Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

History/Administration Cleanup/Merge

It was suggested that sections in History are now overlapping with several Administration sections, namely Funding and some Operational Challenges. Anyone want to try and tackle this? Ocaasi (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.org link

wikileaks.org is now linking to mirror.wikileaks.info which, according to Spamhaus [1] may contain malware, and is not listed on the official list of mirrors sites. Should we consider deactivating the link, per WP:ELNO #3 (Sites containing malware) until the situation is resolved one way or another? SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It would do little harm, I'd think, given the existence of other mirrors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew something was going on. I thought, why it has a different design than the other mirros? Since .org domains are in usa, they probably deleted the domain and someone else registered it. I have added a note saying that the domain is no longer related to WikiLeaks. I think we should keep the address there, but without the link, not because 'it has malware' (because it doesn't), but because is not WikiLeaks. Just a non official mirror of how WikiLeaks looked years ago but with some news added.--Neo139 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, then it is bloody disturbing that a well-recognised (and valuable) URL can be re-registered by anyone else just 5 minutes after it has been deactivated by the censors. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Any thoughts on adding to the notice as follows: "original domain; now contains malware"? Neo139, why don't you think it contains malware? What did Spamhaus get wrong?--Chaser (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there appears to be no evidence that the info site contains malware, and that is not what Spamhaus claimed. See Trend Micro's blog on the subject at http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/ and follow the comment there by Wolfgang Bleh. For those that can read German [2] covers the situation somewhat better (IMHO). -84user (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with what Neo139 wrote above, and at the risk of mis-using this talk as a forum, the DNS of the .org domain changed to dynadot after EveryDNS pulled its own NS. One can see how the .org site changed over the years at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wikileaks.org . See also [3] and [4]. -84user (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't contain malware because I didn't saw anything suspicious in the js files included in the home of the webpage.--Neo139 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent of many of the posts in the above section is black propaganda and should be removed. It is entirely off-topic for the article content and containing only talk, discussion, and speculation. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While you may be right, I believe the protection of Wikipedia users should be discussed here as the link qualifies as content. Thus, it can be discussed here to decide whether or not to include it. In this case, it might be wise to look at the verifiable & trustworthy information regarding the link, and weeding out the "black propaganda". Phearson (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The advice from Trend Micro is given in good faith, although I have visited the mirror site without any ill effects (well, none that I noticed). However, to be on the safe side, the link should not be given for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposed lack of discretion

The lede contains this line: "Some journalists have criticized the lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis"

Shouldn't that be perceived lack of discretion? WikiLeaks does redactions, after all. It's simply a matter of whether you happen to believe that the redactions are sufficiently thorough. Sonicsuns (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, the (obviously WP:POV) phrase is so innocuous —- what does "lack of editorial discretion" mean? what exactly are they referring to? —- that the comment should probably be removed from the article. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 07:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on the phrasing. Reword it to be more nuanced/accurate if you can. This is significant because it's from a Reporters Without Borders, not exactly a press-enemy. The key paragraph is this: Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media. I think we should keep it, but maybe rephrase the timeframe, since over time WikiLeaks has been doing more in the areas of redaction and journalistic selection/involvement with traditional media oversight. Ocaasi (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The description of WikiLeaks' cable distribution methods as problematic and irresponsible is uncalled-for. To draw an analogy, WikiLeaks acts as a wholesale distributor of the cables, and uses its journalistic partners as the retail distributors of the content where notability within the cables is identified. Evidently, we can find a few reporters from Reporters Without Borders who support censorship of the cables just as readily as we can find a few lawyers from the ACLU who support the censorship of hate-speech. (I realise that this post probably breaches WP:SOAPBOX, so take from it what you will). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't take much from this. The RWB article was written by the secretary-general of the organization as an Open Letter, featured on the website's homepage. If you want to soapbox, I won't begrudge you the opportunity, but check it out yourself. Ocaasi (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Reporters Without Borders is a generally a good source, but in that particular quote they make a blantant error. WikiLeaks did not indiscriminately publish 92,000 reports from Afghanistan. They received 92,000 reports, but only published 75,000 of those. The other 17,000 were withheld as part of a "harm minimization process". (Bizarrely, RSF does mention the withheld documents, but they still seem to think that 92,000 were released, which doesn't add up.) So it is absolutely false that WikiLeaks "indiscriminately" published "92,000" classified reports. Moreover, WikiLeaks has done an ever better job with the more recent redactions in the Iraq War Logs and the US Diplomatic Cables. In light of all that, I really think the line in the lede should have the word "perceived" in front of "lack of discretion". Sonicsuns (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sonicsuns, if the sentence is to remain, then I agree with adding the word "perceived". Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 15:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RWB was acknowledging that WL withheld 15,000 documents for review, but that in the end 92,000 would be released. The criticism was not just with the redacting process but with the dump-nature of posting thousands of documents (92,000 or 77,000 both being a lot). Specifically, "Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media." I agree that it's not black and white, and that this criticism has gone down somewhat as WL has been more careful about redacting and releasing leaks. We need sources that describe that, though. Meanwhile, I'm okay with rephrasing it to be more specific, but not fundamentally different. Ocaasi (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but RSF/RWB did make an error in that statement. It talks about "92,000 leaked documents" that were "posted" on "25 July". But there were actually only 75,000 posted on that date. (Granted, the Guardian also got this wrong, initially.) RSF's acknowledgment of an additional 15,000 documents would imply 107,000 overall, which is more than WikiLeaks has ever claimed to posses. So RSF/RWB had their numbers wrong, and indeed WikiLeaks was involved in "the selection of information". Some cables were withheld, and would only be released after "further review" (and presumably redactions). Assange also said ""We don't do things in an ad hoc way [...] We've tried hard to make sure that it puts no innocents at harm. This material is over seven months old so it's of no operational significance, although it's significant for journalistic investigation." So again, it's not as if WikiLeaks is putting in no effort at all as far as "discretion" is concerned. When you say "I'm okay with rephrasing it to be more specific, but not fundamentally different", does that mean we're ok to add "perceived" to that sentence? Sonicsuns (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

'Perceived' is not ideal (better to rephrase the whole thing as an attributed claim), but I think it works fine. 70,000/90,000/110,000... when the numbers are that large, the case for discretion is still on the weaker side. Journalists usually consider 'what' to publish not 'what not' to publish. Still, WL has been making efforts to redact and work with major media orgs, and I think their practices have and will continue to change. The criticism is still pretty valid, at least historically, and at least regarding this new media form in which craploads of info (minimally redacted) is just put out there. Ocaasi (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty

The introduction asserts that "Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International criticized WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of civilians working with the U.S. military." however the citation supplied for this does not supply validation for such a claim. The citation currently offered is a Herald Sun article discussing several human rights organizations discussing redaction of names from Wikileak releases. The the hard criticism of Wikileaks quoted in the article originates from a Mr Nadery, who is affiliated with Afghan Human Rights Commission not Amnesty. The article states that both Amnesty and the AHRC had email conversations with wikileaks about of name disclosure, however an Amnesty spokeswoman "said the groups had not sent a joint letter to Mr Assange, but had instead been involved in email exchanges over the issue of the disclosure of identities of Afghans who've worked alongside international forces". This seems indicates that the two groups messages were not unified but rather similar.

My point is that it seems to me that the information presented is insufficient to make such a strong claim of an official criticism from Amnesty. I feel that at the very least the statement i quoted either needs a better citation or softening of language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Keith Jewitt (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs looking into: If it is misattributing statements, it should be fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten this to conform more accurately with what the source actually says. Thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No defense for the initial overbroad claim, but I find the current 'made contacts with' phrasing a bit awkward. There are many available sources to support that broader 'criticism' rather than the 'contacts'. I don't just want to stick-it to WL, but the way we are phrasing it now makes the issue seem merely procedural as opposed to a more direct problem many had with the site. Organisations, several of them, were really pissed about the lack of care in redacting those names. Somehow the current wording isn't getting that across. Ocaasi (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a little awkward: I've rephrased it as "Several human rights organisations have criticised WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names...", and tweaked the following sentence slightly (we still have criticised {with Brit. Eng. spelling now}) in three consecutive sentences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel my concerns have been well addressed, thank you Michael Keith Jewitt 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Keith Jewitt (talk • contribs)

British Spelling hatnote?

After our 'wikileaks isn't wikipedia' sentence, should we add, 'This article uses British Spelling'? Ocaasi (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a bit too much information for the average reader. I suspect most readers (as opposed to editors) won't give a damn, and may wonder why we're using UK spelling anyway (and shouldn't we be using Australian spelling?) :) Anyhow, could we do something so that the person who tries to edit the page is told to please use UK spelling? That way, the reader won't be distracted, and the would-be editor would be informed. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem on every page not strongly connected to a particular nation (and thus variation of English). The traditional way to handle it is either with hidden comments or reverting things as they are "corrected" by those that don't know about WP:ENGVAR, our guideline on the matter. Changes are rare enough that those are usually sufficient. There was a lot of argument over even the hatnote that is there now, so getting consensus for one for the English variation seems unlikely.--Chaser (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if such a note would help much anyway. Those who "correct" the spelling to American tend not to even know that other versions of English exist, so such a note would be to them one of those many irrelevancies articles tend to be packaged with. I ignore most of them myself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

advisory board? / BLP

I have just read the article in the Australian quoting Philip Adams' opinion that the WikiLeaks advisory board is more or less fictitious. It seems to me, therefore, quite a serious BLP violation for us to be reproducing the names of all these people in the article. While a careful reader will come to the conclusion that journalists like Philip Adams and others probably have nothing to do with WikiLeaks, a casual reader may not notice. I think we have a responsibility to these journalists to remove their names from this article. I think it would be better to word it along the lines of WikiLeaks lists an advisory board consisting of a number of well known political dissidents and journalists. However, a number of those listed have denied such a role within the organisation. One journalist, Philip Adams, says that he agreed to be on the board when WikiLeaks was still just an idea, but that Assange never actually asked for any advice. Others, such as Khamsitsang, said they knew nothing about the board at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a wise move. As I was part way through reading that, I wondered whether Adams was going to be categorised as a dissident, or journalist, or both. I doubt if he would mind. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Phearson (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, does the 'advisory board' still exist or has Assange had the good sense to remove it? I can't find it mentioned at the WikiLeaks site. If it's gone, we could just remove all mention of it perhaps? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the BLP argument here. These names were reported in a reliable source, which is the usual standard. However, I agree that removing specific members is OK since all the reliable sources say about the board is that it doesn't really do anything. I modified the article accordingly [5]. I think the two names there are fine since it now indicates that both have less association with WikiLeaks than membership on this board would suggest.--Chaser (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed Last Sentence of the Lede

