Talk:WikiLeaks

Query about page view statistics

I am rather puzzled by the page view statistics. When one goes to "history" and then clicks on that, we get told that the figure with which this has been viewed is somewhere between 115, 000 and 116, 000, then we get told that this ranked eighth on wiki.org. However, the article on Wikipedia, which has been viewed over 900, 000 times, we are told ranked 31 - and the article wiki, which has actually been viewed over two million, two hundred thousand times, we are told was ranked nine. Can some explain these anomalities? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't specific to this article, so questions about http://stats.grok.se are probably best asked at Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool. I suspect the answer to the anomaly you have noticed is that the rankings are based on the December 2010 figures shown at http://stats.grok.se/en/top, while the total at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/WikiLeaks is supposedly for the last 30 days. There's a comment about delays in updating the rankings at User talk:Henrik#Pageviews_statistics_tool:_top_viewed_pages, but it looks to me like Henrik is not actively maintaining the stats at the moment. --Cedders^tk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation

WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.:
Is this really important, we never said that of WikiHow, WikiAnswers or Wikia --TheChampionMan1234 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There was some confusion about this in the media when WikiLeaks got its first stories out, but by now it probably can be removed. --Conti|✉ 08:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. There's a lot of members of the public with limited knowledge of both Wikileaks and Wikipedia, who will inevitably think they're related, unless we tell them otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Any example from media (Any news story will do) of this happening in the last 3 years? Like always, burden of evidence lies with the editors wanting to keep the material. If there is no source of this actually happening in the recent 3 years, the disclaimer do not look to be relevant to the article. Belorn (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the media. The problem was our readers - I suggest you look through the archives for previous discussions (see [1] in particular). This was debated extensively, and the clear consensus was that far too many of our readers didn't understand the (non)relationship - and many of them were making this misunderstanding clear not just on this talk page but elsewhere, and in rather objectionable terms. In particular, the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team were having to field an extraordinary amount of misplaced flak over the issue. I see no reason to put them through it again, as may well happen the next time Wikileaks attracts media attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen a number of such cases arising in various desks as of late, so its probably worth keeping it for now. extra999 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

wikileaks-wiki

Would it be appropriate to add the wikileaks-wiki to the external links of the article?

MattisManzel (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks Credibility Questioned

No credible evidence presented that the opinions of one journalist are of any note - and the OP refuses to raise the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as repeatedly requested

