Post by: sandbox on March 23, 2009, 06:58:20 PM
... could become as important a journalistic tool
as the Freedom of Information Act.
„
— Time Magazine
http://wikileaks.org/
Post by: gunug on March 24, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 24, 2009, 11:42:17 AM
QUOTE
Disclosed documents are classified, censored or otherwise opaque to the public record. We rely on readers to alert their communities and press to the revelations here.
And who do we rely on to verify the comments of the posters? Using "Wiki" in a site name implies that everyone has the ability to add/edit/remove information posted. Theoretically, this is supposed to prevent the spread of bad or false information. How well that works is still open to doubt. And I'm talking about a site (Wikipedia) that publishes data open to all. With the site linked to, we are asked to put our trust in (at least sometimes) completely unknown and as far as I know, completely un-accountable 'sources.' It is often difficult to verify who actually makes entries in any "Wiki" unless the site makes that information available. In this case, it appears the site takes steps to do exactly the opposite. IMHO, false or unverifiable information can be more dangerous than no information. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of how we got into a certain 'regime change' effort...Frankly, I'm not sure I see much difference between this site and the usually forwarded emails warning of mythical problems caused by a virus that will burn a hole in ones hard drive.
They simply spread some one's 'idea' and have a life of their own without ever having to prove their validity, much less their original author. The difference I do see is that is is a much more efficient way to spread this 'information.' "If you build it, they will come." _ A. Nonymus
Post by: sandbox on March 26, 2009, 11:17:30 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 27, 2009, 06:32:47 PM
Just not a site I'll be seeing, I guess.
But there are some I see that you might not enjoy, either! 
Post by: sandbox on March 28, 2009, 12:51:34 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 28, 2009, 11:39:27 AM
I wish them luck and hope they perform well and honestly, they will certainly be under the same threat of embarrassment should they fail to live up to their standards. Please keep us posted. 
Post by: sandbox on March 28, 2009, 03:40:08 PM
Post by: Paddy on March 28, 2009, 04:40:43 PM
Post by: sandbox on March 28, 2009, 10:41:31 PM
Post by: tacit on April 06, 2009, 08:48:08 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 27 2009, 11:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the key words in that 'reasoning' is "informed." Since WikiPedia deals in generally widely known information, it is not difficult to correct errors. I see no similarity with WikiLeaks, which, by definition, deals with information that is explicitly difficult to see/find. That last sentence wreaks of self-importance and a desire to hurt others. "Injustice" should always be exposed, but what does a term like "embarrassing" have anything to do with that task? I'd never relate well to a person with that kind of character. Truth and respect for others will suffice, for me, for friends and "justice." YMMV.
Just not a site I'll be seeing, I guess. But there are some I see that you might not enjoy, either!
Just not a site I'll be seeing, I guess.
But there are some I see that you might not enjoy, either! A wiki is a collaborative effort; there's nothing about a wiki that says anyone can edit it. Many wikis are closed and can not be edited by the general public.
With Wikileaks, not anyone can publish or post to it. Instead, a person who has a document which he or she wants to post must submit the document, together with whatever evidence of its authenticity exists, to the Wikileaks panel, which will then attempt to establish whether or not the document is genuine. If it is, the panel posts the document.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on April 06, 2009, 09:39:04 PM
QUOTE
a person who has a document [...] must submit the document, together with whatever evidence of its authenticity exists, to the Wikileaks panel, which will then attempt to establish whether or not the document is genuine.
Exactly my point, in another post. It is the make up of that panel that determines the credibility of the Wiki. "Leaks" can come for a multitude of reasons, some worthwhile, others not. I prefer to let those with known skills and investigative powers do the fact finding on any "leak." I suppose what I'm saying is that I'd rather have the devil I know... 
And, as you can see, I'm not that familiar with many Wiki's!
At least I had the 'collaboration" part right!