5 ms·

Maybe it was changed since you saw it, but the statement now reads: "...the United States of America has been..." Edit to add: The statement as quoted at http

by bcn 13y ago

Maybe it was changed since you saw it, but the statement now reads: "...the United States of America has been..." Edit to add: The statement as quoted at http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-asylum.html http://boingboing.net/2013/07/01/snowden-asks-russia-for-asy... has the original version with "have" still in there. Here's a screenshot from twitter of the original - https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128 https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/351833289000112128

tlrobinson 13y ago
Well that's interesting...
mpyne 13y ago
So it was changed, and not flagged as being changed. Interesting...
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Not that interesting. It's probably because they proofread and edit statements in a manner typical of any writing fitting of a professional appearance, and didn't want tinfoil hats with an anti-wikileaks agenda to take cheapshots based on the benign edits, when the substance was not materially affected.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I work with coders and developers from the U.K. They know what en_US is, and they know what en_GB is, and it's very obvious which is which. So to claim that WikiLeaks would fixup all of Snowden's writings to conform to en_GB and then switch it right back to en_US after HN notices is rather surreal. At best you could claim that Harrison herself simply transcribed Snowden's speech and that no one caught it until it was posted. But that still wouldn't explain what happened to some of the missing words that Snowden would have said. And that still wouldn't explain why WikiLeaks revised a statement so important without so much as a mention of proofreading corrections post-facto.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      If they "know" en_US and en_GB, then assuming the statement is not actually Snowden's but rather was written by a Brit, why did that Brit get it wrong? If making a mistake while falsifying a statement from Snowden is plausible, then why isn't making a mistake while editing or transcribing plausible? I think you need to loosen your tinfoil.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        It may very well be tinfoil. But right now the totality of the evidence points me to the idea that this isn't 100% Snowden's words. Forget about the grammar and punctuation; read the words. Does that sound like the same person talking about civil liberties and how Obama didn't change enough for him, and being ready to stand up for what he believes in? Or does that sound more like a certain other ego at opposition to the U.S. government and especially its President?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        It probably isn't all of his words, but so long as he stands behind his name on it, who cares? The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. (Nor any motivation.)
        mpyne 13y ago
        > The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. I doubt they are fabricating it, but honestly they have Snowden in as much of a bind as the U.S. does now. They are his only source of support right now... what does he do if they take it away? He's in a web of very unequal relationships right now.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        What are they actually providing him with right now? Money for food I guess?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    No journalists edits direct quotes like htat - where a person's words or spelling (in a written quote) is idiomatic or incorrect, the practice is to put [sic] after the odd word(s) to signify that they're being reported as received. If you want to preserve your credibility, it's better to either leave the mistakes in, or explain the context (eg 'this statement was a written record of a verbal statement; we apologize for an inaccuracy in our transcription of Mr. Snowden's recorded words').
- PhearTheCeal 13y ago
  So, it's probably fake [statement from Snowden]. EDIT: Why the downvotes? Do you have proof this is real? It seems awfully suspicious to change that when someone notices it and not mention anything. EDIT2: Clarified what I think is (fully or partially) fake.
  - rosser 13y ago
    A fake what? A fake statement by Wikileaks on their own site? Also, bitching about downvotes tends to accelerate the rate at which one gets them. You've been here long enough to have noticed that.
    - PhearTheCeal 13y ago
      A fake statement from Edward Snowden.
      - rosser 13y ago
        In other words, Wikileaks is straight-up making shit up now? I don't think you'd have to look too hard to find grounds for accusing them of having a clear editorial bias, but outright fabrication?
        PhearTheCeal 13y ago
        So, I say it's fake because they silently edited things that might alert people to its legitimacy, and because they didn't offer any proof that it is really from him. Others think it's real because it is on Wikileaks. I see both sides of the argument, but I'm staying on my side for now.
        rosser 13y ago
        While it's not exactly evidence that they haven't fabricated this statement, I think the damage that would do to the organization and its reputation, were it to come out, is a pretty compelling reason to think it's not a fake. The risk-adjusted return on making a fake Snowden statement just doesn't pass the sniff test for me. YMMV.
- thenewkid 13y ago
  So will everyone who is nit-picking over grammar also be demanding that politicians write their own speeches and statements?!
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Maybe we just want a world without secrets. :P
qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
Oh, they edited it in the last 8 minutes. I was copy pasting from the wikileaks post in my comment and still have a tab open where they used "have" instead.

by bcn 13y ago

tlrobinson 13y ago

Well that's interesting...

mpyne 13y ago

So it was changed, and not flagged as being changed. Interesting...

