Talk:WikiLeaks

Thank You, Good Swedes

It's nice Swedes want to contribute here especially on news related to PRQ and the PP. But a basic prerequisite is you be able to write 'encyclopaedic' English and whoever has been adding details about Bahnhof obviously can't. Please go back and copyedit your materials or remove them. Thank you.

WikiLeaks

They've now taken to using an upper case 'L'. This is in their logo too.

I think they have always used an uppercase "L". I support moving this article to "WikiLeaks" unless it is against some or the name change has already been discussed and opposed. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing. It's just badly named. David in DC (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Granted. But the name is 'WikiLeaks' and leaks to the site are 'Wikileaks' - if that makes any sense. Their graphic logo has an upper case L. I don't like it - don't like CamelCase at all - but there it is.

Sources

Here is a source:

• Sutter, John D. "The website that reveals state secrets." CNN. July 7, 2010. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See Alsos

The See Also: Internet Leaks redirects to a page referencing a release by Weird Al Yankovic. Is this intentional? 75.172.168.110 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be, but it should point to internet leak. I've corrected it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks censored

In Thailand the Wikileaks website is censored and unaccesible. Other alternative names are also unaccessible. Using a proxy is extremely dangerous because all Internet providers monitors and give to the police the tracks of what users surf. Accessing one of the dozens of thousands of forbidden websites in Thailand through a proxy is condemned with several years in prision and in many cases by extra-judicial executions on the spot.

The have announced this on their twitter feed. I'll try to work it into the article, but I'll have to look for a non-twitter news source. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Offline

Hmmm ... went to check out the site after reading a news report on the Afghanistan papers and the site was down. Coincidence? Methinks not! Seriously, though, this either means the site has been taken down/made inaccessible - I'm in Canada - or (more likely) it's gotten so many hits the server got a migraine. Either way, it might be worth keeping an eye open for potential updates should either scenario have come into play. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They had the raw data available, so if they are censored, the raw data will pop up at various other places. I suspect they are overloaded, which is a good sign for the impact it should have. I just tried to access it, and it is available again. You might expect they have their system worked out such that it is not susceptible to all kind of attacks to get it down. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They said on their twitter feed that they are overloaded and that people should use http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/ to access the recent logs. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism about credibility and integrity

Cryptome's John Young has leveled some very interesting points about how he basically has come to think of Wikileaks as compromised. There are links to several articles where his views are discussed on Talk:Julian Assange. I suggest these views should be included in the present article. __meco (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Such allegations do belong in the article. Maybe there should be a criticism section with this as a subsection? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but please based on proper sources and not not material from alex jones talk show (see link above)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We have good sources mentioned in the section on the Assange talk page. Also, I might add that the status for Alex Jones in my perception has shifted somewhat in that he is regularly being used as an interview object by Russia Today which is a 24 hour major international television news channel. __meco (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Alex Jones show mentioned definitely does not belong in the category "good sources" and Russian today is not exactly a convincing source either. There is nothing wrong with a crticism section, but as Isaid pleased based on proper sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Checking out Wikipedia:RSN#Russia Today I think you are rigth in that assessment. __meco (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is grossly incompetent, again confirming Wikipedia's label as a heavily bureaucratic, overly formalized, taking-itself-too-serious and thus a biased, biased, very biased establishment. People follow Wikileaks and start wondering, what do others think about the Wikileaks' perceived 1) relevancy (or irrelevancy), 2) efficiency, 3) modus operandi. I mean, from my perspective, the giant ransom-like fundraising, the downtime, the petty amount of leaks, their utter triviality and the lack of expected fundamentally important leaks, everything serves to bring up the doubts as to whether Wikileaks is merely a marionette designed to compromise the whole idea of an open leaks site. Now what Wikipedia lists in the Criticism section is just plain nonsense, bearing no interest to anybody at all. Encyclopaedia Dramatica offers a more useful coverage, seriously. It's a shame and a disgrace for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.130.198 (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If we have too little editorial control, people criticize Wikipedia of being unreliable. Have too much of it, people criticize Wikipedia of being overly bureaucratic. I prefer the second kind of Wikipedia.