Just reading it fresh, it was obviously too subjective and prejudicial. To illlustrate in the converse, we would & should not say something like "Among positive public reactions in the United States, people have characterised the organisation as responsible,moral, and legal". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the sources. These were public opinion polls that said what was included... check the text. Ocaasi (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a New York Daily News poll 1 month ago where 68% said WikiLeaks was "right in making these 'secret' documents public". Public opinion polls are emblematic of why we stay away from Recentism and certainly should not go in the Lede. Also, the first 2 sources I did not see those 3 words irresponsible,immoral, and illegal prominent in the articles. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repost the sentence here, just for discussion purposes. "Among negative public reactions in the United States, people have characterised the organisation as irresponsible, immoral, and illegal.". I think we should take a stab at summarizing these polls, or if not, the polls specifically then other written criticism which certainly does mention 'immoral, irresponsible, illegal, etc'. Those aspects are a part of the dialogue, even if we don't attribute them to public opinion, which is indeed fleeting. Ocaasi (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

refs

ok, thank you. I need to sign off but I'll come back to it later today. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would summarise the Washington Post one as distortion by headline. Describing 59% as most (who want Assange arrested) is just plain dishonest. When does a reliable source cease being reliable? HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And then there is the matter of the loaded question in the poll: "Do you think the United States should try to arrest the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange..., and charge him with a crime for releasing these documents, or do you think this is not a criminal matter?"[6] First you ask whether he should be charged, then you ask if it was a crime, or possibly if it should be? Utter garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Polls are ridiculous. I find that if you poll secondary school children, you will have more reliable results then that of the general public. Phearson (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I like WL as much as the next technoanarchist, but there were people calling WL criminal, immoral, irresponsible...all over the media. We should let them have their sentence, one way or another. Ocaasi (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And they will, as long as its not the already covered, constant calls for the Guillotine.

Currency of status

Is WikiLeaks still being DoS'd? The ref about it dates from 20 days ago. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.org does not open up; you get switched to a mirror. Looks like the BofA battle may be intensifying:[7][8] We'll eventually need a separate article for that too, I expect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the domain redirects says nothing about whether it's still undergoing DoS attacks. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, I'm not internet technically savy at all. I searched but did not find any recent articles that mention DoS attacks on WikiLeaks either as continuing or having stopped. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

more images, videos, etc.

In the U.S. the publication of documents, even if confidential, is protected by the Bill of Rights

The article could use more images and other media files. I made a first attempt and included the U.S. Bill of Rights (pictured), since the article refers to both the bill and the first amendment. Anyways, User:AndyTheGrump reverted my edit and suggested to put this on the discussion page first. So here it is. I personally still think the image (and other media content) would make the article more appealing. What do you think? --spitzl (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that particular image is a bit of grandstanding on the politics. WikiLeaks cites freedom of the press, but the Bill of Rights itself is not really relevant to the organization, and WikiLeaks hasn't even seen a US court yet. Better to focus on pictures from leaks, pictures of members, pictures of websites, etc. than just decorating the page with symbols of American justice. Ocaasi (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ocaasi, I can't see why this image is relevant to the article. It would be good if we could include more images, but to be honest I'm not exactly sure what we could add. We could add some images from July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike to the leaks section, but other than that the sections don't exactly call out for images. SmartSE (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this would be at best an eye candy image for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we should really focus on WikiLeaks and its publications. Following the idea of Ocaasi we could e.g. add images and videos of the most prominent leaks. There is a whole range material available such as wikileaks videos and images at creativecommons.org. There is also lots of WikiLeaks material at wikicommons, particularly about the Baghdad_2007-07-12_airstrike.--spitzl (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Purpose Section.

The Colbert Interview has been trimmed to say: "Asked whether he would publish even a list of WikiLeak's own anonymous sources, Assange replied, 'No. We wouldn't....Not immediately. We have a harm minimization process where we contact the people beforehand'".

I think the reference to the interview should be removed because:

• It would need to be added to for context clarity because at the 8 minute mark, before the "Not immediately", Colbert asks;"What if somebody else found them and leaked them to you?"
• its a non-notable hypothetical
• A transcript of it seems hard to find

As it currently reads it indicates that WikiLeak's sources could be published by WikiLeaks in a fairly cavalier fashion simply by giving advance notice to the Leakers, but his answer was in reality specific to a hypothetical situation where some outside entity had already obtained the list. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, except that Assange said it. Asked about exposing nuclear launch codes, he deferred to the publishing their sources issue. To that, he said, clearly, 'no. we wouldn't'. Then colbert asked if he would publish a list of their sources. and he said, 'not immediately... we have harm reduction....'. I don't know why this part is fully necessary, but I'm not sure I see the problem with its basic construction. Ocaasi (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just that Colbert's specific and limited hypothetical question regarding the list of anonymous sources: "What if somebody else found them and leaked them to you?" is what Assange was responding to when he said "Not immediately. We have a harm minimization process where we contact the people beforehand" . By leaving out Colbert's specific and limited hypothetical question, it changes the context of Assange's response. When I read it now it gives the appearance,to me at least, that Assange might release the list of anonymous sources whenever he feels like it and for no particular reason. Regardless, I also have doubt that this part is even necessary and I would support removing it altogether. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no one feeling the last sentence re: the hypotheticals of the Colbert interview is necessary so I'll remove it for now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Avaaz petition - 700,000+ signatures warrants mention in lead

My view is that the 'voice of the people' should not be suppressed. Anyone disagree? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.91.177.15, 12 December 2010

Please replace "On 8 December 2010 the international civic organisation Avaaz launched a petition in support of WikiLeaks, which was signed by over 250.000 people within the first few hours.[1]" by On 8 December 2010 the international civic organisation Avaaz launched a petition in support of WikiLeaks, which was signed by over 300.000 people within the first 24 hours.[2] 209.91.177.15 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we'll need a source that actually gives numbers: preferably an external one, rather than Avaaz itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, There does seem to be a number cited (here). I'm not entirely sure we can accept this as WP:RS though. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The site is listing the number of people signing the petition but what concerns me is it is a live tally that will not be particularly useful in the future if someone goes back to check the citation. If they were posting press releases for every milestone of signatories then the situation would be different and the numbers could have some use alongside secondary sources. My other concern is that I have not been able to find other reputable news articles with the number petition signatories beyond the German article that is currently being cited. –TheIguana (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed this before. If a newspaper was reporting on the fact that the avaaz petition had that many signatories, it should be included, but until then, linking to the petition in the article is too much like promoting the petition, which I don't think is appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not STATS, not NEWS, etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Other external RS: [9] [10] [11]. I think this includes a 'newspaper', so User:SmartSE is also on board. Please see Google (passim) for more secondary sources if required, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And, on the revert per WP:BRD front, please see (Revert Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: if you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, an apology to BrekekekexKoaxKoax for the rather dismissive edit summary on my revert - I'd got confused over articles, and thought he had reinserted this in the same article, rather than in this one and the Assange one (oops!). Now we have external sources referring to the petition, I can see the merits of perhaps including a reference to it in the article (less so the Assange one), though perhaps the wording needs a little attention, and the best source IMO (the Sydney Morning Herald) states "almost 600,000 people have signed", and I think that we'd have to use this figure, rather than one sourced to Avaaz themselves, to conform with WP:NOR and WP:RS. I think perhaps we'd best wait to se what others say, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using the Avaaz website's number as long as secondary sources have picked up on the notability of the poll itself. Primary sources are accurate sources of the data for which they are the source. Even WP:BLPPRIMARY lets primary sources 'augment' claims, provided a reliable secondary sources establishes WP:DUE weight. Ocaasi (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The SMH source looks good, I think we should just use that to say there were 600,000 on 10/12 though, rather than directly quoting the petition. SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm mildly opposed to it, just like most polls, because of Wikipedia:Recentism. Plus 600,000 ain't what it used to be. It would need to be at least a million before I'd say it should go in, but if most want it in, ok. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky, 'protective denials', and pseudonyms.

A recent edit added the following to the Article 'Founding' section:

Another such board member, Noam Chomsky was also listed as a volunteer administrator of the official WikiLeaks facebook group, and facebook group administrators must accept such appointments.[12] The denials may be protective denials used like the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt was used by WikiLeaks former spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg to reduce the dangers of association with WikiLeaks. [13]

As the edit sources didn't seem to back some of this up, I reverted, with a request to discuss on talk. Instead the edit was reinserted. I have since removed it again, and ask the editor Walks on Water to work properly within WP:BRD, rather than edit-warring. This is a contentious article, and any substantial edits need consensus.

The reason I reverted is that the first article linked (from Mother Jones) doesn't reference Noam Chomsky as a 'board member' at all. Instead it says this: 'Noam Chomsky is listed as a volunteer administrator of the WikiLeaks Facebook group. This is news to him. "I know nothing about it," he says.' It says he was 'listed' as a board member, not that he was one. It also says nothing about what 'facebook group administrators must' do. The second link is to the WikiLinks website 'about' page and seems to say nothing about Chomsky, Schmitt, 'denials' or anything else of relevance to the added passage. Can I ask Walks on Water to clarify how he thinks the edit is justified by the sources given? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, Walks on Water has since added the passage under debate again. Rather than get involved in an edit war, can I ask him to discuss properly here, as policy requires? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems really clear that this is not relevant to the article. The claim in the source appears to be the "Noam Chomsky" was an admin for an unofficial wikileaks fanpage. The real-life Noam Chomsky has denied any knowledge. If anyone had the time to set up another unofficial wikileaks fanpage, I will be really happy to set up an account under the name "Noam Chomsky" and become an administrator. --FormerIP (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether I could legitimately revert again, as a permitted exception to the WP:3RR rule: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)". Noam Chomsky is a living person, and I think this may be 'poorly sourced contentious material'. I'd rather not have to do this though. I've left a note on WoW's talk page, but he has yet to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no the sourced claim is that he was an admin of the official facebook page. --W☯W ^t/c 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So your description of Chomsky as "Another such board member" was unsourced? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly.... if you don't consider the cited Australian article to be a source. ("members of the advisory board, including Noam Chomsky") JFC! --W☯W ^t/c 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for finally responding to my beginning said discussion in edit summaries, after my 3rd request. Congrats on misrepresenting (on my talk page) an essay as policy. I reverted your edits because you had refused to respond to my question; I wrote " Sources are confirmatory. Please elaborate." You didn't elaborate, instead reverting and trying to beat me over the head with non-policy. I wrote "More to the point, what's not verifiable using the sources?" and you have responded more than adequately. Indeed, there is some inadequate sourcing; I will undo parts of my edit where I can't source. Moving on to the actual content....

