look even worse than the actual source does.

todsul 15y ago
> he doesn't practice what he preaches. He preaches government transparency. He's not a government. So how can he practice what he preaches? The same happens every day with journalists who fight for media transparency. Should they also be transparent with every aspect of their lives? Of course not. And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour of this movement.
- astine 15y ago
  "And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. " Reread the grandparent's comment. He's not saying Wikileaks should reveal it's sources but that it should release its source material. As opposed to editorialize. As opposed to becoming yet another dishonest filter of information.
  - wnight 15y ago
    They do. They released Collateral Murder, for instance, in an edited for TV spot and they released the full-length clip so that anyone who cared could check their accuracy. I did. I'm satisfied. It might not be perfect but it's far better than anything I see on TV.
- cube13 15y ago
  >And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour of this movement. No, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be transparent with the whilstlebowers who give them information. I do believe that Wikileaks should provide the information that they give as close to the originals as possible(with limits on whether or not the leak could directly endanger people), and not attempt to editorialize at all. There is a huge need for a place to view these primary sources. There are way too many places that editorialize the sources for their own purposes. It doesn't help transparency if Wikileaks refuses to release information in order to get "more press". Just release it, and let the public decide.
dredmorbius 15y ago
Wikileaks preaches transparancy in the ruling oligarchical class: governments, corporations, other organizations, and people who have acted and/or ruled with impunity. While it's a slightly slippery argument, Wikileaks has argued that: 1: It is not of the ruling oligarchy. 2: Its own organizational requirements require a certain lack of transparency. I can sympathize with both arguments, though a pledge, say, to release information at a time when it is no longer harmful to Wikileaks' operations, might be a class act. As with other movements, I suspect Wikileaks is rather smaller at its core than many people realize. Assange and a few close lieutenants (some no longer quite so close).

by cube13 15y ago

todsul 15y ago

> he doesn't practice what he preaches. He preaches government transparency. He's not a government. So how can he practice what he preaches? The same happens every day with journalists who fight for media transparency. Should they also be transparent with every aspect of their lives? Of course not. And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour of this movement.

astine 15y ago
"And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. " Reread the grandparent's comment. He's not saying Wikileaks should reveal it's sources but that it should release its source material. As opposed to editorialize. As opposed to becoming yet another dishonest filter of information.
- wnight 15y ago
  They do. They released Collateral Murder, for instance, in an edited for TV spot and they released the full-length clip so that anyone who cared could check their accuracy. I did. I'm satisfied. It might not be perfect but it's far better than anything I see on TV.
cube13 15y ago
>And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour of this movement. No, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be transparent with the whilstlebowers who give them information. I do believe that Wikileaks should provide the information that they give as close to the originals as possible(with limits on whether or not the leak could directly endanger people), and not attempt to editorialize at all. There is a huge need for a place to view these primary sources. There are way too many places that editorialize the sources for their own purposes. It doesn't help transparency if Wikileaks refuses to release information in order to get "more press". Just release it, and let the public decide.

dredmorbius 15y ago

Wikileaks preaches transparancy in the ruling oligarchical class: governments, corporations, other organizations, and people who have acted and/or ruled with impunity. While it's a slightly slippery argument, Wikileaks has argued that: 1: It is not of the ruling oligarchy. 2: Its own organizational requirements require a certain lack of transparency. I can sympathize with both arguments, though a pledge, say, to release information at a time when it is no longer harmful to Wikileaks' operations, might be a class act. As with other movements, I suspect Wikileaks is rather smaller at its core than many people realize. Assange and a few close lieutenants (some no longer quite so close).