# Wikileaks - forum for whistleblowing



## Centurian1985 (13 Jan 2007)

A new site being advertised for international whistleblowers:

http://www.wikileaks.org/index.html

The article on this site appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist as "Anonymity Guarenteed on Whistleblower Website" but I havent been able to find an internet version of the story.  

Key line is that the site intends to be a forum for people to "post sensitive documents on the internet without fear of being identified".  Key backers are supposedly members of the expatriate Chinese community.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2007)

"Expatriate Chinese Community"?  Is this the new name for 'espionage' to come out of China?


----------



## Centurian1985 (13 Jan 2007)

I'm sticking to what the article and the website describes itself as.  I'll leave the motivation of the "Expatriate supporters" to be determined.  I wouldnt trust'em, but then, Im cynical and paranoid. 

My concern is that it is a possible source of embarassment and/or security issues if people use the site to release privelaged information without retribution, and noticed it hadnt been mentioned by anyone else yet...


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I'm sticking to what the article and the website describes itself as.  I'll leave the motivation of the "Expatriate supporters" to be determined.  I wouldnt trust'em, but then, Im cynical and paranoid.
> 
> My concern is that it is a possible source of embarassment and/or security issues if people use the site to release privelaged information without retribution, and noticed it hadnt been mentioned by anyone else yet...



From what I have seen of the Wikipedia site's Administrators and Staff, is that they are a rather arrogant group of people, who's opinions of themselves are extremely high.  I think they have a tight little clique of "eggheads" who really have a rosy and innocent view of the world and politics.  I believe that they have the opinion, that there should be no 'secrets' and that the Net should hold all the world's information, for all to access freely.  Why else would they be striving for the distinction of being the 'World's best online encyclopedia source of facts and knowledge'?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Jan 2007)

George, I don't think Wikileaks and Wikipedia are connected.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

I am figuring that it is an offshoot of their main site and using a 'copyrighted' name and format.  If not, it may face some controversy from the Wikipedia folks.

On looking at the Wikipedia Site, they have the following at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks :



> Wikileaks is a purported untraceable website running on modified Mediawiki software which will allow whistleblowers to anonymously release government and corporate documents, allegedly without possible retribution. The site and its project were themselves secret, pre-launch, until their existence was leaked and disclosed on the Cryptome website[1]. The site in part is being developed by Chinese government dissidents. According to the Wikileaks website, their main targets for leaked disclosure are the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa, and Middle Eastern nations, but they expect it to be used for leaks of information about Western governments and corporations.[2] All current staff, developers, or employees of Wikileaks are thought to be secret and unidentified as of January 2007.[3]
> 
> According to a Wikileaks official named "Julian Assange", the site was planned to go live in March 2007 but was unprepared for the media attention its ahead-of-schedule disclosure generated. Their advisory board includes members of the expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst, and cryptographers. There are no formal links between Wikileaks and the Wikimedia Foundation. [4] The website has stated that they have over 1,000,000 classified and internal documents already that they are preparing to publish[5]. They have purportedly already done so with one document said to be written by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union.[6] They also posted an analysis which they claim proves it authenticity.[7]
> 
> According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."[8] Wikileaks developers have stated that there will be checks in place to keep the "completely anonymous" system from being flooded with false documents, porn, spam, and related things. All users will be able to comment on all documents, analyze them, and identify false material.[3]



More on their link above.




> References
> 1    "Wikileaks Leak", Cryptome, January 11, 2007.
> 2    Referenced via UCLA. "CHINA: Cyber-dissidents launch WikiLeaks, a site for whistleblowers", South China Morning Post, January 11, 2007.
> 3    a b Paul Marks. "How to leak a secret and not get caught", New Scientist, January 13, 2007.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jan 2007)

>According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."

Unless it turns out to be a sting.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From what I have seen of the ... site's Administrators and Staff, is that they are a rather arrogant group of people, who's opinions of themselves are extremely high.  I think they have a tight little clique of "eggheads"...



Careful George, that description could also be applied to army.ca...


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Careful George, that description could also be applied to army.ca...



