Jump to content

Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Censorship by Wikileaks

Why is there nothing on this page about all the information that has been blanked out of the documents?

There needs to be a section about the censorship of the documents by Wikileaks itself. It is extremely easy to reference and way too much information is deleted, way more than just names and dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.94.6 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Problems

In the section on the relationship between Wikileaks and Wikipedia, the final sentence has serious grammatical problems: "Wikipedia makes no guarantee,[48] log and will reveal (if requested) the tracking information (such as IP) of readers or contributors[49] and applies restrictions to discovered Tor anonymity network exit node.[50]" I am not even sure what the writer is trying to say. Shall we delete this sentence? --Westwind273 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, Good Swedes

It's nice Swedes want to contribute here especially on news related to PRQ and the PP. But a basic prerequisite is you be able to write 'encyclopaedic' English and whoever has been adding details about Bahnhof obviously can't. Please go back and copyedit your materials or remove them. Thank you.

WikiLeaks

They've now taken to using an upper case 'L'. This is in their logo too.

I think they have always used an uppercase "L". I support moving this article to "WikiLeaks" unless it is against some or the name change has already been discussed and opposed. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is ongoing. It's just badly named. David in DC (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Granted. But the name is 'WikiLeaks' and leaks to the site are 'Wikileaks' - if that makes any sense. Their graphic logo has an upper case L. I don't like it - don't like CamelCase at all - but there it is.

Sources

Here is a source:

See Alsos

The See Also: Internet Leaks redirects to a page referencing a release by Weird Al Yankovic. Is this intentional? 75.172.168.110 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be, but it should point to internet leak. I've corrected it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks censored

In Thailand the Wikileaks website is censored and unaccesible. Other alternative names are also unaccessible. Using a proxy is extremely dangerous because all Internet providers monitors and give to the police the tracks of what users surf. Accessing one of the dozens of thousands of forbidden websites in Thailand through a proxy is condemned with several years in prision and in many cases by extra-judicial executions on the spot.

The have announced this on their twitter feed. I'll try to work it into the article, but I'll have to look for a non-twitter news source. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Offline

Hmmm ... went to check out the site after reading a news report on the Afghanistan papers and the site was down. Coincidence? Methinks not! Seriously, though, this either means the site has been taken down/made inaccessible - I'm in Canada - or (more likely) it's gotten so many hits the server got a migraine. Either way, it might be worth keeping an eye open for potential updates should either scenario have come into play. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They had the raw data available, so if they are censored, the raw data will pop up at various other places. I suspect they are overloaded, which is a good sign for the impact it should have. I just tried to access it, and it is available again. You might expect they have their system worked out such that it is not susceptible to all kind of attacks to get it down. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
They said on their twitter feed that they are overloaded and that people should use http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/ to access the recent logs. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

... is it 'Wikileaks' or 'WikiLeaks'? Couldn't help but notice the spelling they use on their logo which makes me think the latter is correct. Hammersbach (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they call themselves WikiLeaks, we're not bound by that. Does anyone know, off-hand, if this is covered in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'll look, if no one pipes up. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
CamelCase words have set off debates like this before, and WP:COMMONNAME is the best guide. YouTube and CinemaScope have article names in CamelCase, but the recent media coverage of Wikileaks (see Google News) uses a mixture. This is worth considering, but there is no hurry to rename the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's here, but it's a toss-up. WP:MOSTM.
At the overall Manual of style page, it says:
Internal consistency
An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.
At the Manual of Style page dealing with trademarks it says:
  • Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:
    • OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice
So we need to choose one or the other and then make it consistent. What say ye? David in DC (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on the current media coverage, I have no strong views one way or the other. If the article was renamed, it would need internal consistency.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the title of the wikileaks.org front page is "Wikileaks - WikiLeaks". Just over half the examples of "wikileaks" on that page use CamelCase. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For the moment, I've lowercased "WikiLeaks" so it's rendered "Wikileaks" everywhere in the article except direct quotes. That should serve for now. If we conclude we need a name change, we can change them back the other way. But at least we're now internally consistent.
In the voice of the WP article: "Wikileaks"
In direct quotes: follow the style of the source. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
After looking at wikileaks.org it is obvious that they prefer "WikiLeaks". Given that there is no clear consensus in the media I don't see why we shouldn't go with how the group self-identifies. Hammersbach (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't object, but if we're going to use CamelCase throughout the article, the name of the article should be changed first.David in DC (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, it's not a huge issue, but I would support the move to WikiLeaks. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

West Australian Police references

This section really needs citation ... I'm all for getting some and leaving it in, but otherwise it will have to go as its claims are significant and sources missing...

A civil case against the West Australian Police for human rights violation is currently before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is a whistleblower (a victim of Active Profiling who was drugged by The West Australian Police Force) who attempted to leak the details to Wikileaks. Prior to this, the plaintiff could access the secure site, but when he returned a couple days later with the leaked report, access to the secure site was blocked. Access was also denied from the local library. The plaintiff lives in Bunbury, West Australia area code 6233.
prat (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources for these claims. Where did you get this information? See WP:V -- intgr [talk] 15:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks disclosures template

Finding the statement "Three months earlier, in April, Wikileaks made headlines with leaked classified video of an airstrike, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, in which as many as 18 Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists were killed." in the Afghan War Diary article, as well as the existence of [leaks credited to Wikileaks] as a section within the main Wikileaks article gave me the idea for a navbox for such releases and their relationships through time. I am starting a proposed template at Template:Wikileaks disclosures. Assistance welcome, though let's [[Talk:Template:Wikileaks disclosures|discuss it on the template's talk page]] rather than here (I'm also cross-posting this note to the Wikileaks talk page). prat (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RecentChanges

I didn't realize it was possible to disable Special:RecentChanges. http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges Tisane talk/stalk 06:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks → WikiLeaks — Correct capitalization. Their website consistently uses "WikiLeaks" in CamelCase (just like YouTube). Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur; most (although not all) news sources also appear to be using "WikiLeaks".Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(A) There should be a redirect for "Wikileaks".
(B) "Wikileaks" should appear in bold in the lede as an alternative spelling.
(C) If it's "wikileaks" or "Wikileaks" in a verbatim quote from a written source, it should not be edited for conformity's sake, nor flagged with a "[sic]".
(D) If it's a verbatim quote from an audio source, I wish you good luck in trying to "hear" CamelCase. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikileaks to get immunity?

http://gizmodo.com/5615703/wikileaks-may-get-immunity-thanks-to-swedish-pirate-party

Can someone add a section on this? It seems like an important development, especially if it goes through. I only ask because my writing abilities are pretty lackluster, and I don't want to end up writing a crappy section that just gets deleted and forgotten. It would be great if someone could write up a small section on it just to get it started. Tehori (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. It's an agreement between a political party not currently in power with Wikileaks. They have 0 seats in the Swedish Parliament. The article doesn't even make sense--it says that if they get 1 seat in the Swedish Parliament, that then Wikileaks has a safe haven. How can a party with only 1 seat force through any changes in government? I'd like to see some more coverage of this in regular news sources first before adding here, personally. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The immunity part is actually true (it's been discussed in several Swedish sources). However, it is very unlikely that the Pirate Party will get a seat in the parliament. Theleftorium (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian: The agreement more or less states that wikileaks would have the pirate party host their servers. If the pirate party were to get a seat in the parliament, the wikileaks servers couldn't be shut down because they would belong to an entity within the swedish government. I guess it works in the same way that a person with diplomatic immunity can't be arrested. Tehori (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, then I say that if/when they do win a seat, that then we add this info. Until then, it seems highly speculative that it is notable (especially given the Pirate Party's declining popularity in Sweden).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... Even though it's unlikely, I really hope they get a seat! Tehori (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
To get a seat they must either get 4% of the total votes or 12% in a district. No chance at the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.131.91.2 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks and The Sunshine Press

The article indicates that WikiLeaks is an organization with its own website, also called WikiLeaks. However, the name of the organization is really The Sunshine Press, and WikiLeaks is a project/website run by The Sunshine Press.[2]

This should be more clear in the lead section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicsuns (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bold text is used sparingly, usually only for the article title and synonyms as they appear in the first sentence. The name of the Sunshine Press is prominent in the lead, being the subject of its own sentence. I've removed the bolding per WP:MOSTEXT, I'm not sure what further prominence you think is needed. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is missing popular section in popular cultyur. I found one source , Is ti ok to add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a YouTube video, and these are rarely accepted as reliable or notable unless they have mainstream media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually in this case that might possible. al jazeera english's listening post recently covered this video as its web video of the week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNt7T_JTIkk. Also note since Al jazeera english publishes its material on youtube itself, there is no copyright issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks went down.

Wikileaks has stopped, it seems, its working function, although its twitter page is still up other pages, show up as unrecognised. Something gone awry perhaps? Copyright censorship problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's working right now for me. It was probably a temporary technical issue. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction, it would've been a mirror you saw, which doesn't stop some traffic being lost by this site IMO, and, much more importantly, the mirror only shows a handful of sites, therefore greatly decreasing the sites utility.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

so, does finally anybody have an idea or info what's going on? wl itself does not reveal any information, it's just this one tweet (scheduled maintenance). the whole day long one was redirected to mirror. with message 'not available', now the page is saying "Not found. Your domain could not be found in our forwarding or stealth forwarding tables. If you recently set your name servers, please wait a few minutes and try again. Sometimes restarting your browser helps. If you require further assistance, please visit our main site at www.dynadot.com."

someone any information what's going on? (quite strange btw., one could expect at least a short press information upfront before "scheduled maintenance", c'mon... for sure there were still some smaller media curious not yet been able to download the fresh release - -

Ok, the backup works everywhere, but only 20% material is stored on it. When trying to access the site it looks to have been removed.. along with the 80% source materials and analyses of sources.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ---

... ok, went online again. visible in part of central europe (others will have to check themselves) at a few minute after 6 am on august 27th 2010. (wn030-7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wn030-7 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found the problem: wikileaks .The main sites are unavailable during scheduled maintenance work. We apologize for the inconvenience.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cymbelmineer could we get an information what material is missing? did you simply try our doc by doc or is there a list existing? the tweet was mentioned a few lines above (it was on twitter, visible for many hours), so I suppose you mean a new information? i you have some exact information about missing material, please let us (wikidiscussions readers) know(wn030-7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wn030-7 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kompromat

Kompromat ? Will be wise to borrow terminology from more experienced in this nations? exmple link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

primary sources

  1. ^ http://www.lemma.org/

Castro's missing inline citation?

The media are printing an AP wire that Fidel Castro said that information on Wikileaks proves that Osama bin Laden was an American (or rather, a George W. Bush) agent. [3] But I suppose it would be unethical for their report to tell readers where this is said. Can anyone point to the source? (Or is it gone already...) Wnt (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"According to Twitter..."

WL used twitter intensively in the days before the recent Red Cell release, even larger media were quoting it, not direct interviews, when covering the announcement. Now, there are twitter voices to be heard, mentioning "server down for 4 days according to twitter" looks a bit odd. Anybody news or an idea for an explanation what might have happened to the wl twitter account?

Twitter account has been compromised. I believe this could only be possible with support for the attacker from Twitter. Whoever is doing this is clearly very powerful yet inexperienced with the internet...a combination of traits unusual to most people...most governments on the other hand...a damn scary possibility WhisperingWisdom T C 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The latest message on the Twitter account is "WikiLeaks communications infrastructure is currently under attack. Project BO move to coms channel S. Activate Reston5". What all of this means, goodness only knows. Twitter is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Whistleblower"

I changed the description "whistleblower" in the infobox a while ago, but it was reverted without explanation.[4] There are plenty of whistleblowers who use WikiLeaks, but that doesn't mean it can be applied as a description to the site itself since a whistleblower has to be a person who exposes wrongdoing.

I'm sure my own suggestion of "document archive" can be improved and specified, but it needs to be changed to something that is a description of a medium, not the individuals that publish through it.

