A stands for #Archive in #GLAM

#Wikipedia has this thing about sources. If it can be sourced, it is considered to be admissible. However, even when there is a book or a newspaper stating something there is no certainty at all that facts are fairly represented.

In order for something to be found true, it helps when the original unedited material is available. This is where the archives come in. They preserve the original material with the original lies, opinions and facts.

Archives hold manuscripts, documents, photos, film. As it is often primary source material it provides the bedrock for future generations to learn the original facts and fiction.

Because of the massive manipulation of facts, WikiLeaks is very much a reaction of people wanting to set the record straight. It is necessary because the press itself is increasingly owned by self serving owners. The balance for proper news is further eroded because public broadcasting is starved from funding.

As democratic governments represent the people who vote and as confidential materials tend to leak more then ever, Open Government is not only desirable for the values it stands for, it is also the best defence against the need for leaks. When the true facts are published by government itself, corruption and manipulation become more visible. It gives our governments a credibility that is now sadly lacking.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#Anonymous highjacking Januari 15 2011 for #Wikileaks

On the day when #Wikipedia is celebrating its 10th birthday with worldwide parties, Anonymous decides to organise a global protest to support WikiLeaks.

To be polite, this is unfortunate. Wikipedia is not related to WikiLeaks and choosing this day is likely to increase the confusion. Several people have found it necessary to stop their work on the Wikimedia projects because of this confusion.

With Anonymous taking the initiative for a day of protest, this confusion is increased. WikiLeaks has no ties with the Wikimedia Foundation and WikiLeaks has no ties with Anonymous. Both the actions of WikiLeaks and Anonymous are considered controversial by some. When the activities of WikiLeaks and Anonymous are considered together, a negative opinion is more easy even obvious. WikiLeaks on its own provides a service that will lead to new thinking on the need for transparency of companies and government.

Given the sad quality of many "news" organisations, WikiLeaks fills in the need that is the consequence of the lack of honesty and the bigotry in the manipulated news they serve.

I will be celebrating 10 years of Wikipedia.
Thanks,
       GerardM

#WikiLeaks, naughty or nice

Love them or hate them, WikiLeaks generates strong opinions. This is true in the wide world and it is no different in the Wikipedia world. Recently I blogged about the featured picture candidate of a poster of Julian Assange and it will not feature.

Some of the arguments used not to feature are epic. The prize is for "Julian Assange is from Australia and it should therefore be honour not honor". Apparently there is a difference in Australian and US American honour.

The Signpost has a nice write up with arguments used to argue why leaked documents should or should not be used. What I am missing is perspective; it is not even necessary to quote WikiLeaks as it is renowned publishers like the New York Times who are co-publishers and who put their reputation on the line by publishing this material. When this is not accepted as source material, it becomes even more problematic to accept material from Fox. They are KNOWN to intentionally misrepresent the facts.

Disallowing WikiLeaks material will also damage the basic principle of the neutral point of view. Commons featured picture candidate process again proves to be misnomer; it should be the Commons featured pretty photo candidate process. The quality of the arguments used is the best indicator for its bias.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikileaks and #Wikimedia #Commons

This picture of Julian Assange is a featured picture candidate. The arguments used against the featuring of this picture are in my opinion pathetic.

Commons is a repository of media files. These are primarily used to illustrate Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia articles are to provide a neutral point of view and consequently there is a need for illustrations for any point of view. Given that Wikinews is one of our projects, this is an appropriate time to support illustrations like this. It is not a digital photo and consequently the size of the file is irrelevant. The notion that works like this have to be in the svg format is as bizarre as the notion that the picture itself has to be notable.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikileaks paranoia; Sunnyvale California

After I blogged about Julian Assange and Dick Cheney, my blog has been frequented by someone from Sunnyvale California. I have the impression that all my blog posts have been read over the past few days.