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Not that interesting. It's probably because they proofread and edit statements in a manner typical of any writing fitting of a professional appearance, and didn't want tinfoil hats with an anti-wikileaks agenda to take cheapshots based on the benign edits, when the substance was not materially affected.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I work with coders and developers from the U.K. They know what en_US is, and they know what en_GB is, and it's very obvious which is which. So to claim that WikiLeaks would fixup all of Snowden's writings to conform to en_GB and then switch it right back to en_US after HN notices is rather surreal. At best you could claim that Harrison herself simply transcribed Snowden's speech and that no one caught it until it was posted. But that still wouldn't explain what happened to some of the missing words that Snowden would have said. And that still wouldn't explain why WikiLeaks revised a statement so important without so much as a mention of proofreading corrections post-facto.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    If they "know" en_US and en_GB, then assuming the statement is not actually Snowden's but rather was written by a Brit, why did that Brit get it wrong? If making a mistake while falsifying a statement from Snowden is plausible, then why isn't making a mistake while editing or transcribing plausible? I think you need to loosen your tinfoil.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It may very well be tinfoil. But right now the totality of the evidence points me to the idea that this isn't 100% Snowden's words. Forget about the grammar and punctuation; read the words. Does that sound like the same person talking about civil liberties and how Obama didn't change enough for him, and being ready to stand up for what he believes in? Or does that sound more like a certain other ego at opposition to the U.S. government and especially its President?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        It probably isn't all of his words, but so long as he stands behind his name on it, who cares? The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. (Nor any motivation.)
        mpyne 13y ago
        > The concern would be if wikileaks were completely fabricating this, but I see no evidence for that. I doubt they are fabricating it, but honestly they have Snowden in as much of a bind as the U.S. does now. They are his only source of support right now... what does he do if they take it away? He's in a web of very unequal relationships right now.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        What are they actually providing him with right now? Money for food I guess?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  No journalists edits direct quotes like htat - where a person's words or spelling (in a written quote) is idiomatic or incorrect, the practice is to put [sic] after the odd word(s) to signify that they're being reported as received. If you want to preserve your credibility, it's better to either leave the mistakes in, or explain the context (eg 'this statement was a written record of a verbal statement; we apologize for an inaccuracy in our transcription of Mr. Snowden's recorded words').
PhearTheCeal 13y ago
So, it's probably fake [statement from Snowden]. EDIT: Why the downvotes? Do you have proof this is real? It seems awfully suspicious to change that when someone notices it and not mention anything. EDIT2: Clarified what I think is (fully or partially) fake.
- rosser 13y ago
  A fake what? A fake statement by Wikileaks on their own site? Also, bitching about downvotes tends to accelerate the rate at which one gets them. You've been here long enough to have noticed that.
  - PhearTheCeal 13y ago
    A fake statement from Edward Snowden.
    - rosser 13y ago
      In other words, Wikileaks is straight-up making shit up now? I don't think you'd have to look too hard to find grounds for accusing them of having a clear editorial bias, but outright fabrication?
      - PhearTheCeal 13y ago
        So, I say it's fake because they silently edited things that might alert people to its legitimacy, and because they didn't offer any proof that it is really from him. Others think it's real because it is on Wikileaks. I see both sides of the argument, but I'm staying on my side for now.
        rosser 13y ago
        While it's not exactly evidence that they haven't fabricated this statement, I think the damage that would do to the organization and its reputation, were it to come out, is a pretty compelling reason to think it's not a fake. The risk-adjusted return on making a fake Snowden statement just doesn't pass the sniff test for me. YMMV.
thenewkid 13y ago
So will everyone who is nit-picking over grammar also be demanding that politicians write their own speeches and statements?!
- mpyne 13y ago
  Maybe we just want a world without secrets. :P

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago

Oh, they edited it in the last 8 minutes. I was copy pasting from the wikileaks post in my comment and still have a tab open where they used "have" instead.