Talk:Cryptome/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Highly questionable reference in entry

You are citing wagnews in regards to cryptome? I see building wikipedia's credibility is going to be a long, hard process. There are thousands of internet cranks spewing unsupported, unsubstantiated opinions on news sources they do and don't like. Why not mention every one? Wagnews lists just about every antiwar news outlet in their cia-fakes puff piece, with no proof whatsoever. Here are a few others listed: Democracy Now, Fair.org, monbiot.com, antiwar.com, blackboxvoting.com. None of the wikipedia entries for these other web sites are tagged with "has been cited by the blog www.wagnews.blogspot.com as a CIA fake." Ironically, wagnews and Fintan Dunne don't have a wikipedia entry. Did the attention-seeking self-promoter Dunne post this here himself? You wouldn't take that from Marc Perkel. Also, the disclaimer from wagnews does not match repeated assertion "...as a CIA fake." Here is the CIA-Fakes disclaimer from the wagnews site:

Note: We do not contend that everyone associated with these websites are knowing intelligence operatives. Some have been professionally manipulated, others merely misled. In any event these are promoting the psyop agendas and disinformation themes of the covert controllers. This is also not meant to be a fully comprehensive listing of all the fake websites. Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.88.136 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The disclaimer indicates that the list of CIA Fakes, is itself, fake in its accuracy.

Justin Berry link

As my last edit was deprived of a comment when i tipped a beer bottle over at my enter key, I will discuss it here. Is the link not to a current issue causing a stir on the cryptome site? The very fact that people are scrambling to remove it justifies it as a controversial item, and so it deserves mention. Tomyumgoong 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think not. John Young added a page on cryptome that mentions Wikipedia; he (editing as 64.131.188.102, as shown by the date and time of the screenshots at http://cryptome.org/justin-berry.htm) also added a copy of the comment to the Justin Berry article, as well as the comments in the Cryptome article. Before calling this a "stir", I would expect someone else to be involved; for example, he was cited in misc newspapers about the MI6 files or the "Eyeball" series. For now, it looks only like someone added an unencyclopedic comment to this article, and it got removed several times (rightly so, in my opinion). Schutz 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
We should not include this (yet). Schutz is right; this needs to be an issue outside of the insular world of Wikipedia and Cryptome in order for it to be encyclopedic. — Matt Crypto 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Cryptome as several new articles a week. We can't add them all, and this one does not appear to be generally notable. -Will Beback 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page to stop the revert war. Please discuss the issues here and try to reach an agreement. When you're ready to start editing again, either leave a note on my talk page or request unprotection at WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be no disagreement in the discussion above (although Tomyumgoong has not added anything since it was started); would it be possible to unprotect the page ? I am planning to merge article Cartome into this article as soon as it is unprotected. Many thanks ! Best, Schutz 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled discussion

The Cryptome web-site seems to have a pro-IRA slant... —Ashley Y 03:16, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

It's shut down now. Freedom of speech has lost. Take this as proof that you are living in a facist policestate (americans that is). Just my 2 cents. Feel free to revert to flowerspeak and phrase it as you like, but i said it how it is.84.248.66.232

Please keep the discussion relevant to the article aa Wikipedia isn't the palce for personal opinions, even if I happened to agree with them.--Planetary 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources, verifiability?

This article needs more sources. Currently the majority of references go straight to Cryptome itself - the only third-party source is a single opinion column in the Reader's Digest. This is not very good; we shouldn't really be relying primarily on the site itself as a source. Are there really no other reliable sources? If there aren't, we might well be on dodgy ground w.r.t WP:V. 81.86.133.45 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The article describes what the site is about, and then links to those particular sections that it's describing. I see no problem with verifiability. --Planetary 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Better late than never, I have added a couple of references (old and new). Schutz 13:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

still active

the article gives the impression that the site has been taken down, but apparently it continues; I have not looked for the current service provider yet. DGG (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Silence

Nothing new since August 8th .. anyone know what's going on? 211.214.128.185 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft subpoena

Microsoft have shut down Cryptome 22nd Feb 2010 sighting the following document being intellectual property: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-online-services-global-criminal-compliance-handbook.pdf

As reportecd on Wired Web site here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Perhaps a dumb question: for a long time I've wondered whether Cryptome is suppoed to be pronounced as crypto-me or cryp-tome. Anybody know? Wmahan. 02:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's the second. A tome is a large book, and this website holds alot of information, just like a large book.--Planetary 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i heard the dude on the Alex Jones show and they pronounce it as "crip-tome" 68.26.194.148 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

veracity of Cryptome

Any evidence for Cryptome being a front for the US intelligence services, I mean, when was the last time anything of import was posted their. They currently seem to be engrossed in trashing Wikileaks as in accusing them of being a false front ..

