I don't fully understand that "Wikileaks isn't transparent either" complaint.

[howard112211]

It has been repeated over and over by the media and some people here: "Why isn't Wikileaks being transparent about their organization in the same way they say governments should be transparent?".

Umm, what? How does that make any sense? Why should that even matter? What can possibly be interesting to the public about the internal workings of Wikileaks, other than maybe from a tech-geek point of view? What matters foremost is the product that Wikileaks is delivering. Hiding their sources is part of why they can do what they do. I don't really see the case for them being transparent. Personally, I don't really give a hoot about who donates to them or how many groupies they bang on their press tours, and I don't understand why anyone would.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. What if they slip in some documents that are not authentic just to create a narrative?

:shrug:

[howard112211]

4. The authenticity of documents should usually be easy to verify, and

if they did fake something they would destroy their credibility. They have an interest in maintaining a perfect record of authenticity. If that perfect record is ever soiled, their organization will lose meaning quickly.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. What if they are leaked documents that are not authentic and pass them off as real

in a 250K dump?


:shrug:

[EFerrari]

13. Then their cred would be shot and they're out of business?

:shrug:

What if I'm an axe murderer?

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

15. You may be an axe murderer in your spare time

But as far as I can conclude, the NYT is still the paper of record despite the Jayson Blair scandal some years back...


And just what kind of 'business' are they in?

[EFerrari]

18. The New York Times that sold us two bad Bush elections,

Iraq and Bruce Ivins. It's interesting that the NYTS is in nearly the same position as Wikileaks. They both received information as middlemen. And they've worked together now at least twice to vet the information before it goes out.

But no one is saying the NYTS is a terrorist.

[Tushon]

5. Transparency won't help this

How do they know that the source didn't slip in documents to create a narrative? Are you going to ask the sources to be transparent with how they obtained the documents/data as well?

[Forkboy]

6. What if it rained lava instead of water?

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

9. Then you are going to need a new umbrella.

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

10. LOL

Don't make me laugh, dammit! :)

[ljm2002]

14. So far the documents have been vetted...

...not just by Wikileaks but by other news organizations. Also, we haven't seen the targets of the leaks denying their veracity, although we have seen them react strongly to the leaks having happened.

Therefore I think this is not a legitimate issue.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. What percentage of the cables have been released?

:rofl:

[ljm2002]

19. Er, did you miss the "So far" in my response?

You know, the first two words in the header?

Anyway: any leaked information that can be used to form a narrative, must be publicized in order to perform that function. Therefore, whoever / whatever it is about, the interested parties will read it and then comment on it. As I said, SO FAR there have not been any claims that the leaked materials were not what they purport to be; rather there have been screams of outrage that the leaks were done in the first place, and that Wikileaks had the temerity to release them.

:rofl: back atcha

[Duer 157099]

2. It's the same false equivalency issue

That's where the simple-minded go. No logic, no critical thinking skills, just more of the false-equivalency bullshit.

[Tushon]

3. Looking to find a fault to latch onto like a leech

[Junkdrawer]

7. When you have nothing, you throw shit against the wall to see what sticks....

And the fact that you're talking about it means that it stuck better than most of the other shit.

[howard112211]

16. lol. good point.

[JBoy]

11. Attacking the messenger.

[EFerrari]

12. People are having a very hard time with this.

They are not liking the idea that their government isn't a parent or something and actually lies to them all the time. That would be too big a betrayal to surf all at once, imo, so they're throwing up whatever they can to defend against knowing it. Maybe it's an American thing.

[stray cat]

20. Should you have your social security numbers and communications with everyone open

No right to privacy for employees?

[PeaceNikki]

21. As Zbigniew Brzezinski said:

" a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed."

Wikileaks is the perfect venue for spreading false or carefully manipulated information.

[scarletwoman]

23. If it's information that's destructive to the American Empire, I'm all for it.

As for Zbigniew The Grand Chessboard Brzezinski -- anything that torks him off is more than fine by me.

He should look in the mirror if he wants to worry about international manipulation and conspiracies.

[rustydog]

22. They have to kill the messenger because they can't kill the message