Where I disagree is that WikiLeaks does not qualify as a Wiki. The key characteristics of a Wiki are that it is quick and that everybody can participate. Everybody is invited to leak restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance. WikiLeaks makes sure that no information is logged at any time that may lead to the identification of its sources.
Once a submission is made, the process is one where the material is assessed by a trusted and restricted group of people. The information is validated and there are processes in place that are intended to insure that people cannot be identified by the material that is to be published.
It should be quite obvious that running a project like WikiLeaks requires discretion and caution. It is obvious that they have made powerful enemies and their crocodile tears and posturing demonstrates a high degree of vindictiveness and / or bluster.
There are indications that much of the inner working of the banking kleptocracy will be exposed by WikiLeaks. This is something I am looking forward to. Keep in mind that the status quo is not necessarily in the people's interest. Just ask the people of Ireland or Iceland.
Thanks,
GerardM
1 comment:
The original Wikileaks (before the Afghanistan/Iraq/diplomacy "megaleaks") used to be an actual wiki. The wiki angle was not in the leaks themselves, but in commenting on them, assessing their reliability, drafting articles/press releases etc.
In a recent interview to The Guardian, Julian Assange has stated that he's unhappy with the original site not being available, but he views restoring it as a low priority.
Other sources state that many people who used to be involved with WL have defected from Assange due to the way he handled the "megaleaks" thing, and they're now planning to set up their own site. We'll see, I guess.
Post a Comment