"In January 2007, John Young, who runs Cryptome, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front"

http://truthrss.com/2010/07/28/wikileaks-cointelpro/

emacsuser (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As John states on cryptome.org (quoted from memory as the site seems to be offline right now due to some "infection"): Trust no one... Expect to be deceived...  ;-) Some (most?) of the docs released seem legit, but this is of course the cover any place releasing the occasional piece of "disinformation" would need to build up. My guess is that certain 3-letter agencies (around the globe) might be using Cryptome.org occasionally as a means to get certain "information" to the public, and to log and trace the IPs of the downloaders. With respect to the alleged Wikileaks "trashing", John had released the email exchanges and explained his reasoning. --Enemenemu (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Online/offline

The "status" section of the infobox isn't for changing back and forth if the site goes down for a while. If it goes down permanently that's one thing, but in that case there should be a source saying so. Otherwise it's just an assumption (WP:NOR). In this particular case, it sure seems unlikely it went down for good as the edit summary posits. They just launched a kickstarter campaign a week ago. --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it was taken offline for malware, but is still pending/fighting. The statement that it may begin using other methods simply verifies that Cryptome still exists even if its website is still inaccessible. See today's Register story: here. --— Rhododendrites talk |  22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing & primary sources

@Debasish Dey and Kent Krupa: This edit summary said "No cited conflict of interest. This is an opinionated edit."

I'm not sure I understand the message correctly, but it's pretty clear that there is a conflict of interest from the usernames alone. First, user Cryptomeorg (talk · contribs) was editing the article on 10 May; the user was blocked due to violating username policy, and a little time later, John Young 18428 (talk · contribs) started editing. For those that haven't read the article, John Young is the main person behind Cryptome itself. I'm sure he was acting in good faith, but some changes I didn't find appropriate.

The changes that I reverted appear to be using references as a way to drive users to the website, as in "see here for an index of Edward Snowden leaks", "see here for Cryptome archives". This is not the intended use of references, and COI editors should generally not be citing their own sources. If there was a secondary source discussing Cryptome's Snowden index then that would be a proper source to cite. -- intgr [talk] 17:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. The idea behind my comment was; the source itself is the website. Which is the source. Something like citing a Wikipedia rule for citing inside Wikipedia. However I don't wish to entice an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

The edits by 69.86.243.212 should be reverted, as they were performed by John Young who has an obvious conflict of interest with the subject of this wiki page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQ55-SGWwAAAJxD.png Themikebest (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing new
64.131.137.44 https://db-ip.com/64.131.137.44
64.131.137.127 https://db-ip.com/64.131.137.127
64.131.188.102 https://db-ip.com/64.131.188.102
64.131.188.177 https://db-ip.com/64.131.188.177
Cryptome has been editing their own page inserting links and removing things they dont like for years 91.219.237.229 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Themikebest: That's not how this works. There is no prohibition on their contributing to the project; anyone can edit and they're welcome to improve it if the rest of us fail to do so ourselves. Prohibition is largely a conflation of mis-info and opinion allowed to propagate by Jimbo[1] and misunderstandings parroted by those with no knowledge of guidelines. Only paid editing requires a simple disclosure somewhere per (controversial) changes to Terms of Service (an outcrop of corporate PR firms absolutely dominating coverage of articles here with armies of sockpuppets -- which is what you should really be worrying about). You're new, so I ain't gonna' hold it against you (along those last lines: if you need help with anything, hit me up). -- dsprc [talk] 13:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Dsprc: I think I will! =) Should I use your talk page next time I get confused/have an issue, or message you? Themikebest (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with much of what Dsprc says. But I agree that there's no immediate reason to revert these edits. Editing Wikipedia if you have a COI is discouraged, but it's allowed as long as those edits are constructive and satisfy WP:NPOV. -- intgr [talk] 18:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My point is we can lower the pitchforks as this ain't the witch to burn. We've real problems on this project which are getting worse, not better.A, B, C, D, [2], [3], [4] (etc.) Nat/Young fumbling around the bureaucracy is low on the totem poll. And, contributors need be careful on their witch hunts to not fall afoul of WP:OUTING, which takes precedent. -- dsprc [talk] 22:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I still think it's a COI, but I can agree that those edits aren't the worst. Should someone blank part or all of this section? Looking at WP:OUTING, I did handle this the wrong way - mea culpa. I have no defense except ignorance and a promise not to make the same mistake twice. Themikebest (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Heh, you're fine for the most part; I think anyway. :) It definitely may be a COI but there's no prohibition (if does become problematic there are remedies: WP:DR, WP:COIN, WP:BP, WP:BAN); is often enough to just give them WP:ROPE and allow to nail coffin themselves. For Long-term abuse, like PR firms, take notes, check it out, then swat them like flies. -- dsprc [talk] 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Cryptome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Best known for