Yes, The real-life Noam Chomsky has denied any knowledge. It's speculation to assume that the real-life Noam Chomsky IS OR IS NOT the Noam Chomsky that was an admin. Given the landscape, you can't assume either way.

I intend to refactor; the article had no mention of Domscheit-Berg, but several sentences on the advisory board. Advisory Boards are more or less always window dressing. In any org, its the actual board that matters far more. A prosecutor's accusations of guilt don't make an accused guilty. Likewise, though the issue of who really was on the board is interesting, it's of marginal importance, and we don't really know if Ben Laurie, Noam Chomsky or Phillip Adams were on an advisory board or not. It's quite likely that advisory board members would at this point deny knowledge of any such thing. For all you know, I'm one of them.

Oh my! Just noted this: The current article is quite the hack job, given that it implies that Phillip Adams was not actually on the advisory board, even though Phillip Adams, is quoted as saying "He asked me to go on it years ago,... I agreed."--W☯W ^t/c 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your initial edit by asking you to discuss here. You didn't. And as for the rest, given that you admit the sourcing is inadequate, will you please revert the article to the state it was before you made the edit. And I don't give a damn about you or I assuming anything either way. Wikipedia works with reliable sources, not speculation. That is policy - see WP:RS (and WP:BLP for that matter, given that you are making assertions about Chomsky on what you've just called 'inadequate sourcing'). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for finally responding to my beginning said discussion in edit summaries, after my 3rd request. Again, congrats on misrepresenting (on my talk page) an essay as policy. I reverted your edits because you had refused to respond to my question; I wrote " Sources are confirmatory. Please elaborate." You didn't elaborate, instead reverting and trying to beat me over the head with non-policy, so yes, I discussed in edit summary instead of on the talk page, and your response was to escalate to my talk page. I wrote "More to the point, what's not verifiable using the sources?" and you have responded more than adequately.--W☯W ^t/c 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And please SFTU for a minute; what part of "Partial reply to be continued" do you not understand?--W☯W ^t/c 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'find the sources first, and then edit the article' don't you understand? And please read WP:CIVIL while you are at it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to keep misrepresenting an essay as policy, or not? You're right; WP:CIVIL is policy, let's respect it. I know of no 'find the sources first, and then edit the article' policy, or prior statement from you. I know of no explicit policy that states that one shouldn't repeatedly and knowingly lie about WP policy, but do you think you can do so anyway? Not repeatedly and knowingly lie about WP policy, that is? Your statements are far too inaccurate to permit productive discussion. /me nods politely and backs toward the door.--W☯W ^t/c 04:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So basically, your defence for adding statements to an article that you admit yourself were badly sourced, was that I was rude to point this out, and ask you to stop reinserting them without discussion? And if you really think I've lied about anything, you have the option to raise it elsewhere. I'd recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG first though (and yes, this is only an essay, but it contains good advice). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) I cleaned it up. The Chomsky bit is too speculative, the facebook connection not direct or relevant enough, and the Domscheit-Berg piece (though it's absolutely true that he was 'Daniel Schmitt' ([14]) is a hypothetical unconnected speculation that doesn't belong either. I kept a short statement saying, 'it's unclear whether the denials are merely protective'. I think that's as much as we can say about this very gray area. Ocaasi (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think even that may be questionable, unless we can find WP:RS saying the same thing. It'll probably do for the moment though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. The benefit of saying that "For a time Domscheit-Berg avoided being publicly connected to WikiLeaks by using the pseudonym 'Schmitt'" is that is verifiable. But I'm fine with it as is. If someone pulls the one, I can push the other. Thanks. --W☯W ^t/c 05:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This Schmitt issue is not whether he used the name or not (he did) but whether we can draw a parallel connection between the use of a pseudonym and speculatively conspiratorial advisory board denials. If you can find a source which connects those, well, I'd be impressed. (check out WP:SYNTH, which is probably the most on point policy regarding your suggestion). Ocaasi (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue seems too tangential and non notable to me. Just looking at Rockefeller Foundation we only one name for "Leadership". Borders on OR in spirit too I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Curious about the advisory board, I did some googling. Here's the total of what I found, and I looked fairly hard. I excluded obvious non-RS sources.

• "The website's governing structure is hazy. In the past, it has claimed guidance from an advisory board including Noam Chomsky, the philosopher and political activist, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a assistant to the Dalai Lama, and Ben Laurie, an authority on online security. Yet, all three have denied involvement with the website. The reality is a small organisation dominated by Assange and consisting of a handful of key players in half a dozen countries, including Britain, Germany, Sweden and Iceland. Its infrastructure is deliberately diffuse, consisting of servers in several countries, including one housed in a nuclear-hardened bunker in Sweden, and more than 1,500 mirror websites to ensure that no government can erase it from the net." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8195431/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-world.html
• "To the support group, whose advisory board members include the filmmaker Michael Moore, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and former State Department and CIA officials, Manning is a hero." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1221/1224285991888.html
• "Then there were Assange’s encounters with the leftist magazine Mother Jones. In the course of an otherwise positive profile in April 2010, the magazine pointed out that, contrary to WikiLeaks’s claims on its website, neither Noam Chomsky nor a representative of the Dalai Lama was in fact on its advisory board. Indeed, when the magazine contacted Chomsky, he said it was the first he had heard of it. In response, Assange slammed Mother Jones for “right-wing reality-distortion.”" http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/special-january-preview--the-wikileaks-war-on-america-15611
• "PHILLIP Adams is on the advisory board of Julian Assange's explosive website WikiLeaks, but the radio broadcaster and columnist has never been asked for his advice and he has never met the whistleblower....On how he came to be a member of the WikiLeaks advisory board, Adams told The Australian: "He asked me to go on it years ago, when it was just a vague idea and WikiLeaks sounded like the sort of thing one should support, so I agreed. But as I point out to people, he has never asked for advice. The advisory board was pretty clearly window dressing, so he went for people identified with progressive policies around the place (he got Chomsky signed up in the States, for example)....In June last year, WikiLeaks listed an advisory board comprising Mr Assange, Adams, Chinese dissidents Wang Dan, Xiao Qiang and Wang Youcai, Ben Laurie (a one-time programmer and internet security expert for Google), Thai anti-censorship activist CJ Hinke, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang (a former representative of the Dalai Lama) and Brazillian social justice advocate Chico Whitaker....In April, Mother Jones magazine revealed that several members of the "advisory board" knew nothing about it. Khamsitsang recalled getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago, but said he never agreed to be an adviser....Mr Assange has defended himself by saying the board was "pretty informal". http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wikileaks-advisory-board-pretty-clearly-window-dressing/story-e6frg6nf-1225967895242
• "When I contacted the impressive figures who'd been listed on WikiLeaks' advisory board, some didn't know exactly why they were named. Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a former representative of the Dalai Lama, recalls getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago, but says he's never been asked for advice. Xiao Qiang, a Chinese democracy activist, says he exchanged emails with Assange but little more. (After this article was originally published, WikiLeaks removed its advisory board [5] from an updated version of its website.)...Digital security expert Ben Laurie laughs when I ask why he's named on the site. "WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it," he says. "I don't know who runs it. One of the things I've tried to avoid is knowing what's going on there, because that's probably safest for all concerned." Laurie says his only substantive interaction with the group was when Assange approached him to help design a system that would protect leakers' anonymity. "They wanted a strong guarantee that [anything published] couldn't possibly be tracked back to the original person who leaked the stuff," says Laurie...Though his technical advice wasn't heeded, Laurie, who lives in London, started receiving visits from Assange. "He's a weird guy," Laurie says. "He seems to be quite nomadic, and I don't know how he lives like that, to be honest. He turns up with a rucksack, and I suspect that's all he's got."...When asked about his supposed advisors' denials, Assange downplays the board as "pretty informal." But can WikiLeaks be trusted with sensitive documents when it is less than transparent itself? http://motherjones.com/print/62622

These all seem to trace back to the Mother Jones article, which is barely an RS in this context. They do some good investigative reporting, but it would be much more reassuring if other newspapers described this history as well. Ocaasi (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunshine Press citation

Currently we have this sentence: "[Wikileaks'] website, launched in 2006 and run by The Sunshine Press,[3] claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch."

The citation takes us here: [15] and here: [16]. However, as far as I can tell, neither of these pages makes any mention at all of the Sunshine Press. So first off we need to update that reference, for instance using [17]. (Regrettably, WikiLeaks.ch is a temporary address, but it's the best we have while the main site is down). Looking at that source, we find that the original sentence is wrong. It isn't that WikiLeaks and the Sunshine Press are separate organizations, and the Sunshine Press simply runs the WikiLeaks website. Rather, "WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press."

As far as I can tell, it works like this: A bunch of people got together to make a transparency group called the Sunshine Press. The Sunshine Press came up with a project called WikiLeaks, and a website to match. Since then, Sunshine Press has spent 100% of its energy on the WikiLeaks project. This has led practically everyone to talk about an "organization" called WikiLeaks, when technically there is only a project called WikiLeaks and the organization is Sunshine Press. (Or at least, that was the original intention.) The two terms are basically synonymous at this point. The only time you see the words "Sunshine Press" is in the account ownership field for the WikiLeaks donation fund. ([18] "Sunshine Press Productions ehf").

So technically, the lede ought to start not with "WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organisation" but with "WikiLeaks is a project of international non-profit organisation called the Sunshine Press." But as I said, the terms are synonymous at this point anyway, so I wouldn't make that big of a change.

We should, however, edit the sentence that (a) uses a bad citation and (b) implies that Sunshine Press is a separate organization that just so happens to run the WikiLeaks website.

