You're getting Wikileaks for breakfast, lunch, and tea for the next few months, kids

[Nepenthe]

Again:

 

Would people be discussing these issues without Wikileaks forcing the issue?

Would I be discussing common-knowledge NATO nuclear weapons sharing if it weren't for wikileaks? I doubt it.

 

Do I or anybody else capable of using wikipedia gain anything from it? Not really.

[Calax]

My point nep, is that without wikileaks pushing the issue, it would generally be ignored by the government. Sure they could look it up but unless something has people's panties in a bunch it's not gonna happen, leaking stuff like this forces the government to actually take action, or at least start discussing the issue, rather than just kinda letting it sit while they argue about 500k towards somebodies personal pet project that got stuck in a bill.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think there were lots of very interesting tidbits in this first release; US diplomats being instructed to take DNA samples and steal CC info from their UN colleagues etc. And only a quarter of the stuff has been outed thus far, so theres even more to come. For us Swedes, the documents might shed some light on the latest scandal about US embassy personnel spying on swedish and norweigan citizens. LINK

 

 

It might also contain evidence that outside goverments and international big bussiness actors interfered in the Piratebay trial to coerce our swede legal system to make a dodgy conviction and dish out astronomical sums in compensation.

[Enoch]

Shockingly, there is some tension between the democratic ideals that underly the governments of the major Western powers and the necessity for those major international powers to project influence in other parts of the world to protect their interests and prosperity. These governments then have to either 1) learn to live with some hypocrisy, 2) get taken advantage of by less scrupulous nations, or 3) pull back their sphere of influence and be very happy that they can free-ride on the efforts of other nations to keep dangerous states contained, to discover and foil international threats before they emerge, to keep shipping lanes open, etc., etc. If transparency trumps all concerns for all democratic nations, then the western world collectively ends up in category #2, which would be a far greater setback for the ideals of modern Western democracy than all this secrecy is.

 

Of course, in the right circumstances (e.g., disclosure of covered-up war crimes), the virtue of exposing malfeasence can certainly exceed the virtues of protecting diplomatic secrets. But these leaks ain't exactly the Pentagon Papers. They're not exposing any villains in dire need of punishment or major corruption that hasn't yet been brought to light or behavior by leaders/diplomats/warriors that runs counter to the basic assumption that they are doing their jobs in good faith and in pursuit of what they see as their nation's best interests. Add in what we can surmise about Assange's motivations from his public statements (a guesstimate ranking would be self-aggrandizement, then a desire to embarrass the U.S. as the global hegemon, and then transparency for its own sake as a democratic ideal), and it becomes tough for me to agree that leaks like this are a Good Thing for the cause of global democratic ideals.

[TheHarlequin]

Wikileaks has finally confirmed that Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey, Germany (& probably Italy as well) have nuclear weapons stored.

 

That's definitely one thing I could have already read from the Other Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

 

Definitely NOT news.

 

On a side note, Relying on wikipedia for real info beyond the latest video game news or what the #1 hit in 1999 was is not that wise. Beyond entertainment and pop culture I find wikipeda not that accurate and falls victim to mob mentality then accuracy more times then not. My point being I wouldn't use it for real, hard info such as this topic either so no surprise others don't.

Edited December 1, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[TheHarlequin]

My point nep, is that without wikileaks pushing the issue, it would generally be ignored by the government. Sure they could look it up but unless something has people's panties in a bunch it's not gonna happen, leaking stuff like this forces the government to actually take action, or at least start discussing the issue, rather than just kinda letting it sit while they argue about 500k towards somebodies personal pet project that got stuck in a bill.

 

Exactly.

 

Also, once again, NONE of us live in a democracy. Some form of a republic, sure. But a real democracy is just as fictional as a real communist gov't.

[Orogun01]

My point nep, is that without wikileaks pushing the issue, it would generally be ignored by the government. Sure they could look it up but unless something has people's panties in a bunch it's not gonna happen, leaking stuff like this forces the government to actually take action, or at least start discussing the issue, rather than just kinda letting it sit while they argue about 500k towards somebodies personal pet project that got stuck in a bill.

Pushing what issue? All the "catfight"gossip that has taken over the news. Please; people don't care, they know, they have always known and don't care. Nobody has their panties in a bunch, there isn't any juicy that's going to dramatically change domestic policy. As soon as this becomes old news we won't even remember that it happened.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Funniest comment I've seen about Hitler was "He was a great leader, just that he had bad ideas"

[Tigranes]

Without having read too much on this latest leak, I'm inclined to agree with Enoch, and really, one question rises to the top at the moment - what was the point of these leaks?

 

Firstly, the things that are getting the most attention are mostly stupid celebrity gossip rather than real 'transparency'. We could, arguably, blame the press for cherry picking, but if so, why do the press get first access and thus the gatekeeper role? Why release so many documents in so short a time that people have to rely on the press to gatekeep? Why release all the frivolous crap in the first place?

 

I'm pretty sure the answer from WikiLeaks would be that their belief in transparency is about full disclosure and openness, not themselves taking on another kind of gatekeeper / filter role and controlling the flow of information. Well guess what, it happens anyway... who's going to read everything they leak?

[Calax]

My point nep, is that without wikileaks pushing the issue, it would generally be ignored by the government. Sure they could look it up but unless something has people's panties in a bunch it's not gonna happen, leaking stuff like this forces the government to actually take action, or at least start discussing the issue, rather than just kinda letting it sit while they argue about 500k towards somebodies personal pet project that got stuck in a bill.