From the citation: Cryptome, a sort of proto-WikiLeaks website best known for exposing the CIA analyst who found Osama Bin Laden, announced this week that its entire website had been hacked. (See Tiku, Nitasha. "Whistleblowing Website Cryptome Hacked, Conspiracy Theories Do Not Abound". Observer. Retrieved 18 October 2015.) 162.221.186.168 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the descriptions of Cryptome in numerous recent sources which do not mention this "best known" pseudo-fact, this one source's claim is dubious. --Stybn (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Stybn is right. --217.12.199.209 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This is simple. If another source contradicts it, take it out. If it doesn't, leave it. This is from a reliable source. What else could the site be best known for? 85.119.84.57 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added several more things the site is known for, with refs, and dropped "best known for". Reliable sources can establish the CIA analyst story as notable, but most notable is mostly hyperbole (reliable sources are full of that). --Stybn (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cartome in bold?

Why is Cartome written in bold as Cartome? 91.219.237.229 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Interviews in blogs

Wikipedia:Interviews seems to indicate that blogs can be used as source for interview if the interview is confirmed by the subject and released by subject and interviewer. Cryptome confirmed it and posted it on their site without contradiction, both are cited. 91.219.237.229 (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is confirmed by the subject, cite the subject's confirmation, not the blog gossip. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.... Ask yourself... whether the material is being presented... is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject..." (Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources) --Stybn (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In all fairness Stybn, you did remove it when it cited both the interview and the subjects confirmation in one of your reverts. 2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

Please note Wikipedia's exact policy on advertising:

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

A simple, objective, non-marketing-speak description of Cryptome's archive and the fact that it's for sale should not be derided as "advertising". --Stybn (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A very detailed description of Cryptome's archive with a link to the page to buy it without any verifiable, independent, third-party sources sounds like advertisement. Neurowarrior (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Template:Advert does not require or even suggest starting a discussion on the talk page. It was not grounds for removing the template. Neurowarrior (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've condensed and reworded it to try to appease everyone. 2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Reverted by Flyer22. 2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR reminder

A reminder for several unnamed editors:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. 2001:9B0:20:2106:B7A3:480B:5BD5:D9C6 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception response

Responses from the subject can go in the reception section. John Young calls Cook's piece a smear, it can go in that section. Context matters. If Greenwald and Cryptome have antagonistic relationship, it can go in that section. If Jersey Girl was not made for critics, it can go in that section. Right? Neurowarrior (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Greenwald saying extremely vague, baseless, defamatory things about Young personally (and yes, he said them about "John Young" not about "Cryptome") is irrelevant to the "reception" of Cryptome. In addition, the very fact that Greenwald's comments are vague, baseless and defamatory means that per BLP we should not include them. And if we don't include them, then there is no relevant response from Young to quote. --Stybn (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
How is it baseless or vague when he cites specific things that CRYPTOME did? He said John Young but clearly in context refers to actions he took as part of Cryptome. And as raise above, he's describing actions, NOT the person who did them, in negative terms. Input from editors other than Stybn welcome. –2001:9B0:20:2106:B7A3:480B:5BD5:D9C6 (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks people not actions