Hi, I would like to know why the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has been removed, being all the footnotes with the articles been reported in the section. The editor (eddy the grump) wrote "Highly dubious sources". Could you please explain why the sources are dubious if there are published articles (by Atlantic Free Press (Nederland), Diario El Peso(Argentina) American Chronicle (USA) which to be credible just have to report "the question of the credibility"? In addition the articles I cited in the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned have been adopted by the last International Communication Association Conference that was held in Phoenix last May 24. The Conference material is available On-line on the ICA website and on www.academia.edu. Here's the paper presented at the ICA, the article by Gianluca D'Agostino is cited at page 8 and it's the starting point for the paper thesis about Wikileaks credibility: http://www.academia.edu/1477222/A_Theoretical_Model_for_the_Wikileaks_Phenomenon. http://www.icavirtual.com/2012/04/22/conference-paper-a-theoretical-model-for-the-wikileaks-phenomenon/ Besides all the articles are by Gianluca D'Agostino who used to be a CNN and Associated Press journalist, so the sources cannot be dubious under any circumstance. Please restore the section or put it under Media Response. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I removed it because (a) it seems to be the opinion of a single journalist, (b) it has not been published in a mainstream source, and (c) in that it seems to be claiming that either Bradley Manning does not exist, or that he is behind some sort of conspiracy to present disinformation - and this appears to violate WP:BLP policy. We do not include every opinion of every journalist in this article (or any other) - see WP:WEIGHT. If you have evidence that mainstream credible published third-party sources have discussed D'Agostino's claims, please provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC) The Third Party is the International Communication Association which adopted the article in one of its top papers presented at their last conference in Phoenix. The paper content revolves specifically around Wikileaks Credibility and it's even more credible than an average "mainstream" media source being the ICA an Academic and a scientific institution specifically focused on the subject of Communication and the ICA only publishes articles from Scientists and Scholars, so it's way more credible than any media source. Behindthewall (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Besides, the article does not claim that Bradley Manning does not exist, it just takes it as an example in an ironic way to question Wikileaks credibility so the journalist does not even try to affirm anything, quiet the contrary, indeed the article is a sort of fact-checking story about Wikileaks by posing the reader a number of questions regarding the credibility source of Wikileaks. I think is a useful instrument for the reader to keep posing question in today's reality. The important contribution of the article by D'Agostino is the fact-checking analysis. An analysis that hasn't been done by any major media, because the mainstream media just took Wikileaks war-logs for granted without questioning their legitimacy. The article is a major contribution to develop today's reader awareness about the complexity of media and the difficult to recognize what's real and what's not. Behindthewall (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't here to 'pose questions' for readers, or to encourage them to 'question the legitimacy of the mainstream media' - we aren't here to put the world to rights. Unless and until material is published in mainstream sources which directly discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, per WP:WEIGHT there seems little reason to include them in the article. That his claims have been discussed at an academic conference is in itself no evidence that they have been taken seriously - and from a quick look at the academic paper you cite, it seems that D'Agostino is merely one of many sources referenced in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Did you read what you wrote? "the fact that D'Agostino's assertions have been discussed at an academic conference is no evidence that have been taken seriously" Go read page 8 of the paper, the article by D'Agostino represents the STARTING POINT upon which Nebraska University Researcher Rebecca Pop has based all her article about Wikileaks credibility. You re claiming that the International Communication Association, an Academic body that only publishes Scientific articles only by Scholars and Scientists isn't a reliable source? Please! Besides the ICA isn't the third party that published D'Agostino's work, it's the fourth party because the article published by Diario El Peso is a re-publishing of D'Agostino's article and Diario El Peso is an Argentinian mainstream newspaper in which D'Agostino has never written a story. Behindthewall (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC) The piece in Diario El Peso is written by D'Agostino - it is not a third-party source for anything. As for the academic paper, if you wish to suggest that the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks, I suggest you raise the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - though I doubt that you will get much support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Dear AndyTheGrump, I don't know what's your experience with academic papers but the reference on the paper even just the mention of the article on the bibliography it means the paper considers D'Agostino's article as a scientific reliable source to demonstrate its theory on Wikileaks. I understand you are not very familiar with scientific articles and academic bodies because of this sentence:"the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks" If you were familiar with academic matters you would had never wrote such a nonsense sentence as this. Because the answer is yes dear Andythegrump, the moment a paper enters within an official academic discussion, conference, seminar, that same moment becomes part of that Academic body. I am sorry if you had not the chance to attend an University or an Academic institution but that doesn't mean you have to feel resentment towards academic institutions and their products. The section "Wikileaks Credibility Questioned" will be restored, that you want it or not because homo sapiens cannot revert to monkeys just because you are against scientific evolution dear andy the grump.Behindthewall (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC) As it happens I have a first-class honours degree in a social science from one of Britain's leading universities, which I would think qualifies me well enough to suggest that you are talking utter bollocks. If you want to suggest otherwise, raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where you will no doubt be told the same thing. Otherwise, find a credible third-party source that actually discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, rather than just quoting him in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Dear AndyThGrump, being this the case, I wouldn't go around telling the world I have a honours degree in Social Science if you ignore what are the Academic traditional practices. Now this thing about Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has become a matter of pride and maybe you won't be able to step back even if you find out it's not the way you think, but if I were you I would have checked this matter with some official/professor from my University to see if it's true that once a reference gets inside an official academic environment it automatically becomes part of that environment. Good Luck with your Social Science! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Since you have failed to do as I suggested, and provide the sources necessary to establish that D'Agostino's claims are of any significance, this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Dear Andythegump, D'Agostino's claims are of no significance, in fact they have not being taken as the main reference and as the starting point upon which the whole project research "A Theoretical Model for the Wikileaks Phenomenon" presented at the International Communication Association Conference held in Phoenix on May 24 2012 was based on. However I report here the link of the Fundacion Gedisos where the article by D'Agostino was presented too as a critical analysis on the credibility of Wikileaks. Here's the link to the Fundacion Gedisos, which is also a scientific institution (but it's not accountable because it's not mainstream) with the introduction to D'Agostino's article that is defined as an "análisis crítico del fenómeno Wikileak centrado en la fundamental cuestión de la credibilidad" http://www.fundaciongedisos.org/index_mas.php?id=4128 It's a real shame that at the Social Science faculty they don't teach Spanish, or the day they taught it you weren't there. However you can try with Google translations! Good Luck with your career within Wikipedia and as a Wikileaks guardian, Julian Assange says thank you. Hope you are not the exclusive guardian to the development and the completeness of Wikipedia, otherwise if the world had to depend upon Wikipedia's knowledge we were going to revert to monkeys. Luckly for the goodness of Wikipedia's completeness and consequently of humankind, this talk between the reason and the ignorance is a public talk and it's going to be read by everyone including people who have the common sense, the knowledge and the authority to restore the world to right by recovering the Wikipedia Credibility Questioned section that I wrote. Behindthewall (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-open previous section with a suggestion

