Talk:WikiLeaks

AfD #1

I speedily-kept the debate. If you disagree and you're a regular wikipedia editor contact me on my talk page and I'll un-close it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New article

• Added a ton of resources/RS sources. Needs cleanup, working on it. Please help! F.F.McGurk 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is Wikilinks a typo for Wikileaks or something different? Peter Grey 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They're different. Wikilinks are where you type a page name in double square brackets. In the context of Wikipedia, they're usually just called links. Picaroon 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the edit I just made it was a typo. Mackenson got most of them before, we both missed that last one... F.F.McGurk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it's popping up all over international media... F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Is it me, or do the statements in the criticism section not make sense? Lcament 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy's own language, and not really, no. I put it just to have *some* balance for now. F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Each statement makes sense, but the second does not follow from the first. The first refers to the question of to what extent leaking of any sort is ethical in a democracy, and the second relates to misleading leaking (presumably including forged documents). I will attempt to fix this! JY, 16 January 2007

At some point the bits got put in one paragraph rather than broken up. Read better? F.F.McGurk 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't solve the problem - the Aftergood quoted refers to all leaking in a democracy, and the Wikileaks FAQ quote refers to misleading leaking (and as far as I can tell was not written in response to the Aftergood quote). I think we another sentance dealing with the possibility of misleading leaks, or no mention of them at all. JY, 17 Jan 2007 (I note that the misunderstaning seems to have begun in Friedman's article rather than here)

Wikileaks should integrate with Wikipedia

One of main my Wikipedia wishlist :

“ 'discussion' page on Wikipedia should have a section for debating where a NPOV/neutral admin moderator can summarize all the distinct points (typically there are very few even for hotly debated/controversial topics) and these distinct points should have voting buttons as well. ”

That wish list seems to be fulfilled by Wikileaks but I think Wikipedia will always have more visibility as compared to Wikileaks and hence Wikileaks should find ways to integrate with it e.g. the main page of a topic should always be the Wikipedia page and there should be a link to Wikileaks page (if it exists) having leaked data as well as it should support blogging/debating and should have buttons as well.
Vjdchauhan 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC). (Information should be centralized and rest all should be de-centralized)

Note that unless independently verified or written about, it is very unlikely that any document on Wikileaks would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Joshdboz 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

it's possible

i wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is behind this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.243.245 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Necessity of wikileaks

Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 18, 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; such statements should have citations, so as to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Because of this, I've added a {{fact}} tag. You can add these yourself to statements which you feel should cite a source. Be neither excessive nor stingy with regards to the use of the template. Picaroon 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take down that one fact tag; it's supported by current source #12, in the third paragraph. F.F.McGurk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it. Is there a way to use the same source twice there without having to redo the entire attribution on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. usage? Some right way to just put down the named <ref name=xyz>? F.F.McGurk 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New developments?

I found like link on Michaelmoore.com It basicly says " '...an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis...' | Or Is It | " The || is a link to this site http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm.

I don't have the time to sift through all this data, but I would asume that its stating that wikilinks not what it seems... would it be original research to post it on here?208.248.33.30 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR, I believe, yeah, as described by you. A valid RS needs to state, for it to be verifiable. We can't produce original thought, just condense, summarize and remix under NPOV. F.F.McGurk 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein

In Revolt in 2100 Robert A. Heinlein wrote:

Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

This simply didn't belong in the article. I've moved it here. Shaundakulbara 10:58, 28 January 2007

More news coverage

See Whistle blown on Wiki site for whistle-blowers By Simon Rabinovitch (Reuters). BlankVerse 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When Online?

80.56.94.31 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When will Wikileaks go live?

We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007.

I think there was an earlier date online, it does seem to take forever, anyone knows more about this?

Who needs to criticize...?

When you proclaim how great your site is...then have only one document...and an analysis that consists of: either the "document is genuine, slightly modified or is an earlier forgery recycled for the Chinese"

Brilliant analysis...just brilliant...I am overwhelmed by the amount of work that was put into that conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.42.186 (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Fake Leaks?

Doesn't anybody think WikiLeaks could be used for fake leaks? --Jeffo bazoni

Of course it can... in the exact same way the mainstream media can and has been. --Gwern (contribs) 22:53 15 July 2007 (GMT)

Wikileaks taken down / censored?

Wikileaks seems to have been down the last 12 hours or so! ... does anyone know why? I've emailed, but no reply and the washington number does not answer.

From my following of earlier recent changes it is clear that they were about to release this doozy:

http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)/Chemical_weapons&strip=1

http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)&strip=1

James Hardine 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)