I do agree that the criticism section is a glaring vacuum in the article. I'm sure it can be pushed much further. In fact, you could help. PS: Tere :) -- intgr [talk] 19:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

... is it 'Wikileaks' or 'WikiLeaks'? Couldn't help but notice the spelling they use on their logo which makes me think the latter is correct. Hammersbach (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they call themselves WikiLeaks, we're not bound by that. Does anyone know, off-hand, if this is covered in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'll look, if no one pipes up. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

CamelCase words have set off debates like this before, and WP:COMMONNAME is the best guide. YouTube and CinemaScope have article names in CamelCase, but the recent media coverage of Wikileaks (see Google News) uses a mixture. This is worth considering, but there is no hurry to rename the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's here, but it's a toss-up. WP:MOSTM.

At the overall Manual of style page, it says:

Internal consistency

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.

At the Manual of Style page dealing with trademarks it says:

• Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable:
  • OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice

So we need to choose one or the other and then make it consistent. What say ye? David in DC (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the current media coverage, I have no strong views one way or the other. If the article was renamed, it would need internal consistency.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the title of the wikileaks.org front page is "Wikileaks - WikiLeaks". Just over half the examples of "wikileaks" on that page use CamelCase. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I've lowercased "WikiLeaks" so it's rendered "Wikileaks" everywhere in the article except direct quotes. That should serve for now. If we conclude we need a name change, we can change them back the other way. But at least we're now internally consistent.

In the voice of the WP article: "Wikileaks"

In direct quotes: follow the style of the source. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking at wikileaks.org it is obvious that they prefer "WikiLeaks". Given that there is no clear consensus in the media I don't see why we shouldn't go with how the group self-identifies. Hammersbach (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, but if we're going to use CamelCase throughout the article, the name of the article should be changed first.David in DC (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not a huge issue, but I would support the move to WikiLeaks. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

West Australian Police references

This section really needs citation ... I'm all for getting some and leaving it in, but otherwise it will have to go as its claims are significant and sources missing...

A civil case against the West Australian Police for human rights violation is currently before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is a whistleblower (a victim of Active Profiling who was drugged by The West Australian Police Force) who attempted to leak the details to Wikileaks. Prior to this, the plaintiff could access the secure site, but when he returned a couple days later with the leaked report, access to the secure site was blocked. Access was also denied from the local library. The plaintiff lives in Bunbury, West Australia area code 6233.

prat (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources for these claims. Where did you get this information? See WP:V -- intgr [talk] 15:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks disclosures template

Finding the statement "Three months earlier, in April, Wikileaks made headlines with leaked classified video of an airstrike, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, in which as many as 18 Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists were killed." in the Afghan War Diary article, as well as the existence of [leaks credited to Wikileaks] as a section within the main Wikileaks article gave me the idea for a navbox for such releases and their relationships through time. I am starting a proposed template at Template:Wikileaks disclosures. Assistance welcome, though let's [[Talk:Template:Wikileaks disclosures|discuss it on the template's talk page]] rather than here (I'm also cross-posting this note to the Wikileaks talk page). prat (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RecentChanges

I didn't realize it was possible to disable Special:RecentChanges. http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges Tisane ^talk/_stalk 06:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks → WikiLeaks — Correct capitalization. Their website consistently uses "WikiLeaks" in CamelCase (just like YouTube). Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move it. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur; most (although not all) news sources also appear to be using "WikiLeaks".Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support move, per above and WP:TITLE. — Becksguy (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I think WikiLeaks is worse than Wikileaks because it makes typing harder, but that's the name they go by - their frontpage is very consistent on this. --Gwern (contribs) 08:25 16 August 2010 (GMT)
• Support This is how most newspapers spell it. [1]. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Reservations:

(A) There should be a redirect for "Wikileaks".

(B) "Wikileaks" should appear in bold in the lede as an alternative spelling.

(C) If it's "wikileaks" or "Wikileaks" in a verbatim quote from a written source, it should not be edited for conformity's sake, nor flagged with a "[sic]".

(D) If it's a verbatim quote from an audio source, I wish you good luck in trying to "hear" CamelCase. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikileaks to get immunity?

http://gizmodo.com/5615703/wikileaks-may-get-immunity-thanks-to-swedish-pirate-party