Not with you crowd.   ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Jan 2007)

>According to the group, Wikileaks will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis."[8] Wikileaks developers have stated that there will be checks in place to keep the "completely anonymous" system from being flooded with false documents, porn, spam, and related things. All users will be able to comment on all documents, analyze them, and identify false material.[3]<

Unless they have an exceptionally large enough staff of forensic document specialists, I sincerely doubt they have the ability to identify 'false documents' .     

Second who are the users qualified as 'experts' who would identify false material?  Merely saying 'hey thats not true' is not good enough.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jan 2007)

Should we ring the bells and blow the whistles now and rename that site "RUMOURS"?


----------



## chanman (15 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "Expatriate Chinese Community"?  Is this the new name for 'espionage' to come out of China?



Given the bent of the site, are you sure they don't mean exiled/expat political dissidents/Falun Gong/Tibetians/Oppressed-Group-Of-The-Day?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2007)

The Federation of Amercian Scientists has published Secrecy News for several years now (ca. Sept 2000) through their "Project on Government Secrecy." This is their take on Wikileaks, (with emphasis by me):



> WIKILEAKS AND UNTRACEABLE DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE
> 
> A new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and
> publication of confidential government records.
> ...



While FAS often ruffles feathers within the US government, they appear to have a sense of understanding a requirement for some instances of security. Obviously one must take their word for it, since they cannot publish something saying, "Look at this - - we chose not to publish it because..."


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2007)

This site probably is not associated with Wikipedia. The term 'wiki' refers to any sort of open-edit format like this, and ahs been used in many different contexts.

I'll be curious to see if this thing ends up going anywhere...


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2007)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This site probably is not associated with Wikipedia. The term 'wiki' refers to any sort of open-edit format like this, and ahs been used in many different contexts.



According to the Wikileaks FAQ:



> What is your relationship to Wikipedia?
> 
> Wikileaks has no formal relationship to Wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, Wikileaks will be to leaks.



Interesting concept, but WAY too open to retribution or leaks from the disgruntled (as opposed to those worried about the greater good of the nation/organization/whatever).  

I don't agree with those who rate it as a rumour service - I see it more like a "here's a document without context - let's see what the consensus position on the context is".  

That said, do I always agree with the MSM's reading of leaked or ATIP'ed material?  Funny how they, unlike FAS Secrecy News, DON'T post the original briefing note or whatever they've "obtained" to let the consumer judge....


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2011)

After all the fuss, the _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that: "WikiLeaks suspends publication due to financial woes" (London— The Associated Press, Published Monday, Oct. 24, 2011).


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> After all the fuss, the _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that: "WikiLeaks suspends publication due to financial woes" (London— The Associated Press, Published Monday, Oct. 24, 2011).


 :'(

 :sarcasm:


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2011)

I have to wonder just where all the donations given went.............I'm sure they'll come up with a public accounting so no one can accuse them of anything untoward......won't they?  :sarcasm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Oct 2011)

Julia's defence fund perhaps..  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## FlyingDutchman (24 Oct 2011)

The whistle blowers, where will they go now?  Those poor poor souls must be devastated. /sarcasm


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Aug 2012)

This site has had a huge impact in the last couple of years. A quick search of the forums here shows it's influence. Misdemeanor two timer Julian Assange is not particularly relevant. Wikileaks whistle blowing and journalistic  credibility are the new reality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This site has had a huge impact in the last couple of years. A quick search of the forums here shows it's influence. Misdemeanor two timer Julian Assange is not particularly relevant. Wikileaks whistle blowing and journalistic  credibility are the new reality.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt



Are you absolutely sure that this isn't just another "Conspiracy Theory", perhaps espoused by one of Assange's supporters or some other wack job who lives and breaths "Conspiracy Theories"?




> In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared a secret report which proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to destroy its credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often the case – they have so harmoniously joined in common cause.





> When it comes to the American media, I've long noted this revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the heroic leaker) enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist by high U.S. officials – is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not only on the US and its allies, but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world).
> 
> But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a superb analysis of British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything."



The man went beyond acceptable Security measures in the release of information that he released to the Public.  At the same time, he is very hypocritical in his protection of his own personal information.  

Sorry, Julian, but if you think the release of State 'secrets' is acceptable in the "Information Age" then the release of your own personal information should be just as acceptable.

He is playing the media for all it is worth.  Appearing dishevelled and unshaven.  Bull.  This guy is a egotistical huckster, out to sell his brand of news.


