4 ms·
It's important to note that there is absolutely no proof Manning leaked this, as the video was never posted online: > Assange blamed former spokesperson Daniel
by jmduke 13y ago
It's important to note that there is absolutely no proof Manning leaked this, as the video was never posted online:
> Assange blamed former spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg for taking the video, who said he had deleted it along with 35,000 other files when he left Wikileaks in September 2010. To date, the video has never been publicly released.
- pyre 13y ago| In March 2013, Julian Assange said Wikileaks had | successfully decrypted the video and described it | as documenting "a massacre, a war crime". This statement is confusing. I originally read this as stating that the video was decrypted March 2013.
- m_for_monkey 13y agoIt's not confusing. It would mean what you originally read only if there were a comma after "said".
- pyre 13y agos/confusing/easily misread and could probably be written more clearly/
- AgentME 13y ago>In a March 2013 statement, Julian Assange said that, while the file was still in their possession, Wikileaks had successfully decrypted the video ... Assange blamed former spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg for taking the video, who said he had deleted it along with 35,000 other files when he left Wikileaks in September 2010. If it was deleted in September 2010, how was it decrypted and still in their possession in March 2013? Why are the possibly outdated and conflicting events listed after future events?
- markdown 13y agoYup. The claim should either be removed entirely, or be prefaced with 'allegedly'.
- belorn 13y agoA common misconception regarding how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by writing what reliable sources has to say about an issue. In this case, its a newspaper article that are citing Assange, which is why the sentence beginning with "Julian Assange said". Changing it to "Julian Assange allegedly claim" would make the article worse, as the implied disbelief of using the word "allegedly" is not supported by the source. Having to base edits around sources is hard, but I think a crucial aspect of any encyclopedia. The alternative is just so much worse, don't you agree?
- nwienert 13y agoSo just say "Julian Assange claimed Wikileaks decrypted the video".
- redler 13y agoTo see why it's not worded that way in the Wikipedia article, imagine each sentence in the article implicitly preceded by "According to source x,..." -- source x of course being the relevant citation. If the cited source states that he "said", then using "claims" or "allegedly" does not accurately reflect the degree of certainty expressed in the cited source. Veracity of that source notwithstanding.
- _delirium 13y agoIt's fairly common to word things that way in Wikipedia articles, though of course not for every citation. It's a judgment call whether it should be or not, since adding a qualifier in-text more strongly contextualizes the claim as being from the source, rather than in "Wikipedia's voice". For example, I recently wrote an article about an ancient Roman politician. A number of sentences are in the form "[Scholar A] argues that the person did X [cite]" rather than "The person did X [cite]". I'll use the second form for uncontroversial facts, but the first form when it's more like a proposal from a particular scholar which isn't necessarily an accepted consensus viewpoint.
- 13y ago
- darkarmani 13y agoI thought "taking the video" meant videotaping.