Talk:WikiLeaks

	This Internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Off the rails

WikiLeaks' fixation with Clinton & descent into rabid crankery to the point where it's now openly courting the alt-right should be documented. Cf many of their recent tweets, such as this one denying Trump's links with Russia & this one citing the Trumpist subreddit. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure wikileaks ever had much rails to begin with. Edward Snowden had a crisis of conscience and released materials he thought people ought to know about through a reporter. Wikileaks got famous for dumping a whole bunch of private government communications without much thought to their content. It helped that there was some serious questions raised by it, but they didn't proceed to make a platform that helped leak things much, but instead just kinda sat around until assange flipped his lid. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 01:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a massive misconception about Cablegate that smears both Assange and Manning and downplays the importance of their contributions; WikiLeaks offered the Department of Defense to review the War Logs but it was denied and handled her leaks with great care.. Snowden's leaks were classified higher that Chelsea's leaks and Chelsea had multiple journalists while Snowden just had Greenwald who slowly dripped the leaks out. Also, do you really read all 1.7 million documents he leaked, because if he didn't that would make him the irresponsible data dumper.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Assange is friendly with Roger Stone. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have heard that they have retweeted Paul Joseph Watson who is a massive reactionary but I can't find the tweets rn.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's one word for him, I can think of a few others. not a real jedi^{damn right i'm paranoid} 14:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Vault 7 CIA files

It's been days now and nobody has mentioned it on RW at all, not even in WIGO:World, so I thought I would. The media seems to have been very quiet on the subject too, a handfull of initial reports then nothing, nada, zilch, not a sausage. What's up with that? not a real jedi^{damn right i'm paranoid} 06:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

For those into technology, this is pretty much known/assumed already just like the stuff Snowden revealed. This situation shows there's truth to the mainstream media idea and the lack of government transparency. I honestly think Vault 7 is more important that Russian hacker story.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr all the headlines are wrong and the interesting bit is that the apps that claim serious security, like Signal, really are secure enough that the CIA needs to hack the physical device to break into them - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That's one way of putting it. I would more say Vault 7 detailed targeted surveillance techniques, many of which are already known. As for Signal, the CIA exploits don't try decrypting the cipher text but instead grab the plain text before it's sent out. Unless a program is using it's own faulty encryption scheme or a dangerously outdated one, targeted surveillance yields the best and relatively easy results. Of course, with certain encryption schemes there's still some attacks things you can do like resend a message or guess what the plain text is from the cipher text (the word yes and no have different lengths for example). The definition of security really depends on how the mathematician who created the scheme defines it.

As Nathan White has argued, the CIA is more concerned with collected exploits rather than helping companies fix them, which is an extremely important issue here.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks and conspiracy theories

To what extent can 'nothing has been dumped on Wikileaks and its equivalents' be used as a retort to conspiracy theorists? (As leaking such things would be a mega-coup). 86.146.100.119 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Funding

Maybe hate on their site, suggest not to fund it, and save putting your own hand out for a separate section\page? kinda brings you down a couple levels ^{— Unsigned, by: 2605:a000:1612:42dc::1002 / talk / contribs}

Gamergate, pizzagate, MRA

Wikileaks has a long tradition of posting MRA stuff. Wikileaks' Twitter was actively promoting pizzagate conspiracies, gamergate, and Mentions can be found elsewhere on Rationalwiki, but not on the WL page. I believe the article could be improved with more information about those moments as that might add to the context of what is going on. Additionally, information about WL would be less scattered. Helpdesk (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump tried to assassinate Julian Assange

Maybe remove the quote from Trump, because it recently came out that Trump's CIA tried to assassinate Julian Assange.^{— Unsigned, by: Mondel / talk / contribs}

@Mondel Reputable news sources indicate that the CIA discussed assassinating Assange in 2017, but that's a far cry from saying that they "tried to assassinate" him. Where on earth did you read that they tried to follow through on those ideas? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)