Sonicsuns (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

CRU Emails

The article alleges that "In November, they hosted copies of e-mail correspondence between climate scientists, although they were not originally leaked to WikiLeaks.[154]". This appears to be true, but the cited source, "^ "WikiLeaks.org aims to expose lies, topple governments". New York Post. 29 November 2009." - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wikileaks_org_aims_to_expose_lies_flsLqNMO3B0LEtxL5bNaKL - does not in any way confirm this. Could somebody with more familiarity with the issue change this to match the citations used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Timeline_of_the_initial_incident? 138.37.244.26 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look and we are missing a ref for the fact that they weren't originally leaked to WL, but refs 7 + 3 in the CRU article mention they were hosted in Russia and then on multiple servers. We could add a ref if you think it's really necessary, but it would probably be better over at Information published by WikiLeaks instead. Thanks for pointing it out though - well spotted! SmartSE (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'm not quite up on Wikipedia policy, but shouldn't the reference be accurate rather than inaccurate? I'd certainly like to have the ref changed to one of the ones in the CRU article. 138.37.244.26 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing the reference to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.244.26 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course references should be accurate. I'll add the reference to the article to confirm that they were hosted elsewhere prior to WL. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you put [154] after the first part of the sentence and leave [155] at the end where it is now, since [154] doesn't refer to who first got ahold of the emails? :-) 138.37.244.26 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey - ignore this, I'm just testing my user account. I'm the same person as 138.37.244.26. Mariuskempe (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Editmywiki123, 9 January 2011

I would like to add these two link to the Wikileaks page in the "external links" section, thanks

WikiLeaksNews.org (An unofficial WikiLeaks news resource & social network)
WikiLeaks Fan Club

Editmywiki123 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. These look like they fail WP:EL by a wide margin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it could also be a WP:POV issue. Phearson (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 10 Jan 2011

Please add a *Foreign policy of the United States to the see also section; matters raised by WL bear directly on US Foreign Policy, and vice versa. A WikiLeaks section is not yet present in the Foreign Policy article, but it would certainly bear more than passing mention in the introduction (if not a heading under which the US/WL interplay and its international implications may be addressed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.95.208 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point, but it would be difficult to establish a direct link between WikiLeaks and US foreign policy. There is a difference between showing that policy changed, and providing evidence that it occurred because of WikiLeaks. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Edit request from 117.193.51.97, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hi,

I would like to add this url http://www.infonary.com/wikileaks-news

This will help users follow news on Wikileaks. 117.193.51.97 (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined per WP:ELNO, point #9. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Related projects at the national Cyrillic zone. RF

For Russian speakers translate articles WikiLeaks available to related resources in the area. RF. Support of this project is provided by a group of WikiLeaks | Викиликс social network ВКонтакте. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Станислав Владимирович (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I think that would be better off being added over at ru:WikiLeaks rather than here, since the majority of our readers are English speakers. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian Wikipedia's registered address related resources. Follow Wikileaks on Russian speakers to Russian Wikileaks pass those English people who know Russian speakers. I really hope that they will help with the translation.

P.S. I am very sorry for my english. Translating through http://translate.google.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Станислав Владимирович (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor-in-chief

Could be linked to editor-in-chief. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, see Assange photo caption in upper right corner.--Rollins83 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks as an Topic of Ethical Discussion

"Unfortunately, recent events in 2010 have raised deep ethical questions into how efficient or effective Weakleaks in revealing unethical behavior." Physics16 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This past semester I took an Engineering Ethics class. One of the major topics of discussion in the class was about Wikileaks, since originally the site served as the one of the safest resources for whistle-blowing. However, when around the time the file "insurance" came out, my professor began into a discussion of how sometimes whistle-blowing can be a bad thing. For example, the builder of the NY Citycorp building could have whistle-blowed instead of going to the owners fix the building. However, whistle-blowing would not have solved the problem and in modern times would have only created mass hysteria and delayed the repair of the Citycorp building. Physics16 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Wikileaks, the "insurance" file raised many ethical questions like: Is revealing "unethical information" always the most effective way to lead solving an ethical dilemma? Is it blackmail/bribery to claim to reveal "unethical behavior" unless you are protected? How much trust can we put in Wikileaks to reveal "unethical behavior" and demand a restitution from society? Can Wikileaks be used effectively to reveal unethical behavior about itself? Can Wikileak incriminate themselves? Does it have re responsibility to? Is it the responsibility of Wikileaks to reveal or solve ethical problems or are we merely pushing of our own responsibility toward ethical justice to someone else? Physics16 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that not everyone who uses wiki leaks deeply involved in engineering or technology as I or my fellow classmates are. However, I feel like these questions would be the same regardless of what field of ethics you are in. In other words, the questions are generalizations about Wikileaks use for all field of ethics, as a whole. Therefor, I put my comment in the purpose section of the article. Physics16 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i moved your comments down to the page bottom, where new threads go. I also un-indented (:) your posts, since (:) is only used to indicate a reply to someone else. You raised some interesting questions about the ethics of leaking. If you can find reliable sources such as newspaper articles, published essays, or books that address the issue, we can consider including them. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, does not publish original research or original thought, even good thought, unless someone else has done it first in a reputable medium. Please read a bit about our policies while you're starting off editing. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in Physics16, my original purpose is to try to make people aware that recent events have made Wikileaks a "Topic of Ethical Discussion", without being baised about which event or ethical question you want to ask. Does anyone have a better way of rephrasing the " " sentence above? Physics16 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source describing the ethical discussions besides your own experience in college? Did your professor use any articles or supporting texts in that discussion that specifically addressed WikiLeaks?Ocaasi (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol fair enough, my DSL is a little slow, so I didn't catch your first reply until a few minutes ago <<;. I read what you wrote on talk and it may take me a couple of days but I should have source that talks about Wikileaks specifically. Actually, I am pretty sure its in "Engineering ethics" by Charles Byrns Fleddermann, but I forget the exact page number. Also sorry about calling Wikileaks ... "Weaklinks". As you can probably guess kind of a n00b to this X-X; Physics16 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Physics16, you may be right, but I reverted you. Don't restore that content until a consensus has been reached. Doing so is edit warring and you can get blocked for that. True or not, it's unsourced editorializing, and that's not allowed here. Note that I have no objections to such content, just as long as it's properly sourced. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

For the 'emapaneled' quote, should we add (sic) to indicate it's not a typo? Ocaasi (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's allowable. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the "Topic of Ethical Discussion" issue, I'd like to make it clear that we'd need sources that discussed this in the mainstream media to justify it's inclusion in the article. For practical reasons of readability, we can't cover every aspect of the story here, and this seems rather peripheral. Actually, I'd say that the questions raised by Physics16 are probably more suited to providing an example for an article on ethics than to this one (when properly sourced). It's an interesting question, but not really one for this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused here. Are we talking about Wikileaks in general, or the insurance file? And as always, SOURCE! Phearson (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm much more interested in the content provided than the provider, and I don't think much about the latter should distract anyone's attention from the former, despite the best efforts of those embarrassed by the escapade. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter Subpoena

The implications of the Twitter Subpoena extend far beyond WikiLeaks, so presumably this merits an article in itself. Think per Google there are reliable sources for this notability. Subpoena is at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/twitter/subpoena.pdf Seems to catch the hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers of WikiLeaks too under section B2 - 'destination email addresses and IP addresses'. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to discern any sort of spike on this in the deluge of other press coverage of WikiLeaks in the last 45 days. I suggest merging the content back in. If it gains lasting encyclopedic notability as a separate event, we can split it then.--Chaser (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this relates to Twitter at least as much, and perhaps a few other things too... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC) For a start it implicates 636,000+ people who receive tweets. Article currently found at Twitter Subpoena.19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion this is an unnecessary fork. It does not have much substance, and it does not have a proper name. There may well be implications to the subpoena, but so far it seems that a bit of criticism is the only response. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge: not much content for its own article (yet) --Neo139 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait until this attracts significant media attention. Without reliable secondary sources, there is no real content for an article: the subpoena is a primary source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Its getting bigger, so for me having its own article is now ok.--Neo139 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge: As I think I mentioned before, we could split out a whole article from here on attempts censor/investigate WikiLeaks, of which this would be a part, but at the moment, this is not major enough for its own article IMO. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge; just a small event, content works fine in the main article. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a fair number of users who have contributed to Twitter Subpoena on the main or discussion pages already, and the article (and realization of its significance) is still very new: I think all those participating users are thereby in favour of the existence of this article. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a newbie I wasn't really au fait with the appropriate terminology, so this isn't really a WikiLeaks fork at all. I think the primary categorization is Twitter, and all the Twitter users seem happy with this as one of their linked articles. Perhaps this isn't the best place for this discussion. I have renamed the title of this section accordingly. Perhaps any further discussion should be moved elsewhere if there are still users who challenge its fundamental existential rights. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, I've been active on that article. And I still think it is not enough content to warrant an article. This is content that works best in the article about the cable leaks - as that is what it relates too. With passing mention here and in the Twitter article. To qualify for a standalone article I think there needs to be a decent depth of coverage and significant long term analysis. At this stage, there is no reason for this to be standalone content. Also, see WP:RECENTISM --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, if we merge and redirect, it can always be split back out at a later date, but at the moment we don't have any more information to add AFAICT. To suggest it will become more important seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL. Also I'm not sure what you mean about "a fair number of users who have contributed" - you seem to be the only person who has added any content to it and regardless this is a poor argument to use against merging. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh hello User:Errant, User:Chaser, User:AndyTheGrump, User:Smartse, User:Drmies, I believe we have met before. In addition to the above I also note from User:Henrik's stats tool that 104 of our valued users read this article yesterday, and I believe it was only created mid-afternoon. It would seem a shame to deprive others of their learning and leisure opportunities. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User Errant: please, while we are about it, can I alert you to the existence of the 2011 Tucson shooting article which I believe relates to an incident affecting some twenty people, although certainly far, far more immediately. I don't know if there is much significant long term analysis cited in that article, I do not know how it relates to recentism, and I think both have attracted a decent depth of coverage (FT, Guardian, WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg etc). BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, if some users ever were to feel consensus has been reached on this issue, they could remove the link to the article from the WikiLeaks page, since this is the WikiLeaks discussion page, leaving the article for the Twitter editors (and our readers) who seemingly like it. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have been keeping an eye on that article has it happens. There is some issue of recentism in that article; on the other hand it is a hugely notable event (international news coverage on TV, Radio, etc.) and due to having caught someone is reasonably likely to have long term coverage. Note also the wealth of information on the page. The comparison really is the Tuscan shooting next to the Cablegate article; and the Twitter content is a sub-part of that. I think:

• An outright article is undue because the matter is not significant on its own
• The content on this page is in the wrong place (under administration..) and is too lengthy
• The content should be in the cablegate article with mentions here and in the Twitter article.