Peter Isotalo 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How about “Transparency Journalism”? WikiLeaks just made up that term to describe what they do. In an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, “Insiders know that Julian is committed to WikiLeaks longterm success in bringing transparency journalism to the world… The insider described transparency journalism - a phrase not used by the organisation until today - as ‘‘journalism that tells a true story and then backs it up by publishing source documents that also provide the truth.’’ [5] Could we be witnessing the birth of a new buzz word? Hammersbach (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
We may, but I would try to avoid using a neologism. I think 'whistleblower' is fine. They may not be whistleblowers themselves but after all they are in the 'whistleblowing business' (ha! I just made up another word.) SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 20:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I had not really intended for my comment to be taken seriously. I just found it to be a bit humorous that on the same day that we are looking for a term to describe WikiLeaks that they should just happen to be inventing one. Hammersbach (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks vs WikiLeaks

The spelling throughout the article is inconsistent. Which one shall we use, Wikileaks or WikiLeaks? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As shown in WikiLeaks, it's always WikiLeaks. In a url, lower case is acceptable. --Zayoo (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I changed the spelling to 'WikiLeaks' in all instances except the quotes (where it is mostly spelled 'Wikileaks'). Oh well.. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus section

I removed the section just added, because it definitely fails WP:OR. The first paragraph connected the recent disagreements between Assange and Domscheit-Berg. While the two facts (the site being down and the disputes) are independently sourced, no source (provided) explicitly connects the two. Putting the info together implies a connection, which is a violation of WP:SYN. The second paragraph went even farther by not citing any sources and yet still asserting that the site being down is/was due to Assange's "legal difficulties". If we think it's important enough, the Domscheit-Berg/Assange arguments could be included as its own section (I don't think it rises to the level of inclusion, because it's not really different than disagreement at any other company between an ex-employee and management, but others may disagree). I don't think we need a whole section to say that the site is currently down, as that's already in the infobox. But we definitely can't put the two sets of info together without a source explicitly stating that they are connected. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The movement of the issues to a different section, as well as separating them, fixes the OR/SYN problem. I'm still not sure that the dispute between the two is worth inclusion, but I'll leave that up to others. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian, It doesn't take a lot of insight or original research to see that Assange may have run out of pavement and is headed off a cliff. The argument with Domscheit-Berg was about several things: focus on larger batch leaks vs smaller topical leaks, the way Assange responded to the rape accusations, and the speed of publishing the Afghan documents without vetting. The site is down. There is very little in Google news search about Assange or Wikileaks other than retrospective analysis. One way or another, Assange has had his wings clipped and I will be highly surprised to see the site start back up again. I am not a Wikileaks critic. There are two scenarios here: (1) The Afghan leak was not intended by the US Govt and they are seriously pissed. (2) The Afghan leak was a stunt by the Defense Dept to engage public interest in the Afghan war. Under scenario (1), which is the most likely (and please don't think scenario (2) is impossible), one can imagine that there is visible and invisible force being brought to bear to keep the site down, in addition to the possibility that Assange is simply bringing himself down by dating too many Swedish ladies at once and by not seeking agreement with his colleagues regarding the scope and method of publishing secret war documents and the general purpose and direction of Wikileaks. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything you just put forth (other than the reference) is pure original research. It's all fascinating stuff, and great for a blog post or maybe even an opinion piece on a news site; it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article, or even this talk page. You're just inferring that the dispute implies larger problems, or caused larger problems, or whatever. But, in any event, I'm not saying the personnel dispute should come out--it is reported in reliable sources. I just want to make sure others think it's important enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only some of what is in the prior paragraph is original research, and people do care that the site is down and why it is down, as evidenced by people in the prior section of this talk page noting it's state prior to my contributions. Here are the factual elements in the paragraph above that come from external sources and not from any kind of original research on my part:

  1. There was a dispute inside Wikileaks on
    1. Larger batch leaks vs smaller topical leaks
    2. The way Assange responded to the rape accusations
    3. The speed of publishing the Afghan documents without vetting.
  2. The site is down.
  3. There are few items published since 30 September 2010 in Google news search as of 14 October 2010 about Assange or Wikileaks other than retrospective analysis.
  4. The US DoD and President Obama are publicly not happy about the Afghan leak.
  5. Separately, the US Army has a publicly declared command whose purpose is to manipulate foreign public opinion. This command is described in detail in a Wikipedia article of long standing.
  6. There were rape accusations made in Sweden against Assange which are still being litigated
  7. The Swedish laws regarding the definition of rape are stricter than in the United States and can include issues of intentionality and misrepresentation in addition to forcible acts of violence.
  8. The rape charges were made, withdrawn, and reinstated, in part due to difference in standards embodied in Swedish rape law.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all very well, but Wikipedia is limited by the material that has been published in reliable sources. Other users have rightly warned against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am as keen as anyone else to know why WikiLeaks is down and when it is coming back, but there is nothing much to say at the moment other than the site's announcement that it is down for server maintenance.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Erxnmedia, maybe I wasn't clear above. That list of facts that you include above is, for the most part, not original research. Putting any of those facts next to the other, to explicitly or implicitly imply they are connected, is original research, unless a reliable source has already made the connection. Putting some of them into this article at all is WP:SYN. For example, numbers 4, 7, and 8 could not go in this article as you would be applying a general principle/law/plan to this specific case, which is synthesis, unless a reliable source has already stated that those "facts" are connected to Assange of Wikileaks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: 6 is also not appropriate for this article--nothing about the rape is in this article nor should it be. That goes into the Julian Assange article, again, unless you can reference a reliable source saying the issues are connected (note that Assange's theories themselves are not reliable in this instance). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If I were in Assange's position right now I'd be spouting some unreliable theories myself! Erxnmedia (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WikiLeaks donation site shutdown by operator is in the news, this may be notable enough for the article, although it would not necessarily explain the outage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my changes in here...for some reason I thought that I would have to phrase my research in such a way that it didnt appear as original research. I've changed the site hiatus section again. I think I've addressed most of the characteristics of it that made it seem like original research...but I'm pretty new here so please fix it if it's wrong! I know I didn't do the citations right. In fact I am actually just citing myself...original research?WhisperingWisdom T C 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So, the Iraq war logs were just released on warlogs.wikileaks.org. Not really a WikiLeaks hiatus then, but more like the main site being down. Donations are also up on that page. Seems undue having a hiatus section in light of this release. Nymf hideliho! 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What the Heck

"Wikileaks is going to be releasing over 400,000 US military documents from irag. |url=http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/15/next-leak-next-week.html%7C"

First of all, the typo calling Iraq "irag" is just frankly hillarious, g is so far away from q. Anyways, don't post links like that at all. I wasn't sure if this is vandalism, so I'll delete for now but let you guys figure it out.72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely not vandalism--it's a "real" story. I find BoingBoing to be reliable, although I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call them a reliable source. They do usually provide references to reliable sources. However, having said that, the future release is still just educated guessing about the future. I think we're much better off waiting until next week and then reporting if/when the new release happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed this on WP:CRYSTAL grounds, as at this stage it may or may not happen. Let's wait a few days on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I found this on CBS. --Bsadowski1 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
CBS is a reliable source, but the text says "The Pentagon is bracing for the possible release of as many as 400,000 potentially explosive secret military documents on the U.S.-Iraq war by WikiLeaks. The self-described whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday." This still leads to an element of WP:CRYSTAL, so waiting until the documents are released would be the best option. If and when they are released, there will be a lot of media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's fine to include it if it's a direct quote of CBS; that's not WP:CRYSTAL Gregcaletta (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's October 18th and Wikileaks is still dead. Did the Pentagon also mention that it is still hunting for Bin Laden? Erxnmedia (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like The Wikileaks try to get somehow to satisfy government and citizens. Because government asked them to not to show the files - they do not show the files. Gov asked to give them back the files so Wikleaks posted it on web so gov can download it. Satisfying concurrent opposite demands in computer terminology this is called multitasking. When time switching allowed two processes to exist and compete for limited resources like the memory (orCPU). This may be quite smart for those awesome hackers to implement multitasking to demands since now everyone see that Wikileaks are good guys. Pentagon asked Wikileaks to do this:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8xMD2xP63Y. They doing this but the logic may suggest that 'non US citizens' (known also as aliens) do not need to obey alien to them gov . Some our founders lay thoughts (for example in Constitution) that even we do have to bear arms in case gover will be ugly uncover.

Hundreds millions of watched or posted Youtube videos when English voices with native accent cause sympathy to the transparency Wikileaks fulfilling; some even saying they work for our president who promised transparent government. Who knows? if some mony may make difficult even for president to publish secrets whiteout being cuth like K. This Pentagon bracing may be just a spin (coming from good forces in gov) to put our attention on the facts. Spun like taste of forbidden fruit to mobilize inert parts in We The People so of course add it to the article but not the CBS, use free press source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Event Tag Is Warranted

Don't shoot the messenger, guys, but WikiLeak's shut-downs are not temporary, but rather, intermittent. Ergo, would it not be wise to add a currentevent template?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that is in the news should have a currentevent template. WP:CET says: "The current event template may be used optionally to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors. In such a case, the template is subject to removal when the event described is no longer receiving massive editing attention." WikiLeaks is not receiving a large edit count at the moment, and the situation regarding the site's unavailability is being monitored. Any changes in the site's status should be reflected quickly in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And the site is still dead. I think people are misunderestimating the possibility that Julian Assange may be much farther up a creek than he really wants to be. At this point I don't think it's any more a current event than the hunt for Osama bin Laden or the much-anticipated appearances of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Mahdi. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Dead" implies that the site is never coming back again, and we just don't know at the moment. The article says as much as reliable sourcing will allow.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
With his character attacked, his partners quitting, his visa revoked and his funding frozen, it may be the case that Assange has been effectively halted in his activities. Wikileaks doesn't appear to have an institutional identity, activity and momentum apart from it's founder. Too soon to call the site "dead" perhaps but I don't see any articles on Wikileaks where someone other than Assange is the spokesperson, representative and leader. Assange is a unique figure making a unique bet (that a quasi-transnational "citizen of the world" can safely release large quantities of secret documents of the world's dominant superpower without taking serious personal risk). If Wikileaks = Assange and Assange has cement shoes on, then that's it for Wikileaks and I don't guess there is anybody else out at present who might lead people to take the same set of risks. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
False claims all is visible e.g. here and in billions of reflections, in variety of memories. Sad impression when some DODe starting psychops wars back to own country (how?: imposing info blackout and petting parrots in media [6])
and momentum apart from it's founder just see: my.ili.oni [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]...
Please note that talk pages are not a forum. At the moment, nobody knows exactly why the site is down beyond the "underoing maintenance" message, or when the site may come back again. There is still a mirror of the site and its archive at http://mirror.wikileaks.info/, but it has to be "wait and see" for the main address at http://www.wikileaks.org/.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cryptome has published an article suggesting that the hiatus is all part of the master strategy, so maybe we'll see some more life out of Wikileaks if they're right. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is interesting but blog sourced, so it is not really suitable for the article. What is interesting is that the wikileaks.org message does not point out that the mirror site is still up, so nobody is missing out on the site. Also, "scheduled maintenance" would rarely last more than a few hours on a reputable server, so this is becoming increasingly unlikely as the reason why the site is down. The article cannot speculate on why the main site has been down for so long, but there may be aspects that have not been reported by the media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This post, also from Cryptome, sheds more some light on the possibilities, although it seems to have it a few different ways: (a) That Wikileaks is not really an organization, just an idea, (b) That Wikileaks is Assange, (c) That Wikileaks goes beyond Assange and Assange is a diversion...it's a little grandiose, but it's written by someone closely enough associated with the effort to have served as domain registrant for Wikileaks and to have spoken on the phone with Assange in the past year. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cryptome is not reliable source has been recently again compromized and is hosted on Netsol virtual machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Insurance file

I think I read somewhere that the famous Insurance file was actually a compressed PDF of the 1000 longest articles on Wikipedia which had then been run through Triple DES, where the password was "Burn all the books you want, Nazi punks. We already have a copy." Has anyone else heard this rumor? Erxnmedia (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The insurance file" seems to relate to reports back in July that WikiLeaks has a 1.4GB AES256 file with unknown contents.[23] There is no reliable sourcing on the contents of this document.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is some statistical analysis on the file. It's random which means it's either well-encrypted, or it's random. Erxnmedia (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
See also this story in today's Wall Street Journal. This *may* be the cause of the current brouhaha, but only time will tell.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • SHA512: 1279dc1e09a06dbc60cfbe9b1e66ada0e1e5de1df5b37a2f9f532b60db07b75ca953765dd24d347328f0ae417bd66478b22693be538104cefb6cc64ae2b7cc5c
  • WHIRLPOOL: 1612d44096ec0b3a28239682164dfa584e743cce1a724404b84ef20910db61c39fb0fe9c0448d93d2fa7dd29b042d20fbfc1dcb93106ffb73bb58
yep, [foreseeing|trying to understand] ErrMedia ideas, a byte stream could be encrypted to 1491834576 B and programmatically arranged to produce above checksums. Sources: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews - Help - expand - article - Wikileaks Releases Iraq War Logs

Reviewed and published this Wikinews article as a short piece, because it is breaking. However, would really appreciate any help, from editors that would like to expand the article over there, with sourced info. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism

Pretty obvious when you read the pages and look at history. someone has to revert to the older version as I'm not too used to do it myself. 184.160.23.139 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the talk? source 190

... We release everyone from their Iraq War Logs embargoes.", upon which all major news organisations started releasing articles based on the source material. Shortly after the source material became available on a WikiLeaks subdomain complete with an interface with appropriate search functions. {iBeg}The 345.2 MB database file titled 'iraq-war-diary-redacted.mysql' contains 391,832 reports by soldiers in the United States Army from from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009.< ref >sha512sum iraq-war-diary-redacted.mysql 636477f4265364c7cceeafd0e2bc954d7de3f5318330a70c08b2f586ef89b80358cf6478af0530cec4909163273d9d0a17cd283a49834ffab2b05f7a0ad5ca49 http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5904430/iraq-war-diary-redacted.mysql< /ref > {iEnd} The BBC quoted ...

But see, this revert self description was perfedly accurate : removed sourced statement. This revert removed the primary source turning back Iraq section to amplifier parroting secondary adjuiced information.

fixed --spitzl (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A) The article has been locked when i tried add specific day to date (bolded) "In October 16 2010, it was reported that WikiLeaks was planning in Oct 17 to release up to 400,000 documents relating to the Iraq War.[187]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) B) What is the problem to look in the source 187 release date and put October 16? Then read the sentence #2 "whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday." After that do some `original research` to sentence #2 word "Sunday" ; to look in calendar or calculate (16+1) the "Sunday' date. Aserrting what is Oct 17.

Will be this numeric (A) info too true or too specific for your wp readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewording Introduction

The introductory paragraph seems to need some rewording. Instead of stating Julian Assange as the director it says "Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010)describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director." There is a reference which should give all the information about the source. Is there any reason the refernece information should be written in the text not just the reference?