Can someone add a section on this? It seems like an important development, especially if it goes through. I only ask because my writing abilities are pretty lackluster, and I don't want to end up writing a crappy section that just gets deleted and forgotten. It would be great if someone could write up a small section on it just to get it started. Tehori (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. It's an agreement between a political party not currently in power with Wikileaks. They have 0 seats in the Swedish Parliament. The article doesn't even make sense--it says that if they get 1 seat in the Swedish Parliament, that then Wikileaks has a safe haven. How can a party with only 1 seat force through any changes in government? I'd like to see some more coverage of this in regular news sources first before adding here, personally. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The immunity part is actually true (it's been discussed in several Swedish sources). However, it is very unlikely that the Pirate Party will get a seat in the parliament. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: The agreement more or less states that wikileaks would have the pirate party host their servers. If the pirate party were to get a seat in the parliament, the wikileaks servers couldn't be shut down because they would belong to an entity within the swedish government. I guess it works in the same way that a person with diplomatic immunity can't be arrested. Tehori (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, then I say that if/when they do win a seat, that then we add this info. Until then, it seems highly speculative that it is notable (especially given the Pirate Party's declining popularity in Sweden).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough... Even though it's unlikely, I really hope they get a seat! Tehori (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To get a seat they must either get 4% of the total votes or 12% in a district. No chance at the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.131.91.2 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks and The Sunshine Press

The article indicates that WikiLeaks is an organization with its own website, also called WikiLeaks. However, the name of the organization is really The Sunshine Press, and WikiLeaks is a project/website run by The Sunshine Press.[2]

This should be more clear in the lead section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicsuns (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bold text is used sparingly, usually only for the article title and synonyms as they appear in the first sentence. The name of the Sunshine Press is prominent in the lead, being the subject of its own sentence. I've removed the bolding per WP:MOSTEXT, I'm not sure what further prominence you think is needed. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfiltered Information or Targeted Propaganda? The site's "single-minded focus on alleged American misdeeds"

Because of the "site’s single-minded focus on alleged American misdeeds", John Rosenthal criticizes WikiLeaks in The WikiLeaks Hoax, Parts I and II, stating that "who or what stands behind the WikiLeaks facade is not clear" ("the 'old' WikiLeaks had a somewhat conflictual relationship with Germany and, in particular, with the German foreign intelligence agency, the BND"); describing the alleged “whistleblower organization” as "a site that, despite its association with two publicity-generating coups, has essentially been inactive"; and concluding that "the publication of the files that the site has dubbed 'The Afghan War Diary' confirms that the vocation of the 'new' WikiLeaks is not unfiltered information, but rather targeted propaganda: highly targeted, since — Iceland aside — the real focus of the new site is obviously just the USA." Asteriks (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty entertaining, given that most of Wikileaks's stuff has been non-American - from the very beginning with Africa. --Gwern (contribs) 13:44 24 August 2010 (GMT)

Great. A lot of people have commented on Wikileaks recently. But most of the opinions, such as those of John Rosenthal, are non-notable. Especially since his opinion has no informative value, is factually incorrect, and is pretty much just empty rhetoric. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Seventy-five thousand — I repeat, 75,000 (!) — documents have been "released to the public" in the Afghan War Diary case — i.e., documents regarding (and castigating) U.S. policy and the U.S. military — and you say that "most of Wikileaks's stuff has been non-American"?!?! Also, note John Rosenthal's (crucial) differentiating between the first WikiLeaks and the second (the current) incarnation. Asteriks (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because he doesn't count single documents but leaks and indeed the majority of leaks having nothing to do with the US. And the new Wikileaks is raw information, because though it has started to release edited/commented material as well (like the Iraq video), it still releases the raw material as well. According to wikileak member Daniel Schmitt there are areas of interest in WP one is providing whistleblower material and source protection against an globally increasing trend for information control and censorship and the other one is journalistic work (many of the wikileaks members have a journalistic background). A of lately Wikileaks is in a process of figuring out the best way of doing both.

As far as a the perceived targeting of the US is concerned. The US is likely to be rather prominently featured on any global whistleblower site for structural reason. That simply stems from the fact of being one of biggest countries with widespread internet access and relatively free society with many critical individuals. In addition is this setting combined with a US government and its institution that often have horrible track record (not judging from wikileaks but from the information already available in history/politics literature). So naturally the US is to be expected being prominently featured in Wikileaks, anything else would a surprise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosenthal's opinions are non-notable, his facts inaccurate, and his above statements give nothing of informational value to readers of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

well it a weekly standard article, so probably to be expected.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. actually since we are at it, aside from other issues Rosenthal is also not up to date, since Wikileaks latest leak as of August 2010 is about German authorities again (documents regarding the Love Parade stampede, that the city government sought to keep secret.)--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

…"a US government and its institution that often have horrible track record"? Do they have a horrible track record because it is a fact that they have "behaved" horribly (that they behave horribly) or because that track record has (at least partially) been artificially, and deliberately, stoked, and hyperbolized, by people who just happen to be their ideological adversaries — such as… Wikileaks (and its media confidents — to quote John Rosenthal, "there has developed a well-nigh metaphysical, so to say, dismal view of America and of the logic of American military interventions and counterterror operations")?