That's my thinkinh --Errant ^(chat!) 13:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, being international myself I had missed some of this coverage. I had seen more coverage of incidents affecting 636,000 people in the short term and which, as the coverage I have seen suggests, may well be a precursor to yet further similar incidents. Agree that the discussion on the WikiLeaks main page is inappropriate (for length, as here it is for place). This content relates not so much to cablegate's lords as to the privacy and surveillance of the general peasants. And I completely disagree with Tuscan=Cablegate: one relates to the, unfortunate/tragic, shooting of twenty people, one is inextricably linked to the core democratic concepts of accountability/transparency/whistleblowing inter, many, alia. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And for WP:Due, I believe the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs alone revealed the additional deaths of at least 15,000 people. I appreciate these guys weren't Americans, but I still think there is a need for perspective. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. We have no perspective, only a dedication to report sourced information. I don't find any of your above argument persuasive --Errant ^(chat!) 13:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying I need to provide more sources for Twitter Subpoena? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone happy if I move this discussion to the Twitter Subpoena discussion page? On basis that most of related content is now removed from WikiLeaks article, and this article/discussion perhaps relates primarily to Twitter and other issues, this doesn't seem the best place for the discussion? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just leave it here and drop a note at Talk:Twitter if you think people there might be interested. SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as consensus seems to support merging that article, that is what I planned to do, unless a meaningful argument can be made for it as a standalone topic. *shrug* --Errant ^(chat!) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Breke I also think you need to find more sources for the Twitter Subpoena. Not for WP:V but to justify it's WP:WEIGHT as a separate article from Cablegate. Saying something is 'of interest' to readers is actually not how we determine notability. (Just like preventing Assange's death by publicizing awful threats is not how we determine significance). Both come from sources which give attention to specific aspects of an event as attribute importance to it. Also, citing all 600,000+ twitter users as the implicated parties is like saying, 'I've built a new widget. There are 300 million people and if they all buy my widget I will profit $.10 x 300 million. Which is $30 million. Surely you want to loan me just $10 million to get this business going."

In other words, the userbase of twitter has nothing to do with who is actually reading the article; nor have they been discussed much by sources as part of this subpoena. Wait until newspapers start describing how the subpoenas affect all twitter followers; then we'll have something. For now, it's great that you want to add sourced information to flesh out the story, but you really need to wait until the story has a clear center before you create one yourself. Keep gathering articles, but don't jump the gun on WP:Crystal. We figuratively look at last week's newspaper's around here. For comparison, see Wikinews. Ocaasi (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Second the comment about Wikinews - that is prime location for this content! --Errant ^(chat!) 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• don't merge. The last comment above seems to have referred to the version: Twitter Subpoena (oldid=407273593, version as of 14:15, 11 January 2011) which was just 3 sentences long, so all the above discussion was presumably about whether those 3 sentences (or less) could be merged.
  Now we have a structured article with the key info so far reported. A notable lawyer says that over half a million people's personal identifying information (IP numbers, email addresses, twitter login names) is in effect targetted by the subpoena - which is allegedly related to a criminal investigation. This is sourced in the present version: Twitter Subpoena (oldid=407420459, present version, as of 04:08, 12 January 2011). Other press articles are also cited now. At least one notable academic has made a rather strong statement regarding privacy issues and the need to diversify social networking servers away from a tiny number of mega-popular services.
  Notability: Common sense says that a criminal investigation that RS's claim is trying to collect information on half a million people implicated in the crime is obviously notable. How many crimes involve half a million people, apart from war crimes and crimes against humanity? Google hits are only a weak clue to notability, but twitter subpoena wikileaks (no quote marks) in Google gives me About 5,290,000 results. And this is just 7 days after the subpoena was unsealed. Gonggrijp apparently only was contacted on 7 Jan - 5 days ago, not 7. Even if the people directly subpoenaed are successful in annulling the subpoena, which would remove the 600,000 twitter followers from being implicated in a practical sense, i don't see any point in trying to merge this article into either WikiLeaks or Twitter. The notable content might fail to grow hugely, but i don't see much chance of it being reduced.
  Boud (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Second that, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At this stage it looks exactly like a new report and should be transwikied to Wikinews IMO --Errant ^(chat!) 11:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will try to work out what that is and how to do it. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All it means is copying the content to [19] and formatting it to their guidelines. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a hijack, but everyone here is presumably interested in insights into the US Department of State. I have just created a short article on its external auditors Kearney & Company, which has promptly been proposed for speedy deletion by 'administrators'. If anyone here is one of them could they join that ?debate?. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pity, just looked at Wikinews:What Wiknews is not, and apparently 'Wikinews articles are not encyclopedic articles.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The friendly point I was making is that the Twitter article is not encyclopedic (per WP:NOTNEWS) and is more a news article, prime for Wikinews :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's look at what WP:NOTNEWS actually says:

This page in a nutshell: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.

• significant non-routine coverage: 5 million google hits in 7 days sounds significant and non-routine to me
• persists over a period of time: need to wait and see, as per other news events that are considered encyclopedic
• multiple reliable sources with national or global scope: [20] has 18 RS's from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, i.e. internationally the main English-speaking countries apart from South Asian states e.g. The Hindu, India and Dawn, Pakistan

NOTNEWS points to notability: Wikipedia:Notability_(events)

• Lasting effects - An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.:
  • Jonsdottir ... "U.S. government is trying to criminalize whistleblowing and publication of whistleblowing material" = precedent - criminalisation of whistleblowing
  • Cole - precedent for shifting from US-based social media to European and Global South-based social media
  • Wired - Twitter sets a precedent - Twitter's response to US DOJ and users should become an "industry standard"
• Geographical scope - the people directly targetted are from USA, Australia, Iceland, Netherlands; since Gonggrijp is subpoenaed, the reason for the subpoena is suggested to be the Collateral Murder video of US government employees shooting dead two Reuters staff and other people in Iraq; it is not credible that the 600,000 twitter followers are mostly from some small town or sub-national region
• Depth of coverage - most of the news reports give some context - United States diplomatic cables leak; they are not "reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information" and they are not reports "on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident"
• duration of coverage - "That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." (emphasis added)
• Diversity of sources - example: the opinions of Jonsdottir, Cole and Wired on three different possible or likely precedents are clearly from independent sources; sources on the subpoena and its unsealing themselves are (necessarily) more concentrated

By these criteria, Twitter subpoena is encyclopedic. It's not local, ephemeral news.

I have difficulty seeing how an initially secret subpoena by the US DOJ against a European member of parliament to get private information on her private communications, and that demands private info on over half a million people almost certainly having a wide international geographical distribution, and that is perceived by a European member of parliament (and probably others) as criminalising journalism, can be just an ephemeral news item and not an encyclopedic topic.

One aspect not yet well documented in the article is the interpretation that this is formally linked more to the Collateral Murder video than to Cablegate. Given that Collateral Murder is about the US murder of Reuters journalists in Iraq and the subpoena apparently seeks to criminalise journalism about that, feel free to do some work on the article in adding RS'd NPOV info so that the article's encyclopedic style and content (documentation of wide geographic, sociopolitical relevance) are improved. Boud (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

initially secret subpoena by the US DOJ against a European member of parliament; at least get the facts straight of the article you are writing ;) At the moment I think WP:RECENTISM is giving undue weight to it as a topic. For myself I'm giving it a few days - if we don't see any significant/long term coverage outside of the scope of the current cable/video releases by, say, end of next week I think there will be strong argument to merge. Do not doubt that I find this significant - but as part of the current articles, on it's own it is minor and a single event (of course, if anything long term comes of it we can re-assess). Your argument of lasting significance I find a little too much on the verge of speculation - it could just as easily die out (at least from public interest). Geographical scope in this case is "the internet", that followers are from different countries is not really an issue (unless you have a source that says so?). The depth of coverage is reasonable, but not revolutionary, and all of it links back to the current leaks. To note, I believe this is a part of the ongoing US investigation into Wikileaks and will form part of that article. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused over the whole NOTNEWS/OR/sources issue. For instance with respect to 'our Brad', a while ago I provided a number of references to, I think, relevant sections of US legal code, constitutional provisions etc, aka primary sources. These were rejected on the grounds of no 'secondary sources'. For these to be at all timely in such areas, this effectively means citing media coverage, necessarily 'newsworthy'. With habeas corpus in mind I have just posted a couple of links to reports published by US DoJ and FAS on the Guantanamo article, surely a ?redirect? required there, and noticed that there's an awful lot of news articles referenced and not so many 'primary sources'. Were WP policies not so stringent on citation of, say, self-evidently relevant primary material unless it has 'significant secondary coverage' ie 'news', it might all be a lot clearer. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And I think the See Also:McCarthyism for this Twitter subpoena article might be a similar case :) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX: if you are willing to start off a viable draft of United States investigation into WikiLeaks, then i think i would support Twitter subpoena being merged into that article. (It could always be re-split off later on if that looked like being justified.) Probably the biggest question is whether the existence of the investigation will be considered sufficiently RS'd to not be crystalballing. A safer and broader article could be United States harassment of WikiLeaks, which would allow reasonably objective info like Appelbaum harassment at airports, etc. On the other hand, the North Korean authorities' POV US authorities' POV would be that these are valid procedures of the US judiciary, so this might not be sufficient NPOV. How about United States—WikiLeaks judicial relations ? That would be sufficiently broad that the secrecy of the suspected-grand-jury-deliberations do not force an energe-wasting debate over the article title, but sufficiently narrow that it does not cover wider political questions such as whether or not WikiLeaks is a fundamental threat to the USA governmental system as it presently functions, etc. (These wider questions could go in United States—WikiLeaks political relations if enough e.g. academic voices felt that this constituted a topic.)

My suggestion: start off United States—WikiLeaks judicial relations, including a subsection with a {{main|Twitter subpoena}} crosslink and a merge (of "that into this") tag, and once the new article looks like it's likely to be long-term viable, then we see if we can get consensus for a merge (including from Breke :). i seem to recall that WikiLeaks or individuals associated with it are engaged in or planning legal proceedings against various US bodies, so i suspect that the article would be viable. Boud (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX: Side issue: initially secret subpoena by the US DOJ against a European member of parliament Which factual element here do you claim is incorrect? The phrase is written here on the talk page, not in the article, so being technically correct is sufficient IMHO, even if careless reading could easily lead to misinterpretation. :) Boud (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the subpoena is against Twitter, not a person. But that sis by the by. I'll consider starting a draft; Harassment isn't very neutral, but US investigation into Wikileaks is a good title. Leave it with me. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(On the side issue: Of course, you're right and i was wrong. Literally my statement was incorrect.) BTW, another minor point: whether i personally would support a merge in the case of the wider article is in principle irrelevant - i didn't mean to make it sound like my POV is especially important. What's relevant is whether the arguments would make sense, in which case consensus from both active editors and lurkers should take place easily. Anyway, enough blabla. Boud (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think User:Boud is right, is not the subpoena technically 'of' Twitter, but clearly 'against' Jonsdottir et al.? On new article, sounds great, think back in March the Pentagon were producing a dossier, so there's a load of material. Guess trouble is where would you include Palin/Biden/Lieberman Assange=Obama in this? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do not merge The article Twitter subpoena has more than enough content and references to be its own separate article. Furthermore, merging it into Wikileaks or Twitter would cause a rather big WP:WEIGHT issue. The information is too lengthy to be adequately merged and any removal of information would significantly impede the article's information as a whole. Silverseren^C 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - site down

The site appears to be down atm: http://www.wikileaks.com/ reads "Sorry! this site is not currently availalbe." Manytexts (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.wikileaks.com/ is not on the official list of mirrors. The current main address is wikileaks.ch, and previously wikileaks.org (wikileaks.ch is up at the moment). People often register domains with similar sounding names, there has been a boom in this since WikiLeaks hit the headlines, although wikileaks.com was registered in 2007 by Wikia, Inc.[21]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New Fork: Reaction to WikiLeaks by US Politicians and Investigators

As per User:Boud and User:ErrantX's discussion above, here are some articles:BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting for buying books: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/blacklisting-wikileaks/69535/ Sarah Palin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8171269/Sarah-Palin-hunt-WikiLeaks-founder-like-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-leaders.html

Wikileaks/Twitter/People/Anonymous revolution (as posted on earlier article)

Note that this is a repost of the Tunisian uprising article edit on the talk page that I made.