For those who do not follow the news, Halliburton has paid a bribe to keep Mr Cheney out of jail. In the mean time Mr Assange is still in remand for something that is quite dubious.  Mr Cheney's bacon is saved with $500,000,000.-- but as always he must be considered innocent because no judge pronounced him guilty.

With Sunnyvale California dominating the traffic to my blog, I have no information what my readers are interested in. This information is publicly available on my blog. The value for me is in learning what it is people read about.
Thanks,
     GerardM

Extradition requests for Julian Assange and Dick Cheney

Again, #WikiLeaks is not to be associated with #Wikipedia. except for having articles on the subject.

Both Mr Assange and Mr Cheney are wanted for criminal activities that are in another country than the one where they reside.  Mr Cheney, the former vice president of the USA, is wanted for corruption in Nigeria. Mr Assange is wanted for exposing his penis while having consensual sex without a condom in Sweden.

It will be no surprise when Mr Cheney will not stand trial. It is no surprise that Mr Assange is having his day in a political court. Such inequality makes it clear why there is a need for WikiLeaks. As big corporations and rich people are found to have enriched themselves by hook or by crook without any comeback the reason for a WikiLeaks is all too obvious.

An extradition of Mr Cheney would help a sense of justice. An extradition of Mr Assange strengthens the sense of injustice and helps build the image of St Julian the martyr. Companies like PayPal and Amazon have proven themselves as national, not global companies resulting in a damaged reputation as a global company.

What we should have is equal justice for all. It is what we are told to expect but it is not what we observe.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#WikiLeaks as a Wiki

Several people who I respect talked about WikiLeaks as a Wiki. One thing that they have right is that WikiLeaks has nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.

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

#Propaganda as a two edged sword

A former Bush official calls for designating #WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants. This would mean that the site could be held in violation of the US espionage act and taken down using "military assets" even when this breaks international and domestic laws.

The damage inflicted on the USA by WikiLeaks is largely self inflicted; the USA war effort is found to have broken international and domestic laws. This call for the use of military assets never mind international and domestic law is maybe great for the domestic consumption of the loony right. These calls for acts of war  put the persons spouting their poison in the same category as the broadcasters in Uganda who are now being convicted of incitement to genocide.

Would these people be happy when they are designated in turn as enemy combatants? Their argument holds that their assassination would not be murder. Theirs is not the moral high ground because their only argument is "we are losing a war". The data released by WikiLeaks demonstrates why the USA is losing the war. It indicates how and why the USA can do better and this is why WikiLeaks is in the USA's best interest.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#FUD around #WikiLeaks

When Ward Cunningham was looking for a name for his new way or working, he thought of the Hawaiian word "wiki" meaning fast. When he originally described a wiki it was "the simplest online database that could possibly work."

WikiLeaks is a wiki in that it provides a fast and easy way to do what WikiLeaks is meant for; the submitting of confidential or secret material. When you consider the might of those opposing WikiLeaks, it is obvious that allowing everyone to edit will be extremely counter productive. This is not where Wikipedia's NPOV rules the roost. It is much more like WikiSource where it is also extremely relevant to keep the original source pristine.

WikiLeaks is not a Wikimedia project and, it does not suffer from a lack of credibility. The credibility of its material is such that new material published makes for new scandals. The one thing WikiLeaks is good at is proofing the veracity of what it publishes.

The notion that it somehow infringes on the Wikimedia by using the "wiki" moniker is silly. There are so many websites that have "wiki" in their name; wikiHow, OmegaWiki, Wikia to name a few that it is far more interesting to learn about exceptions like Citizendium that does not have wiki in its name.

Julian Assange the "Jimbo" of WikiLeaks

All in all, it is to be expected that negative editorials are written about WikiLeaks. When you profess to write about "Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia in the News", writing about WikiLeaks is seriously off topic. Calling WikiLeaks "contraband" demonstrates a bias. It is easy to forget that laws differ from country to country and that someone's hero is another man's villain.
Thanks,
      GerardM