A similar problem is in the previous sentence which stats "The organization has described itself as..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meitme (talk • contribs) 13:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Split Notable Leaks

I believe the section on notable leaks should be split off into a new article. WP:Article Size says that an article above 100 kb should "Almost certainly should be divided". This article is already above 100kb and is most likely going to continue growing as WikiLeaks grows and does more notable work.

A new article for notable leaks would already be large enough and significant enough to have it's own data. Also, it shouldn't take much work as it is already has many subdivisions. Then we could just leave a link to the new article for further information and possibly a summary of only the most significant leaks.meitme (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean? (in bold)

"Wikipedia makes no guarantee,[50] log and will reveal (if requested) the tracking information (such as IP addresses) of readers or contributors[51] and applies restrictions to discovered Tor anonymity network exit nodes.[52]"

Is there a word missing here? I'm not sure how to interpret the bold section above. Zagalejo^^^ 21:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No clue. Here is the IP adding it, so it was like that from the beginning. You can probably remove the whole thing. Nymf hideliho! 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that adding "of privacy" after the word guarantee would be the obvious fix for the content. WrenandStimpy (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition, this comparison of the "private information protection model" of Wikimedia and Wikileaks is original research and places undue weight on a difference between the two that is really just a consequence of their vastly different purposes and methods: Wikipedia only accepts information that has already been published , WikiLeaks only accepts information that has never been published (and may be illegal to submit); Wikipedia is completely open (anyone can publish information on it), Wikileaks is completely closed (Assange has full control over what gets published), etc.
Personally I find the relationship between Wikileaks and Wikimedia interesting and to some extent relevant for Wikipedians (I have written a whole article for the Signpost about it), but only a small part of it is notable enough to be covered in a general encyclopedia article such as this (cf. WP:WAWI). I am removing the two sentences.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an important distinciton you are missing. Your statement regarding original research and whether documents have been "published" is misleading. Unless you are suggesting that Assange or someone on his staff authored the documents WikiLeaks hosts, you are missing a very important point. Something published internally and not made public is not the same as original research or something that is not "published". There are some other over generalizations in your statement, but I generally agree with the thrust of your comments. See also Pentagon Papers. WrenandStimpy (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't apply Wikipedia's no original research policy to Wikileaks itself, but to the two sentences on Wikipedia (apologies if my wording was unclear). More specifically, its WP:SYNTH sections says one should not draw together separate facts (here: WL encourages TOR use, WP blocks TOR use, etc.) to form a "synthesis" conclusion.
And I didn't say that Assange authored the documents on WikiLeaks, but that he controls which ones get published. No one can exercise this level of control on Wikipedia.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed there may be an issue of synthesis. But I don't agree with your statemens that:
  • Wikipedia only accepts information that has already been published
  • WikiLeaks only accepts information that has never been published
  • Wikipedia is completely open (anyone can publish information on it)
  • Wikileaks is completely closed (Assange has full control over what gets published)
But maybe I am nitpicking. The issues involved are certainly interesting. Take care. WrenandStimpy (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course these are rough principles which may be qualified to some extent in practice (and I should have said "not publicly available" instead of "never been published"), but you can find references for all four in the articles about WP and WL - our discussion indeed runs the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM, but at least it reminded me to add that part of WL's submission policy to the article ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally it mean that to make free knowledge-base the free content, written by numerous volunteers, has to be freed from current management who disengage it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

US newspapers call for a cyberattac on wikileaks

The Washington Post and The Washington Times have been calling for the government to issue a cyberattack on the Wikileaks website. [24] See also the original post on the Iraq War documents leak discussion page. I think we should add this to the article. --spitzl (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for copying this over here, Spitzl, I was just about to do that myself. (I'm the original poster). Yeah, should it maybe go in it's own subsection called "US censorship" in the overall "Investigations, censorship and harassment" section? Something like that seems the most appropriate to me. 165.91.173.45 (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Before either of you add this to the article you may want to go back and read the source you cite a bit closer. It reads, "In a rare point of congruence, The Washington Post and The Washington Times both criticized the release, with the smaller paper arguing that WikiLeaks' offshore Web site should be attacked and rendered "inoperable" by the U.S. government." (emphasis mine) I think you'll agree that your source is saying that only one paper, the Washington Times, calls for an "attack" while both criticize the release. Hammersbach (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that. That's true, but the section wouldn't just be about what the Washington Times said, but also the words of "Christian Whiton, a State Department adviser under President George W. Bush", "Conservative commentator Liz Cheney", "Marc Thiessen, a President George W. Bush speechwriter and visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute", "James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,", and "Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell". I think all of those statements together is more than enough to make a section about the US response. 165.91.173.213 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sunshine Press

The Sunshine Press has no activities aside from Wikileaks. It is not a "press" in the conventional sense, and the current revision of the article doesn't convey this distinction to the reader. Thoughts?WhisperingWisdom T C 20:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


Steve Jobs HIV controversy

This generated some early criticism of Wikileaks in 2009 before the major scandals. It should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article. -Truthseeq (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming?

I am curious, why is there a section in this article entitled "Upcoming"? How is it encyclopedic to include something that may or may not happen? Hammersbach (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not stating whether they will occur or not, only that the announcements have been made, which is past tense. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually the heading should be changes to reflect this. I have changes it to "announcements of upcoming leaks" Gregcaletta (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't answer the question of how it is encyclopedic? How is it WP:NOTNEWS? How is it not WP:CRYSTALBALL? It is something that may or may not occur. If it is just an annoucement why should it be in an encyclopedia? We are not here to shill WikiLeaks possibilities, are we? Hammersbach (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Hammersback here. We wouldn't list every press release that a regular company made about upcoming products. If the announcement itself somehow generated a lot of press (like how the announcement about the Iraq War Logs was a notable, widely publicized story even before the actual leak), then I could see including it. But we shouldn't be repeating here each announcement of impending releases. Heck, we shouldn't even be discussing actual releases themselves unless they were notable (not necessarily in a "stand-alone article" sense, but at least in a "more important than average" sense). We're not here to document every moment of their history, just the most "encyclopedic" moments. I'm inclined to remove that whole section unless someone presents a cogent rejection. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"If the announcement itself somehow generated a lot of press" - the would-be 7x-bigger leak announced to come out soon is getting to the top of google news right now, and the US government seems to be engaging in a huge damage-limitation program, including getting the UK government to issue a voluntary censorship alert, DA-Notices, to UK press. [Idle thought: even if Wikileaks was just bluffing, they have already succeeded in getting the US govt to bring a huge amount of attention to the question of open diplomacy vs secret diplomacy. Why should representatives of the people need to negotiate questions of life and death and economics secretly?] Anyway, the fact is that the US govt is making a huge fuss about this expected leak. It presumably has inside info from NYT/Guardian/Der Spiegel/Le Monde confirming the nature of the leak, unless it's so stupid that it's going to embarrass itself about a leak that will turn out to be... about Russia. Boud (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Muckraker? (For example, per http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/25/wikileaks.review/ )

Add Muckraker? (For example, per http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/25/wikileaks.review/ ) 99.102.179.121 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Word

Under 'Diplomatic Cables Relase', there is a sentence which says "On 28 November, Wikileaks announced it was undergoing a massive Distributed Denial-of-service attack attack". Note the repeated use of the word 'attack'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt0chew (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Censorship in Iran

Warlogs are also censored in Iran!09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.168.184 (talk)

Criticism

There's been enough criticism of Wikileaks from all sides, from those opposed to leaks to those (i.e. John Young) alleging some nefarious intent behind Wikileaks, that it seems a short and compact section on 'Criticism' might be warranted. Felixhonecker (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am shocked at the positive language of this article, there is not a word about the criticism voiced against this wacko by governments around the world. The article reads as if it's talking about a youth club! This is a quite controversial organization. Also, there is no mentioning - as far as I saw - of the Swedish international arrest warrant against Assange, something that would be mentioned on the article about any other organization, like it or not. This page reads like an advertisement. I am completely shocked at the lack of neutrality here. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree! The article reads more like it was written by WikiLeaks advocates/cheerleaders than it does like an entry in an encyclopedia. The article barely mentions the dangers to peoples' lives and the dangers to diplomacy that WikiLeaks creates by releasing secret documents. It also fails to mention the legal consequences that contributors could face. The introduction states "WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces..." which is about one tenth of the whole story--one NPOV tenth (two civilians were non-Iraqi reporters who were embedded with Iraqi insurgents, two other civilians were children in a van (not visible to the pilot) that was struck while providing support to the insurgents. Why have that in the introduction? Either give it a NPOV approach (which would be lengthy), or take it out of the intro... Just My Suggestions. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can edit. What sourced material would you like to add? HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, I'd strongly disagree that information on the Swedish arrest warrant should be included here. I do think that John Young's assertions that Wikileaks is a COINTELPRO operation should be included, as they have been noted in WP:SOURCE acceptable outlets (e.g. WIRED, cnet.com, etc.). I think there's much more that could be included but I also think an edit of this nature has the potential to open the doors of abuse for everyone with an axe to grind with wikileaks that a discussion is warranted before an "anyone can edit" approach is taken. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The "anyone can edit" comment is simply stating a truth of WIkipedia. But I agree with you. Discussion here is a great idea. Let's give others some time to repsond. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The arrest warrant concerns Assange's private life, not WikiLeaks (or at least it does if it isn't an attempt to intimidate him, which has been suggested, but we'd need WP:RS for that). It has no bearing on the article topic. I'd be more inclined to take comments about the lack of neutrality of the article from people who don't describe Assange as a 'wacko'. I'd also suggest that a look at the broad range of 'leaks' released by WikiLeaks makes the any possible 'nefarious intent' difficult to reconcile with the obvious interests of any agency or pressure group: though again WP:RS to the contrary would change things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I agree the arrest warrant should in no case be included in this entry. To the other point, analyzing the broad range of leaks and making a conclusion that they don't support a 'nefarious intent' is original research and beyond an editor's scope of operation. Simply reporting on various allegations that have been made by reputable sources (a former WL board member and the domain name's original registrant, John Young) and reported on by WP:RS acceptable outlets should meet all standards of significance. To wit:
- http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets
- http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html
- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574462119793480.html
Felixhonecker (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section called "Criticism" which I feel is important for reasons stated previously. However, I do think it is a little lopsided without any itemization of the public support it has received from other notables like Daniel Ellsberg, etc. Does anyone have thoughts about changing this to a section called "Reception" or something similar with a sub-section called "Support" and a sub-section called "Criticism"? Felixhonecker (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MikeBaun, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please include the information that Wikileaks is a facilitated by spy agencies of foreign governments and has possible terrorism links. My last request for edit was not taken seriously and removed. This is a series matter for actual discussion.

MikeBaun (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If not, it doesn't go in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm untranscluding the request. If MikeBaun has sources, then we can review and consider adding them.
This is a global encyclopaedia edited by people from all over the world. What do you mean by "foreign governments"? Foreign to whom? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia isnt a place for original research WP:OR Wims (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.52.149.174, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the paragraph:

In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9] In October, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations.

The last word "organisations" is misspelled and should read "organizations"

68.52.149.174 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just the UK spelling. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup. There has been a low-level war going on for years between those who use US spelling, and those who know how to do it properly... Only kidding, the rule seems to be that we try to be consistent in a single article: If the subject is specifically about US-related subjects , we use US spelling, if it is UK-related we use UK spelling, but otherwise we are supposed to use whatever was first used in an article. Unfortunately this tends to become difficult to figure out if not done consistently from the start, and in an article like this, which changes rapidly, you're bound to see inconsistencies. One of the joys of an open, international project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that Julian Assange is Australian, can I insist on Australian spelling? For those unaware it's mostly like UK English. That would mean "organisation". HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Technically there is no real consensus in UK when to use ize and ise though. [25] talks about this. OED seems to prefer ize. They state "There is no reason why in English the special French spelling (iser) should ever be followed," referring to words that have derived from Greek and Latin. Nymf hideliho! 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
My copy of the OED clearly states in the introduction (from memory, as I don't have it to hand) that they use ize simply out of convenience, and both spellings are correct in UK English.71.106.173.131 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Where is WikiLeaks based? Which spelling do they use? Do we really need to worry about this right now? I'd say note that there is an inconsistency, and fix it when the article settles down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Their servers are based in Sweden, but I agree - I don't think a change is necessary at the moment either. Nymf hideliho! 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: No consensus for the change, and AndyTheGrump's suggestion is very sensible. For what it's worth, http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html states, "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Endangering people's lives

Daniel Ellsberg said no to the BBC today. Per that BBC clip "the Pentagon has admitted they have not been able to identify a single person harmed" from the August release. This is referenced in the Criticism section. Felixhonecker (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Dream Focus - you ask "Have any of their past leaks endangered anyone's safety?" I ask "Have any of the secrets now being revealed endangered anyone's safety?" HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing. Nobody is dead yet that we know of. That's not the same thing as saying that no one had to pack their bags and run. It will take time to know how this will play out.
Consider that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved because of a secret deal. Wikileaks and its supporters have decided that deals like that are now off the table. Whether or not that would have endangered the lives of Cubans and Floridians, we can't know.
BTW: I'm not saying Ellsberg can't be used for a quote in the article.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You said, "Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing." For that matter, the USG isn't impartial. It has an institutional interest in making leaks look like a bad thing. I'm unaware of any WP guideline that mandates anyone referenced by an otherwise acceptable source be "impartial." If I'm wrong, however, and there is such a rule or guideline, I would welcome correction.
As for the point about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's an editorial analysis and, as original research, outside the scope of this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not impartial at all, but there's a huge difference. Any government's position has the stamp of authority and responsibility that speaks for more than just one person, group, or movement. It may have the force of law behind it.
In this specific case, we're talking about Ellsberg's interpretation of what the Pentagon said. Ellsberg's opinions clearly mean something to a lot of critics of the U.S., and it's worth remembering where he claims to stand. But he shouldn't be a filter for where the Pentagon claims to stand.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed where someone was suggesting to use him in that context in this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tapiwagwatidzo, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} wikileaks site switched off by amazon.com, their host, probably because of pressure from us govt.

