This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I speedily-kept the debate. If you disagree and you're a regular wikipedia editor contact me on my talk page and I'll un-close it. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's frontpage news section claims wikileaks has been "forced offline", linking to this article. This is no correct. It's not in any way shape or form "offline". The only thing that has happened is that you can't use wikileaks.org to get to it. The IP address 88.80.13.160 or any of the many mirrors. The article itself notes this fact (although not very prominently). The headline on wikipedia's frontpage is therefore misleading. Can it be changed?
I USUALLY LOVE WIKIPEDIA, BUT THE BLATANT LACK OF NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER MADE ME QUESTION THIS SITE'S OVERALL NEUTRALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.105.242 ( talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I USUALLY WRITE PROPERLY, BUT THE BLATANT LACK OF COOL OF THIS COMMENT HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER MADE ME QUESTION THIS USER'S OVERALL COOLNESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.50.214 ( talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And now it's popping up all over international media... F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it me, or do the statements in the criticism section not make sense? Lcament 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
One of main my Wikipedia wishlist :
“ | 'discussion' page on Wikipedia should have a section for debating where a NPOV/neutral admin moderator can summarize all the distinct points (typically there are very few even for hotly debated/controversial topics) and these distinct points should have voting buttons as well. | ” |
That wish list seems to be fulfilled by Wikileaks but I think Wikipedia will always have more visibility as compared to Wikileaks and hence Wikileaks should find ways to integrate with it e.g. the main page of a topic should always be the Wikipedia page and there should be a link to Wikileaks page (if it exists) having leaked data as well as it should support blogging/debating and should have buttons as well.
Vjdchauhan 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC). (Information should be centralized and rest all should be de-centralized)
Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi ( talk • contribs) 03:14, January 18, 2007
OK, I got it. Is there a way to use the same source twice there without having to redo the entire attribution on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. usage? Some right way to just put down the named <ref name=xyz>? F.F.McGurk 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I found like link on Michaelmoore.com It basicly says " '...an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis...' | Or Is It | " The || is a link to this site http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm.
I don't have the time to sift through all this data, but I would asume that its stating that wikilinks not what it seems... would it be original research to post it on here? 208.248.33.30 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
See Whistle blown on Wiki site for whistle-blowers By Simon Rabinovitch ( Reuters). Blank Verse 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
80.56.94.31 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
When will Wikileaks go live?
We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007.
I think there was an earlier date online, it does seem to take forever, anyone knows more about this?
Wikileaks seems to have been down the last 12 hours or so! ... does anyone know why? I've emailed, but no reply and the washington number does not answer.
From my following of earlier recent changes it is clear that they were about to release this doozy:
http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)&strip=1
James Hardine 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinks was on slashdot recently. Lurker ( said · done) 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is starting to get silly. There are accusations that Wikileaks is a front for the CIA,then there are accusations that the US military controls the internet. I'm taking down the claims in the introduction until somebody rewrites them with some factual content. -- Chopz 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else think this section reads ridiculously? It seems like somebody is struggling to make a connection, in an almost numerological fashion. FFLaguna 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the Intellius reference to a "Va Reston" is probably a misinterpretation of "Reston, Viriginia (VA)." I don't have the wherewithal to track this down, but it occurred to me. - No user name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.26.27 ( talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
every time the site is down for more than a few hours, someone claims it is an intentional censoring of the site. Are its servers really all in one place? it seems more likely that these downtimes relate to surges of traffic... I removed related text from the page:
However, after this news became widespread on the 15th November the Wikileaks website became inaccessible. [1]
+sj + 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That text was put in by me - Someone else had written a long thing about some sort of conspiracy which just seemed a bit ridiculous to me, so I shortened it to that (though I didn't add the ref). But clearly now its all irrelevant. -- 129.67.115.253 13:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are these servers with .org.uk, .cn, .nz etc. domains? It sure seemed like some kind of event to find every mirror down like that - for well over a few hours - especially if these servers are not in the same place. Why does it seem 'more likely that these downtimes relate to surges of traffic?' Have you any evidence of this?