Where does Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons prevent reporting a notable persons' description of another notable persons' actions? The statements weren't against John Young they were against things he does. In context, he was talking about Cryptome not just its male half. 91.219.237.229 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Greenwald's nasty words were about John Young specifically. Check the original source. --Stybn (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It's debatable. "EVEN THOUGH JOHN YOUNG OCCASIONALLY DOES SOME REPELLENT AND DEMENTED THINGS - SUCH AS POSTING THE HOME ADDRESSES OF LAURA POITRAS, BART GELLMAN, AND MYSELF ALONG WITH MAPS POINTING TO OUR HOMES" IMHO, Greenwald's words were about specific actions Young took on behalf of Cryptome. 2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposed text:
In 2014, Glenn Greenwald called Cryptome "quite productive and valuable. On the whole, I'm glad there is a Cryptome". He also criticized the website for posting a copy of his copyrighted book and for other things which he felt were "repellent" such as posting maps to people's homes, including his.
2001:9B0:20:2106:B7A3:480B:5BD5:D9C6 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at the whole quote. "EVEN THOUGH JOHN YOUNG OCCASIONALLY DOES SOME REPELLENT AND DEMENTED THINGS - SUCH AS POSTING THE HOME ADDRESSES OF LAURA POITRAS, BART GELLMAN, AND MYSELF ALONG WITH MAPS POINTING TO OUR HOMES - HE ALSO DOES THINGS THAT ARE QUITE PRODUCTIVE AND VALUABLE. ON THE WHOLE, I'M GLAD THERE IS A CRYPTOME AND HOPE THEY SUCCEED IN RAISING THE MONEY THEY WANT." Its clearly about Cryptome, both of them, and not just John. --94.102.63.18 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptome&oldid=687271931 Primary sources can be used for direct quotations. --2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not without a reliable secondary source to ensure the quote is being properly interpreted and is taken in-context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.115.42 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends; but I added two secondary sources for you.--2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that both of those secondary sources accurately interpret the quote as it is intended, i.e. in context it is a form of irony, whereby by disavowing its own credibility, Cryptome asserts that it is more credible than those who ask you to trust them blindly. I guess my objection to including the quote out of context is that this ironic meaning is entirely lost. Certainly it is a fact that the quote is present on the privacy policy page, and those secondary sources you added do indeed confirm this fact. But doesn't the mere inclusion of a quote which taken out of context (but not in context) undermines Cryptome's credibility, in such a prominent place in the article's lede, in and of itself constitute a violation of the NPOV policy? I would argue that it does, but I'm happy to defer to the judgment of experienced editors if there is a consensus that I am wrong.

1. Note that neither secondary source interprets it ironically. One calls it "dark humor" but does not suggest it isn't serious, the other does not characterize it at all. What did you read?

2. It is hard to argue that "don't trust me" means "trust me". Arguing that only that part is ironic and disingenuous would be a violation of NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.139.126 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong Forbes takes it seriously. "The site’s privacy policy, as far as it even has one, promises that Cryptome doesn’t collect user data and deletes its logs several times a day. But its protections for the privacy of its leakers end there. The policy reads: “As you know there are many, many ways to snoop on traffic, so much that Cryptome asserts there is no trustworthy privacy policy, not for Cryptome, not for anybody else. . . . Those who promise the most protection are out to skin you alive, those who promise the most privacy are selling your most private possessions. Cryptome is not trustworthy, and lies. It’s a free site, what else could it be but up to no good?” Young doesn’t recommend that his secret-spillers use Anonymous remailers, like Tim May’s BlackNet, or Tor, like WikiLeaks. Cryptome doesn’t endorse any specific anonymity technologies, or make promises about safe- guarding any identity information it does receive: The leaker’s anonymity is wholly his or her own problem. “Do not identify yourself, jerk,” says Young. “That’s our policy. Don’t send us stuff and think that we’ll protect you.”"46.19.139.126 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm still learning the WP policy, so no comment except to say that the proposed privacy policy section might help avoid the issue. In the meantime, I'm adding a "[dubious - discuss]" tag per Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement. --Themikebest (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the anon who raised the objection. I'm not a wikipedia expert so I'll also refrain from further comment except to say that the proposed privacy policy section sounds like a good idea to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.115.42 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Surveillance disclosures