Tapiwa Gwatidzo (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Note: I have added this information to the article, after having found reliable sources - Amog | Talk • contribs 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How does one access the normal documents?

I put up the WikiLeaks cables in interactive table format at http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeowch (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is wikileaks devoted to the warlogs now? There does not seem to be an archive to look at the old documents anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, given that the current main page of http://www.wikileaks.org/ is devoted entirely to the Iraq War Logs. The older archive material is still at http://mirror.wikileaks.info/, perhaps the article should mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The URL you provided is not a real mirror. You cannot search nor browse categories, nor does the document links work. It seams like there is no way to access the old documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder--though this is called a "talk page," Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of a topic. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Also, in case this wasn't clear, Wikileaks and Wikipedia are not at all related other than the first four letters of their names, so we don't necessarily have any clear insight. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think that this had WP:NOTAFORUM issues. We don't know how WikiLeaks works here at Wikipedia, but since the article mentions plenty of things on WikiLeaks other than the Iraq War Logs, it is useful for the article to be able to cite them. At the moment, the main page of WikiLeaks mentions only the Logs, so it is hard to point readers at the material in the "Notable leaks" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm overreacting, because this page has often hosted more chatter than work on the article...but even if you're right, I it's not really our "job" to point people to the other material. By analogy, we don't point out the pages numbers in books where various plot points happen in our summaries. Particularly since the original questioner was an unsigned IP, I figured the person may be unfamiliar with our policies, so better to stop now than before it got more extensive. 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
DERP. I was not arguing as if this was a forum, nor did I think wikipedia was affiliated with wikileaks. It is you who turned a legit concern I had to your canned response about this not being a forum. Get off your high horse and make yourself useful instead. I concern was regarding the article refering to stuff that is no longer available or describing the website in an inaccurate way since the site has completely changed and no longer holds leaked documents other than the war logs. If you dont have anything of value to add it is better if you don't jump in to stir up stuff. What I say still stand, the majority of the article refers to something that is no longer there, and it speaks of the site as it was, not as it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a worrying number of dead links from wikileaks.org in the article at the moment, so it is an article related issue. These citations are clearly not going to work while the site is devoted to the Logs, so it needs to be addressed. For example, although the Loveparade is mentioned on the mirror site, the link to download the documents produces a 404 error. While Wikipedia is not responsible for other sites, it does need to ensure that the article reflects the up to date situation. Many of the older pages and document downloads seem to be unavailable at the moment, so they cannot be used as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I've found a fair few replacements for the dead links today, by googling the names, but some are not accessible at the moment. I'd imagine they'll come accessible again in the future though, once things have calmed down. SmartSE (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no collateral damage section? Were no foreign lives lost?

Where is the section for the humongous levels of collateral damage perpetrated by Wikileaks? Its leakage of facts on the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts involving the military of the United States has resulted in the losses of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan lives. Why does Wikipedia suppress the Satanic human losses incurred as a result of Assange's role in the Middle East? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic here, but if you're being serious, please provide a reliable source to support those claims, and then we can consider adding them to the article (phrased neutrally, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Zloyvolsheb, WikiLeaks' activities have not been found to kill anyone, much less "hundreds of thousands".[26][27]. In fact, if anyone is guilty for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, its the people who started these wars (and continue to fight in them). [28] Sonicsuns (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there has been no reported outings of "Spies, informants, etc" or anything remotely like that. Seems the redactions made prior to release have kept these supposed people safe. Phearson (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
there are articles on the subject, and so far no public evidence exists. The government never claimed it would be hundreds and thousands. Anyway, due to the nature of it, it seems unlikely that any death could ever be directly linked to wikileaks. there really is no definite answer. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Page view statistics

If you go to history and look at "Page View Statistics", you will see that this article has been watched over two million times in December 2010. Surely, this must make it one of the most viewed pages in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We should have a page of these records if we don't already. Here are a few that went higher: Michael Jackson: 5.9 million (the day he died, outstripping the main page that day); Sarah Palin: 2.5 million (the day McCain announced she was his running mate); and Barack Obama: 2.3 million (the night of the election and the morning and afternoon after).--Chaser (away) - talk 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Here it is: Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps.--Chaser (away) - talk 20:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 195.174.78.43, 8 December 2010

Ayrıca wikileaks in ülkelere göre yerli yayıncılar tarafında çevirisi yapılmış siteleri bulunmaktadır...wikileaks Türkiye 195.174.78.43 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is the English version of the Wikipedia, I don't think a reference in... Turkish? is very useful. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Google Translate says this is Turkish for "In addition, according to Wikileaks in the country by local publishers have translated sites ...", which I think makes some sort of sense: "WikiLeaks site states that translations are available on locally-published sites". I'm not sure that this really merit's inclusion though? One would at minimum actually have to find the statement from WikiLeaks to that effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This refers to a Turkish language version of WikiLeaks. It is unlikely to be viewed by English speaking people, so the request has been transcluded.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

interpretation of the leaks

there seem to be 3 interpretations of the diplomatic cables leaks. the most common being that they are embarrassing(the media), the other that they are potentially dangerous and harmful to diplomacy (governments). and of course there is wikileaks interpretation that they are indicative of duplicity on the part of the US government. pointing to the cables as evidence of espionage by us diplomats. I am looking for the exact source to cite this. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobile site has vandalism

When you view the WikiLeaks page from an iPhone, there is text present opining about and seeking action to halt NASA's lunar experiment program. Just FYI.

166.137.8.213 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was removed from the article a few minutes back - it's probably a caching problem. Shimgray | talk | 00:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

peter king

Is there a "whocares" tag in wikipedia? The below quote is basically pointless since its usual political claptrap made by a politician of no importance:

U.S. congressman Peter T. King called for WikiLeaks to be designated as a terrorist organization in response to the leak of the cables.

There is an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, as the reaction from Peter T King is reliably sourced. Mike Huckabee has called for the person behind the leaks to be executed.[29] These are interesting reactions, and the article should reflect how US politicians have reacted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia editor calls for U.S. congressman Peter T. King to be designated as a politician of no importance"? I'm not sure about this, though I'm inclined to agree that we don't want the article cluttered with random condemnations. Unless congressman King's comments are actually of real significance, they need to go. I don't see why Mike Huckabee's opinions are of any significance either. (The King quote is from primary sources anyway). If there is WP:RS commenting on the reactions of US (and other) politicians, that of course may be worth including. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with "I don't like it" and everything to do with it adding no value. If he was chairman of the house intelligence committee or something then fine, but he's just some random congressman. The section is "Investigations, censorship, and alleged harassment and surveillance" and some random remarks by a random congressman hardly qualifies. This is what I mean by "WP:WHOCARES". King might be important to someone, but not to Wikileaks. Andy got my point pretty well: "we don't want the article cluttered with random condemnations". I feel the same about statements of praise. I'm sure we can find the mayor of somewhere supporting wikileaks, but again, who cares? The article is locked, could someone please remove the statement? --65.2.0.134 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What about a "What've ya got ta hide, pal." tag for Peter? Its already being used extensively when the average citizen wants some privacy. Seriously, though, its notable what King says because 126,142 people (72%) voted for him. Its as simple as that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
126142 ~= 0.04% of the US population. Compared with the viewership of American Idol, I would argue that Ryan Seacrests opinion, if offered, is 262 times more valuable than this random-assed congressman from upstate new york. Can we get it out of there now, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
...And Wikipedia isn't a US-only project anyway. Since King's opinions seem to be of no particular significance, I'll delete the sentence. As I've said, a proper source summarising reactions from US political circles would probably be worth including, but not this. AndyTheGrump (talk)
The Wikileaks dumps of 2010 have focused on the U.S.. There are only 535 U.S. Congresspeople. One of them has called for WikiLeaks to be designated a terrorist organization, which is a much bigger deal than just saying "I don't like them". Overall, I feel that King's statement is important enough to be included in some way.Sonicsuns (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, for the reason given by Sonicsuns and because the opinion King states is not only King's; so its important to accept the reality of it within the article. Having said that,AndyTheGrump's idea of having a summary of reactions from US political circles is a better way of handling it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
One very important thing I should have mentioned: Peter King isn't just some random congressperson. He's the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. [30] . So his views on alleged terrorist activities are very important. Sonicsuns (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well it is important to provide context. Is it just something he said, or is he still seeking to designate wikileaks as a terrorist organization. also, who does designate terrorists? 168.93.95.58 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the fact that Assange has been arrested, because as the judge has said the arrest has "nothing to do with wikileaks" (source). Unless other charges are bought against Assange then this shouldn't be included in the article in my opinion. As an analogy, at present it would be like including the fact that a CEO was arrested in an article about a company, to suggest that what the company does is illegal. SmartSE (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree. currently, wikileaks is in the heat, and there are serious conerns that assange is being arrested for what seems to be a trivial criminal case, just because of his activities for wikilaks. That makes it part of the wikileaks story. its not just some CEO who was caught drunk driving after hours. -- eiland (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course I realise that, but what I'm trying to get across is that it is speculation to suggest that this has anything to do with wikileaks when the judge and prosecutor say it is not. Personally, I think it is related, but that's not a reason to include it. If he is charged for actions related to wikileaks then we can include it, but we should not be including it, just because he is the founder of wikileaks. SmartSE (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
People are invariably going to speculate about a link, but the sexual assault charges have no direct bearing on whether the site is or is not legal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
So the English judge says its not Wikileaks - in fact it wasnt the english judge who requested his extraditon, so of course he or she says that (the question which is relevant is why the Swedes push it, now). But all this article has to do is, well referenced, different sources with different views. So the judge is one, and Assange ans his lawyers are another, and maybe there are other, reliable sources. -- 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Really now... does George Michael getting arrested mean that pop music has a questionable legal status? ianmacm is correct. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is quite wrong and against policy (NPOV) to remove Assange's arrest. Call it speculation if you want, but many RS's surmise that Assange's legal troubles are part of an attack on Wikileaks, and should be used to include this highly relevant fact. If a CEO were arrested and many RS's suggest that it was the activities of the company that (illegitimately) prompted his arrest on a superficially unrelated charge, it would be proper there too. Judges and prosecutors do not determine what wikipedia articles include. Their statements have no special status above other RS's.John Z (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have re added the arrest because I feel that removing it violates WP:NPOV.TucsonDavid (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel that an arrest warrant that is completely unrelated to WikiLeaks belongs in this article, and under legal status to boot? Nymf hideliho! 16:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It falls under WP:NPOV. Also a CEO is the face of the company and it could be said that it is a result of the recent leaks.Plus all possible sides should be include. I would not would like to put it up for discussion but I do know how to place the template. Sorry I can't explain my view in words very well.TucsonDavid (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See #Arrest of Assange being included in legal status. It would help to keep all discussion in the same place. Can I move this up into that section? SmartSE (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes go ahead.TucsonDavid (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on this. There is a consensus not to imply that Julian Assange's arrest on the rape charges is directly linked to the site's legal status. Also as mentioned, there is WP:CRYSTAL in this edit. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, please stick to the facts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag because it seams that some editor just want their side or nothing I feel a discussion is warranted.TucsonDavid (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The legal status of WikiLeaks is a complex issue. The site is hosted legally in Sweden, and the rape charges are a POV fork. They do not belong in the "Legal status" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can provide some strong sources to indicate that his arrest is anything to do with wikileaks (not just speculating that it might be) then I can still see no reason to include this. I can't see what it has to do with NPOV, but if you disagree please explain why it is POV to keep this out of the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, please bear in mind that this article is about the website WikiLeaks, not a BLP of Julian Assange. Material that relates specifically to Assange should be in his BLP, rather than here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a difference in saying that his arrest has no relevance to the article, which is debatable, and saying it isn't relevant to the legal status of Wikileaks. I'd argue it does have relevance to the article, but not to the legal status of the organization. A hypothetical CEO being arrested on cocaine charges is relevant to a company's entry if it's notable, but it doesn't have implications for the company's legal status. I.e. if there is a section on the legal status of the company, they are not guilty of cocaine possession, just because their CEO is. I think it's good info, just in the wrong place. 204.65.34.204 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not really related to the legal status, but to the question of whether governments are using extra-legal methods to attack Wikileaks. Whether they are using legal machinery to illegitimately harass an organization and its activities, by harassing its founder through malicious prosecution. It would be better in the "Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance" section.
SO WHAT if the judge & prosecutor say the arrest had "nothing to do with wikileaks". The judge & prosecutor do not write wikipedia. If Assange & his lawyers & others RS's like Glenn Greenwald suggest it has everything to do with Wikileaks, it is very clearly highly relevant to a Wikileaks article, just as it would be if the judge had said "we know Assange is innocent, we are just persecuting him to get at Wikileaks". It is highly non-neutral to take a judge's and prosecution's statement as THE TRUTH, and call all else speculation. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to "speculate". That is WP:OR. But other sources are, particularly Assange, the founder of this article's topic.John Z (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation: Avenge Assange

AP says that "Operation: Avenge Assange" is actually called "Operation Payback." Also, I would like to add that, according to the article, Operation Payback may have designated Twitter as the target of their next DDoS attack, saying, "Twitter you're next for censoring Wikileaks discussion." [1] Lordhood117 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The link you give isn't working AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link. The operation have been labeled by the media both as Operation Payback and Operation Avenge Assange. The original name is Operation Payback, and it used to target websites about copyright, now they changed they targets to support WikiLeaks, and released a flyer naming the operation "Operation Avenge Assange". So the group is Operation Payback and the current attack is just part of "Operation Avenge Assange". (sources of all this are in the operation payback article and talk page) --Neo139 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the group "Anonymous" was undertaking Operation Payback by attacking Anti-Pirate Agenda websites, I read somewhere that the group was taking a break to assist with Operation Avenge Assange, being that censorship fell in a middle ground between the two groups. Phearson (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Board is Getting out of Control

Anytime one desires to say something it would be beneficial if that person first looked to see if there were a section of rough topical cohesion before starting a new section on the discussion page. This is becoming quickly unwieldy.