I've removed the big warning added to the article--this isn't the place to include speculation/service updates. Mackensen (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, they're all self-references. Wikileaks is claiming these things, but there's no independent verification. For that matter, the text added isn't even supported by the self-references (Judge White isn't named, for example)! I've rewritten a little, but there needs to be independent verification of some kind. Mackensen (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've temporarily replaced the main link to the wikileaks site with the site's IP (that is, http://wikileaks.org is now http://88.80.13.160/ in the article). When it looks like they are no longer having DNS issues, I'll stop by and change this back. Dxco ( talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, something is not really right here. Some section of wikileaks says the law in USA protect the release of this kind of information. Very good. Then, the documents released seem to be implicating the bank to illegal activity, which mind you the USA courts are very much against. I believe since 9/11 moving money around is closely monitored and heavily punished to minimize terror financing activities. So, taking the above into consideration, its very hard to see how a USA court can force them to take down the site, the system (meaning the judge) has very little to defend their action. Something else could be going on here..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is censorship, as they quite rightly state in their press release. I have added a section, feel free to incorporate. Pnd ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
More info at Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks. John Vandenberg ( talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Legal or illegal isn't really the issue here. It's perhaps likely that Dynadot would have won, if it pursued the case, but it didn't want to. Nobody is going to force Dynadot to host a domain name it doesn't want to, for any reason. I'm pretty sure that domain name registrars are allowed by ICANN to lock or shut down domain names for more or less any reason. Certainly there are lots of complaints that GoDaddy and other major registrars will shut down domain names at the slightest provocation. So really this has the flavor of a voluntary agreement, that I can see, not a legally-imposed one: Dynadot kills the domain name, the bank doesn't sue them. I don't know what the requirement is for judges to approve settlements, but generally there's a rule that judges aren't supposed to consider arguments that the parties haven't briefed them on, AFAIK. If neither party brings up free speech issues, I don't know if the judge can reject the settlement on that basis. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Did the fire happen the same day as the denial of service attacks? I've only found two articles that mention the fire and they say that the fire took out all of their servers after the attacks, but they don't go mention the day or time. Is the site down everywhere now? Or just in the US? 68.107.196.111 ( talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Only the DNS resolve from the .org is switched off, the site can be reached under the .be link cited. Pnd ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
this section...
The Chinese government currently attempts to censor every web site with "wikileaks" in the URL. This includes the main wikileaks.org site as well as regional variations such as wikileaks.cn and wikileaks.org.uk. However the site can be accessed from behind the Chinese firewall at the time of writing using https://secure.wikileaks.org/ or one of the many alternative names used by the project, such as ljsf.org or sunshinepress.org. As these alternatives may change frequently, the site suggests users from the mainland of China search for "wikileaks cover names" on non mainland-china search engines such as google.co.uk to locate the latest alternative names. Mainland based search engines, including those of Baidu and Yahoo, also censor references to "wikileaks."[17]
Additionally Wikileaks says users may bypass Chinese censorship by making Tor connections to Wikileaks' hidden server at gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion after installing the Tor software.[18]
With so many alternative names, there is a danger that whistleblowers may connect to a "fake" Wikileaks, run by, say, the Chinese government. To prevent this possibility, the site asks users to tell their web browser to "show the site certificate" and verify that it is for "secure.wikileaks.org" and signed by "Equifax Secure, Inc."
it's like a friken guide on "HOW TO AVOID OFFICAL CHINESE GOVERMENT BANS ON INTERNET SITES", even though that would be illegal, atleast in china, why exactly is there a guide on how to help chinese people break the law?-- Jakezing ( talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Prior to today, I do not recall ever trying: < http://88.80.13.160 >; < http://wikileaks.be >.
So, please, what is different?
Prior to redirecting to: < http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks >; < http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks >, the server[s] very briefly shows us a quote in such a manner that it is virtually impossible to read, unless we stop the browser & copy the page:
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. — Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please wait while loading...