An editor insists on referring to the Snowden disclosures published by Cryptome as: (a) "posted" but not "published"; (b) only as "published so far"; (c) only in the context of carrying on about Cryptome's long-past unfulfilled and likely satiric promise to publish the entire trove, and (d) with conflation of the Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) article with Edward Snowden. The editor's dogged attempts to muddy the simple fact that Cryptome has simply published all of the Snowden disclosures shows the editor's bias. The editor should examine Wikipedia's own definition of publication, which is "make content available to the general public". To point (a), Cryptome has obviously published these documents. To point (b) the reference to the Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) (as "surveillance disclosures"), qualified further with the use of the word "public", is clearer and more accurate than the editor's redundant construction "The site is known for publishing the… published so far". (Indeed, who is known for publishing things that have not been published so far?) To point (c) I challenge the suitability of mentioning in the lead section Cryptome's long-past and now bunk claim that it would publish the entire Snowden trove, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. To point (d) the editor should note that not all of the global surveillance disclosures are based on documents stolen by Edward Snowden, yet Cryptome only publishes the documents by Snowden, thus these two articles should not be conflated in this article. --Stybn (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For bias, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_edit_wars#Accusation and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, your own reverts. For publishing, by your definition, Cryptome only republished most of those documents. They weren't the ones making them available to the public. Cryptome is well known for that bunk claim, there have been many stories about it. More on it than just about Cryptome republishing the Snowden docs. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Relative_emphasis they should be included. Leave out the 2013 disclosures article link at the top if you want.-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing NGO

Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Paraphrasing Accurate paraphrasing of reliable sources is not considered original research. In fact, in most cases you are actually required by policy to write in your own words rather than plagiarizing the source's wording. 

   using synonyms rather than quotations;
   using plain English rather than jargon from a technical source; and
   summarizing whole pages, chapters, or books in one or two sentences.

This covers using a word whos definition fits even if its not used in the source.2A01:390:14:0:216:3EFF:FEE5:F303 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a defense. You have not been "paraphrasing" your source on the definition of NGO (if it can even be considered a reliable source). You are taking a supposed definition of NGO, and coming to your own original conclusion that it applies to Cryptome. This is original research, and is not allowed. (Please see Wiktionary's definition of paraphrasing: "A restatement of a text in different words, often to clarify meaning.") --Stybn (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Stybn, it doesn't belong.-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Meat puppetry

Warning to other editors and wiki admins: After vandalizing their own wiki page and refusing to bring up issues on the talk page, Cryptome is approaching people off the site and asking them to alter and remove relevant information. "DEY! ‏@DEYCrypt Oct 19 @Cryptomeorg DM me what you want me to do. It is unclear. The edit wars on your page are rampant." "DEY! ‏@DEYCrypt Oct 19 @Cryptomeorg Wait you want me to remove Deborah's father's history?" "Cryptome @Cryptomeorg Oct 19 @DEYCrypt Yes, highlight Deborah's singular accomplishments in NYA biblio, not sensationalizing Natsios fame-names breeding inapt prejudice."

@DEYCrypt Yes, highlight Deborah's singular in NYA biblio, not Natsios fame-names breeding inapt prejudice. html link https://twitter.com/Cryptomeorg/status/656240290991329280 Released date: 2015-10-19" https://twitter.com/DEYCrypt/status/656240916420648962 https://twitter.com/DEYCrypt/status/656236949145948160 https://cryptome.wikileaks.org/?q=DEYCrypt&publication_type%5B%5D=2#results

That info hasn't been challenged yet but dispute resolution should take note especially when looking at reverts that remove information.-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and reporting this. --Stybn (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NGO?

The citations added to support Cryptome being an NGO is are (a) one short description of the term, and (b) an improperly-constructed citation for the book "The Most Dangerous Man in the World" referencing a citation within that book. In the latter case, I followed up on the actual citation referenced second-hand (which quotes "Normally NGOs beg, but I'm no good at that sort of thing"). The quote is actually by Julian Assange, not by Cryptome, and does not refer to Cryptome. Further examining the URL of the citation (which should be a proper book citation, but is instead just a URL which returns "page not available" for me) it was clearly sourced by searching Google Books for the phrase "cryptome ngo". This is plain evidence of the editor searching for facts that fit their hypothesis. This is unacceptable. If the editor is so convinced that using Cryptome's own self-describing words as supporting fact, perhaps we can examine Cryptome's past claims that they are not an NGO. If the editor is so set on using books as references, the editor should read and understand actual books, instead of word-matching excerpts of their appendices and making bad assumptions about what they mean. Our own page on non-governmental organizations is clear that this term is difficult to define, and thus no editor's analysis of whether Cryptome is an NGO, absent supporting references to reliable sources, is acceptable on Wikipedia. --Stybn (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As said above I agree with Stybn.-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I was wrong. My bad, but don't be nasty man.2A01:390:14:0:216:3EFF:FEE5:F303 (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

The editor 2605:E200:D111:1:225:90FF:FE24:3F9E wants to use a Tweet by a journalist as a reliable source. Per Wikipedia policy on self-published sources, such a source is acceptable only if "it does not involve claims about third parties". This this is a tweet about Cryptome, it is not acceptable. Reverted. --Stybn (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