However, since it's M.O. for now, I'm going to do it myself here and say the P.J. Crowly Press Freedom Day announcement, despite being ironic and amusing and having links drawn to it and the Obama administration's treatment of WikiLeaks by WikiLeaks, really is not relevant to this entry and probably should be deleted from the 'Criticism by Governments' section as it is not 'Criticism by a Government' which is what that section is about (i.e. not 'Ironic Statements by Governments', 'Humorous Anecdotes vis a vis WikiLeaks by Governments', etc. Felixhonecker (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it. Don't be afraid to be bold and remove something if you don't think it doesn't belong. Just make sure you exaplin in the edit summary what uou're doing and then discuss it on the talk page if people disagree. SmartSE (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I accelerated archiving to start after a thread hasn't had a fresh comment in two days, instead of seven. That should cut down the page's size.--Chaser (away) - talk 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Web site is not multilingual

Why there isn't that site is available only in english? Petrb (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that sentence of yours six times. I still don't get it :\ - Amog | Talk • contribs 09:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It is partially translated into various languages.[31] emijrp (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Infobox contains that wikileaks is multilingual that is what I meant. Petrb (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure that's right, I'm certainly not aware of any official sites in other languages. Can anyone provide an example to demonstrate it is multilingual? If not then I'll remove it later. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this for the moment. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Transparency International 2010 report

  • Transparency International report the worsening of corruption worldwide. (Transparency International 2010)
  • Transparency International (Dec. 10), People see corruption getting worse but are ready to get involved, says biggest Transparency International global public opinion survey, Transparency.org {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

This may be include in the article. (don't know where) Yug (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant to an article on WikiLeaks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
They claims to fight against corruption. So talk about corruption, with recent data, may also be interesting. Yug (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of WikiLeaks mirrors

I created this list of mirror sites for Wikipedia so that one can always visit a WikiLeaks site directly from here with high probability. It may be that the few sites listed in this main WikiLeaks page page will be closed down and then you'll need to do some searching to find a mirror site (because the large lists of mirror sites are given on WikiLeaks sites that may then not be accessible). Now, there are also other sources where lists of WikiLeaks mirrors can be found, but these usually contain a few sites that are then obvious targets. So, having a complete list is i.m.o. necessary.

Of course, the List of WikiLeaks mirrors does need to be maintained on a daily basis. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone adds a good WP:LEAD the list will get deleted. --Neo139 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since the post above; and still we can't see the list of mirrors. I certainly think somebody out here, hopelessly not me, but someone with enough wikipedia experience, has the ability to compose the necessary good WP:LEAD for the article. In my opinion; which is probably shared by many, WikiLeaks is an important issue worldwide for eventual peace and because of being attacked constantly in many ways and possibly facing annihilation; the mirrors have an important role for universal distribution and preservation of the information provided by the campaign. Therefore, again for me, they have to be shared through this platform where millions of people seek information, to help the cause. Thank you in advance to the person who undertakes this little mission Stultiwikia (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion about a list of mirrors: What about adding a link to the External Links on this Article that links to [32] ? This is a service by the german newspaper taz which will always lead the user to the first responding Wikileaks mirror. This will make sure everyone reading the article can instantly find a working mirror without the need to have a big page or different article with hundreds of links that will have to be updated constantly. Anitchang09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm reading in Norwegian media that Norwegian national newspaper Dagsavisen is now mirroring WikiLes.[33] Shouldn't this be presented in the present article (along with other major actors also providing the same service to WikiLeaks)? __meco (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors was closed as "speedy delete" per WP:SNOW among other arguments, however much discussion and clearly diverging opinions. Would it be wise to send that discussion to deletion review? __meco (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, RationalWiki has a link to a list in their article about Wikileaks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Split?

The article is starting to get a bit unwieldly due to its size. At 160kb it's a long way past the normal 100kb at which splitting and WP:SUMMARY should be used accoring to WP:Article size. I think the easiest and simplest way to deal with this would be to make a separate article for the leaks to something like List of leaks by WikiLeaks, leaving a summary in the article. I think this section is the best one to deal with first, because a) it is long and b) the leaks are not as directly related to the actual site, as other parts of the article, for example administration and censorship. Any comments? SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this should reduce the article length.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, it is a valid content fork, which reduces the size of the article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As per consensus, I am going ahead and making the new article - Amog | Talk • contribs 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hold up a while, I've started to condense material in my sandbox but it might take a while. There's no major rush. SmartSE (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Allrighty - Amog | Talk • contribs 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, any help summarising in my sandbox is more than welcome, it'll take a couple of days for me to do it myself otherwise. I also realised that some material will need to be moved elsewhere in the article, e.g. the attempts to shut down wikileaks.org by Julius Baer. (I think we may also end up with a separate article for Investigations, censorship, harassment and surveillance of wikileaks or something similar). SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the summary to replace the many details in the article at the moment. If anyone wants to work on drafting the separate list and making sure all the references work it would be useful. Judging by the lack of opposition, I'm hoping no one will object to a major moving of content from this article. If you disagree please speak up ASAP. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, this is done now. The page is still over 100kb though so any other ideas of how to reduce its size would be appreciated. I've left a fair amount of detail about the cables leak for the moment as it is the leak that's received the most media coverage and I feel that our readers are likely to want some information to be included in the article. I couldn't find any 2ndry coverage of the Bilderberg Group leak, so I removed it from this article for the moment but have left it in the new article. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I think we should keep the section with the leaks to an absolute minimum. Remember, we'll get a lot more information on that in the following months. So I'd like to suggest that we move at least the citations from the diplomatic cables leak section to the main article United States diplomatic cables leak. What do you think? --spitzl (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've condensed that to a few lines. Most of that information is already available in the main, so there was no need to move any data - Amog | Talk • contribs 17:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I made another change. I tried to keep the minimum while also giving some basic information on the contents of the cables. Hope you like it.--spitzl (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I do! Lovely prose. - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Methinks the paragraphs before the diplomatic leaks also need a cut-down. They're looking a little large and ungainly - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, there was a lot going on this year. To cut it down would also mean that we cut down on information. I did move the US reactions upwards though. It is now in the section dealing with investigations by governments.--spitzl (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple English is skimpy and blowing off POV steam

Also in the spirit of In the spirit of Wikipedia:Alternative outlets

and

Civic Cat (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Section: Relation with the Wikimedia Foundation

It's already established that Wikileaks is owned by the Sunshine Press, not Wikimedia. Disclaiming it in the article is not necessary. "Wiki" is not a trademark as far as I can tell. It's like having to say a product called ITRANS is not owned by Apple Inc.

Srsly. CompuHacker (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to myself here: I read the source for that section, and I think that any reference to Wikimedia should be removed, and it should be reiterated that Wikileaks is not actually collaborative in nature. CompuHacker (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
i think the motivation is that despite Wikipedia.org being one of the world's most popular websites, probably a huge percentage of the same people have no idea that Wikipedia is a wiki,<ref>subjective extrapolation based on my own personal experience</ref> they think of it just a brand name. After all, among the Wikimedia foundation wikis, there is Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc., and Wikitravel is totally independent of Wikimedia Foundation, but has a similar look and feel. So saying that Wikileaks is not collaborative (apparently it was a wiki early on, but the people+wiki system became too heavy to manage for the moment) would not help explain things, since many readers would not realise that Wikipedia is a wiki-collaborative effort.
So a better analogy would be e.g. explaining that Segleaks has nothing to do with Segway, the maker of two-wheeled inverted-pendulum-based feedback systems. Some people might guess that both are made by someone called Seg or a company that chose Seg as a brandname.
If you don't like the section, then maybe the best thing would be a disambiguation-related template at the top of the page. Have a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Disambiguation_and_redirection to find a good one.
Maybe:
  • {{ about|topic|other topic|location }}
  • {{ distinguish|topic }}
  • {{ distinguish2|topic }}
e.g.
  • {{distinguish2| [[wiki]] [[website]]s such as the [[Wikipedia]] or other [[Wikimedia Foundation]] or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites}}
Any objections to removing the Wikimedia Foundation section and replacing it by this template? (Edit and preview without saving to see what the effect would be.)
Boud (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like someone already removed the section, so i'm going to WP:Be bold and put in the template without waiting further. Someone can improve it if s/he is not happy. Boud (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This certainly should be removed as it is not encyclopedic, but rather something political between Wikileaks and Wikipedia. I didn't check the history, but it is not currently removed from the introductory section. It should be.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(See also #Not to be confused with..., below) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Animated Heatmap of WikiLeaks Report Intensity in Afghanistan - should it be linked to?

I came across this fine animation of the wikileaks report on Afghanistan: http://www.r-bloggers.com/animated-heatmap-of-wikileaks-report-intensity-in-afghanistan/

I am not sure if it should be added to the article or not. What do you think?

Talgalili (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WIKILEAKS - The premise of the site is disruption. When something is fundamentaly wrong it will be shut down or fought. Instead of trying to look at the past and expose controversy why not tackle issues head on. I am always amazed at people that expend all this negative energy. Instead of casting stones build something society can be proud of not a gossip machine. Companies, Corporations and Governments mandates are to build lives and create opportunities for people. They do not function without errors because humans are fallable. Get past this and move on to a new website. Or go outside and enjoy the world around. Enjoy the art of communication and of humanity in a real form. WIkILEAKS and this phenoma of online sensationalism is garbage. Try spreading hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefresh01 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)




Bias

Why is the climate research email leak referred to as "illegally obtained", but nothing else is. By definition, everything on Wikileaks is illegally obtained. That's why they are called leaks. Either call every leak illegal, or none of them illegal. Calling some illegal and others not simply reveals the writer's bias (it reads like anything that supports a liberal agenda is a good leak and anything that hurts the liberal agenda (i.e. CRU emails) is a bad leak). I would fix the article myself but access to this particular page seems to be restricted to the more "wise" among us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.136 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that term with "leaked' per your suggestion.--agr (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Not everything 'leaked' against the wishes of those who keep it secret is necessarily 'illegally obtained'. Commercial information obtained from a whistleblower for instance may be perfectly legally obtained, even in the cases where the leaking is possibly a breach of contract. Furthermore, it is entirely possible the climate research emails weren't 'leaked' at all, but hacked into by an outsider unconnected with the research. On that basis, I'm restoring "illegally obtained". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe leaked is not the best word, but we don't normally declare a particular incident to be illegal absent some court judgement. Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally. Singling out one incident seems POV.--agr (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally". Not necessarily true, and even then 'believing' something to be illegally obtained isn't the same thing as proving it. I'd say there may possibly be a POV problem in the article, but less so in this case, where the statement about how it was allegedly obtained is sourced, than in many others, where it isn't. Having said that, I see your point about court judgement, and I'll revise it to avoid making any definitivestatement on the legality of the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed. WikiLeaks had nothing to do with the CRU release. The emails were first released to skeptical bloggers and their readers who set up sites like eastangliaemails.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.162.35 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikileaks and/or it's suppliers of information whistleblowers according to the Whistleblower Protection Act?

Dunno. Reads like a US-centric question to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Any answer would be original research and couldn't be added to the article without a reliable source. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right; question is narrowly focused on U.S. federal civilian -- not military -- employees covered by that act, though the need for disclosures to be 'lawful' is also required under the separate Military Whistleblower Protection Act. The[Whistleblower Protection Act] only covers civilians uploading to WikiLeaks. This communication to WikiLeaks was made by a soldier. WikiLeaks itself would have to be under U.S. jurisdiction to be covered by U.S. law, but even then, there is no specific law protection a general corporate whistleblower (assuming the communications was 'lawful' to begin with). I do not think an answer to this runs afoul of the no original research provision; there is plenty collected on the internet addressing the topic. One of the best is Senator Akaka's statement, just scroll down to the top of Page S5971. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Should a discussion of the illegality/legality of Wikileaks methods be included in the article? The legal perspective would obviously be different for different countries.