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides domain name censorship, denial of service attacks, and setting the servers on fire, is there also censorship in transmission? I had no trouble accessing the bank documents, but every effort to download tactical-questioning.pdf from either the "original" IP address or the .be mirror seems to stop right at 969 to 987 KB of 1.6 MB. Can anyone confirm this?
Wnt (
talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind - after all the downloads "completed" incompletely, now it downloaded from .be just fine.
Wnt (
talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
its a friken guide, the Exter's are almsot entirly jsut ways to get around a govemrnet censor, and still seems like a guide down there, hell, it says a way to get around the "great firewall of china"-- Jakezing ( talk) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You can add this IP address to your local hosts file to allow certain broken links that reference the wikileaks.org site to work. Here is the line that I added to my local hosts file.
88.80.13.160 wikileaks.org
On a Windows computer the local host file is located in the directory C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc. On a Posix compliant system the file is usually located in /etc/ You may have to later remove this reference again when wikileaks.org domain name service comes back online in the US.
Despite the false claims in the BBC article, there are no mirrors for Wikileaks. There is only the site in Sweden with a lot of alternate DNS names that all point to the one IP address. That situation might change, but as of 19 Feb. 2008, there are no full, up-to-date mirror sites. All of these other DNS "cover names" just point back to http://88.80.13.160/ .-- Veritysense ( talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Criticisms" section is not currently well-tied to the subject of this article. There are two lengthy quotes included, but neither has the author tying the statements directly to Wikileaks or anything else in the article. As such, they sound like attempts to use this article to make larger political arguments.
The Aftergood quote is bad enough, because it's from an unidentified interview in an unidentified publication (possibly his newsletter, but this is not clear even within the cited source), cited by yet another person (Friedman) who himself uses the statement to support his article on Wikileaks. This is absurdly indirect when there should be quotes to be had from people specifically responding to these issues surrounding the Wikileaks situation in specifically identified reliable publications. This kind of indirection has the feel of gossip, an experience all too common in the modern media, and must be avoided.
Worse, it encourages editors with other opinions to add in their own generalized material, as one editor has done with the Rawls' quote. That quote has no tie whatsoever to this subject other than ideological, and we Wikipedians are not permitted to make general ideological arguments, even by well-sourced proxy. That is forbidden original research (OR) because the assertion of its connection comes not from the source, but from the Wikipedia editor. Such connections should be made only by properly cited secondary and tertiary sources.
If a quote is specifically talking about the article subject or event involving the subject, it may be appropriate to mention the larger ideas, but only so long as the connection is clear. For example, I felt the David Ardia suggesting the site shutdown was prior restraint was worth including. But that was not an excuse for me to add a discourse, or even a famous general quote from a famous person, on the subject of prior restraint. The Ardia quote itself must stand scrutiny for being relevant and may ultimately not be deemed by the community to be especially worth including as events develop.
In short, each and every sentence should be specifically about Wikileaks and directly related people, organizations, and events. If a reliable source claims that the subject or its situation is an example of "X", cite it and see if the community feels it's sufficiently relevant to keep in a tightly focused, well-written article. But if the person making the connection is a Wikipedia editor, it must be deleted as OR. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the statements above regarding the Aftergood and Rawls quotes, and only posted the latter on the understanding that a criticism section was appropriate. On might argue that because Wikileaks is such a radical and novel form of civil disobedience that at least some balanced atention be given to the issue in the wikileaks article on wikipedia. If, this view is to prevail, then Aftergoods comment and something like Rawls's should be included under a dedicated heading. I am neutral on this point, and willing to go with the flow.
My reference to Rawls was deleted as synthetic OR, which is hardly defensible in the context of any section paying fair attention to the issue civil disobedience under democracy, as I took the criticism section to be. Jeff Q is right to point out that Aftergood's comment invites such balancing responses as the Rawls quote; since the former is a partisan opinion on an explosive topic. This being so, it appears that the continued inclusion of Aftergood's comment, no longer in a section devoted to meta-issues like civil disobedience in democracy, or even general criticisms, is effectively synthetic OR.