Many articles are coming out mentioning that both Wikileaks, twitter and anonymous had a big if not substantial role in the Tunisian revolution or the unrest or however it will end up being called. Many other news articles also point out that while these entities were great to help or act as catalysts etc. it was really the peoples revolution. I just thought I place all these references I found and hope people can use them to expand the article. I will also post this on to Wikileaks discussion as I believe they can use a section mentioning how they helped (I would say caused as too strong a word) with the revolution/uprising/etc. Any comments/thoughts/etc. are of course welcome. Not bold enough to add these in to the article myself. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like User:Calaka has posted a reasonable number of WP:RS and that the matter may be worthy of inclusion under WP:Due. I don't think her concerns are currently addressed in the article - anyone object if I attempt a brief mention? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it may merit a sentence or two, but try to use the most mainstream sources, and make sure you are attributing claims to them, rather than stating outright that WikiLeaks was a factor in the events. WP:BRD applies in any case, so if it is a problem we can discuss it here when it's written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers guys!Calaka (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible New Fork - ?Actions and events? attributed to/consequent upon the US diplomatic cables leak

User:Calaka's Tunisian refs may be of relevance here; hasn't Gaddafi's 'voluptuous blonde' ambassador been recalled? Apparently the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe is under threat of a treason trial; and hasn't the head of some European space co been sacked after a cable shows him to have said the Galileo Project is a joke? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've just written above re. Tunisia, the important thing with this is to use the best sources, and attribute statements to them rather than implying acceptance of the claims (and don't forget that WP:BLP applies even to Gadaffi, and to voluptuous blondes ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Split off reaction

I propose splitting of the Reception section into a separate article. The article is now at 170kb, way over the 100kb size at which splits and summaries should be made. I think this section is the best to split off, because it has the less to do with WikiLeaks per se than the history and admin sections for example. I'm open to any other suggestions of what could be split though. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this 100% as it was my first thought when I had a quick glance at the page just now. It can easily be summarized here and it can have this much detail and more over at the fork. Another person above made the suggestion to make the split so if anyone else doesn't have objections I say go for it.Calaka (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good section to split, but we do need to keep some kind of summary. Ocaasi (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to get round to doing the summary it in the next few days in my sandbox but any help would be appreciated in deciding which are the most important points to be kept in the article. SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of using peer-to-peer to find information

This Bloomberg article says that WL have been accused of using peer-to-peer to search for classified documents and then released them saying that they had been leaked to them. Should we mention it? SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I will prefer to wait for a better source than bloomberg. The source says WikiLeaks may, may ,may. It sounds like they are not quite sure. --Neo139 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's a bit early to report on this speculation. Let's keep an eye on what other sources cover it, although I don't doubt Bloomberg's credibility. Here's the relevant piece, I think, if we do end up referencing the article:

The U.S. investigations could provide authorities an alternate path for prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange, said Paul Ohm, an expert in cyber crime at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Boback, whose firm has made such searches for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service to trace unauthorized downloads, argued that such conduct is just information scavenging, not illegal hacking.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Warma in Seattle, who successfully prosecuted similar cases of unintended searching, said the systematic pillaging of computer contents through peer- to-peer networks could be pursued under federal anti-hacking statutes.

Even if not criminal, such conduct, if traced to WikiLeaks, would contradict its stated mission as a facilitator of leaked material by insiders, whose identities, Assange has said, the group takes measures not to know. The group provides an encrypted drop box on its website that it said prevents any tracing back to the source of documents.

“If their information gathering doesn’t consist simply of being a receptacle for leaks but of this more aggressive effort to go out and cull this information, then you’re moving a clear step further from anything that resembles traditional journalistic practice,” said Mark Jurkowitz, the associate director for the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The evidence could also be used by congressional committees, which Boback said are pursuing a separate inquiry to undermine WikiLeaks’ claim that it’s a legitimate media organization with protections under the First Amendment.

“There is a difference between being given information that may have been obtained in violation of some agreement or law versus the media itself violating the law or an agreement in order to obtain information,” said Sandra Baron, the executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York. “The media is not allowed to steal.” Ocaasi (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Far too many if's, but's and maybe's here, IMO. Unless we get something a lot firmer, it should stay out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but from a technical standpoint, it might be possible. Jason Applebaum showed off a program to a Rolling Stone reporter of a program that could hack into any poorly protected computer connected to the Internet. Wish I knew what Mag # to cite. Phearson (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the comments, it has been picked up by a lot of other sources (search "bloomberg wikileaks peer-to-peer" to see what I mean), but it is perhaps too accusatory at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

More Spin-offs (KSA Leaks) *NEEDS TO BE ADDED*

I would like to add KSA Leaks (arabic: تسريبات سعودية) to the list of spin-offs. Here is the official website and twitter: http://ksaleaks.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/ksaleaks It is mostly focussed on the financial corruption and bribes happening between executives in Al Ekhbariya, a Saudi government news channel, and contracting company, (arabic: غاية الإبداع). It actually goes on to show copies of the emails, momentary checks, and salary transcripts, with all the names revealed.

I guess wikileaks is right in that courage really is contagious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaPilo (talk • contribs) 05:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need a mainstream media source to use as a reference linking the two sites before including it. I've had a look but couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is enough that Saudi Government went out of its way to block the website as confirmed in an official tweet. It roughly translates to:

"This morning KSA Leaks has unfortunately been blocked, and we announce that blocking the website will not cover up the corruption and the best method is to eliminate corruption, not censorship."

Furthermore, the content of the KSA Leaks has been addressed in a journalistic interview, in Al-Watan newspaper, with the Saudi minster of culture and information, Abdel Aziz Khoja: http://www.alwatan.com.sa/Culture/News_Detail.aspx?ArticleID=3332&CategoryID=7 The journalist, Saleh Alshehi specifically confronted the minster about the corruption in Al Ekhbariya channel, and even offered to supply him with official documentation of the corruption, which KSA Leaks has released.

I can't see any mention of KSA leaks in that a translation of that link unfortunately, has the site had any articles specifically written about it? SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, due to strict censorship (you can refer to wikileaks cable on the topic). However, Saleh Alshehi was brave enough to allude to the subject. He does not mention KSA leaks by name, but he does specifically refer to the leaked documents released by KSA leaks. A roughly translated expert from his account from the interview with the Saudi minster of culture and information, Abdel Aziz Khoja:

"And I caught him by surprise by saying: If I had documents to prove that there is corruption in the Ministry of Culture and Information, and that there are millions in embezzlement and manipulation and favoritism, and I want to publish the subject, would you get upset?"

This interview was conducted two days after KSA Leaks released two highly incriminating leaks. I would translate the two leaked documents, but the site remains blocked in Saudi. However, the twitter account remains open, and here are the two tweets with links that refer to the two highly incriminating leaks, with rough translation: http://twitter.com/ksaleaks/status/27458119122550784 http://twitter.com/ksaleaks/status/27456375940456448

"The company غاية الإبداع refuses to repay more than 84 million riyals in rights to the Ministry of Information [sic] ht tp://bit.ly/hAtcCS #ksaleaks"

"Sulaiman Al-Eidi manager of the Quran and Sunnah channel did not respect the Quran and Sunnah and receives ten thousand Saudi riyals monthly bribe [sic] ht tp://bit.ly/fNFRKo #ksaleaks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaPilo (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is reported by reliable sources (which in this case most likely means the western media, given the problems with censorship you highlight), there is little we can do about this issue, and Twitter, as well as being a primary source, doesn't have the sort of editorial control to make it usable either. If you want to draw wider attention to the issue, sadly, you'll probably have to do this elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is NOT primary source, KSA Leaks is the primary source, with supplement articles and tweets as confirmation due to the internet censorship.

Here are the facts of the matter:

1. KSA Leaks exposed the corruption taking place in Saudi channels and affiliated companies, by publishing authentic copies of email exchanges, documents, momentary checks, and salary transcripts, with all the names revealed. (which can be confirmed by visiting their website)

2. The well-known and respected journalist Saleh Alshehi, from Al-Watan newspaper, mentioned these documents' content in an interview with the Saudi Minster of Culture and Information, Abdel Aziz Khoja, and offered to show him these leaked documents. (which can be confirmed in this article)

3. A couple of days after the interview, the Saudi government has actually blocked the official KSA Leaks website. The site still remain blocked in Saudi Arabia.

Isn't this enough?

I think at this point I'll have to defer to someone more familiar with Middle-Eastern politics etc. As a general guide though, Wikipedia isn't a news-reporting source, but an encyclopaedia, which has to base articles on subjects reported elsewhere. Where censorship is an issue, this clearly makes things difficult, but we neither have the resources nor the expertise to check the validity of primary sources etc ourselves. Personally, I'm opposed to censorship and state control of information in all its forms, but I don't think there is a lot we can do here unless this issue is raised in the mainstream media. I wish you well, but don't think there is a lot we can do with the information you provide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, that the Twitter posts, indirect interview reference, and circumstantial blocking are not enough to include KSA leaks. It sounds like very important news--but then again, if it is so, how long will it be until the New York Times or Al Jazeera or The Nation even picks up on it? Please be patient and keep an eye out for other reliable sources. We don't include things based on their importance but their coverage in reliable sources. Ocaasi (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The GlobalPost has mentioned KSA leaks (in name), here is the link: http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/egypt/ksa-leaks Also, Sabq.org, an online Riyadh newspaper, has published three articles about the content of KSA leaks (without name): [1] [2] [3]. I do advise actually visiting http://ksaleaks.blogspot.com (with google translate) to check the source itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/94.98.155.140 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 07:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Global Post 'article' is just a blog post, which means it's not necessarily fact-checked nor a good indicator of attention by reliable sources. The sabq problem is that they don't mention the organization by name. We can't synthesize that connection unless we have another reliable secondary source that points to those leaks specifically, or at least confirms the sabq articles are indeed from KSA leaks. The problem with ksaleaks.blogspot.com is that it is a WP:SPS self-published source. It is the source for its own claims, so we can't use it as an indicator of inclusion-worthiness. Again, if this is significant there should be at least one major regional or international paper that covers it directly. I'm sympathetic to the media censorship in parts of the Middle East, but NY Times, the Economist, UK Guardian, etc. will gladly reveal this story as soon as they know about it and see its importance. Does that make sense? We shouldn't have to piece this case together; it should already be made. Ocaasi (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi censorship for the win!!

