Wikileaks clearly doesn't have anything special to offer on physical security. Existing whistleblower NGOs do have something to offer here and so talk it up. However, that a whistleblower would be unaware of the dangers they face is about as likely as a lone animal walking off a cliff in broad daylight. There is nonetheless mention on the Wikileaks site of the primary danger to the whistelblower, which is the possibility of the leaker's identity being determined on the basis of who had access to the information, and the explicit disclaimer that Wikileaks can do nothing about that.
Concerning inability to edit the pages self-describing Wikileaks, and also any mystery surrounding the core of the Wikileaks initiative, both are necessary to reduce exposure to powers that would like to render Wikileaks impotent, or better still, non-existent, e.g. the Chinese government.
As for the scarcity of reference to Wikileaks on the part of advisory board members etc., this is bound to change as the profile of Wikileaks rises and it's reputation solidifies in a positive manner. Perhaps this will require a series of verified accurate leaks, given the strikingly broad hostility and suspicion in the Jan 11 discussion thread concerning Wikileaks on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/11/185 9218
Wikileaks is a point of entry for truth, just like a hint, a rumour, a hunch, a tip, or whatever else the sources you trust first catch a whiff of. If you need them to rubber stamp the leak, then fine, wait for them to do it. On the other hand, if you're prejudiced enough to fall for a forgery, then go ahead. After looking like an idiot you won't be quick to do it again. So the system is eventually self-stabilising.
As for safety, all whistleblowing is dangerous, but who was ignorant on this point? Certainly not potential whistleblowers, who know as well as cornered prey that everything is on the line. Let them be the judge of how important their conscience is, or what is the best available means for acting on it.
Regarding stomping/dumping ground: Unless the so-called leaker is the alleged author of the document, the closer these two parties are, the more danger there is for the former party, which implies that the more convincing documents (from close to the alledged source) are less likely to be the result of dubious motivations (vendettas, casual hoaxes etc.) Less convincing documents, on the other hand, are just going to get "stomped" on.
Sooner or later some false and damaging information will emerge from Wikileaks. But a measure of false and damaging information emerges from every source of information, from your mouth to your textbook; in oppressive societies it is the means for remaining in power, in free societies it is the inevitable side-effect of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Concerning inability to edit the pages self-describing Wikileaks, and also any mystery surrounding the core of the Wikileaks initiative, both are necessary to reduce exposure to powers that would like to render Wikileaks impotent, or better still, non-existent, e.g. the Chinese government.
As for the scarcity of reference to Wikileaks on the part of advisory board members etc., this is bound to change as the profile of Wikileaks rises and it's reputation solidifies in a positive manner. Perhaps this will require a series of verified accurate leaks, given the strikingly broad hostility and suspicion in the Jan 11 discussion thread concerning Wikileaks on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/11/185 9218
As for safety, all whistleblowing is dangerous, but who was ignorant on this point? Certainly not potential whistleblowers, who know as well as cornered prey that everything is on the line. Let them be the judge of how important their conscience is, or what is the best available means for acting on it.
Regarding stomping/dumping ground: Unless the so-called leaker is the alleged author of the document, the closer these two parties are, the more danger there is for the former party, which implies that the more convincing documents (from close to the alledged source) are less likely to be the result of dubious motivations (vendettas, casual hoaxes etc.) Less convincing documents, on the other hand, are just going to get "stomped" on.
Sooner or later some false and damaging information will emerge from Wikileaks. But a measure of false and damaging information emerges from every source of information, from your mouth to your textbook; in oppressive societies it is the means for remaining in power, in free societies it is the inevitable side-effect of freedom.