It is stated on the NPOV section of the WP:NOR page that
when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.
Since this cannot be done with respect to Aftergood's opinion (by no means a majority one) without paying direct and balanced attention to the issue of civil disobedience in democracy, I have deleted his opinion. I would be more than willing to see it restored, in a section where comment on its prevalence status with respect to contrasting opinions is supplied, and which would therefore include reference such as that, recently deleted, to Rawls.
Multipole ( talk) 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/02/us-judge-censors-wikileaksorg.html Any one knows more information about that..? I was redirected to an error page stating so (occasionally) when I tried to access... Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The excerpt from the Reuters article regarding the designation of some prisoners as off limits to visitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross is misleading. While military procedures make allowances for the possiblity of some prisoners being denied ICRC access, the document never lists any prisoners who were actually denied access. If this happened, then the documentation must surely exist.
I removed this passage added by an anon:
This particular paragraph didn't really fit in with the general style. Besides, basically, this passage could be summed up as "You probably aren't as anonymous as you think - business as usual". In other words, it's pretty useless statement: it describes a general condition (lack of anonymity in the net in general) rather than the site specifically (lack of anonymity on this particular site).
Rather than vague borderline FUD, this article should describe exactly how the site tries to ensure the anonymity on this site. Does anyone know the technical details? Do they purge the IP addresses or what? (I've never looked at a page history in that site =) Currently, the article just has some vague technologies listed (tor, etc) but not how they're practically applied to ensure the anonymity! -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've talked a bit about my reasoning why the article about the lawsuit should be merged here in Talk:Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit. Any other comments? -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving the following comment (which appeared under the heading "Censored Videos of Tibet Uprising") to here for now:
This may only become notable if Wikileaks remains down for an extended period of time. And even then, a verifiable source would be good. -- Ernstk ( talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As of 3:19 EST, its still down. When you ping the server, the request either times out, or you get a message that says, "Destination Host Unreachable". Only the IP given for the "Destination Host" is NOT Wikileak's IP.-- *Kat* ( talk)
Wikileaks is looking for trouble. They are hosting military material (JDAM manual, F-15C electronic warfare manual which is no small trouble, F-18 pocket guide, GPS and Iridium non-public data). Meddling with military matters is NOT a recipe for good health.
I think those running the site are in danger of person (i.e. bullet hole in the back of the head) or Sweden will get into trouble for hosting the site (e.g. cut off from access to advanced US/UK/jewish components for the Gripen Next fighter plane project).
Wikileaks have wandered off-course, from leaking material on african dictators and election cheats to being a tool of espionage. They should reflect and return to their original aims before it is too late. 91.83.18.230 ( talk) 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment not related to article: (That said, just because a website publishes information not in the US/Western interest does not mean it should be called "bad". 130.195.5.7 ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC))
As of now, I am completely unable to access Wikileaks through any of the domain names listed. I assume the site has gone down. Is it down for everyone else? 71.254.15.146 ( talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
None of the mirror site links at the bottom of the page is working as of the date of the Sarah Palin email release. Don't know if they were working previously...that is, whether they're simply outdated and need repair, or my natural paranoia is getting some reinforcement. DavidOaks ( talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, none of the links are working for me either. 75.13.162.159 ( talk) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The website has been down much longer than 9:07PM CST. Try right after the article was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.26.243 ( talk) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever. People have been trying to shut down wikileaks for years. With respect to the Palin case, there might be an argument that the private information was proof that she used a personal account for work stuff. Not sure if that's gonna fly though... Glebonator ( talk) 07:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.wikileaks.org.nyud.net/ seems to be working for me. Very Very Slow. Fkmd ( talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
> "Wikileaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources <
- You see the article rather makes a fool of itself by including such claims. Certainly the NSA has no trouble finding your "undisclosed" servers, the US/UK ECHELON system can monitor global communications totally. They actually have a big listener site in northern Norway, with many large dishes to spy on russian Murmansk, but is equally useful for swedish comms surveillance.