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Aug 2012)

We preach transparency and a free press is why we are better than our enemies. 

Was our turn getting spanked by having our business published really so bad? All it showed was that the US told the truth and  it increased their prestige and credibility.  It annoyed some of our scummier allies as it exposed their hypocrisy and corruption(exposing hypocrisy and corruption is good thing IMO).  It also showed how much influence the US has on Canadian policy. Not a single death resulted and it showed we can withstand scrutiny. We should start dumping our enemies dirty laundry on Wikileaks. Don't they have much more to fear from a free press? Transparency keeps people honest. Now that the press is severely limited and biased we need independent news sources.  Obama has charged 6 whistle blowers for the first time in US history under the espionage act. Something even McCarthy in his commie hunting heyday didn't have the guts to do. I am not of the my country right or wrong school. I believe we can only make people live by the values we live by.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2012)

Nemo, the problem is not only does Wikileaks not "dump" enemy secrets; they don't even try to get them.

Imagine how the "Green Revolution" could have turned out if evidence of IRanian nuclear ambitions, financial dirty dealings and terrorist support had been made public knowledge at the time, or how different the "Arab Spring" could have been if Wikileaks had found and dished dirt on the Muslim Brotherhood. Add your own repressive regime here.

No, the reason Wikileaks ignores China, Russia and the Arab states is its purpose was and is only to discredit and embarrass the United States and the  liberal West in general.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Aug 2012)

Hard to believe someone put the words "Wikileaks" and "journalistic  credibility" in the same sentence.


 :


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> We preach transparency and a free press is why we are better than our enemies.
> 
> Was our turn getting spanked by having our business published really so bad? All it showed was that the US told the truth and  it increased their prestige and credibility.  It annoyed some of our scummier allies as it exposed their hypocrisy and corruption(exposing hypocrisy and corruption is good thing IMO).  It also showed how much influence the US has on Canadian policy. Not a single death resulted and it showed we can withstand scrutiny. We should start dumping our enemies dirty laundry on Wikileaks. Don't they have much more to fear from a free press? Transparency keeps people honest. Now that the press is severely limited and biased we need independent news sources.  Obama has charged 6 whistle blowers for the first time in US history under the espionage act. Something even McCarthy in his commie hunting heyday didn't have the guts to do. I am not of the my country right or wrong school. I believe we can only make people live by the values we live by.




Such naïveté.  Security issues are not the domain of the public, nor are diplomatic wheelings and dealings.  They are dealt with by the 'professionals' whose job it is to ensure that the public is safe to go about their everyday lives/business without threat.  There is no openness anywhere.  Openness is a sign of weakness that allows our various and numerous enemies (terrorist, state, business, religious, etc.) to take advantage of, and exploit, us.   This is not paranoia, but a fact of human nature.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Nemo, the problem is not only does Wikileaks not "dump" enemy secrets; they don't even try to get them.
> 
> Imagine how the "Green Revolution" could have turned out if evidence of IRanian nuclear ambitions, financial dirty dealings and terrorist support had been made public knowledge at the time, or how different the "Arab Spring" could have been if Wikileaks had found and dished dirt on the Muslim Brotherhood. Add your own repressive regime here.
> 
> No, the reason Wikileaks ignores China, Russia and the Arab states is its purpose was and is only to discredit and embarrass the United States and the  liberal West in general.



That, and those others most likely would have engineered a fatal accident for him.


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Not a single death resulted and it showed we can withstand scrutiny.



Really?  *Are you sure?*  We  (you, me, the mainstream media) will likely _never know _ how many deaths resulted from Julian Assange's actions.  The information he leaked was about real people, in really nasty and dangerous places working to thwart really nasty and dangerous people  and organizations who would kill them if they found out who they were and what they were doing.


----------



## Robert0288 (26 Aug 2012)

There is a time and a place for national security/secrecy.  George Wallace summed it up well with this one sentence.


> They are dealt with by the 'professionals' whose job it is to ensure that the public is safe to go about their everyday lives/business without threat.


  There maybe dirty dealings between countries, and things that must and have always been done to ensure the safety of a nation's populous.  Exposure to those activities will jeopardize the lives of people in the field and eliminate any future information from them.  It also has the potential of revealing means and methods which can hamper collection activities in the future.

/poli sci student


----------

