Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wikisphere Navbox

Should this article have the "welcome to the wikisphere" box thing at the bottom? PACODOG^{woof, 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 PACODOG^{woof, 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)

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)

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. Thunderkatz^Ho! 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.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Sophie^Wilder 06:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Explanation

Can I please get an explanation why my question was removed instead of answered? You're no different from Conservapedia if you just go removing anything you can't answer ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.222.121.101 / talk} 04:38, 1 August 2015‎

Because it's JAQing off to baseless NWO conspiracy theory and you have a history of dumping similar crap in other articles, duh. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiLeaks lately

Did they fasten their tinfoil hats on a smidge too tight? Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the Clinton stuff you have to keep in mind that Assange knows Clinton will continue to try and prosecute him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 01:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Assange has always been an oddball. How couldn't he be? But the Clinton stuff is a public service imho, regardless of where the information came from. Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Between needlessly doxxing tons of people in the DNC hack and now doxxing millions of women in Turkey, I think it's time to move them out of the "wholeheartedly support" pile (no more "give them your fucking money" so they can be wildly unethical with it). There is nothing good about recklessly doxxing people, and no good excuse to do it, even if the hack does show important things (which it often doesn't). Hentropy (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Hentropy. I don't see why there is a donation link for a morally-dubious organization. David Gerard wanted to keep it a while back; maybe he's changed his mind by now? Bongolian (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, idk I still think they do good work but this unnecessary doxing is becoming a serious issue. I am not sure why they can't censure any of this info but I assume it is because they may not actually have anyone reading through these documents.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 05:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot of it has to do with time, yeah. They get these huge data leaks, probably not a lot of people actually working a WikiLeaks, so they dump it all. With both the DNC and Turkey, getting the "story" and leak out there at the right time was more important than anything else. And... yeah, that makes them seem less like a principled activist organization pushing for reasonable transparency, and more like they just want to grab headlines a few times a year. Hentropy (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The timing was terrible. To be effective, they should have dumped the emails 3-4 months ago to corroborate what the Sanders people were saying, and let the primary voters decide. The party rules violations coupled with Hillary's FBI investigation would have torpedoed her campaign and Sanders would be the nominee now. Dumping it on the eve of the convention only sunk the party chairwoman as the fall-guy, and strengthens Hillary's takeover of the DNC with her own handpicked stooge. Assange and Wikileaks fuckup, I presume, comes from looking at the American electoral process threw a Commonwealth parlimentary prism. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 18:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One could just as easily argue that it was optimal timing for the Trump campaign, assuming that he thought that Hillary was about the same as Bernie for his competitor. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The point is, Wikileaks could have influenced the outcome of the nomination process, but the convention is merely a formality. The nominee had been decided already. Assuming Hillary takes office in January, there will be a thorough house cleaning of Obama progressives both in government and in the party, to be replaced by Clinton cronies. This only speeded up that process. People like Wasserman-Schultz will survive. Those loyal to Sanders or Obama will be purged. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I threw out the contribution links for the most part since what they did to the DNC was quite possibly the dumbest thing ever. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the DNC leaks were intentionally timed to maximize harm to Clinton. Assange hates a certain political candidate so much that he's willing to leave the personal and financial informations of thousands on a public site just to hurt her. Frankly, I think his whole scheme is going to backfire, as he's now going to be wanted for a lot more serious crimes than he ever was before, and Interpol doesn't play with financial criminals. Ethically dubious would be an understatement at this point, given that thousands are now exposed to the easiest identity theft in general for having the gall to like a political party Assange does not.24.111.118.37 (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are assuming too much. Assange certainly hates Clinton because she will continue to try and prosecute him but I am not certain he intentionally timed this; The source could've given Wikileaks this info before the convention for that same reason. Also, Assange has only recently come out against any curation of info but not because of this election.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC) 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So why not wait to redact the financial information (including plaintext CC #s, bank account numbers, social security numbers and more) and release the documents later? It wouldn't be the first time Wikileaks held some leaked information before releasing it, and in this case it was ABSOLUTELY warranted. Maybe I smell rats where only mice are present, but I sure as hell smell a rat here. Regardless, this massive leak of financial information, timed or not, is going to land Assange in serious hot water. He could be charged with very, very serious crimes at this point. 24.111.118.37 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Worse than anything he has done so far? --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Endangering the lives of Iraqi Jews was the worst thing Wikileaks has done in my view. Bongolian (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure on that. The worst thing I think Assange ever did was shop his fellow hackers to the Feds for Operation Sundevil. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Iraqi Jews were innocent bystanders and Wikileaks put their lives and safety at risk. The hackers were (I would assume) complicit with Wikileaks and likely at worst risked prison time. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This was long before Wikileaks ever existed. This was when he was "Mendax"; Operation Sundevil was a long time ago. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