- Military-grade encryption? All the things we now use on the net (RC4, RSA, 3DES, SHA1) were invented by the NSA a decade before civilians re-invented them and the DES S-box story shows they are lightyears ahead of academia skills in crypto. All military ciphers are reversible, because a person can never be trusted, there must be a way to find out if he gets KIA or deserts to the enemy.
- Otherwise, swedish air defence depends mostly on their JAS-39 Gripen fighters having access to AMRAAM missiles, which enjoy total dominance over russian made Su-27 planes and their AA missiles. AMRAAM is exclusive US manufacture, expensive and tightly export controlled.
If wikileaks ever published something really valuable and hurtful (nuke CAD files, F-22 or F-35 fighter plane electronic warfare manuals) the swede would no longer have access to AMRAAM purchases, so they will throw out the whole Pirate Bay and Wikileaks gang in no time (AMRAAM is about the only thing that keeps the russians away from coming across the bay and gang-rape all those long-legged ABBA blondes on top of an IKEA table).
When the F-15C electronic warfare manual went onto Wikileaks, there was serious talk about putting the site or the people behind it down, but eventually the leak was considered useful, as it can be used to scare the shit out of politicians, to accelerate the transition to the sparkling new F-22 and buy more of those Raptor planes for the USAF, as the old Eagele's secrets are now out in the wild. The leakers were probably rogues in USAF who wanted to do a little bit of Robin Hood job to get more Raptors faster.
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a notable leak or not as Wikileaks was not where the list originallly appeared, though the blog who originally published the list have taken it down. The leaking of the BNP member list has become a major news story in the UK however and the list I believe is currently responsible for Wikileaks being down with its servers being overloaded (I don't know how common an occurence that is). It seems it might be worth noting? 92.236.245.163 ( talk) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Updated...-- SasiSasi ( talk) 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikileaks has now published lists of donors to the Coleman Campaign in an attempt tointimidate people who contribute to Republican campaigns. In emails that they have sent to people on the lists, they request "donations" to their organization. The data includes sensitive credit card information and sufficient details to give identity thieves a field day.
[2] for first donor list email
[3] for the second donor list email —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.68 ( talk) 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikileaks appears to be down everywhere, not just Australia, as it says in the article http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikileaks.org/ cojoco ( talk) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know wikilinks is now blocked by Australian servers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.19.237 ( talk) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No canz wikileaks.org? Teh site can noes load? it loadz teh icon for the page so there MUST be something there, but teh pages no load. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.130.233 ( talk) 09:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently it's gone unnoted, but according to the March 11th List, the whole of Wikileaks was to be blocked. Note the IP at the top of list, 88.80.13.160, is the IP of wikileaks. But between the 11th and the 16th it appears they've rethought this decision. Themania ( talk) 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Series/US_Justice_torture_memos :
This is SOO exciting! (and notable, it should be mentioned in the article) -- nlitement [talk] 10:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
How come this article doesn't mention Julian Assange, when Wikileaks is described as "his website" [JA 1] and he as "the brains behind Wikileaks". [JA 2]?
Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Added http://wikileaks.info/ as Wikileaks Mirror page, since the main one was down - I THINK this is the official mirror guide, but might be wrong. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikileaks appears to have taken itself offline until 6 January 2010 in a play for more financial support. Probably not worth going in the article in the grand scheme of things, unless the outage is other than what it appears. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Julius Assange has may explanations, but the true cause of WL downing is not public. They published the Microsoft CoFee police rootkit program binaries and the Interpol ordered to shut them down. They probably will not return and their donation collection may be a law enforcement sinkhole. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed references to the Climatic Research Unit hacks. The mechanism by which the emails were stolen and made public in no way involved Wikileaks, and both sources given with the piece on the hacks were utterly outrageous opinion pieces containing a mixture of blatant falsehood and conjecture. -- TS 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say cut most of the "notable leaks" section. Unless there was some sort of a reaction from the party whose information was leaked (more than the standard threat to sue), it's not notable here. Guettarda ( talk) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this again. The statement that Wikileaks played any serious part in dissemination of the material seems to be based on poor and obscure sources. Had Wikileaks played a major part, surely a multitude of non-weird, immensely reliable sources would have stated so. -- TS 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I just made a copy edit for style but I suspect I got it wrong. Would somebody please check and revert if necessary? It's rather difficult to fix on a Skypephone. -- Tasty monster 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In Revolt in 2100 Robert A. Heinlein wrote:
Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
This simply didn't belong in the article. I've moved it here. -- Shaundakulbara (contribs) 10:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
how is this shit based on the freenet software package? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.58.98 ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 March 2008
As of September 17th, 9:07PM CST the Wikileaks website is down through any route. The assumption is that the site is either overloaded due to the Palin e-mail story or it has been shut down by government officials. According to the news, the FBI and CIA are currently investigating so I wouldn't be surprised if they just shut it down temporarily. (DoSA anyone?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgrizzell ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A Web site that for years has let anonymous whistleblowers break stories of corruption and government malfeasance has gone dark and is expected to remain offline until it finds funds to support its operations and fend off lawsuits.
Investigators and governmental watchdogs say Wikileaks.org has been an invaluable tool for exposing corruption and releasing previously unseen documents. Founded in late 2006, the Web site has posted sensitive documents related to the September 11 attacks, Guantanamo Bay and the Church of Scientology, among others.
...
Neil Gordon, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, an independent nonprofit group that exposes corruption, said Wikileaks had played pivotal roles in some "pretty juicy stories" in recent years, including documents related to standard operating procedures at Guantanamo Bay and rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq.
"We think there's nothing but good that can come from sites like Wikileaks," Gordon told FoxNews.com. "It provides places for whistleblowers to provide documents anonymously, which is often the only way you can uncover corruption."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/06/whistleblower-web-site-remains-dark/ -- Gwern (contribs) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the feedback the site has had (specially during the CoS and Palin affairs), I am surprised there isn't a section overing the media coverage of it. BrickBreak ( talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why "Wikileaks" and not "WikiLeaks"? On wikileaks.org, the logo and all occurrences of the word are capitalized in the latter form. -- 93.39.96.250 ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This article really needs to mention Sunshine Press somewhere in the WP:LEAD per WP:BOLDTITLE. — Sladen ( talk) 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This article could use information about the aftermath of the raid on Reppe. Were any charges laid? Did Reppe press charges or lodge complaints in return? Etc. (I am opting out, but figure this page will be getting attention in the next little bit and hope a keener will catch this.) Also, if associated with both Wikileaks and Tor, does Reppe not surpass BLP1E? - BalthCat ( talk) 07:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe that this video is a pair of Apaches rather than a single AC-130? It would be difficult and unnecessary for an Apache to fire sideways and to the left, whereas this is standard operating procedure for an AC-130. It also fits the role of the AC-130 based on operating cost and armament. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a higher resolution available for the Collateral Murder video? People are asking what the gunners were able to see compared to what we saw. In particular, the gunsight numbers are blurry. Obviously, this would not be the case for the gunner.