I couldn't the right page for noticeboarding an edit war and requesting help but I think this article and talk page need it.-- 2605:E200:D111:1:225:90FF:FE24:3F9E (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please start by following our rules on reliable sources. --Stybn (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Logfile obsession

Some editor(s) are obsessed with Cryptome's web visitor logs, and are editing the article with clear bias. One editor inserted a claim that Cryptome showed its logs to the journalist Declan McCollough, but the supporting McCollough article doesn't support this. I edited the McCollough reference to reflect the source material. Please stick to the information that appears in sources, and avoid scandalous interpretations. --Stybn (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone said above, assume good faith whenever you can. You were right to edit it, but "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations." Theres no reason to assume the editor didn't assume McCollough was shown the logs since he presented it as fact ("His logs show") and not as Cryptome's words. --2605:E200:D111:1:225:90FF:FE24:3F9E (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I assumed good faith until the pattern of bad faith became clearly apparent to me. It was a judgement call. Since the group of users obsessed with giving this article a negative (not just critical, and not even critical) slant are logged-out users, it looks like there's some sock-puppeting going on here also. --Stybn (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Report it-- 185.101.107.227 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Stybns bias?

I just reverted Stybn's latest text removal, which was justified by it being "some dude's tweet." If Stybn had looked at the tweet, he wouldve seen that the "dude" was a noted journalist who has written for VICE and WIRED and whos articles are cited through out this page. The tweet also included a picture evidence. Looking at the talk page, it's not the first time Stybn has removed material he doesn't like without reading it first. Requesting input on whether this constitutes bias and what to do about it.-- 2605:E200:D111:1:225:90FF:FE24:3F9E (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy on self-published sources, the tweet you cited is acceptable only if "it does not involve claims about third parties". This this is a tweet about Cryptome, it is not acceptable, even though it is by a journalist. Reverted. As for myself, I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade, with thousands of productive edits. I did not just stroll in here to defend Cryptome. I'm here to make the article accurate and to defend our Wikipedia, not to defend Cryptome except as any article subject deserves evenhanded treatment. I find the bias of others to be notable, in adding generally negative material which does not match the referenced source material. --Stybn (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if he's biased, he's right about WP:Twitter.

--217.12.199.209 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Activities and activism

Seeing as Cryptome came out of Urban Deadline and advocates activist causes I think we should include some instances in the main article. Thoughts?-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see this, but it's difficult to find good sources on the topic of Urban Deadline online. If you want to hit the books on this, I commend you! --Stybn (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There's a book somewhere that talked about the student strike at Columbia (IIRC, I have a headache and could easily be confusing the schools) and I think it mentioned John's involvement in it and that it was where Urban Deadline got started. The new section could also be a good place to put some of their more recent projects, like the city of redactions, meet me at your rizer, the bowery project, etc.
Across the Barricades by Richard Rosenkranz

--217.12.199.209 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

About Urban Deadline though, I'm not clear if it's a company, a project, organization, loose affiliation or what - and how it connects to Cryptome and their architectural practice. We should be careful not to over or understate any connections or distinctions between them, especially if Urban Deadline involves more people than just JY and DN. I know in their architectural work they work with other people but as far as I know they're separate contractors/subcontractors and not part of Natsios Young Architects (I'm assuming that's the name because I think it's on one of the sites somewhere, I have no idea if that's an official DBA or incorporated name).-- TheMikeBest (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryptome's claims about itself