Adding what newspapers has discussed about the legality of wikileaks would improve the article, but it would need to be written within the context those discussions has been made. Sweden has discussed it in regards to its source protection laws, US regarding its secrecy and espionage laws, Australia in regard that Assange is a citizen and so on. Belorn (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

diplomatic cables not whistle blowing

I think there has been a large increase in negative opinion of wikileaks following the leak of the cables. Mainly because they are seen as an attempt at disrupting the diplomatic process, and not constituting whistle blowing. It should also be noted that they don't really contain any shocking information. source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/wikileaks-is-gossip-not-whistleblowing/article1817502/ the fact that embarrassing is used, and the only investigation launched as a result is into wikileaks and its sources, seems to indicate that this latest release hurt wikileaks reputation more than those mentioned in the documents. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a favourite team and you're keeping score. Your opinion is not really relevant to improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not a forum for the general discussion of WikiLeaks. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this response. My point is that critics of wikileaks comes mainly from more recent events, and increases with each more controversial release. Prior to more recent releases, the criticisms have been from the parties whose documents were being released. In the case of the US documents, the release of the video prompted little criticism of wikileaks. I don't see any teams. I am not sure how one would keep score. I am just pointing out things that are missing in this article. I am not citing my opinion, but others. do you want me to find every article where a reporter calls the leaks gossip, or questions the purpose of the recently released list? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Cleanup

Since we are going to bombarded with all kinds of WP:NOTFORUM, is it okay if we can clean up the talk page? Phearson (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please. Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Per second motion by Sushilover2000 I have gone ahead and cleaned up some stuff. Although there seems to be a lot of mixed in forum quibbling in legitimate article discussion. Will clean more as it develops. It's good to keep talk pages short. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Samizdat

Please add a link to the article about Samizdat movement in the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.53.134 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? What did they have to do with the article? Phearson (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The anti-secrecy organization Wikileaks has described itself as being a "global Samizdat movement". - see Samizdat. This may not be a good reason to add to the article, but, together with the general purpose of both being to reveal information that a government wants to suppress, seems to make the link reasonable and the dismissive comment by Phearson inappropriate. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My comment was not dismissive. It was to clarify why this information was needed in the article. I don't think that information needs to be included, perhaps a double bracket around the word somewhere in the article, but thats it. Phearson (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Arrest Warrant

Why hasn't the article mentioned that Assange is on the run and that people want to assassinate him? I read this article on msn :Lawyer condemns call to assassinate Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen C Wells (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

because Assange isn't Wikileaks. That info is appropriate for the Assange article, but not on the organization he runs. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aduckett, 2 December 2010

Please change this dead link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/tcetoday/NewsDetail.aspx?nid=12188 to this new live link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/trafigura

Aduckett (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, TheIguana (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Domain "killed"? - no, currently working through IP addresses only

Wikileaks has reported its domain been "killed" by Everydns.net because of "constant attacks" via wikileaks twitter. Not sure how to fit it into the article. Phearson (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LUCASLITTLEWOOD (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Change current status from 'Active' to 'Offline' As of 2nd December 2010 the company providing the domain name withdrew it effectively making the website off-line.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/wikileaks-offline-after-domain-killed/story-e6frfro0-1225965338553 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11907641

But the site is not offline, it is still accessible from its IP/s ( http://46.59.1.2 ) ( http://213.251.145.96 ), the hosting is still on just not the domain. Funnyfela (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DNS service was interrupted due the recent permanent attack on this site. But the site is still available at its numerical addresses: http://46.59.1.2 and also http://213.251.145.96/ This address should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.119.97 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The site currently lacks a Domain Name System allocation, but can still be accessed directly through the IP addresses given above. This means that the site is not offline, as suggested in some media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The site is now accessible via the new Swiss domain: http://wikileaks.ch/ and of course on Twitter. 83.7.154.147 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.ch appears to be dead now. 91.153.250.70 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
wikileaks.ch is back. 91.153.250.70 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also another domain mirror at http://wikileaks.stasi.fi/. It directs to the swedish server (46.59.1.2). 91.153.250.70 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A list of mirrors is available at wikileaks.info --illythr (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As of now, six U.S. domains (ORG, NET, COM, BIZ, MOBI, and US) are down (note that one U.S. domain remains operational, i.e. http://213.251.145.96.nyud.net ), but the picture in Europe is different: only the Swedish (.SE) domain is down.

More detailed story: [34], [35], and [36] Tijfo098 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that one development is still conspicuous by its absence. The Wikileaks team has still not freed itself from the centralized client-server data distribution model easily controlled by governments and is still not present on the major Peer-to-peer_file_sharing networks such as: EDonkey_network and BitTorrent_(protocol). 83.7.134.219 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a comprehensite list of WikiLeaks mirrors, some of which (e.g. http://wikileaks.eu.org/ and http://wikileaks.lu/ ) could be added to Wikipedia:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/79s9r1

Arguably, this list should be maintained by the Wikipedia editors community, on a separate page e.g. Wikileaks Mirrors to keep it clean from spoofing. It is probably safe to include only the simplest DNS-Mirrors (host name aliases) but I would be cautious with HTTP Redirects (they can lead to spoofed sites such as http://likiweaks.com/). 83.10.101.150 (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Spoofed WikiLeaks mirrors

The automated attempt to keep a database of mirrors at http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/ is inherently unsafe, because anyone can submit a spoofed site, and they do! Now the spoofed site (with the blood-thirsty vampire face and organ donation, see: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2260/spoofedwikileaksbanner.jpg ) it has been moved to http://wikileaks.cx/ while http://likiweaks.com/ is now clean (while it was spoofed at 09:27 during my previous post). Automatic mirroring is not safe, please give at least a warning to users that some mirrors may be spoofed by WikiLeaks opponents. 83.7.137.239 (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Authentic mirrors are now reported to stand at 355 (viral mirroring?).[[37]] This is an interesting quote:
"As we stated yesterday, the obvious issue at hand is what happens to sites that mirror or link to the Wikileaks content. However in the list of mirroring domains there is a notable lack of US based top level extensions. While it is unknown where the parties who own these sites reside, it is safe to say that those within the US are likely using either false or hidden information for their domain registrar." 120.20.120.104 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [general question removed SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)]

Wikileaks.nl

There should also be a Dutch domain (wikileaks.nl), but it's not yet listed. Could someone who is authourised put it in there because the page is protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.107.21 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been added, incidentally it resolves to http://46.59.1.2/, which is the Bahnhof server in Sweden.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

White Mountains and Cyber Bunker

About the hostings, a reference should be made to both CyberBunker and White Mountains as these are two different locations.

Source for White Mountains and WikiLeaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI1o6nHhwTc (CNN)

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/tech/wikileaks.cave.server_1_julian-assange-cold-war-bunker-wikileaks-site?_s=PM:TECH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive can still be downloaded

The Wikileaks page references file.wikileaks.org as the place to download the archive, but it is now unresolvable. The lookup wasn't given at the wikileaks.info site. But using Netcraft (http://searchdns.netcraft.com/]) I was able to find out that this was at 88.80.16.63 as of November 30, and making that substitution (http://88.80.16.63/torrent/cablegate/cablegate-201012031001.7z.torrent) I was able to download the torrent, which successfully gave me the current archive.

I don't want to push WP:OR too far here (for instance, it is believable that some hostile entity could confiscate the IP address and start feeding misinformation from it) but if someone can scare up a source for this it would be a useful addition for the article. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wnt - unfortunately WikiLeaks know nothing about PGP signing of archives and cables, as result all sources are unreliable. --TAG (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually just a list of MD5 checksums would be enough, even post facto. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No entries about hactivist Jester's attacks on Wikileaks?

The former military operative hactivist known as the Jester, A.K.A. th3j3st3r, Tweeted that he levied attacks on wikileaks. Some say this is credible since wiki's Denial of Service outages coincided with th3j3st3r's claims on Twitter of when he'd take them down. That commercial servers can be so completely vulnerable to Layer 7 DOS attacks demonstrates a need harden the internet, in case there are massive, concerted, state-level attacks in the future.

Apparently Jester's attack is an undetectable XerXes Denial of Service attack, coded by him, that lets the attacker make realtimme adjustments to counter defensive countermeasures. Jester claims his attacks are temporary and do no permanent damage.

The site has a video that looks like it's Jester's screen dashboard (on a Linux box?) as he attacks the website alemarah.info and brings it down. At the bottom there's a trace showing the target's repetitive "heartbeat" that flatlines when it succumbs to the attack. When the attack is over the heartbeat display resumes. Jesters signs, "Peace Out." The video claims that no permanent damage to the target or intermediary nodes has been done, and that no bots or zombies are used. But at one point the attack is ramped up with "parallel drones," whatever that means. So Jester's claiming a single-machine attack -- not a plain vanilla Distributed DoS (DDOS) attack that uses massive flow of packets. It was reported this May that XerXes could attack Apache and IIS possibly via backend databases. It is similar to a powerful "Slow Loris."

DonL (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DoS attacks against Wikileaks are a common occurrence. It's unclear how significant this one is, but the recent hosting troubles as a whole are definitely worth a mention. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I would think distributed DoS would have been more likely than the no-bot single-person Wikileaks attack that is attributed to a "single hacker," even in the Wikileaks main article. I'd suspect heavier guns. I don't think logs will be forthcoming showing what attacks were used, and when they hit Wikileaks before it moved to Amazon servers. As I remember it people were saying that with the encryption ploy Wikileaks was trying to honeypot the NSA into divulging its AES256-backdooring tricks. Sure you're right -- the whole hosting/mirroring thing could add material for a new "Millenium Trilogy," (S. Larssen) without 90-lb girl hackers skilled in martial arts. I trust the Wiki community to come out with as accurate a narrative possible on this. I'm just waiting for S.F.'s "Smokin' Warehouse's" secret BBQ sauce recipe to be leaked. :-)
DonL (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pasuman

{{edit semi-protected}}

sir/madam i have to update the new website URL for wikileaks so help me to do so. Pasuman (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pasuman, Thanks for your assistance.
If you give us the URL here, we can then see whether it can be included. We may need to check it is genuine first. Perhaps you could give an indication of where you found it (preferably a link)? As you'll appreciate, this is an ongoing issue, and we need to ensure accuracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As stated above, please provide us with the new URL. It is impossible for us to allow you to do it yourself while the page remains semi-protected, but if you provide the info here, we can determine if the new info should go into the article and then add it for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: add to list of urls

Add http://wikileaks.info/ to list of known urls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.120.127 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks shut down & rebooting in Switzerland

Please discuss this material and allow time for the full story to develop before adding it to the article:
Transcript of Democracy Now! story and debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood
Anarchangel (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Defining Moment

In article integrity. So far our articles are about the only neutral reports (with a large audience) on this organization and its people. The "you're either with us or against us" threat, from both points of view, has expanded its global duress to media reporting in a frighteningly rapid way. I hope this and related articles can withstand the pov pressure which is likely going to get much worse, from both directions. So far, so great. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Streisand effect

Hi guys, I added this piece of information and they reverted my edit, which is sourced from a newspaper website from Canada. I think there are some users with a conflict of interest trying to revert this kind of additions:

Because of the continuous attacks to WikiLeaks the website has become a good example of the Streisand effect with many sympathizers mirroring the site voluntarily with source:

The Vancouver Sun.

I believe the addition to be important given the fact the website is indeed going through the Streisand effect. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The objection was partly that it doesn't belong in the lead. I'd go further and say that it belongs in the article about the Streisand effect rather than in this article. It's interesting, but not particularly relevant to WikiLeaks.--Chaser (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It was me that reverted your edit, because (a) it didn't belong in the lede, which i supposed to be a general summary of the article, and (b) the article is about WikiLeaks, not the Streisand Effect. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to be accused of a conflict of interest, but just to satisfy my curiosity, and add something new to the list of conspiracies I've been accused of participating in, can you let us know what this 'conflict of interest' entails? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
How can it not be relevant? the reason why the website is still online is because of such effect , that whether we want it or not has been called the Streisand effect and I believe the addition is important and notable enough. Please add it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd not dispute that the Streisand Effect may be at work here, but does it merit inclusion? If you can find a few more references to this, maybe it might be worth inclusion somewhere in the article, but we can't include everything every news source has to say about Wikipedia. If this has been commented on more widely, it is another matter.
For now, I'm going to assume your comments about my supposed 'conflict of interest' were just frustration, but I'd ask you not to repeat them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it does merit inclusion, the effect is implicit of an internet environment as the one we live in now. Think of an average reader wondering "wow, how is it that people suddenly support and put such information online?"..well, it's an effect inherent to the natural rejection to censorship on the internet. Can we lead the user into getting more information about such effect? sure we can, we tell them that the effect is called the Streisand effect and that is why WikiLeaks still manages to stay online after the ferocious attacks it has received. See where I am coming from? the effect and the current situation are closely related, why shouldn't/wouldn't we include it? ..and to Andy, sorry mate, I think I took you for one of the pro-American biased editors that have been trying to reduce some aspects of this article. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, but it really needs proper sourcing, from more than one article. I suspect this aspect of the story will become more significant with time, but we can't make predictions. We can only really report what others are saying now. And thanks for the apology, though in a way it is a disappointment not to be accused of a new bias, I've just started compiling a list ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
How about adding it into the censorship section? I think this would be better written in prose, rather than having separate headers for amazon, paypal etc. and then this could be included at the end of it. There are other sources discussing the effect too. There are also these sources which could be added to discuss censorship as well. How does that sound? SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've boldly gone ahead and done so. Comments welcome. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this can be an additional source regarding the "Streisand effect": Wikileaks mirrors SovereignCitizen (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but using that as a source for the Streisand effect would be original research, we need news articles that mention it. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This can be a valid reference: The New Zealand Herald - How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online SovereignCitizen (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's effectively the same one as mentioned at the top of this thread as it's published by the AFP. I incorporated it into the article earlier on today. SmartSE (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks#Legal_status