So, Snowden called them out. They're assuming intent something fierce. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 22:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have said before, Assange hates Clinton and he knows he will still be prosecuted if she wins. He may be better off if Trump were president since Trump may not care enough or even have the diplomatic skills to get him. Either that or staying in that embassy has made him horribly paranoid.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 20:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that WikiLeaks has released something unfavorable about your favorite party, you turn against them. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is rather unfair and inappropriate given that Wikileaks has committed doxxing of innocent bystanders in at least three separate incidents, and on an unprecedented scale. Bongolian (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Before the DNC leak, you didn't care too much about that.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 23:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 23:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that I put in the section on "Dubious ethics" (on Iraqi Jews being doxxed), and I tried unsuccessfully to remove the donation to Wikileaks link. This was in October of 2015. Bongolian (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Too much"... And I'm not only talking about you, but the other editors of this article. The article became much more critical after the DNC leaks.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) 00:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not talking about me at all since I was the first to raise criticism on this page last October. The other two doxxing incidents didn't come up until this month, so I don't understand what you're even on about. The page needs to be critical of Wikileaks just like any page needs to be critical where appropriate. Bongolian (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy JAQing Initiated

Tweet: Wikileaks Just Asking Questions? #JAQingOff

(And for those out of the loop, it's a Cisco wireless thingy) Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 04:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fabricated quote

If anyone remembers any media outlets reporting Assange saying that "he had enough evidence to indict Hillary" then you may be surprised to find out that this quote was was fabricated by Zero Hedge.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 23:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Accountability

My issue with wikileaks is the same as anonymous. We all applaud when we agree with tbeir targets but then have no answer when they do stuff we dont. Who are they accountable? In whose name do they do the things they do? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think they would say they work in the public interest. I've always had mixed feelings about WikiLeaks for the same reason everyone is jumping on them now, they leak indiscriminately and without regard for anything, really, so long as their target gets a bloody nose in the end of it. I did like them because I thought it might force an important conversation about government transparency, the problem of course being that never really happened. If you liked WikiLeaks you were a traitor terrorist and if you disliked Wikileaks even a little you're a government lackey who hates transparency and loves corruption. Not even normally ethical liberals stopped and asked whether or not dumping everything indiscriminately that was handed to them could possibly have an ethical downside, and if it did, well it was worth it to fight the evul gubbmint. I don't think "to leak or not to leak" should be the main question, but "how to we leak ethically but still show government wrongdoing", and even transparency advocates have to admit there's a line between "opening up governments" and just making sure no one who works in politics/government can't have a private life. Hentropy (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Traditionally, the ethics of leaks has been filtered through the press, e.g. The Pentagon Papers was leaked by Daniel Ellsberg through The Washington Post. Wikileaks has leaked some material through the press, but that has not been their main M.O. Not only is the data dump style of Wikileaks immoral due to endangering innocent people, it is poorly curated (TLDR) — it's hard to tell what if anything is of significance. Bongolian (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The theory I've held ever since it started?

Whoever Assange accepts pay from to leak something. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OK Cupid?