With regard to the "crypto-architecture" of Cryptome, and other nonsense, we cannot take Cryptome's claims about itself and regurgitate them as if they are fact. Cryptome acknowledges that it extolls deception and satire. We can cite Cryptome links/documents when establishing e.g. what is hosted on the site, and we can state Cryptome's claims as-such if they pass the bar for notability, but we cannot quote or paraphrase its autobiographical rhetoric as fact. --Stybn (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how Cryptome was describing actions already in progress to journalists while proposing that they continue a plan of action is certainly notable. We can describe their description of themselves as if they are their own description, which it is. Seeing as it was a continuation off of well documented activities like the eyeball series and the bowery projects, it can certainly be included. But if "we cannot take Cryptome's claims about itself and regurgitate them as if they are fact" then the library section needs to be trimmed, but looking at the history you kept reverting it.-- 193.138.219.244 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Neither is the regurgitation even supported by the citation. It is an inaccurate retelling of an out-of-context series of comments. To "clean up the neighborhood of bums for crypto-yuppies" is not part of Cryptome's overall architecture, as represented by the editor, but the description of New York City's treatment of the Bowery district. No, I will not tolerate such sloppy and even defamatory editing. Some of the text may be incorporable if it is at least an accurate summation of the source material, establishes its specific relevance to the topic of the article, and repeats it at Cryptome's claims rather than fact. (The library section qualifies Cryptome's own statements with language such as "Cryptome states", but even such language would be insufficient in the fact of inaccuracy and bad faith.) --Stybn (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Stybn, I think you might have misread the text - at least the version from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryptome&diff=687648874&oldid=687643557. To your first point, "Step one is preventing the "cleaning up the neighborhood of bums for crypto-yuppies wanting a bit of dirt but sanitized dirt, that is redacted of undesirables" and "to valorize them as far more valuable than the best of the best art instituions." Emphasis added. The removed text also began with "According to emails sent by Cryptome" which I think addresses your latter point, about representing it as fact versus their claims. Since it's just as likely that I'm misreading it or misunderstanding it, I'm not going to add it back in. If you're right, it shouldn't be there and if you're not then it waiting a day or two to be re-added won't hurt anything. I do think that if it's re-added, it'd be good to include context connecting it to the Eyeball series and perhaps explaining more clearly the parts that address your points, Stybn so that no one else misunderstands it - especially when excerpting quotes, where context is king and the meaning should be unmistakeable. --TheMikeBest (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stybn: did you even read it before you delete it? "According to emails sent by Cryptome, the website has a three step crypt-architecture. Step one is preventing the "cleaning up the neighborhood of bums for crypto-yuppies wanting a bit of dirt but sanitized dirt, that is redacted of undesirables" and "to valorize them as far more valuable than the best of the best art instituions." Cryptome cited the Bowery Project as an example of step one. Step two involves "photographing and video taping national security sensitive infrastructure which handles global and financial communications", and "ditto for the mass transit system." Cryptome refuses to discuss step three except through secure, encrypted means." - 2A01:390:14:0:216:3EFF:FE26:D34B (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If this little interaction between Cryptome with Alexis Bloom, regarding one specific Cryptome project which may never came come to complete fruition and has never been reported in other sources, can be established as substantially noteworthy in the context of this small article, and the information can be summarized in a way that provides sufficient context and background for the reader to understand both the substance and the notability, and it's more than a regurgitation of Cryptome's fanciful prose as somehow-notable fact, let's see it. --Stybn (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
A. It doesn't look like one specific project, it looks like multiple projects, including eyeball series, bowery, and the wikileaks documentary. B. Eyeball series and bowery came to fruition and eyeball series continues. C. It doesn't look like it was presented as fact but as Cryptomes claims. D. Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Alternatives_to_reverting. E. It looks like you keep changing your requirements for including it. F. How is Cryptomes projects NOT relevant to the subject of the page - which is Cryptome? G. I won't jump into the edit war, but I think new input is needed from elder editors.-- 2605:E200:D111:1:225:90FF:FE24:3F9E (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget, notability guidelines don't apply to content within an article-- 185.101.107.227 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I rewrote and re-added it. Here's the new version: According to emails sent and published by Cryptome, the website has a three step "crypt-architecture" plan for combining social issues with architectural and security issues. Step one is preventing the removal of social programs like the Bowery Mission and "to valorize them as far more valuable than the best of the best art institutions." Step two relates to Cryptome's Eyeball Series which uses photographs and video recordings to document "national security sensitive infrastructure which handles global and financial communications", and the mass transit system which John Young and Deborah Natsios worked as architectural consultants when they "learned of its appalling insecurity -- which has also been superficially reported, honest coverage denied for alleged security concerns, aka security by obscurity." Cryptome has not publicly discussed step three.[52][53] --217.12.199.209 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Superb! --Stybn (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Library size

I just updated the totals for Cryptome's library with the new number from their donation page, but it's worth pointing out that the number may be slightly higher. Cryptome's total is probably accurate and there's an old mistake in the breakdown, but adding the numbers up produces 99,547 and not 99,335. I think the lower/official number is the safer one. Mentioning both seems odd, and I'm not sure how to justify listing the unofficial/calculated number but not the "official" number - especially since the "official" is less flattering to Cryptome and more reliable since there's no reason to doubt that it's lower than 99,335 and even if there are 99,547 it's still true that there'd be 99,335. However, it may be safer and require less frequent updates if it simply says "approximately 100,000 files and 42GB" or something like that.

