Talk:WikiLeaks

Something to add
Strong criticism about effects in Zimbabwe. Sandy Harris 13:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See also thisGareth Leng 09:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

European politicians resisting US gov't privacy intrusions. Sandy Harris 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The plot thickens. Swiss banker to release records of tax evading politicians? We really need to get this article online. D. Matt Innis 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible sources: international research links, by country]Gareth Leng 10:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Secrecy is the problem, not leakers This from an LSE academic
 * Campaign against WikiLeaks Is Lawless and Bradley Manning and How Do Bureaucracies Work? from the Cato Institute
 * Tactics of leaking and politics of the common Piet Zwart Institute The Netherlands
 * [http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jLewis/FOIA/FOIAlinks.htm Index to freedom of information laws and policies:

Article is open to editing
In accordance with Peter Schmitt's EC report, this article is open to editing. I am considering Peter Schmitt as having editor type status, along with the other editors on this page, for the purpose of assisting in solving content disputes. Please remain professional throughout and lets build the most comprehensive, objective and neutral article on this subject. D. Matt Innis 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tunnel vision?
The article fails to acknowledge the fact that every leak is the product of a broken promise. It debates the current consequences of Wikileaks'  revelations, but ignores the future consequences of encouraging people to default on their promises. Thus it directs the reader's attention upon its transitory effects,  and away from its lasting effects upon  human conduct. Nick Gardner 07:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nick, I haven't bothered to read the article and I never will. But, judging from your comments above, you seem to be saying that the article should also have aspects of a New York Times editorial or op-ed page article by a Paul Krugman-type columnist pontificating about "human conduct". I think that's fine for the NYT, or even The Times of London, but I don't think it's appropriate for what's supposed to be a neutral, objective entry in an encyclopedia. As Louis Meyer said about a theme-laden movie, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." Hayford Peirce 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether that's what Nick meant. He can speak for himself on that. I will say, though, that I do think the article should mention such moral issues, in a neutral way of course. Peter Jackson 18:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Nick, that personal morality does not translate simply into social or political morality. For example: the Swiss banker who has just been prosecuted for breaking bank secrecy laws (and the judge refused to imprison him and gave a paltry fine) and who has now been arrested yet again because the Swiss see their economic interests as being the secrecy of their banking system. His attempt to provide information to state authorities about tax fraud and other illegal activities in the Cayman Islands was repudiated; so he has now given them to WikiLeaks. He claims that there is no personal financial gain for him in this (indeed, we can see only losses) and that this is about public morality and the criminal activities of the super-rich -- including politicians -- which is being concealed by Swiss authorities, to maintain their continued wealth as a host to dubious trillions of dollars.


 * So, who has the superior moral code here? Yet, by the confidentiality obligation that you insist he should observe, he should simply support a corrupt national/global system and that would be moral. For me, the difference in views is about personal opinions of politics: yours is perhaps a conservative (lower case c), mine would be more radical and openly antagonistic to corruption, criminality and patterns of global income inequalities. So, the upshot is that there can be no agreement on morality and no agreement on public policy. These conflicts can be expressed within the article's analysis, but this is not easy. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin's comment "So, the upshot is that there can be no agreement on morality and no agreement on public policy" is a very good one, and sums up what I want to see from a standpoint of comprehensiveness and objectivity. I may, personally, agree or disagree with his personal view, or I may agree or disagree with Nick's view, but I definitely realize there is no single ideal view. That was my problem with saying that even all democracies, much less all nations, agree that "public interest" is a universally perceived good. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My point was about economics, not morality. Just as in a dictatorship, you have to remember that the person you are talking to may be a government spy: in a wikileak world, you may have remember that he may be a wikileaker.  That may be an exaggerated fear, but the article should at least draw attention to the prospect that people - in business as well as in politics - will adapt  their conduct in response to an awareness that anything they say might be made public. That is what I meant about the effect on conduct. I have no doubt that it would be bad for business.  I suggested that the article displays tunnel vision because it confines itself to obvious  points such as are  being made by journalists, thus falling short of the standard of perceptive analysis to  be expected of an encyclopedia article. Nick Gardner 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not in the speculation business, Nick, which is what this would be, with all the good intentions in the world. If we even *imagined* such an idea over at WP, we would have ten thousand "original research" blows delivered to us within moments. And so it would be here -- I'm a professional science-fiction writer: suppose I said that *my* vision of what the future holds is more pertinent than *yours* -- because of my "unique" qualifications? I don't think that would hold water.  If Paul Krugman, say, writes his next column about this very issue, then I think it would be well worth mentioning it.  For anyone here to indulge in speculation like this simply won't do.... Hayford Peirce 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not speculative if alternate views are mentioned and sourced. Even the U.S. government isn't unanimous, with some Congressmen calling for Assange to be shot, Robert Gates saying it's not catastrophic, etc. If and when the article exclusively says that a "world opinion says", we have a problem, because there is no such thing. The "public interest" view mentioned isn't going to go well in Japan and Turkey, much less China or Russia. I haven't researched Indian or Brazilian opinion. There's been a desire from several people to remove U.S. response completely.
 * It's not speculative when people in the Internet community make sourced comments and these are cited, or someone very familiar with a community, such as Sandy or myself, mentions them. It's not reflecting significant views when it is suggested that policy and governance people can make the only relevant comment, rather than mere technicians. That, to some extent, is a variant on the "two cultures" problem, or perhaps just an observation by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You miss my point entirely: I said that if WE wrote about "what the future holds" as apparently Nick is suggesting, that would be speculation. I said that if Paul Krugman wrote about it and we quoted him, that would not be speculation. Hayford Peirce 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Hayford, I don't miss your point. I did put in sourced material, as, for example, from Robert Gates, and it was removed. Now, Sandy and I both mentioned John Young and Cryptome, and that was dismissed -- as well as the repudiation of Wikileaks by Young and by Steven Aftergood, long-respected people in government secrecy, people of different views. I gave sourced quotes from both. I think it's reasonable to mention people, including others such as Vint Cerf, who have spent decades exploring Internet-social-governance interactions. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we to ignore rational responses to an event on the grounds that even  to mention them  is "speculation"?Nick Gardner 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)