I just saw the above exchange ("Wikileaks Credibility Questioned") and am re-opening the conversation to suggest perhaps we can step away from the personalizing and just look at this objectively - I wonder if there may be some middle ground here. I agree that the added section was being given much too much weight in this piece, but I note that other journalists' opinions are included in the article, and it seems clear that D'Agostino's work has been quoted in a valid third-party academic paper as well as having been published in several venues. Perhaps this would work if it were boiled down to a sentence at the end of the "Reception" section, something like this:

Italian journalist Gianluca D'Agostino questioned WikiLeaks' credibility validity, claiming that much of the material was Pentagon-leaked information that favored the Pentagon's views, and speculating on Manning's veracity.

What do you think? Tvoz/talk 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking at D'Agostino opinion piece, I must say he seems hopelessly confused and is musing somewhat arbitrary speculations without any serious analysis to back them. If this is essentially the only source, I think the previous editors where correct to remove that from the article.

Aside from imho insufficient sourcing your text suggestion is using the word "credibility" in a potentially confusing or misleading manner. D'Agostino doesn't seems question the authenticity of the published material (which is what wikileaks' credibility is mainly about), but he's just musing who is actually benefiting from them. His notion however the diplomatic cable leak would mainly serve the US interest is a bit outlandish, moreover he seems to assume that journalists and readers would not be aware of the fact that the cables are nothing but assessment through American (government) eyes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the academic paper, the statement that "Rebecca Pop refers to the article by D'Agostino as the starting point to question Wikileaks credibility" is blatantly false - she quotes D'Agostino once in passing. This leaves us with a a couple of minor articles from him - and note that the American Chronicle piece is essentially self-published. The website states (at the bottom of the page) that "This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content". Unless and until it can be shown that D'Agostino's views have been commented on in depth by secondary sources, I see no reason to include this whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I didn't and wouldn't include the statement about "starting point" or any of the details of what D'Agostino said in his pieces - that would raise issues of undue weight and perhaps other issues as well. I just had the Pop paper as a "cited in" reference, which is correct, because a paper presented to a conference run by the preeminent academic organization in the communications field is a valid third-party source that referenced his claims, as you correctly indicated (in the collapsed section) would be desirable as a notability indicator. We included a rather obscure video with Catherine Fitzgerald, but that source doesn't seem to be much of an indicator of the notability of her opinions - she's presented there merely as a writer who "has written about WikiLeaks at her blog 'Wired State.'" and I'm not seeing any reference to secondary sources commenting on her positions in depth as you now seem to think is required. So I'm not sure that a different standard should be applied to this Italian journalist. I think that our inclusion of some work by a journalist who apparently has written for CNN and the AP, and has been cited by a third party, is a valid thing to do - it does not say we think his opinions are correct or well argued, it merely gives another view of the reception that the whole matter received, and I don't see why we wouldn't include it. Let the readers go to the sources and see what they think - all we would be saying is that he is another writer who commented on the matter.

Also, I think that the fact that D'Agostino is not American, and his work was also published in an Argentinian newspaper (reprinting is itself a third-party assessment of value, one could argue), makes it a reasonable addition to our article in our effort to have a less US-centric view in general. Again, we would not be agreeing with his assessment, or giving it more validity than anyone else's, but we would be giving a broader view of the type of reception the Wikileaks matter received. Indeed, I would hope that we could include more commentary from around the world to give a fuller picture.

Let me just say that I don't have any particular reason to push for this, it just struck me when this came up on my watchlist that while the way it was originally added to the article was indeed not supportable, that doesn't mean it should be wiped out completely, if we were to include it in a different manner as I am suggesting. My words were just one possibility - I've tweaked it above as per comments here, and they could certainly be written differently. I just am trying to pull this back from what had devolved into a needlessly personal exchange to a more dispassionate look at ways to improve the article by broadening its scope a bit. If no one agrees, so be it. Tvoz/talk 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There are various ways to judge D'Agostino's piece. In comparison to other sources used in the article, by the reputation of his publisher, by his own reputation as an author, by reception of his publications by (reputable) third parties. In addition to all that WP editors need to consider the content of D'Agostino's piece itself, that is material we assess to questionable or even false should not be included unless it is really notable for some reason (creating a wider reception, being a famous/well known distinguished dissenter). D'Agostino more or less fails on all accounts, the content of his piece is questionable (as i tried to explain above), it was published with a reputable publisher, it hasn't received a particular reception to make it notable and the D'Agostino is not particular distinguished/well known either, hence i see no reason to include his view here.