Can someone keep an eye on this section? The editor involved seems sincere, but it needs copyediting, and perhaps a little verification too. I'd do this myself, but it's getting late. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Just realised this is also being discussed above. The point still stands though AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+1, thanks ;) Yug (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The editor involved seems is sincere

Current event template

I've removed the {{current event}} due to it being an inappropraite use per the guidelines for that template, but have been reverted twice. This article is not rapidly changing, and the template has been in place for a week, when it should generally only be used "for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days". The leak is still ongoing, and at the present rate will be going on for weeks, months or even years. Can anyone explain why it is useful beyond the fact it adds a link to the cables leak to the top of the article? Meco's edit summary demonstrates that this reason is pointless anyway, even though hundreds of thousands of people see the link, very few click through to the cable article. Andy's edit summary indicates that he may have misunderstood the point of the template and that it is not simply to indicate something is in the news. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"This article is not rapidly changing"? I suppose that depends how 'rapidly' is defined, though a look at the article history seems to indicate that it isn't exactly static. The template guidelines seem to me to suggest that it isn't entirely inappropriate. Is there a specific reason why it's presence is objectionable at this point? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I object to its removal and will reinstate. There is no time limit set to remove the the tag, and this article is CONSTANTLY changing as events surrounding Wikileaks and Mr. Assange are unfolding. I'd wait a little longer before removing the tag. Phearson (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I also object. I am aware what the guideline for its parent template {{current}} states, but this situation calls for WP:IGNORE to take precedent. There needs to be a hatnote reference to the current leaks article, which is the real event here, still this article receives 20 times as many hits (500,000 a day) as United States diplomatic cables leak (25,000 a day). I really don't think the fact that so few click their way to the "right" article is an argument for the template's uselessness. On the contrary. __meco (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please add these links as External Links. These links are to the official websites of wikileaks mirrors, from their mirror page: http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


wikileaks.as50620.net wikileaks.tard.is ipv6 freeus.jsdev.org wikileaks.enzym.su freeus.jsdev.org wikileaks.cellue.de wikileaks.kafe-in.net ipv6 wl.opsec.eu ipv6 wl.donatepl0x.com wikileaks.challet.eu wikileaks.kister.org wl.gernox.de wikileaks.morningtime.com wikileaks.renout.nl wikileaks.fdn.fr wikileaks.gonte.se wikileaks.kaptenkong.se wikileaksmirror.proxelsus-hosting.de ipv6 leaks.gooby.org wikileaks.dubronetwork.fr ipv6 wikileaks.perry.ch wikileaks.sbr.im wikileaks.u0d.de wikileaks.81-89-98-125.blue.kundencontro... www.fuckip.de wikileaks.psytek.net wl.mrkva.eu wikileaks.joworld.net www.wlmirror.com wikileaks.chiquitico.org wikileaks.rout0r.org www.gruiiik.org wikileaks.adhelis.com wikileaks.high-color.de wikileaks.holarse-linuxgaming.de ipv6 wl.alfeldr.de wikileaks.jikan.fr wikileaks.huissoud.ch wikileaks.geekview.be wikileaks.fs-cdn.net wikileaks.burnzone.de wikileaks.dysternis.de wikileaks.nulset.net wikileaks.franslundberg.com wikileaks.krkr.eu ipv6 wl.yoltie.net wikileaks.gnourt.org wikileaks.theunfamiliar.co.uk wikileaks.zeitkunst.org wikileaks.aelmans.eu wikileaks.serverius.net wikileaks.synssans.nl wl.ernstchan.net wikileaks.yasaw.net zwartemarktplaats.com wikileaks.dena-design.de wikileaks.zone84.net wikileaks.subastas-xxx.com wikileaks.iuwt.fr wikileaks.chmod.fi wlmirror.wildeboer.net www.wikileaks.freelists.com.au leaked.rndm.ath.cx wikileaks.splichy.cz wleaks.3sge.pulsedmedia.com wleaks.hellfire.pulsedmedia.com wikileaks.palisades-berlin.de wikileaks.razor1911.com wikileaks.dokansoft.com.ar wikileaks.thinkfurther.de wikileaks.trankil.info wikileaks.gonte2.nu leaks.stumcomie.com wikileaks.timburke.org wikileaks.ehcdev.com wikileaks.zurk.org wikileaks.myscripts24.de wikileaks.breit.ws wikileaks.emilts.com wikileaks.ruicruz.pt wikileaks.now-pages.com wikileaks.ego-world.org cablegate.r3blog.nl ipv6 www.wikileakz.eu wikileaks.realprogrammer.org wikileaks.the-secret-world.info wikileaks.superjoesoftware.com wikileaks.rtjuette.de wikileaks.rustigereigers.nl mirror1.wikileaks.lu mirror2.wikileaks.lu internaluse.net wikileaks.r00t.la wikileaks.cordover.id.au brd.mcbf.net wikileaks.spurious.biz wikileaks.1407.org wikileaks.mollar.me azow.selb.us wikileaks.furdev.org wikileaks.datkan.net ipv6 wikileaks.nortemagnetico.es wikileaks.threefingers.ca wikileaks.brenne.nu ipv6 www.anontalk.com wikileaks.hutonline.nl vm8157.vps.tagadab.com nl1.wikileaksmirror.nl wikileaks.noomad.org wikileaks.xcplanet.com www.wikileaks.nw-ds.com wikileaks.infinium.org.uk wikileaks.piratskasit.cz peoplerule.info wikileaks.sirobert.com wikileaks.solvare.se wikileaks.marktaff.com wikileaks.hmaks.com im.wikileak.im wikileaks.aamjanata.com www.wikigoteo.dialetheia.net wikileaks.dft-labs.eu wikileaks.julietvanree.com wikileaks.argenton.ch wikileaks.i0i.co wikileaks.lionelwood.com wikileaks.antifan.de ipv6 wasiutynski.net wikileaks.diedx.nl wikileaks.chram.net wikil3aks.dyndns.org wikileaks.encgmail.com wikileaks.yoerin.nl wikileaks.mcpond.co.nz wikileaks.siwhine.org wikileaks.schroth.cx wikileaks.delight.ch wikileaks.moochm.de wikileaks.syncaddict.net www.hallitus.info info.patourie-systems.com wikileaks.softic.cz wikileaks.redhog.org wikileaks.brokenbydesign.org wikileaks.nisd.dk wikileaks.sentientrobot.net wikileaks.kronoss.org wikileaks.s4ku.com wikileaks.glembotzky.com wikileaks.nperfection.com wikileaks.laquadrature.net wikileaks.legrandsoir.info wikileaks.artwww.net wikileaks.39mm.net leaks.uaqv.com wikileaks.krtek.net www.emilts.com leaks.3nglish.co.uk wikileaks.explain-it.org wikileaks.dunnewind.net wl.fcharlier.net wikileaks.poete.eu.org wikileaks.datenscheibe.org wikileaks.kapitein.org www.wikileaks.djity.net wikileaks.nodemaster.de wikileaks.listepik.net wikileaks.explain-it.org wikileaks.sedrati-dinet.net wikileaks.rigacci.org wikileaks.ratm.ch wikileaks.tonbnc.fr cablegate.sentientrobot.net wikileaks.ist-bremer.de wikileaks.spinrise.com wikileaks.rothnet.org wikileaks.webtito.be ipv6 wikileaks.lainconscienciadepablo.net wikileaks.g33kthug.co.uk wikileaks.b166er.net wikileaksmirror.matstace.me.uk 87.106.58.253 wikileaks.virii.lu wikileaks.junkle.org leaks.iamfos.co wikileaks.wass-media.com wikileaks.karlsen.co wikileaks.lupine.me.uk ipv6 wikileaks.webprofiles.org wikileaks.azatoth.net wl.unbloggbar.org santocristo.info wikileaks.back2hack.cc wikileaks.supercrapule.com wl.treymassingill.com wikileaks.poliisi.mobi wikileaks.karlsen.co wikileaks.rickfalkvinge.se wikileaks.amette.eu wikileaks.batsh.it wikileaks.freei.me wikileaks.chsdl.de last.to wikileaks.iheartfreedom.ca wikileaks.rackstack.com wikileaks.serverlicious.org wikileaks.excds.se wikileaks.under.ch leaks.kooll.info wikileaks.nldla.com cablegate.dyndns.info wikileaks.afturgurluk.org wikileaks.phasebook.net wikileaks.emquadat.com wikileaks3.no-ip.org wikileaks.hermans.net wikileaks.urli.eu wikileaks.laotracarboneria.net wikileaks.datapusher.net wleaks.shellmix.com wikileaks.citizen-boycott.org wikileaks.in-edv.de wl.hor.de wl.rekursion.ch naixt-genne.com wikileaks.aircraftdispatch.net wikileaks.cimeterre.info wikileaks.2qt.us wikileaks.rhgnet.de wikileaks.crypton-technologies.net wikileaks.xgstatic.fr wikileaks.medienfuzzis.com wl.creative-guerillas.com wikileaks.philpep.org ipv6 wikileaks.para-dice.de wikileaks.outcast.no wikileaks.bandsal.at ipv6 wikileaks.concretedonkey.cz.cc wikileaks.oualid.net wikileaks.webterrorist.net wl.22web.net wikileaks.deepdata.de wikileaks.theano.de wikileaks.buzzworkers.com wikileaks.electric-castle.net wikileaks.caseid.org wikileaks.luchaspopulares.org wikileaks.paysen.net wikileaks.atpolitics.com wikileaks.otnf.tk wikileaks.nslu2-info.de leaks.letsneverdie.net wikileaks.yasaw.net wikileaks.atpolitics.com mhym.de www.wikileaks.videoteppista.net wikileaks.deutero.org wikileaks.grokia.se wikileaks.tamcore.eu wikileaks.youfailed.de wikileaks.stephaneerard.fr wikileaks.jotocorp.com wikileaks.canariaswireless.net wikileaks.thearksakura.com wikileaks.thefrackin.info wikileaks.maero.dk wikileaks.metrogeek.fr wikileaks.simplaza.net wikileaks.fellr.net wikileaks.mindfreakonline.de wl.dixon.pl wikileaks.zombix.pcriot.com wikileaks.wkellner.com wl.thj.no wikileaks.sodom.se wikileaks.macventure.de wikileaks.damn1337.de wikileaks.bitciple.com wl-mirror.sokoll.com wikileaks.224charenton.net help.majestan.com wikileaks.giggsey.com wl.kallix.net ipv6 wikileaks.unknowntruth.net wl.kaizer.se wikileaks.legalsutra.org wikileaks.kitara.nl wikileaks.kyak106.com wikileaks.marpeck.net wikileaks.leech.it wikileaks.pamphleteer.de wikileaks.return0.de wikileaks.0x04.com wikileaks.mirror.jfet.org wikileaks.nerdhero.org wikileaks.3ofcoins.net wikileaks.g0rn.com wikileaks.chpwn.com wikileaks.fuck.cc wikileaks.hoppipolla.net wikileaks.slackdev.com wikileaks.openmafia.org wikileaks.paper.st wikileaks.efremigio.es wikileaks.zanooda.com wikileaks.wtfstfu.org wikileaks.freedomofspee.ch www.elajt.info wikileaks.chuso.net wikileaks.letras.net wikileak.eicat.ca wikileaks.0xff.it wikileaks.apileofbytes.com wikileaks.revspace.nl leaks.curaj.tv wikileaks.mumu.cz wikileaks.kassala.de wikileaks.chpwn.com wikileaks.k-ribou.com wikileaks.stasi.fi wikileaks.milchi.de wl.kollegstufe.org leaks.freudian.sl wikileaks.laez.nl wikileaks.dexite.de 74.63.248.219 wl.ownage4u.nl wikileaks.peer7.de wikileaks.infinityloop.es wikileaks.orfeu.es wikileaks.myke.us wikileaks.noova.de ipv6 wikileaks.leckerbits.com wikileaks.byteserv.de wikileaks.zro.co raubmordkopiert.ws wikileaks.adoutte.com wikileaks.iodev.org wikileaks.ludost.net wikileaks.roethof.net ipv6 wikileaks.thespinlight.com wikileaks.apathie.net wl.mimamau.de www.wikileaks.ufone.de wikileaks.mooo.se wikileaks.neofosis.com wikileaks.eglin.net www.mistermikileaks.com wikileaks.pwnt.nl majjj.com wikileaks.antoniojperez.info wikileaks.ig33k.com wikileaks.extensity.co.nz wikileaks.rudemusic.net wikileaks.adoutte.com dgmx2k.dyndns.org:800 wl.fuldaecho.de wikileaks.nc23.de www.wikileaks-backup.com wikileaks.bynoob.com wikileaks.martindv.es mirror.friendsofwikileaks.org.uk wikileaks.disknode.org wikileaks.adundo.com wikileaks.lazzurs.net wikileaks.deathserv.net wikileaks.tollofsen.se wikileaks.brokenco.de wikileaks.buckyslan.com wikileaks.moell.us wikileaks.classcast.de wikileaks.datenwelten.de www.priv.us wikileaks.neopt.org wikileaks.samhargreaves.eu www.finngaria.de wikileaks.skvorsmalt.cz wikileaks.neurd.org wlmirror.cosego.com leaks.boerdy.net wikileaks.gundam.eu ipv6 novgorod.zunedevwiki.org ipv6 wikileaks.biz.tm wl.i2pbote.net leaks.underrun.org wikileaks.simleb.cc wl.stefanpopp.de wikileaks.tejero.ca www.keepinformationfree.com whatever.grillcheeze.com wikileaks.olivu.com wikileaks.jieji.org wikileaks.zakulisa.org wlm.flooble.net wikileaks.eondream.com www.shamanhouse.com wikileaks.galama.net wikileaks.eondream.com wikileaks.goodlifebikes.ca wl.newscenterx.de wikileaks.kofuke.org ipv6 wikileaks.xr3.cc dev.quadodo.net wikileaks.yacy.info wikileaks.anarka.nl wikileaks.happyforever.com wikileaks.data-get.org wikileaks.humanpets.com wikileaks.hellopal.biz wleaks.verymad.net whitenetdownloads.com WL.sanvicentemedia.com wikileaks.lotek.org wikileaks.profithost.net wikileaksmirror.eu wikileaks.chronzz.co wikiconstitution.info wikileaks.tinychan.org wikileaks.holy.jp leaks.no.net www.wikileaks.angelbeast.org www.wikileaks.angelbeast.org wikileaks.drewhavard.com wikileaks.keladi.org wikileaks.awardspace.us wikijm.com wikileaks.pandas.es wikileaks.mustashwax.com wikileaks2.info wikileaks.artwww.net wikileaks.oneeyedman.net wikileaks.openconnector.net wikileaks.jordanroy.net wikileaks.crazzy.se wikileaks.moo2ah.com wl.udderweb.com www2181u.sakura.ne.jp wikileaks.blackwire.com wikileaks.rlsjrnl.info wikileaked.jamestheawesome.kicks-ass.net wikileaks-in.ganesh.me wikileaks.luotettu.net wikileaks.xakep.name wikileaks.jejaring.org wikileaks.mahut.sk wl2.gernox.de wikileaks.mine-server.info wikileaks.revoleaks.com bonsainetz.de www.spacemission.org wikileaks.media.pl wikileaks.imrof.li wikileaks.hoper.dnsalias.net wikileaks.escism.net wikileaks.lelapinblanc.eu wikileaks.tryptamine.net wikileaks.piratenpartei-nrw.de wikileaks.cancamusa.net wikileaks.aamjanata.com wikileaks.joevr.org wikileaks.toile-libre.org wikileaks.parano.me wikileaks.slite.org wikileaks.zvdk.nl wikileaks.picturesbyphilipk.de wikileaks.hostingjuice.com wikileaks.editia.info wikileaks.renout.nl wikileaks.phoeney.de wikileaks.msga.se wikileaks.infotubo.com wikileaks.adzi.net www.example.sk wikileaks.wazong.de RealnoeBlinDelo.com wikileaks.matschbirne.com wikileaks.aadnoy.no wikileaks.erfassungsschutz.net wikileaks.aleph-0.net wikileaks.oliverbaron.com wikileaks.vyus.de wikileaks.ladstaetter.at wikileaks.willjones.eu wikileaks.anti-hack.net wikileaks3.piratenpartij.nl wikileaks.ninanoe.net wikileaks.g0tweb.com 74.207.247.66 wikileaks.schuijff.com wikileaks.iqaida.de fremont.ca.us.wikileaks-mirror.com wikileaks.version2.nl newark.nj.us.wikileaks-mirror.com london.uk.eu.wikileaks-mirror.com dallas.tx.us.wikileaks-mirror.com zurich.ch.wikileaks-mirror.com wikileaks.zici.fr wikileaks.tunny.ch wikileaks.breit.ws wikileaks.weltgehirnmaschine.de wikileaks.csbnet.se wikileaks.digital-revolution.at wikileaks.nijhofnet.nl ipv6 leaks.mooninhabitants.org wikileaks.ralforolf.com wikileaks.pancake-pirates.org 93.90.28.65

