Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

JDRucker writes "Supporters are concerned. Very concerned. Would-be whistle-blowers hoping to leak documents to Wikileaks face a potentially frustrating surprise. Wikileaks' submission process, which had been degraded for months, completely collapsed more than two weeks ago and remains offline, in a little-noted breakdown at the world's most prominent secret-spilling website."

15 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Sad to see this happen by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks provides an extremely useful service, one which is only possible on the Internet, considering its widely accessible scale. Here's to hoping things get straightened out -_-;;

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:Sad to see this happen by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't really have a problem with leaking the video. What I do have a problem with is their faulty analysis that they attached to it, and the setting up of a flame war by calling the site collateral murder. That website was commentary, not news. This is the issue I have with the mainstream media too. Tell what happend, not your analysis of what happened - if people are too stupid to be able to understand it blame them, their parents and the crappy school system. What I really want are just the facts with no ideological filter. Something that unfortunately is extremely rare, and all but impossible today. Part of impartial reporting is keeping you moral outrage / preaching, etc to yourself, even if most people agree with you.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    2. Re:Sad to see this happen by bannable · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikileaks has never claimed to be unbiased. Assange himself explained that the organization will attempt to present material in a way to maximize impact. Stop confusing Wikileaks with the WSJ.

      --
      "If you see a man on a horse, he is likely an enemy. Kill the man and eat the horse."
  2. Wikileaks' Response by LilBlackKittie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 is this:

    "Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US"

    Not so quick to judge Wired's coverage at face value...

    1. Re:Wikileaks' Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17498238199 is this:

      "Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US"

      Posted by: mpineiro | 07/1/10 | 9:21 am |

      ADDITIONAL INFO REQUIRED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ARTICLE:
      Below are some additional bits of information that may change your understanding of why this heavily-editorialized piece is appearing in Wired at this time.

      1. The editor of the Threat Level blog at Wired, Kevin Poulsen, has recently been questioned by journalists and privacy activists for his strange role in the recent Wikileaks / Bradley Manning story. A number of questions have been asked of Poulsen in order to clear up any suspicions of impropriety or violation of journalistic ethics by Poulsen but he hasn’t been able to answer those questions, resulting in stronger suspicions and newly-revealed information that strengthens the suspicions further still. This entire matter could be cleared up and resolved except for Poulsen’s on-going non-cooperation.

      2. Kevin Poulsen apparently did not like even being *asked* about conflicts of interest (something that all journalists are questioned on all the time as part of the job). To make matters worse, Poulsen is resorting to retaliation, as if this was a BBS war between pre-teens and not an important discussion about law enforcement abuses in the US, abuses committed by occupation soldier abuses in Iraq, a co-ordinated campaign to discredit Wikileaks and the unethical, allegedly illegal manner in which PFC Bradley Manning was interrogated by someone who Poulsen has known and worked with for years and years.

      If you look at Poulsen’s Twitter feed (@kpoulsen), it is sparsely updated. It appears that Poulsen only posts on Twitter when he is announcing a new Threat Level blog post or he is openly attacking Wikileaks. It seems safe to say that the “editorial line” over in Poulsen’s corner of Wired is sharply opposed to Wikileaks.

      Any journalist should be prepared to respond, without getting emotional or defensive, if legitimate questions about conflict-of-interest or ethics are asked of them. That’s part of the job.

      3. In the If-It-Wasn’t-So-Serious-It’d-Be-Funny Department, both Poulsen and known police informant Adrian Lamo are WELL AWARE of the SERIOUS implications of Poulsen being involved with law enforcement in any way. As a result, they both say the exact same thing when anyone asks about the nature of the relationship: “It’s a reporter-source relationship,” they’ll both recite. Lamo, who has much less to lose than Poulsen and possibly has reason to feel resentful that he has to take all the heat for something that benefited both of them, recites that line with a hint of sarcasm. But, maybe I’m reading something in the tone that isn’t actually there. Could be.

      4. Poulsen was asked (you might even say “challenged”) by Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald to release the unedited, un-redacted portions of the chat transcripts between Poulsen’s long-time source/friend (Lamo) and PFC Bradley Manning also, releasing the logs would help clear up any perceived impropriety by Poulsen or Wired.

      Poulsen refused to do so then and continues to refuse the many requests by Greenwald and others to release the logs. Even worse, the reason Poulsen gave about why he wouldn’t release them was shown to be untrue, as documented by Greenwald. Poulsen has never said ANYTHING MORE AT ALL about THAT maybe under the advice of his attorney?

      The logs that Poulsen won’t release would have enormous value in the public domain — they would help individuals & government/law enforcement watchdog groups deal with the increasing erosion of our civil liberties. They also show an unfortunately side effect of California’s

    2. Re:Wikileaks' Response by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article contains one correct fact: The submission form is down. Apart from that, it's basically a bunch speculation based on basically nothing.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  3. Re:Wikileaks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

    Right, anyone that won't work for free is not to be trusted.

  4. More spin than a v8 unicycle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice job quoting an article with more spin than a v8 unicycle.

    For those who actually follow these things thou, it's important to note that Kevin Poulsen (of Wired) is the same Journalist (and I use the term loosely) posting the edited chat excerpts from conversations between whistleblower Bradley Manning and wannabe hacker/cum police informant Adrian Lamo.
    So much for an actual story.. moreso just Wired trying any attempt it can to bring down Wikileaks.

    (Protip: Reading the comments on the wired story alone give you most of the information publicly available on the Poulsen/Lamo lovefest)

  5. Re:Wikileaks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks lost the majority of their credibility in January when they decided to stop actually being a decent site and instead beg for donations for a few months.

    You're right. They should have just shut down in January instead of waiting until now to run out of money. Do you see the problem with your logic here?

  6. Re:sigh. and I just got the list, too. by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

    the list of which bankers, world leaders, and radio hosts are lizard people from other planets.

    now you'll never know.

    Let me make an educated guess - All of them?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  7. Re:Wikileaks.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom is not free. I don't see any problem with wikileaks or wikipedia or any other site asking for donations to pay the bills
    .

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. Please change the title by dsavi · · Score: 5, Funny

    "With World Watching, Wikileaks Withers Woefully While Walruses Wrangle Wrapped Wrens"

  9. Re:Wikileaks.... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your goal is to /really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.

    *Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something

    Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.

    --
    "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
  10. Re:Wikileaks.... by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think citizens will only revolt when it becomes apparent that the message is being stifled, not when the message is "out there." And by stifled, I mean with soldiers (real ones, not police in fancy armor) in the streets shooting people. The general trend in Western societies is to just assume that we're fine, that all is as it should be, and when people complain to say "why don't you go to North Korea or something and then try saying that!". I think the difference between Iran and America isn't that our government is less corrupt, but that our citizens have become more corrupted with crap like American Idol and/or Facebook. Our protests are totally lame and half-hearted. The people who talk the most about revolution have beer guts too large to allow them fit in a fox hole, and age degenerating their eye sight, so they probably can't shoot very well either. Wikileaks is almost irrelevant in the face of cultural apathy. It really almost doesn't even matter if WikiLeaks were flourishing because only the people who are inclined to care would, and there aren't nearly enough of them to cause any major changes.

  11. Re:Wikileaks.... by virtualXTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Troll much?
    The awards list alone should be enough to counter your argument that there is a comparable alternative.

    Tax dollars account for less than %1 of the operating costs of PBS.
    There are NO commercial alternatives for truly important investigative reporting such as FRONTLINE, no commercial childens programming comparable to Sesame Street, no commercial news broadcasts that are willing to do more than a sound bite on any topic other than the PBS World Report.