Thoughts? --TheMikeBest (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Privacy policy section

Since its relevant and too complicated to be explained in the history section, I suggest a privacy policy section be added. We can keep the timeline about events and put details and context about the logs in the privacy policy section so it won't be misunderstood.

Comments from other editors welcome. 2001:9B0:20:2106:B7A3:480B:5BD5:D9C6 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Added.--2A06:3000:0:0:0:0:121:65 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Stybn removing material under false pretenses

I just reverted a pair of Stybn's edits where he removed material because there was "no evidence in citation that cryptome has published information on protection from electromagnetic radiation" even though it was there if he had bothered to check. He also removed material about Cryptome's controversial posts because "documents appearing in the cryptome library are not valid citations for what cryptome is "known for"" even though the New York Times was one of the citations he removed. He also couldve changed the phrasing like I did to keep the material.

Looking at the talk page he's done this a bunch, deleting material that there is "no evidence in citation for" even when there is, and removing things he doesn't like on bad excuses. Are any admins watching this? 104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, another IP sock puppet. There is nothing in the citation stating that Cryptome has published information on protection from electromagnetic radiation, only that there was research conducted. Likewise, the NY Times article does not support the statement that Cryptome has posted "guides on how to attack critical infrastructure" or has posted "instructions for illegal hacking." Any admins watching this? --Stybn (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Why the wording was changed to "Cryptome's more controversial publications include" per the editing policy "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. " Easy fix. Why'd you remove it instead of fixing the wording?104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The citation does not support the prior wording, which was "controversially known for publishing." So I cleaned up the wording, per policy. Admins? Admins? --Stybn (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It looked like you removed it completely, instead of either fixing the wording or removing just the part that you felt wasn't properly cited. Instead it looks like you remove anything you don't like if this and the rest of the talk page are signs.104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
AGAIN you just removed a version that was accurate the way it was. You need a better reason than you don't like it when it's accurate and relevant.104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you cleaned up the wording by changing it to something that didn't fit the rest of the text and citations and used that to justify removing the text. Clever104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The citations for Cryptome being known for posting "guides on how to attack critical infrastructure" or "instructions for illegal hacking" are baloney, and you know it. Do what you want. --Stybn (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I never argued that "The citations for Cryptome being known for posting "guides on how to attack critical infrastructure" or "instructions for illegal hacking"" were good which is why I changed the wording before YOU changed it back.104.238.195.66 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I went by the edit summary, which was a standard undo. If you're making other revisions besides undoing, please state them in your edit summary so there's no confusion. Thanks. --Stybn (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
All had comments. One even said "Fixing wording instead of removing information." I dunno what you're talking about. Did you even read the edit summary?104.238.195.66 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Just removed this from lead. Rationale is chiefly that it does not belong in the lead paragraph to begin with. Additionally, the only reliable source provided, NYT, makes no claim to it being the most controversial, doesn't include anything about "how to attack critical infrastructure", nor about those impatient to wait for whistle blowers. The other sources provided, are simply mirrors of content already in the public domain and written by unreliable third parties and for which provenience is unknown. Further, the burden is upon those who insert content to make sure the claims are accurate and properly sourced to reliable third parties; not upon others to come behind and clean up the work... especially when many have used such means to paint this article with a particular brush and advance certain points-of-view. -- dsprc [talk] 06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think something belongs somewhere else in the article, then move it. And Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section says the lead section "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I tried to reword it to fit that better.--193.138.219.244 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Tense

tag added. article switches btwn past and present tense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.72.92 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I went through and fixed what I could find. I might've missed a few things and left the ongoing state of being verbs in the present tense (i.e. Cryptome is a 501(c)(3) private foundation) since I thought it would be confusing to put those in the past tense as well. The tense snippet on writing better articles didn't seem to say anything either way about state of being and ongoing/longterm status so I just took my best guess. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't take much effort to change the remaining bits. --TheMikeBest (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many primary sources?

What's the problem with the primary sources? Most of the article is supported by secondary sources, and there aren't any primary source statements that interpret events or statements that I can see. I'll do what I can if someone can help explain the problem. --217.12.199.209 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.254.13 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Cryptome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cryptome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cryptome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cryptome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryptome/Archive_1&oldid=1146466404"