…"many of the wikileaks members have a journalistic bachkground" Well, so does John Rosenthal (Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, etc…)! But in the leftists' case, we have to take their background for granted (and do nothing less than pay them the highest respect while doubting none of their writings and none of their intentions). In Rosenthal's case, he is summarily dismissed and the (short) paragraph involving his criticism — aren't Criticism paragraphs de rigueur in Wikipedia articles when associated with individuals and organizations on the right? — is removed from Wikipedia without further ado.

How convenient! Pro-Wikileaks ideologues like Kmhkmh can state that "Rosenthal's opinions are non-notable, his facts inaccurate" (while similarly dismissing an in-depth, and a fact-filled, article they haven't even made an attempt to read), without making the slightest attempt at providing proof (or evidence) and then — without further ado — remove an entire subhead in the article that happens to discomfort them… Asteriks (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As a friend wrote me, "I guess dissent —must— be crushed for the good of man, and the sake of peace, etc. Etc." Asteriks (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even distinguish between various editors?--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they have a horrible track record because it is a fact that they have "behaved" horribly (that they behave horribly) -- Yes, it is a fact that they have behaved horribly -- funding terrorist groups and death squads, deliberately starving people through economic sanctions, nuking people, running torture gulags across the world, etc. etc. etc.. Whatever the crazies at the Weekly Standard want to think about it, yes these things are historical fact. ... But none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Rosenthal's rant is not notable enough to warrant inclusion here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

in popular cultuare

There is missing popular section in popular cultyur. I found one source , Is ti ok to add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a YouTube video, and these are rarely accepted as reliable or notable unless they have mainstream media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually in this case that might possible. al jazeera english's listening post recently covered this video as its web video of the week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNt7T_JTIkk. Also note since Al jazeera english publishes its material on youtube itself, there is no copyright issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks went down.

Wikileaks has stopped, it seems, its working function, although its twitter page is still up other pages, show up as unrecognised. Something gone awry perhaps? Copyright censorship problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's working right now for me. It was probably a temporary technical issue. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction, it would've been a mirror you saw, which doesn't stop some traffic being lost by this site IMO, and, much more importantly, the mirror only shows a handful of sites, therefore greatly decreasing the sites utility.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

so, does finally anybody have an idea or info what's going on? wl itself does not reveal any information, it's just this one tweet (scheduled maintenance). the whole day long one was redirected to mirror. with message 'not available', now the page is saying "Not found. Your domain could not be found in our forwarding or stealth forwarding tables. If you recently set your name servers, please wait a few minutes and try again. Sometimes restarting your browser helps. If you require further assistance, please visit our main site at www.dynadot.com."

someone any information what's going on? (quite strange btw., one could expect at least a short press information upfront before "scheduled maintenance", c'mon... for sure there were still some smaller media curious not yet been able to download the fresh release - -

Ok, the backup works everywhere, but only 20% material is stored on it. When trying to access the site it looks to have been removed.. along with the 80% source materials and analyses of sources.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ---

... ok, went online again. visible in part of central europe (others will have to check themselves) at a few minute after 6 am on august 27th 2010. (wn030-7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wn030-7 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found the problem: wikileaks .The main sites are unavailable during scheduled maintenance work. We apologize for the inconvenience.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Cymbelmineer could we get an information what material is missing? did you simply try our doc by doc or is there a list existing? the tweet was mentioned a few lines above (it was on twitter, visible for many hours), so I suppose you mean a new information? i you have some exact information about missing material, please let us (wikidiscussions readers) know(wn030-7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wn030-7 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kompromat

Kompromat ? Will be wise to borrow terminology from more experienced in this nations? exmple link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• apparently without consent...NYP embedded personnel using closest family in smear campaign

Castro's missing inline citation?

The media are printing an AP wire that Fidel Castro said that information on Wikileaks proves that Osama bin Laden was an American (or rather, a George W. Bush) agent. [3] But I suppose it would be unethical for their report to tell readers where this is said. Can anyone point to the source? (Or is it gone already...) Wnt (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"According to Twitter..."

WL used twitter intensively in the days before the recent Red Cell release, even larger media were quoting it, not direct interviews, when covering the announcement. Now, there are twitter voices to be heard, mentioning "server down for 4 days according to twitter" looks a bit odd. Anybody news or an idea for an explanation what might have happened to the wl twitter account?