The overall presentation is very nice, I'm just wondering if we are seeing compression artifacts after WikiLeaks added the subtitles. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a rather, computer-y way to put it. "- Are you Sweden or Ireland based? - Yes. -Well, which one are you? -Wat?". I don't think humans operate that way though usually, especially if they're not computer scientists :-) -- Athinker ( talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In the background section it says none of the people working for the project are paid because "they have no skills." That wording doesn't seem to be in the source cited, which suggests they don't get paid because there isn't enough money coming in yet to pay them. I would guess that this is vandalism, but perhaps someone without a decent facility with English meant something else. Could someone look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 ( talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Financial_collapse:_Confidential_exposure_analysis_of_205_companies_each_owing_above_%E2%82%AC45M_to_Icelandic_bank_Kaupthing%2C_26_Sep_2008 isn't valid anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.70.190 ( talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any wiki I've ever seen. Tisane ( talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the authorship of the site needs to be more throughly disscussed. In an interview i saw with the editor of the site, it sounds as if it is more of an editorialized version of their content, usually politically motivated. -- 134.129.136.30 ( talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think, at this point, we need to recognize that the article, though somewhat young in its developmental life cycle, is a pretty serious one right now due to its relevance to a current event and its possible relevance to future current events. I myself, a non-contributor (sitting at a public computer lab), am pretty happy with it, as it stands, and I'd like to thank the contributors for that.
I see that the article is on probation and is currently being monitored pretty intently. This is probably a good idea, simply because we must recognize that this article, like many, could become a potential ideological battleground between people who are more interested in promoting their views than preserving encyclopedic integrity on wikipedia. We've seen a few malicious edit attempts on this page alone (at least one act of vandalism and an attempted Article deletion that came from a user with no previous history on Wikipedia). And if the rest of Wikipedia is any lesson, you see that Wikiscanner has already exposed countless ill-intentioned edit attempts by think tanks, companies, article subjects (in vanity edits), the CIA, and other malicious browsers, to pages other than this one.
Fortunately, wikipedia's core admins/contributors are always on task to make sure that standards such as NPOV, no original research, no vanity edits, etc, are upheld. But in this situation, there is an added importance for us to be vigilant for the possibility of malicious edits -- the page is relatively young, Wikileaks is relatively young, Wikileaks is in the news right now (as the subject of a controversial story), and Wikileaks has also released an article that claims "U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks" recently by way of discrediting specific stories, sources, or the very nature of the site, to the point of building a fatal lack of credibility around the site. I'm not going to join Wikileaks in accusing the CIA, but I will say that *if* there was any such attempt to marginalize the site, it should be noted that such attempts have probably failed by now, since many of the site's leaks have been deemed credible, and also since they are now supported by credible mainstream journalism institutions such as the AP and LA Times. But still, we can't dismiss the possibility that the page could suffer malicious edits from the sorts of organizations/people who might feel threatened by Wikileaks -- or, on the other hand, malicious edits from people/organizations that might want to co-opt the cause of Wikileaks as something complementary for their own cause, and influence the site to show an unfair bias *for* Wikileaks or against the subjects of leaks. We must protect Wikipedia's standards in all cases. Once again, it's evident from this discussion page that this Article has already been subject to malicious edits in the form of vandalism (see other section on this talk page, where a watchful user has thankfully brought up a vandal's edit -- a claim that the people behind Wikileaks are unpaid because "they have no skills"). Also, the page was once nominated for deletion due to Wikileaks' supposed lack of notability -- the nomination received unanimous calls for "keep" or "strong keep," and one user voting "strong keep" noted the following: "Clear notability established. Also, nominator may be a throw-away SPA account. No other edits but this nom." Again, there is evidence of malicious activity surrounding this page.