Wikileaks was never non profit organization, put the facts straight

never a non profit organization.

Before posting such a lie, made by Wikileaks owner Julian Assange, one shall consult at least the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization

Actually, the Wikileaks article links to the Article about Non profit organization. If it is non profit, where is it registered then?

What is the official purpose of Wikileaks?

The fact is that moneys coming from donations to Wikileaks, end up in the bank accounts of Julian Assange and little part to his helpers.

Further, on their website, Wikileaks asks for donations, to be paid to SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF. This is FOR PROFIT company, incorporated in Iceland, by Julian Assange and his fellows, and it has true business purpose.

Links: http://wikileakscriminalorganization.com/for-profit-incorporated-wikileaks/

The business purpose of his WikiLeaks company, aka SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF in Icelandic reads:

Tilgangur félagsins er framleiðsla, útgáfa og dreifing fjölmiðlaefnis, myndefnis, prentaðs máls og margmiðlunarefnis, hönnun og hýsing vefsiðna, smásala og heildsala, rekstur fasteigna og lánastarfsemi og skyldur rekstur.

And translation in English:

The company's purpose is the production, editing and distribution of media content, video content, language and print media, web design and hosting industry, retailers and wholesalers, real estate and business lending and related activities.

Link to Memorandum of SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF: http://wikileakscriminalorganization.com/for-profit-incorporated-wikileaks/profit-sunshine-press-productions-wikileaks.html

It is NOT a non profit organization and any such reference shall be removed from Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikileakscrimes (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that a site dedicated solely to labelling WikiLeaks as a criminal organization is a reliable source. Do you have a more reliable source? Reach Out to the Truth 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I will post the full document, no problem. But if it is NON PROFIT, and someone had a reliable source, where is the evidence that it is non profit? Wikileakscrimes (talk)

This explains it: WikiLeaks#Administration - summary; donations go to Wau Holland Foundation who release it to Wikileaks on a per-request basis. Wikileaks does not post a profit to owners/shareholders hence non-profit status, although some of the employees take a salary now (this does not make it for-profits :)). If you are going to start a site "exposing" something I heartily recommend doing the basic research first ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Source, company documents from public registry, clearly say that it is limited company, with business purposes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIONS-EHF-FOR-PROFIT-LIMITED-COMPANY-DOCUMENTS Wikileakscrimes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Errant, I know they receive money through WAU HOLLAND, but WAU HOLLAND is non profit organization, foundation organized in Germany. If Wau Holland donates to Bradley Manning or to Julian Assange, that does not make those two "non profit", check out your legal view point.

A company SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF is a limited company, which is going to pay corporate tax rate on every "donation" they receive, that money cannot be even accounted for as donations without taxes in Iceland.

So far, there is no evidence that WIKILEAKS was ever NON PROFIT organization and any such links shall be removed, that is self-proclaimed title, without legal background and without a fact. Wikileakscrimes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm really not entirely sure what you are going on about. Companies can be non-profit - is there any documentation showing Sunshine Press recieving money from Wikileaks and then posting it as a profit? I can't see any, but would readily eat my words if not. Wikileaks as an entity is, I believe, owned by Sunshine Press, but that does not automatically make any part of the puzzle for-profit. EDIT: Sunshine Press do not receive donations according to our sources, not sure where you got that impression. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not sure, because you don't read information yourself. First, there is no evidence at all that Wikileaks is non profit, not in legal terms, but in terms that profits were distributed to purse its goals. Second, in legal terms, Wikileaks is not an entity, it is business or trade name of SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF, source: http://wikileaks.ch./About.html

SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF is private company belonging to Assange for 94%. The business purpose has been explained. Companies pay 18% tax in Iceland, and any profits are automatically distributed to shareholders if they are left on the end of the year. Further, not distributing profits to shareholder, due to losses, does not make it non profit. Even definition of non profit on its articles shall be improved. Also, not distributing profits to shareholder but paying for publishing, being employed, etc, does not make a company "Non profit".

WAU HOLLAND STIFTUNG is non profit. WIKILEAKS is business name of SUNSHINE TRADE PRODUCTIONS EHF and was never "non profit", or there shall be evidence of how money was distributed, into non-profit purposes, at least so much, even if it was not organized legally as non profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikileakscrimes (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Iceland, and any profits are automatically distributed to shareholders if they are left on the end of the year.; it is my understanding that Wikileaks/Sunshine Press receive money as they go, so do not post profit. Further, not distributing profits to shareholder, due to losses, does not make it non profit.; no, but, declaration of non-profit status varies. You can simply be self declared, as with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is not an entity, it is business or trade name of SUNSHINE PRESS PRODUCTIONS EHF; not to my knowledge. Wikileaks is very much an entity under the control of SP.

Also, not distributing profits to shareholder but paying for publishing, being employed, etc, does not make a company "Non profit". ; that is the exact definition of not-for-profit (unless you are not discounting pretty much every major charity from that arena as well ;)) I'm sure you are very certain over this, and I agree a source would be nice to support non-profit in the article. But nothing you have shown identifies WL's as a for-profit organisation :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

However you do have a point in that the link points to the legal entity Non-profit organization, which Wikileaks does not appear to be --Errant ^(chat!) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that firstly, none of this is of any significance unless the issue is discussed in mainstream reliable sources, and secondly a user with the name 'Wikileakscrimes' has an obvious conflict of interest over this issue (I have raised this matter in the appropriate place see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Wikileakscrimes). If someone wishes to publicise their website, this is not the appropriate place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the site proposed is a terrible source. The non-profit status (from a legal perspective) does not seem to be discussed anywhere - so on that card he has a point. However not-for-profits can be informal (although we have minimal content about that) so using their self description as such is probably non controversial. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well assuming Wikileaks self descriptions (icnluding in regard to the non profit character) are non controversial seems rather daring to me, nevermind that this thread seems to suggest the opposite anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: User Wikileakscrimes has now been blocked indefinitely, given the obvious problems with their chosen username, see User talk:Wikileakscrimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikileakscrimes' rants and questionable sources aside, in the article Wikileaks should only be described as a non profit organization, if it is indeed registered as such in some country or if reputable media/sources describe it that way for (explicitly explained) other reasons (and for either scenario as source is required). However since currently the term "non profit" is not used in the article there seems to be no issue anyway. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, first sentence, fourth word :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for anything more than WP:RS describing WikiLeaks as 'non-profit', unless there are other sources suggesting otherwise (as ErrantX says, the article does use the term, and I think we need to verify sourcing - I'm fairly sure it was sourced at one point, but perhaps the cite has been deleted). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Opps sorry i messed up with text search function and cocluded "non profit" is not used, while in fact it is right in the lead. In that case it should be removed or appropriately sourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Googling suggest however that "non profit" is commonly used description for WP in the press, tough some quality are putting in qualifiers or explicitly identify the self description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this whole thread is a waste of time and a borderline BLP violation. Sources, please, otherwise there's nothing to discuss. Assange may make money from WikiLeaks; most non-profit employees do. Non-profit is the term we're using since the organization a) is described as such in the press, b) has a primary mission which does not involve monetary reward, c) donations to WL are even tax deductible in Germany. Ocaasi (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the first line on Wikileaks' "about" page is "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation" we would need a fairly strong contradictory source in order to say otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Tags were added to establish:

1. That WikiLeaks is run by the Sunshine Press (not in source tag, which is true)
2. That the website claimed 1.2 million docs in database (non-primary source needed tag, I thought primary sources like this could be RS for claims about their own internals data, especially with in-text attribution as we have).

I'll check on non-primary sources, but I think the second tag may be unnecessary. Ocaasi (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with your thoughts on #2, as long as it is made clear that is their claim (and we don't have a RS that could sensibly dispute it) that is fine. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

• Techeye.net [39]- Whistleblowing website Wikileaks has reportedly registered a company in Iceland, reports Icenews. The company, called Sunshine Press Production, is located in an apartment building on a street called Klapparhlíð in the town of Mosfellsbæ, at the home address of one of the Icelandic members of the company's board. Mosfellsbæ is right around the corner from Iceland's capital Reykjavik.
• SwedishWire.com [40] - We want WikiLeaks to have a global presence and having a business in Iceland is part of this plan," said Hrafnsson of the new entity, called Sunshine Press Productions.
• New Statesman.com [41] - "The website, which until now operated through servers in Sweden with no brick-and-mortar office anywhere in the world, is planning to use the new firm, Sunshine Press Productions, to raise funds and gather information, said WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson."
• Washington Post.com [42] - "The Norway-based financial services company Teller AS, which Visa ordered to look into WikiLeaks and its fundraising body, the Sunshine Press, found no proof of any wrongdoing."
• AlJazeera.com [43] - "WikiLeaks, a whistle blowing website run by The Sunshine Press, is due to release today what it says is previously unseen footage of a "Pentagon murder-coverup"."
• (Facebook, primary) [44] - "The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks),is an international non-profit organization funded by:..."

That should do. I might add others, since I have them up. Note, this is only for the #1 issue about Sunshine Press Ocaasi (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good find, I was a bit less successful, but [45] might be useful, Aljazeera is a pretty good source nowadays. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I can't add them right now, but if no one else gets to it first, I'll do it later. Ocaasi (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Newspapers receiving the leaks

Not a single word about the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten and the other english language newspapers who recieved the bulk of the leaks recently and have been publishing them ever since??? Nunamiut (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. So, what do YOU plan to add to the article about it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobel prize nomination

Whoever added the paragraph of "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" supported:

• Incorrect reference, it redirects to ft.com homepage
• Stated that "WikiLeaks is not expected to win", just why on earth? Is he some kind of a fortune teller? Very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoorayforturtles (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Wikilleaks is a US government mouthpiece.--91.115.59.43 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Source please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything it sounds like they purposely only release information that makes the US look bad. Either that or the choices of items to list in this article has that purpose. Either way someone has an anti-US bias, since you wouldn't have to look very hard to find vastly more cases of worse behavior from the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't have enemies here - apart from each other. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Five new books about Wikileaks link

So I found this link [46] talking about the 5 books available (or soon to be available?) in regards to Wikileaks. I guess they would be good additions to the further reading section (as one already is there) and if someone actually had copies of the book, they can be used to add further references to the article. I know some of them have posted excerpts of the books, in particular Greg Mitch. Thoughts/comments welcome.Calaka (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses to books

• http://www.thenewage.co.za/10173-1020-53-WikiLeaks_suing_insider_over_tellall_book

Ocaasi (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

wikileaks-wiki

MattisManzel (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC):
I started a center-wiki for web-sites about wikileaks and its friends and supporters: the wikileaks-wiki. Link to it in the external links of the article if you please.