Is this really necessary? It doesn't seem very missional. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The staff section is about Assange. If there was an article about him only, his creepy behavior would be added there too. It's missional, as it reveals his messianic complex. I've added another part that puts his rape accusations in context with the previous text. Typhoon (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that he's falling out of favor of the RW editors, all his dirty laundry will be aired in public here, down to the last sock.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 13:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 13:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There already has been a page on Assange since 2010. It could be moved there. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is tawdry as fuck, and using Gawker as an excuse is, um - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit silly. I've moved this stuff over to the Julian Assange article: feel free to delete it from there though as I personally would not have it on RationalWiki at all. No offence to Typhoon, but that reasoning doesn't really cut it for me. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 16:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Assange getting more unhinged?

Assange said this during an interview that was broadcast on August 3, 2016:

“”As to who the intermediaries are, that’s another question. It's also a little bit concerning to see the sort of McCarthyist attempt to frame Trump as some kind of Russian conspirator. I think both presidential candidates are extremely problematic. But a kind of McCarthyist hysteria, trying to depict one of the candidates as somehow a Manchurian Candidate, I think is a bit disturbing. And then also a push for journalists to reveal their sources, as a journalist, it’s disgusting.

He's basically equating Trump with Clinton in the interview, ignoring Trump's quite apparent insanity and documented ties to Russia. Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Not surprising really: He has good personal reason to hate Clinton (i.e. calling for his indictment), and from his perspective he'd probably not be particularly bothered with ties to Russia (especially if you consider Trump's comments on the DNC hack). At the same time, I doubt Assange is particularly pleased with Trump's attacks on the free press, his authoritarian tendencies and... well, everything really. It's completely wrong IMO, but I don't think it's anything exceptional from Assange. But I could be completely wrong. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 16:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There's very little Wikileaks could do to Trump that would be more damaging than Trump opening his mouth already is - David Gerard (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that attacking Trump would be punching down? Jesus. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's literally nonsensical, but is the sort of thinking that shows why you're possibly an even worse editor than Proxima - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The hell

Look at that e-mail address. I'd say WikiLeaks is getting nuttier and nuttier, but I don't even know if this tops mistaking a wifi antenna for crowd control. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 03:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently the computer transcribing it screwed up. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 03:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

...And, apparently, there's no way for that error to have occurred. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it April 1st already? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like this Moshe Francis guy REALLY hates Hillary (tons of pics filled with stupid...). Also, love the fact that so many American are going haywire about an email from 2009 about an earpiece. Makes me wonder why so many Americans are suffering from superstition... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The word is...

Wikileaks has been shut down by the US national security establishment and the Clinton machine in the same fashion as Daesh's internet presence has been limited. Anybody hear anything? nobs 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I recall Clinton making a statement about it. I can only assume that Wikileaks mirrors will be popping up sooner or later. The emails are out there, so someone should/has already a host for them all. For a case that's an FBI representative in Congress called "ordinary", the Clinton emails case has been getting a lot of cover up ;) —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk)

Update: lol the site is up https://wikileaks.org/ Download the clinton emails here: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ (VPN or proxy reccomended) —チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The bigger kickers Assange was holding onto won't be released cause Ecuador will boot him out if they are. Now he's essentially a hostage of Ecuador trying to barter for more favors from the US and Goldman Sachs. This is where Assange fucked up, he went from being a passive player to an active participant trying to influence events and outcomes. This drew the ire of powerful constituents of Hillary.nobs 23:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Troll house cookies

Has Wikileaks become just another Russian troll house[1]? Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That's Clinton machine disinformation to cover their ass on the murder od Seth Rich.nobs 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Assange won't rest until James McDougal's body is found in Benghazi wrapped in printouts of the missing emails. Bongolian (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think they're more interested in determining the cause of death of Prof. Gavin Macfayden; he was 76 yrs old after all. nobs 02:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Doxing Turkish women

Apparently, it was Michael Best, and not WikiLeaks, the files with personal information; he received the info from Phineas Fisher.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)