"Whistleblower"

I changed the description "whistleblower" in the infobox a while ago, but it was reverted without explanation.[4] There are plenty of whistleblowers who use WikiLeaks, but that doesn't mean it can be applied as a description to the site itself since a whistleblower has to be a person who exposes wrongdoing.

I'm sure my own suggestion of "document archive" can be improved and specified, but it needs to be changed to something that is a description of a medium, not the individuals that publish through it.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How about “Transparency Journalism”? WikiLeaks just made up that term to describe what they do. In an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, “Insiders know that Julian is committed to WikiLeaks longterm success in bringing transparency journalism to the world… The insider described transparency journalism - a phrase not used by the organisation until today - as ‘‘journalism that tells a true story and then backs it up by publishing source documents that also provide the truth.’’ [5] Could we be witnessing the birth of a new buzz word? Hammersbach (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We may, but I would try to avoid using a neologism. I think 'whistleblower' is fine. They may not be whistleblowers themselves but after all they are in the 'whistleblowing business' (ha! I just made up another word.) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not really intended for my comment to be taken seriously. I just found it to be a bit humorous that on the same day that we are looking for a term to describe WikiLeaks that they should just happen to be inventing one. Hammersbach (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks vs WikiLeaks

The spelling throughout the article is inconsistent. Which one shall we use, Wikileaks or WikiLeaks? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As shown in WikiLeaks, it's always WikiLeaks. In a url, lower case is acceptable. --Zayoo (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I changed the spelling to 'WikiLeaks' in all instances except the quotes (where it is mostly spelled 'Wikileaks'). Oh well.. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is DEAD

Am I the only person in the world who has noticed the WikiLeaks site no longer exists? Try to go there and you end up at a third party site offering the name for sale.

I have googled and gone to several similar and even paranoia sites. I can't find any mention of this.

Hmmmm?76.20.48.242 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.org works. Have you tried that one? Reach Out to the Truth 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My computer says that the site is going under maintenance. Even if the site is down, the organization is well known to use other media to spread its information through other media such as Twitter and Facebook. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was down for maintenance for me too. My definition of "works" may not be the same as everyone else's. Basically it means "isn't for sale".... Reach Out to the Truth 04:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has a tendency to come and go, far more than "ordinary" websites. At the time of writing, it has a placeholder page saying "We are sorry, WikiLeaks is currently underoing scheduled maintenance. We will be back online as soon as possible. For status updates you can follow our twitter feed." Unless the site is down for a long period of time, it is not notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's still down, over a week later. At which point does it become notable? Snorgle (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly, there is not much in Google News about this apart from some stories mentioning the outage. The site insists that it is down for server maintenance, and this is what the infobox in the article says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus section

I removed the section just added, because it definitely fails WP:OR. The first paragraph connected the recent disagreements between Assange and Domscheit-Berg. While the two facts (the site being down and the disputes) are independently sourced, no source (provided) explicitly connects the two. Putting the info together implies a connection, which is a violation of WP:SYN. The second paragraph went even farther by not citing any sources and yet still asserting that the site being down is/was due to Assange's "legal difficulties". If we think it's important enough, the Domscheit-Berg/Assange arguments could be included as its own section (I don't think it rises to the level of inclusion, because it's not really different than disagreement at any other company between an ex-employee and management, but others may disagree). I don't think we need a whole section to say that the site is currently down, as that's already in the infobox. But we definitely can't put the two sets of info together without a source explicitly stating that they are connected. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The movement of the issues to a different section, as well as separating them, fixes the OR/SYN problem. I'm still not sure that the dispute between the two is worth inclusion, but I'll leave that up to others. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, It doesn't take a lot of insight or original research to see that Assange may have run out of pavement and is headed off a cliff. The argument with Domscheit-Berg was about several things: focus on larger batch leaks vs smaller topical leaks, the way Assange responded to the rape accusations, and the speed of publishing the Afghan documents without vetting. The site is down. There is very little in Google news search about Assange or Wikileaks other than retrospective analysis. One way or another, Assange has had his wings clipped and I will be highly surprised to see the site start back up again. I am not a Wikileaks critic. There are two scenarios here: (1) The Afghan leak was not intended by the US Govt and they are seriously pissed. (2) The Afghan leak was a stunt by the Defense Dept to engage public interest in the Afghan war. Under scenario (1), which is the most likely (and please don't think scenario (2) is impossible), one can imagine that there is visible and invisible force being brought to bear to keep the site down, in addition to the possibility that Assange is simply bringing himself down by dating too many Swedish ladies at once and by not seeking agreement with his colleagues regarding the scope and method of publishing secret war documents and the general purpose and direction of Wikileaks. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything you just put forth (other than the reference) is pure original research. It's all fascinating stuff, and great for a blog post or maybe even an opinion piece on a news site; it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article, or even this talk page. You're just inferring that the dispute implies larger problems, or caused larger problems, or whatever. But, in any event, I'm not saying the personnel dispute should come out--it is reported in reliable sources. I just want to make sure others think it's important enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only some of what is in the prior paragraph is original research, and people do care that the site is down and why it is down, as evidenced by people in the prior section of this talk page noting it's state prior to my contributions. Here are the factual elements in the paragraph above that come from external sources and not from any kind of original research on my part:

1. There was a dispute inside Wikileaks on
   1. Larger batch leaks vs smaller topical leaks
   2. The way Assange responded to the rape accusations
   3. The speed of publishing the Afghan documents without vetting.
2. The site is down.
3. There are few items published since 30 September 2010 in Google news search as of 14 October 2010 about Assange or Wikileaks other than retrospective analysis.
4. The US DoD and President Obama are publicly not happy about the Afghan leak.
5. Separately, the US Army has a publicly declared command whose purpose is to manipulate foreign public opinion. This command is described in detail in a Wikipedia article of long standing.
6. There were rape accusations made in Sweden against Assange which are still being litigated
7. The Swedish laws regarding the definition of rape are stricter than in the United States and can include issues of intentionality and misrepresentation in addition to forcible acts of violence.
8. The rape charges were made, withdrawn, and reinstated, in part due to difference in standards embodied in Swedish rape law.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all very well, but Wikipedia is limited by the material that has been published in reliable sources. Other users have rightly warned against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am as keen as anyone else to know why WikiLeaks is down and when it is coming back, but there is nothing much to say at the moment other than the site's announcement that it is down for server maintenance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Erxnmedia, maybe I wasn't clear above. That list of facts that you include above is, for the most part, not original research. Putting any of those facts next to the other, to explicitly or implicitly imply they are connected, is original research, unless a reliable source has already made the connection. Putting some of them into this article at all is WP:SYN. For example, numbers 4, 7, and 8 could not go in this article as you would be applying a general principle/law/plan to this specific case, which is synthesis, unless a reliable source has already stated that those "facts" are connected to Assange of Wikileaks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: 6 is also not appropriate for this article--nothing about the rape is in this article nor should it be. That goes into the Julian Assange article, again, unless you can reference a reliable source saying the issues are connected (note that Assange's theories themselves are not reliable in this instance). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were in Assange's position right now I'd be spouting some unreliable theories myself! Erxnmedia (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks donation site shutdown by operator is in the news, this may be notable enough for the article, although it would not necessarily explain the outage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What the Heck

"Wikileaks is going to be releasing over 400,000 US military documents from irag. |url=http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/15/next-leak-next-week.html%7C"

First of all, the typo calling Iraq "irag" is just frankly hillarious, g is so far away from q. Anyways, don't post links like that at all. I wasn't sure if this is vandalism, so I'll delete for now but let you guys figure it out.72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not vandalism--it's a "real" story. I find BoingBoing to be reliable, although I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call them a reliable source. They do usually provide references to reliable sources. However, having said that, the future release is still just educated guessing about the future. I think we're much better off waiting until next week and then reporting if/when the new release happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed this on WP:CRYSTAL grounds, as at this stage it may or may not happen. Let's wait a few days on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this on CBS. --Bsadowski1 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

CBS is a reliable source, but the text says "The Pentagon is bracing for the possible release of as many as 400,000 potentially explosive secret military documents on the U.S.-Iraq war by WikiLeaks. The self-described whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday." This still leads to an element of WP:CRYSTAL, so waiting until the documents are released would be the best option. If and when they are released, there will be a lot of media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to include it if it's a direct quote of CBS; that's not WP:CRYSTAL Gregcaletta (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's October 18th and Wikileaks is still dead. Did the Pentagon also mention that it is still hunting for Bin Laden? Erxnmedia (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Current Event Tag Is Warranted

Don't shoot the messenger, guys, but WikiLeak's shut-downs are not temporary, but rather, intermittent. Ergo, would it not be wise to add a currentevent template?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)