Talk:WikiLeaks

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Should this article have the "welcome to the wikisphere" box thing at the bottom? PACODOGwoof, bitches 05:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just shove it on if you think a page needs it. - π 05:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was going to but I'm messing around on my new phone and it lacks the vertical line button(?) necessary to add the edit PACODOGwoof, bitches 05:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiLeaks is not a wiki anymore, is it? Tisane (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It uses MediaWiki, but isn't really - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It was a fullblown wiki at one point. I think it's running at reduced capacity right now. None of the links on wp:Wikileaks work at the moment. Mei (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Un-diplomat-gte

What about the current crop of postings, including unflattering remarks on assorted politicians?



82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I'm rather surprised

You seem to rather like Assange around here despite his unacceptably anti-authoritarian tendencies. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, Assange is not the issue -- Wikileaks is. Sure he's the main spokesman and public face of the organisation, but he does not work alone.
Second, what on Earth are "unacceptably anti-authoritarian tendencies" supposed to be? I can understand finding some of WL's actions unacceptable, but it is most forms of authoritarianism that I'd say was unacceptable, Eric Raymond's "How to become a hacker" document (http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#believe4) has a good summary:
Hackers are naturally anti-authoritarian. ... the authoritarian attitude has to be fought wherever you find it, lest it smother you ... (This isn't the same as fighting all authority. Children need to be guided and criminals restrained. A hacker may agree to accept some kinds of authority in order to get something he wants more than the time he spends following orders. But that's a limited, conscious bargain; the kind of personal surrender authoritarians want is not on offer.)
That is the attitude I hold personally and consider normal for the net. I'm distinctly surprised that anyone here would find anti-authoritarian tendencies objectionable, let alone unacceptable. Pashley (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. I'm anti-authority myself, I just get the impression that people around here are pretty authoritarian. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't confuse "the government isn't all bad, it can even do some good" attitude with authoritarianism. - π 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously you are in complete denial that A=A. Looter - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because A=A is a pointless assignment statement. The real question is whether A==A. ThunderkatzHo! 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll give it to you that government isn't all bad, it can indeed do some good. I just feel that it needs to stick its oar in a bit less. I have anarchist sympaties but sadly, while anarchy is a nice idea on paper (unlike communism), it simply wouldn't work in real life. As such, I identify as a Libertarian (not a full-fledged Objectivist). Nice to know that you're not all as completely authoritarian as I'd previously imagined. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have with the libertarian philosophy is that it's a single-villain ideology -- "gummint bad." There is no allowance for the fact that the private sector can abuse its authority as much as the public sector can and that any government action to curb abuse in the private sector is conflated with "authoritarianism." The end result is absurdities like all the libertarians attempting to justify Rand Paul's anti-Civil Rights statements (though I remember Cato at least denounced them) -- somehow the systematic oppression of blacks is okay as long as the government doesn't do it. In other words, you have a de jure "right," but you have no means by which to take advantage of it. Beautiful. The fact that so many libertarians can conflate using state power to curb discriminatory practices like "separate but equal" with the abuse and corruption of both Bush and Obama's security state policies speaks to how limited and blinkered the ideology is. Wikileaks, along with organizations like the ACLU and EFF, are essential for a functioning democracy. The fact that talking heads in the media can openly call for Assange's assassination shows how far in the tank they are for the government as well as the sorry state of our so-called democracy. But whether it's jack-booted government thugs or the big boss man, individual liberties can and will be abused. I guess that makes me a "civil libertarian," if that term has any meaning. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that I can think of that would be worse than having a government in charge would be not having a government in charge.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Taliban did not exist during 80s

Taliban got in power in 1996 to 2001–thiazides1

You're right. The Taliban grew out of the post-soviet disorder in Afhanistan, the earliest date I can find is 1991, and they didn't formally exist until 1994. SophieWilderModerator 06:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

[edit] 11/27/2013 BoN edit

Quite a lot of info here, but I'm unsure of it's accuracy beyond "we're mad at Julian, so here's a bunch of negative info". Is it worth inclusion as is? Zero (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly. Reverted - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support