I take it you noticed that I already removed it. Considering you run the site, it should almost certainly not be linked as you have a potential conflict of interest in adding the link. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Come back once it's been covered in multiple independent news sources. Until then, good luck with the site. Ocaasi (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

so ur saying that wikileaks is bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDavis16 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HBGary, WikiLeaks counter attack

So Anonymous and Wikileaks were targeted by a security agency called HBGary-Federal. Here's an article about it. Might fit in the criticism/responses section, or in the upcoming links section. If not here, than maybe at Cablegate.

• http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks?page=1

a proposal titled “The WikiLeaks Threat” and an email chain between three data intelligence firms. The proposal was quickly developed by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal, and Berico Technologies, after a request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm that currently counts Bank of America as a client...The law firm had a meeting with Bank of America on December 3. To prepare, the firm emailed Palantir and the others asking for “…five to six slides on Wikileaks - who they are, how they operate and how this group may help this bank.”

This is a .pdf of the counter-WikiLeaks proposal:

• http://wikileaks.ch/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pd

Here's another article about Bank of America's response to the Announcement that they might be targeted in a future leak:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank.html

Ocaasi (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the reception section should be splitted. Ankit 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit Maity (talk • contribs)

• Ars Technica piece by Nate Anderson: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks.ars ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

what is going on?

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A213.251.145.96+bank-of-america

there has been so much talk in the news before that in january some leaks would be published. its mid february and no relevant leaks yet?!? is there any news source that talks about this? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Who knows. The most up-to-date info about this is in the HBGary article, but there is no word on when the leak is coming AFAIK. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

The word (sic) organisation is misspelled in the article. It kills me not to be able to do a quick edit.

Not sure which way your correction is intended to go. I see no errors. The correct spelling is organisation in Australian English, and that's what's used throughout the article. There is only one place where it's not spelt that way, in Organization of American States, which is correctly spelt in the American way. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

News about the twitter subpoena

Talk:Twitter_subpoena#Judge_rule_twitter_give_records ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Organisation is spelled organization. Please fix this on all accounts.

As the note says at the top of the edit page, this article is written in British English. The spelling is correct (WikiLeaks spell it that way themselves too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have had two of these requests, from different IP addresses, both unsigned, in the past two weeks. (See two sections above.) Is anything more than simple ignorance at play? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor-in-chief

Could be linked to editor-in-chief. Already suggested before, was added and later (accidentally?) removed, so... suggesting again. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ThaiCables

"Thaicables" (www.thaicables.wordpress.com) focuses on publishing all Wikileaks Cables in connection with Thailand. With their slogan: "It's Your Right to Know the Truth!" the anonymous founders take an active stand against the harsh censorship by the Thai government and publish all Cables in full even this might violate Article 112. ("Lese Majeste" of the Thai Constitution) Some Cables are translated into Thai Language, others feature comments and analysis by bloggers. As Thai media chooses to apply self-censorship Thaicables became an important source about Wikileaks Cables in Thailand.

Thaicables is written as wordpress blog to circumvent censorship attempts by MICT (Ministry of Information and Communication Technology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaicables (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Though Thaicables may well be doing a good job, it probably isn't of significance to this article, unless you can find external reliable sources referring to it.

As a new contributor, you may be unaware of Wikipedia policies, notably Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Username policy. I'd suggest you read these before contributing further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Slogan

The slogan IS "Courage is contagious." as mentioned by Assange in many interviews, and is at the footer of the Cablegate sidebar. "We open governments." is mealy what is on the Twitter bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Without a verifiable source stating that it is an official one, we shouldn't really include this. To be honest, I can't see why we need to mention a slogan at all. I'll delete it for now - please don't reinsert without proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

MJSA: Skip to roughly 06:46 in this interview, Assange says it himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo&feature=player_embedded#at=409

YouTube is not normally accepted as a reliable source here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Assange has also said it here (06.:46): http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html There are plenty other resources; including Assanges initial papers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.197.2 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the slogan can be sourced, I still see no reason why it should be mentioned in the infobox. It has no real factual content, any more than any advertising slogan, 'mission statement', or other arbitrary phrase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mission statements are frequently included in articles about organizations. Why should Wikileaks be excluded from this? Can you provide any reasoned argument why it should not be included? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's included it needs to be in "soft" language rather than dogmatic - maybe something like "One slogan Assange has mentioned as being appropriate for Wikileaks is Courage is contagious."

I attempted to edit with that; however it was removed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.36.29 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not paraphrase direct quotes, no matter how "dogmatic" they may be. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Gitmo files released

So just in, Wikileaks has made its next big release on the Gitmo files (Guantanamo files or whatever they will end up calling it?). On the Wikileaks website itself: [47] Major news sources here: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. I got all these links from Greg Mitchells blog (so credit goes to him for finding them all) [54] and so there might be more. On his blog there is also the official U.S. response. Additional sources (@Wikileaks twitter account): [55], [56]. Discussion on whether the files themselves can be used on articles is up for debate (or not, I am not sure what the consensus was for using the diplomatic cables on articles?). Wikileaks has individual names already (e.g. [57] --> [58]). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank's for collecting the information. IQinn (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha I have not seen that video before! Hilarious! But yeah, no problem about the collecting, I figured it will come in handy and make whoever wants to create the article/add the new info on this page a bit easier.

A few extra refs: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. If I am feeling bold, I might give creating the article a go, but I guess someone more experienced in writing and structure/grammar can try first.Calaka (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah an article is created! Guantánamo Bay files leak. I will paste the above references over on their talk page.Calaka (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks website launch and Sunshine Press

I cannot read Icelandic, but it seems to me that Sunhine Press Production was founded in 2010. This is confirmed on this article by the New Statesman.

If so, how could the following sentence be correct? "Its website, launched in 2006 under The Sunshine Press organisation..." Maxferrario (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks used to be a wiki

From the introduction as it currently stands: "The site was originally launched as a user-editable wiki, but has progressively moved towards a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits."

Is there any source for how Wikileaks used to be be set up and work, technically? I can only find - as is also referenced in the article - sources indicating what changed in 2010. Any help on clarifying this would be appreciated. Cormaggio ^{is learning} 14:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it can be identified as a source, but the "Mirror" at http://mirror.wikileaks.info/ is how it looked back then. _→AzaToth 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks very much. I was trying to remember how it looked (it's been *years* since I actually visited the site - despite all the media exposure!), so that brings back the memories. :-) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This version of the wikiLEAKS project stands closer to a true wiki http://wikileaks.id.au and better serves the original political intent of the organisation.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book goes into great detail on the "beginnings" of wikileaks and the problems they faced setting up servers, etc. I know he's biased as he had a falling out with Julian, but there's really no motive for him to fudge the details about the early days at Wikileaks. Daniel was an IP profesional of some sort at EDS (formerly owned by H. Ross Perot) in Germany before he quit to work for wikileaks. FrancisDane (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, You can always use "The Internet Archive" or "Wayback Machine" to view any website with many archives of that website based on Date. So you can search for Wikileaks, then click on whatever date you want to view.
Click the link below to access "The Internet Archive / Wayback Machine":

http://web.archive.org/*/http://Wikileaks.org
I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.142.177 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks no longer blocked in Thailand

Since the Thai censors are lazy, since the change of domains to wikileaks.ch, wikileaks is effectively no longer blocked in Thailand. Wikileaks.org still is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J0rd (talk • contribs) 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the disclaimer be removed?

I have noticed the disclaimer at the top of the page, distinguishing between wikileaks and wikipedia. However, I know that wikipedia is not supposed to have disclaimers in articles. What is the consensus on the disclaimer? Is this an exception? Is the "wikileaks is not wikipedia" disclaimer on par with a content disclaimer or the like? I have read through but am still confused how this is covered by Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, and Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia. As well, it may be helpful to read the WikiMedia essay about the relationship between Wiki and Wikipedia. It seems to me that while it is important to distinguish wikipedia from a similarly named site such as WikiLeaks, a disclaimer such as this one is against wikipedia rules. |spudspotato| 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The consistent and gross confusion between Wikileaks and Wikipedia and Wikimedia makes it appropriate to add something per Wikipedia:Hatnote in order for people to immediately distinguish between the three. It's not a disclaimer but rather a disambigufier of commonly confused terms, Sadads (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. People are not confusing Wikipedia and WikiLeaks as being the exact same entity per se (for example, no one thinks WikiLeaks is a comprehensive encyclopedia), but rather they are incorrectly inferring that they are organizationally related. As such, it's not disambiguatory; it's a disclaimer. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. He is not saying that people confuse Wikileaks as an Encyclopedia type wiki project. He is saying that people confuse who OWNS it and RUNS it. Basically, they are putting distance between themselves and the idea that they own or run Wikileaks.

This question has already been discussed at length, and there has been a clear consensus to retain the note at the top of the page: see archives. It is not a disclaimer in the sense that Wikipedia rules use the term, and is clearly necessary given the continued confusion regarding any supposed links between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia - this confusion has led to a great deal of avoidable disruption in the past, and I see no reason to encourage more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The confusion seems to be just in the similarities of the names. Shouldn't than Wikia also have the same statement on the top of it's page? Aren't people also confused about the affiliation between Wikia and Wikipedia? I think the problem here could be that it seems to be a statement or maybe an overstatement rather than people are actually that much confused. Seems almost as we put it there to make clear that we do not want to be affiliated at any cost. Anyway actually i do not have that big problem if it stays there. IQinn (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, but that's not covered by WP:Hatnote AFAICT, as was claimed; nor is that strictly speaking a disambiguation (at least as that term of art is used on Wikipedia). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the media fuss over WikiLeaks has died down compared to where it was a few months ago, there is still a strong case for having the hatnote. The consensus from past discussions is to keep it, because of the amount of confusion the issue has been known to cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)