Like I said, I am a non-contributor, and am happy with the current state of the page. But I will keep an eye on edits in the future in case anything malicious pops up again (at this rate, I'm sure it will, unfortunately). 96.56.205.131 ( talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Article and discussion page have a decidedly "stay away" feel to them as well as an intimidating attitude here with the "article probation" threat. The fact few experienced Wikipedians are editing this article as well as the subordinate one is disappointing, I think. Mindmattering ( talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikinews:'Wikileaks.org' taken offline in many areas after fire, court injunction said that just after a dDOS attack, the UPS caught on fire. Was this done by hacking into it, or by some other means, or a bizarre coincidence? Wnt ( talk) 03:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just re-instated the Climate Research Unit emails, as I think we've been there before cojoco ( talk) 11:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe a good faith reversion of my edit by Ianmacm, was a slight misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. The policy states that Wikipedia should not include unverifiable speculation about the future. I would like to stress that this means we, as an encycopedia should not make unverifiable claims about the future. So under this policy, the statement "right now Wikipedia are sitting on history-making stuff", should not be included in the article, and I think this is what Ianmacm was getting at. However the statement I added to the article was "Julian Assange has said "right now we are sitting on history-making stuff"". It is verifiable that he said this so it does not fall under WP:CRYSTAL, because we, as an encyclopaedia, are not actually claiming that his prediction is correct. Thanks. Gregcaletta ( talk) 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see why the usual group of criminals (USA,RUSSIA,ISRAEL,ZIMBABWE,KOREAS,....) would be upset with them but does anyone know why our mainstream press has them at arms lenght? 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)I just found out that they posted all the emails and addresses of anyone who did business with David Irving - wow tough guys. I wonder if they would like the ADL emails - just a thought. Please, wikileaks should get the names spelled right when they upload garbage. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Their snail-mail goes to Australia, their IP's are all over the world, their servers are in multiple countries, the founder himself holds no residence and moves from country to country on a project basis. Should we really call them Swedish based just because they started there? I think "an international organization" is more appropriate for their intro descriptor. Dkriegls ( talk) 04:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If the topic is this complex, then perhaps we should just have a section on it and describe it neutrally as 'international' anywhere else that we have to? -- Gwern (contribs) 21:55 7 June 2010 (GMT)
because wikileaks exposes a lot of powerful organizations and nation states, there are continual attacks on it and this page. infact there is a us intelligence report from 2008 released on wikileaks that makes it clear the site considered the enemey of some in the us government for exposing guantnamo bays main manuals etc. some of these attacks appear to repeatedly involve using discredited articles such as one from motherjones. this needs to be watched carefully.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martymay ( talk • contribs)
It appears that this has been passed as law in Iceland. Should probably be expanded upon, in this article. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This entire section was deleted from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikileaks&diff=369732861&oldid=369581503 I think this is very relevant to the article, well-sourced and NPOV. It should not have been COMPLETELY deleted. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Wikileaks's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NYDNBM":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Somehow this conversation ended up on the Julian Assange talk page, where I have responded, but I will repeat my main points. The MotherJones article needs to be given due weight in the article, but we need to be equally careful that it does not receive undue weight. I believe the point that is worth including in the article as a compromise is "despite appearing on the list, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, Khamsitsangs said he recieved an e-mail from Wikileaks, but never agreed to be an advisor." This is a plain factual statement by a source generally considered reliable, and can added without too many problems. I have two main points as to what would would give undue weight to the MJ article: (1) Details from social networking sites such as a Facebook fan page are not encyclopaedia worthy. THe fan page in question was not under the control of Wikileaks when MJ wrote the article (which they have now conceded) and I have checked their Facebook page recently and can find no reference to Noam Chomsky. Chomsky still appeared on the page, and even if Assange himself ran the page, and even if MJ said all this, it would not be encyclopaedia worthy; it's is a Facebook page. (2) The statement "However, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, some of the listed advisory board members "didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there"" may be true, but it is more rhetorically powerful than it is factually informative. It is much better to be specific and simply say "despite appearing on the list, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, Khamsitsangs said he recieved an e-mail from Wikileaks, but never agreed to be an advisor." Placing the first statement directly after the advisory board list potentially insinuates that the advisory board does not exist at all, or that Wikileaks is being misleading in some other way, and the MJ article does not explicitly say this, so it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, apart from being merely less specific and informative (and entailed within) the second. Gregcaletta ( talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The section on the 2010 Knight Foundation News Challenge grant needs improvement. The section is currently statements made by wikileaks without much balance. Wikileaks, as is explained in referenced articles here, failed the foundation's due diligence process. This should be concretely noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.134.130 ( talk) 20:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Can a neutral third party review the article and weigh in on the wording? I believe it's entirely clear, based on the article, that "failed the due diligence process" is a completely fair and accurate description of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.249.93 ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)