Pushing what issue? All the "catfight"gossip that has taken over the news. Please; people don't care, they know, they have always known and don't care. Nobody has their panties in a bunch, there isn't any juicy that's going to dramatically change domestic policy. As soon as this becomes old news we won't even remember that it happened.

Interesting that you're saying "people don't care" and yet when the leaks hit it's the main thing on the news and being discussed by people. Not just the leaks but what is contained within. Look at this thread for example.

 

Also, at what point does a leak go from a bad leak that threatens national security and should never have been released, to a good leak, where the publics interests are protected in the face of what we are told is "issues of national security" and "People will die because of this leak"?

 

I admit, a lot of what was released recently is relatively inane crap, but one thing I think many people are failing to realize is that without the news networks shoveling them information, people don't learn this sort of thing. Sure there are people who know about the nuke stuff and the fact that we basically fund our own opponents through sheer stupidity, but many people probably didn't because they didn't care to look up the information, but when something like wikileaks forces the information onto front page and fox news, people actually learn about it.

[Nepenthe]

On a side note, Relying on wikipedia for real info beyond the latest video game news or what the #1 hit in 1999 was is not that wise. Beyond entertainment and pop culture I find wikipeda not that accurate and falls victim to mob mentality then accuracy more times then not. My point being I wouldn't use it for real, hard info such as this topic either so no surprise others don't.

Thank you for this enlightening lesson in source critique. If you want to discuss this further, I will be holding a course on the subject for graduate students during the spring term. Please don't come.

 

Wikipedia provides easy linkage to topics of common knowledge, I didn't feel like the issue warranted me into going into proper literary sources and scan/pasting stuff here...

[Kaftan Barlast]

I dont get this argument that the leak is only "inane crap" or things we already knew. Ny Times have posted this list of some of the more interesting findings thus far, and its quite enlightening http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29...e&ref=world And this is only the first part of it, there is alot more that hasnt been released yet

[Walsingham]

A junior associate of mine startled me yesterday (and earned himself a muffin) with the observation:

 

"Wikipedia publish the names and addresses of Afghan informants... but don't publish their own."

 

So much for a crusade against hypocrisy.

[Kaftan Barlast]

That's not correct, only the sources who supply wikileaks with information are anonymous. The people who work in and contribute to the organisation are not.

 

 

 

 

...also, you wrote wikipedia. haa-haa!

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kaftan Barlast

[Gorgon]

Wasn't it something like 55.000 pages. Who knows what's in there that they didn't happen to notice right away.

[Walsingham]

That's not correct, only the sources who supply wikileaks with information are anonymous. The people who work in and contribute to the organisation are not.

 

 

 

 

...also, you wrote wikipedia. haa-haa!

 

I will now attempt to commit seppkuk with a marble mouse.

[Kaftan Barlast]

It was 251,287 messages of varying length. The five big newspapers who were given access to the stuff by wikileaks have decided to publish articles and select messages in their entirety, in four or more parts to be publishes in blocks. The stuff we're reading now is just the first part.

[mkreku]

...seppkuk...

Ban this sick filth!

[Gorgon]

There are no japanese nouns that end in plain 'k' because of the hiragana sound groups. Good rule of thumb for you there.

[Rostere]

...seppkuk...

Ban this sick filth!

 

LOL...

[Guest Slinky]

LOL...

The last post I have seen from you was something like TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL, and now this.

 

Can you teach me to be a verbal hero like you?

[Rostere]

LOL...

The last post I have seen from you was something like TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL, and now this.

 

Can you teach me to be a verbal hero like you?

 

I simply had to reply to that post. "Seppukuk" would be a very peculiar dirty word joke in Swedish.

 

Since I am a very humble person, I wouldn't advice you to listen to my advice about writing. Coincidentally, I'm reading Borges' "On Writing" at the moment though, which I would strongly recommend to anyone interested in mastering the craft of prose, even if it's more centered on thematics than communicating through holophrastic interjections such as "TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL".

[TheHarlequin]

On a side note, Relying on wikipedia for real info beyond the latest video game news or what the #1 hit in 1999 was is not that wise. Beyond entertainment and pop culture I find wikipeda not that accurate and falls victim to mob mentality then accuracy more times then not. My point being I wouldn't use it for real, hard info such as this topic either so no surprise others don't.

Thank you for this enlightening lesson in source critique. If you want to discuss this further, I will be holding a course on the subject for graduate students during the spring term. Please don't come.

 

Wikipedia provides easy linkage to topics of common knowledge, I didn't feel like the issue warranted me into going into proper literary sources and scan/pasting stuff here...

 

Clearly too busy trying to be insulting/sound cool (in your own head) and missed my point.. moving on.

[Humodour]

LOL...

The last post I have seen from you was something like TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL, and now this.

 

Can you teach me to be a verbal hero like you?

 

I simply had to reply to that post. "Seppukuk" would be a very peculiar dirty word joke in Swedish.

 

Since I am a very humble person, I wouldn't advice you to listen to my advice about writing. Coincidentally, I'm reading Borges' "On Writing" at the moment though, which I would strongly recommend to anyone interested in mastering the craft of prose, even if it's more centered on thematics than communicating through holophrastic interjections such as "TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL".

 

[GreasyDogMeat]

I'm hoping whoever leaked these files to wikileaks is executed as a traitor. Maybe Agent 47 could 'disappear' Assange as well if the little weasel could be found.