There is of course nothing wrong with including a broader range of views of Wikileaks, but please from better sources. There are plenty of opinions and analysis, which are published with reputable publishers, by more reputable authors and being less questionable and more thorough with their analysis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok - as I said I was bothered by the nature of the back and forth previously (and an admittedly only quick look at the content of the sources) so I thought it would be best for the article to have a less hot discussion, which this has been. I agree that a broader range of views in this article would be beneficial for our readers, as this topic is nuanced, especially in terms of how critics and supporters assess what Assange has done, and we want to give a full spectrum of opinion, and D'Agostino seemed to help in that regard, but I understand your problem with his. Thanks for the responses. Tvoz/talk 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [2]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just have to say "List-defined reference" are the worst format we have here. Content editors have constantly voted to eliminate this format altogether. Best to make the article user friendly. None will follow the LDR when updating pages - thus were you find LDR style you will always see the normal format mixed in. Just look at Michael Jackson. All it does is cause work for us as seen here at Avril Lavigne someone will have to come along and fix the new refs to match the LDR format - in the case of Avril Lavigne I have seen editors revert referenced material just because it was the wrong ref format. LDR's is nothing but a problem - noting user friendly about having to edit 2 sections to add one statement. Moxy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinions/tastes on different citation formats differ greatly. Personally I rather like "List-defined references" and use them in most of my articles. However I have no opinion regarding this particular article, such decisions are best left to the people primarily writing and maintaining the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea that our best editors spend so much time cleaning up LDR's. For example one of the many LDR problems that we had to fix just today can be seen here - note how the edit left errors - we are always having to fix this type of problem when there is a LDR format. Please help us in making Wikipedia more user friendly for non Wikipedia coding experts. Help us with Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting - stop LDR's.

That is essentially a software issue, i.e. unreferenced "leftover" sources can/should be deleted by bots. Or even better if WP ever gets footnotes management software extension, that problem will simply vanish. I very much prefer LDR or shorten citations, then having full references in article text, as this can become extremely messy and irritating (and btw. triggers mistake of editor as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We will simply have to disagree - I personally like shortened footnotes the best as its what we used in university decades ago. However I spend so much time cleaning up ref errors that its clear to me that <ref> is the simplest and thus the most commonly used method. LDR,s and shortened footnotes are simply overwhelming for most new editors. This is the leading cause of us losing new editors - because they get bitten over the format they use and errors they may cause. The KISS principle is something us old timers seem to have forgotten.Moxy (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We have to disagree indeed. That this is supposedly the leading cause for editors leaving, is something i'm going to believe when i see some proper survey data on that. In the absence of that you can argue it actually the other way around, a often extremely cluttered text due full citations in the article text is extremely off putting for new users in particular. When they click on edit, they usually expect something having a reasonable resemblance to the displayed text and they get anything but that instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Must keep it simple -- we are losing thousands of editors because of theses complicated formats old editors are implementing all over. - Thousands of editors leaving Wikipedia - quote = "The increasing technical sophistication of adding an entry can also be daunting, he said. "It's a problem to expect someone who is in expert in their field to also know computer programming. You lose an awful lot of people who could be contributing.".Moxy (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You read that as LDR, but I read that as a messy/cluttered source text.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Really - the articles leads you to believe that its about clutter over formatting complications? The complexity of the pages themselves is what the average person I believe would read from statements like "The increasing technical sophistication" and "to also know computer programming". What does jimmy say about thisproblem - lets look Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales admits that the world's fifth most visited website is losing contributors, partly down to the complexity of the site. Cant tell anyone that having to edit multiple sections, naming the refs, placing them in order etc... is more user friendlily then simply adding <ref>the web site</ref> at the end of a statement. Anyways not much more I can say except to repeat myself - user friendlessness should be a primary concern when considering format because of the problems we are having.Moxy (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Clutter in the source text/almost unreadable source text _is_ extremely user unfriendly. There is no disagreement that a more user friendly interface for footnotes is needed, but as long as the WM-Software doesn't provide that, the question is, which of the current suboptimal solutions is (significantly) more user friendly. To you avoiding named references is the priority, but to me a readable source text is more important.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Danger to individuals

Somehow, I feel as though this has been recommended a million times before. However, it needs to be said: for reasons of neutrality, to avoid pushing the standard line of fear mongers, we should add to this sentence "The incident resulted in widely expressed fears that the information released could endanger innocent lives." (in the top section) something like the following line: "However, there are no known incidents of violence against the mentioned people as a result of the released cables." Because that seems to be the truth. A lot of people—particularly those in positions of power—expressed these fears, but as far as I'm aware they've yet to crystallize. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)