Jeebus Christ! Perhaps just the one link to the page which lists all this instead? - Amog | Talk • contribs 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like that already exists. I'm collapsing your request because its way too messy - Amog | Talk • contribs 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 Not done No way in hell. Phearson (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks censorship

Within days of Wikileaks releasing statements made by the Australian ex prime minister Kevin Rudd the site became unreachable from many ISPs within Australia, no public acknowledgement or statement was made confirming that the Australian government had requested WikiLeaks be blocked. WikiLeaks had also announced that further Australian documents were to be made available at the same time the site became unavailable to most Australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.58.119 (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for that, it should be possible to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You means Wikileaks.org don't work ? -> the domain name have been cancelled by DSN, that's well know.
Or you means "all mirors of wikileaks, or all url containing 'wikileaks' are unaccessible." ? -> Censure Yug (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Q2323, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove the link to

http://leaks DOT viviti DOT com obfuscated during manual archive to workaround spam filter blacklist -84user (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That website contains a "Donate" button to transfer money via PayPal to alam80 [at] mail.ru owned by Noman Alam without making it clear that he's not affiliated with WikiLeaks.

Q2323 (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Another editor, User:Umanskaya who is blatantly a sock of User:Alam82 (who added the first) has reposted this link. I've 4im warned them both, but can we make sure we check to make sure this link is removed ASAP if it is added again? SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have requested the site be blacklisted as spam at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Viviti.com - Amog | Talk • contribs 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Danish child porn list

Wikileaks published a list of websites blocked by Danish anti-child porn filters (including sites that actually did contain child pornography). Is this not mentioned because no-one got around to adding it to the article, or is there consensus against mentioning it? Andjam (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a child porn list, it was a blacklist like the others mentioned at WikiLeaks#Internet censorship lists. I'd say it can be included, but only if you can find coverage elsewhere to wikinews, this and this mentions it in passing, so I guess it can be included. As the SMH article points out, the reason they published the lists was because they included sites other than child pornography, rather than to publicise the websites, and this must be made clear in the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay procedures

This particular section is too brief. As is the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures which is an orphan page that can use a link from here. Please edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsravanin (talk • contribs)

I've added a link, but personally, at present, I think that there is currently enough detail in that section. SmartSE (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, IMO there might be an NPOV problem

Devoid of whether or not wikileaks is "good" or "bad", or any other such attributes to those effects, I have to say that this article does read in a particular light. At least somehow to me. It seems to have a rosy sense about it that I just cannot pin down, so I'll not try. But to me it mostly reads from top to bottom as if wikileaks is a de facto bennefit to mankind, which is a tone I'm uncomfortable with in wikipedia. I cannot support this precisely, but I feel compelled to mention it regardless---I'll understand if this opinion is ignored. And I do apologize that I cannot nail this down more specifically.Tgm1024 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It seems to assume that the people who support Wikileaks care about human rights.
Part of the problem is that you need to read a long way in the article to find that there is any criticism.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see what you mean. Could you give specific examples? I've just been skimming through that past couple of days here and there and haven't noticed any loaded terminology or anything of that sort. I don't see any assertion anywhere that the people who support it care about human rights, though it does mention human rights organizations that have come out both supporting wikileaks and opposing it in instances. I think much of the beginning may seem as though it lacks criticism because the section devoted to that topic comes later in the article.129.137.167.77 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with 129.137, unless you can point out what you find problematic, then nothing can be done to fix it. Should we add some mention of criticism to the lead? SmartSE (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that would definitely be a far more balanced (and fair) lead if some is added. Right now, I can't agree more with Tgm1024. I'll try to find some problematic statements, but I think it's more of the general tone of the article. Can't really point out specifics neither. [CharlieEchoTango] 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the wording of the criticism should be looked at very closely as to remain NPOV. Simply because the very nature of criticism is biased. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Stating relevant (i.e. widely referenced) criticism is not biased, just as it's not biased to state relevant and referenced praise. What is biased is not reporting one side. An encyclopedia reports all side to a story and present them clearly and fairly. Right now the lead is more of a description of the oh so righteous wikileaks. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you are scrutinizing the article under phrases such as: "It seems to have a rosy sense" and "mostly reads from top to bottom as if wikileaks is a de facto bennefit to mankind" make your views the very same thing you are criticizing about it. Although I have to agree with you on something, yes, your opinion will definitely be ignored, unless you provide some factual veracity to your criticism. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say that noting some controversies is relevant, and some of the controversial publications of wikileaks are in the lead. I would concede that it may be relevant to add some criticisms in the lead, but I would think they should be discussed first to make sure it has the appropriate weight. Do you have anything in particular in mind?74.83.33.194 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.197.230.222, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Wikileaks.is also exists.

85.197.230.222 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Cybercobra (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Don't Say "The Secret Cables!"

WikiLeaks has leaked more than U.S. diplomatic cables and been around longer than the last 2 weeks. When editing this entry please don't simply reference quotes, statements, etc. as being related to "the secret cables." Perhaps say "secret U.S. diplomatic cables released by the site in November and December of 2010" etc. Six months from now standalone and out-of-context references to just "the secret cables" will come across as very disjointed. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the section WikiLeaks#Legal facts critically need expansion. Does the US gov charged Wikileaks ? on what ? etc. Yug (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the government could pursue action under the Espionage Act of 1917. The NY Times has done some digging on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html. On a related note, Bloomberg has also looked at the legal implications for Wikileaks from the Afghanistan leaks: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/wikileaks-secret-records-dump-stays-in-legal-clear-ann-woolner.html. –TheIguana (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
(I integrated Bloomber content. I have to go in real life. Reading and integration of NY yimes digging is welcome !) Yug (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a paragraph about this to WikiLeaks#United_States.--Chaser (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the section for the moment. If a well sourced section can be written, I agree it should be included, but a speculative, unsourced sentence isn't much use to anyone. The refs TheIguana has supplied are probably only relevant to the specific leaks and so it would be difficult/impossible to use these to write a section about the legality of WL in general. It's been pointed out that many people have threatened to sue WL, but no one has ever taken them to court AFAIK. SmartSE (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The current lack of source IS NOT a sufficient point to remove content. No rule affirm this. But that clearly a backsliding in the expansion effort. Please stop to this. Yug (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a rapidly-developing and important story. We need to maintain high standards. A lack of source is a very good reason to remove content. To be honest, I can't see what the section removed was trying to say in any case. It looked more like opinion than fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That's nonsense. "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." There's your rule, Yug, from the lead section of the policy.--Chaser (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source". My point is that this WP policy page is not all black or all white.
The removed content was by that time really basic and really secure : wikileaks international nature make its legal status complex. The international nature statement is in all the article. The complexity it create is a very safe statement. But this create a stub-section to expand and focus efforts. Indeed, a talk was ongoing to find sources and expand the section. TheIguana just provided 2 sources in the talk page, ready to add.
In such safe cases, over deletionism is not helpful, but simply regression (article side) and time waste (users side).--Yug (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to balance the point on Wikileaks not specifically requesting information. The original text stated that Wikileaks does not solicit information. This is correct in the context of statements made by Wikileaks. However, they have previously compiled most wanted lists for materials. These lists were produced from public input not directly Wikileaks themselves, but Wikileaks appears to at least partially publicized them which does raises questions. –TheIguana (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ;) --Yug (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.120.55.63 (talk)
It's certainly an improvement on yesterday's version, but it still contains what I consider to be speculative and weasely passages that are unsourced: e.g. "The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex", "The files it leaks are from countries around the world in which they may have various legal statuses" and " compilation of most wanted lists of confidential or classified materials raises legal grey area questions." Andy and Chaser are correct to point out that the burden is on the contributor to provide verifiable sources to back up information added and that unsourced content can be removed. I strongly agree with this, particularly for what is currently such a high profile article. Yug is correct that policies are not black or white, but the quoted sections can obviously be challenged and must therefore be cited. If you can find sources to back up these claims, please add them, but if not I think we need to reword the section accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I will add source If I come on some relate press articles. Personally, I usually write a section in 2~3~4 days, I also thinking about it when drinking a chocolate, doing nothing on my bed, etc. Just, we are humans, we act by wave, each isn't perfect, but let's a little time to safe statements, and that will get better.. Yug (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, every WP article is a work in progress, so to some extent that may be the best way to work, but in a case like this where the article is getting very high attention, we need to keep it up to standards as best as we can at all times. If you think of something that needs adding, Yug, make a note of it somewhere on your PC, and then find sources. When you've done that, it can go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a note that the US AG has commented on the charges and that they could stem from more than just the Espionage Act. I also removed the sentence on legal grey area I added yesterday. It is repetitive in the current context of the section and it can't be verified at this stage of WikiLeaks legal saga. If some good support comes out in the next couple of days then we can add it back in. –TheIguana (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's another piece that could be used a reference. It may be too speculative though, and the title is "The U.S.'s legal options against WikiLeaks, Julian Assange" rather than wikileaks. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This definitely has merit for inclusion in the legal section. Part of the article states: "the Justice Department is considering whether a federal law dealing with theft of government property would apply." This makes me wonder if the leaks could be considered government property proper when federal works are not generally provided copyright protection. I guess I am just trying to wrap my head around how the Justice Department would argue this in court. –TheIguana (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This article on this subject could be used to broaden the legal section by further supporting the sections on how the justice department may act. –TheIguana (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's another source that could/should be used, written by the Congressional Research Service and discussed here. SmartSE (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There was another article from 2003 that was raised when I ask a question on this topic at the reference desk. It was a much more general document on the theft of government documents but it did outline a few avenues for the government to take. –TheIguana (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks;_ylt=AtqDkQ2PvKmGpgSOMs0CweGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5bnZpNDRtBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjA5L3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzYEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2hhY2tlcnNzdHJpaw--
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive_2&oldid=1088442662"