Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Security The Media Politics

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair 258

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair

Comments Filter:
  • by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:10PM (#32758480) Homepage

    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 -_-;;

  • Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Manning got caught whistle blowing because he was tooting his own horn.

    If you leak shit, stfu about it. While I don't agree with Manning on leaking the cables, the video was a little more understandable. I have also lost a lot of respect for Wired and their coverage of this. They are far too involved and it looks like a serious conflict of interest.

  • !Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cosm ( 1072588 ) <> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:13PM (#32758522)
    Either lack of funding, or fear of repercussions. I personally don't know what is worse, having the world's government spooks on your ass for propagating their no-no's publicly, or having Islamic radicals after you for propagating 'heresy'. Either way, people want you dead.

    They are either afraid of, or in cooperation with the groups whose documents they leak, or are truly out of funds. I am placing my faith of judgement in one of the former.
    • When the US want's you dead, you're a terrorist
      When a Muslim wants you dead, you're a heretic
      When a cop wants you dead he says that "he felt threatened"

      Kind of makes you feel like a turkey the week before Thanksgiving!

  • by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:13PM (#32758530) Homepage Journal

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

    now you'll never know.

  • Wikileaks' Response (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LilBlackKittie ( 179799 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:15PM (#32758552) Homepage

    Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at [] is this:

    "Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' []"

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:18PM (#32758594)

      Taken from wikileaks' Twitter at [] is this:

      "Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' []"

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

      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

      • by FrankSchwab ( 675585 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:47PM (#32759072) Journal

        Which doesn't change the facts of the Wired article at all...either submission forms work, or they don't. It's an easy question.

        Attacking the source of a factual article is a bit...unseemly.


      • by john82 ( 68332 )

        Wow. No bias in YOUR view of the situation.

        BTW, these days "journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron. In fact, I'd put it right up there with "politically correct".

      • I was one of those phone-hack-happy teens who worshiped Kevin Poulsen after reading The Watchman. I was excited to see him reporting on Wired, but over time his comments became very disillusioning.

        Heroes are fine and dandy until you grow up and learn that they only exist as long as you don't suspect them of being a human being. Of course, he wasn't so much a hero as a fucking lunatic who exploited everything he came across...

    • by thijsh ( 910751 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:29PM (#32758780) Journal
      When the video of the US air-strike spread across the globe I started the waiting game to see what kind of shit would be thrown at Wikileaks... It was obvious that this could not be allowed to continue, since they were doing exactly what they should: finding and publishing the truth, and I have to say better than most journalists.

      I guess other journalists don't take kindly to people doing their jobs better... WIRED: "They took our jobs!'
      • by jimicus ( 737525 )

        The biggest joke is, Wikileaks doesn't go out there to find news. Wikileaks waits for news to come to it.

        You'd think a group of people who were paid to go out and find what was happening in the world would be able to do better....

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        When the video of the US air-strike spread across the globe [...] they were doing exactly what they should: finding and publishing the truth,

        So editing and editorializing the promoted version of the video to make very strong untrue implications (the group had no weapons, the air-strike people knew that was they said looked like a RPG was actually a tripod, etc) is "doing exactly what they should"?

        Wikileaks is primarily an anti-establishment propaganda group, that has chosen to operate by means of (sometimes misrepresented) leaked information. The public benefit of the leaks is only incidental to their purpose. This can be seen by their very publ

        • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:47PM (#32761344) Journal

          Wikileaks IS an anti-establishment propaganda group. As such they provide a very important counterbalance to all the pro-establishment propaganda we are saturated with on a daily basis. Why is it that no one complains when the US government deliberately omits information (or flat out lies) to win public opinion?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )

          Ya I think people need to separate "factual" and "true". It is perfectly possible to have something where the entire content is composed of facts, there are no lies or made up information, and yet have it not be true. The reason is that you can selectively choose what facts you present, what ones you ignore, and use that to editorialize something that is different than the whole picture. So while their information may be factual, the overall picture is not true.

          I saw someone on /. who talked about how Bill

        • by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @03:30PM (#32762160)

          Yes, they produced an edited video that demonstrated a point of view. Quelle horreur! That's completely unlike the Washington Post, the IHT, the Economist, the NYT... Ahem.

          In fact, what is completely unlike them, Wikileaks published the unedited video at the same time. Unlike establishment journalism [], Wikileaks offered source material from which you can form your own opinions.

          Given the choice between an organization that offers an opinion and also the unedited information from which they formed that opinion, and one that only offers the opinion while withholding the unedited information, which one do you want to call a "propaganda group"?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:18PM (#32758586)

    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)

    • That's great. Now. Are there any actual inaccuracies in the story? No?

  • by dsavi ( 1540343 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:26PM (#32758738) Homepage
    "With World Watching, Wikileaks Withers Woefully While Walruses Wrangle Wrapped Wrens"
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward


    • by Itninja ( 937614 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:37PM (#32758914) Homepage
      Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsaving the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. [laughs] Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me "V".
    • Are those European or African Walruses? Or the kind that BP advices to watch out for in the Gulf of Mexico?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by StikyPad ( 445176 )

      Will Wikileaks weather wicked waylays while we watch wistfully with wonder? We waste weeks while wretches wreak waste! Wikileaks, worthy watchdog, warrants works! Wisen wayward wits with winning words (when we wake, where we work, while we walk)! Wax wealth, wield weapons, wear white, woo wet whorish women!

      Wait, what?!?

  • Although Leaking in some sense is an good thing when you are talking about dealing with the extremist of the world, leaking can also be, and more often is, done for less honorable reasons. 30 years ago the politicos and the media, especially the Main stream media were MORE trustworthy. Now I question the reason why anything is leaked. politicos, media types, governmental employees, people with an axe to grind, liars, cheats, thieves, criminals defense lawyers, and people that just do not like some policy us
    • I was in 100% agreement right up until this part:

      Even the person(s) that ran wikileaks is not above doing this if it were to meet their personal agenda.

      You really shouldn't just decide that people have no ethics, and will do anything that suits them like that. To meet that definition, they would have to be psychopaths. Perhaps what you meant is that anyone will do anything, if their beliefs tell them it's a good thing to do, and they can muster the resources.

  • Not true? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChrisMounce ( 1096567 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @12:27PM (#32758760)
    Apparently they're just upgrading: []

    And even if Wikileaks was to disappear, there's always Freenet if you want to leak something: []

    Of course, you'd have to check your own data to make sure there's no metadata that can be used to identify you. But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.
    • by bsDaemon ( 87307 )

      A Freenet, the project that perhaps did the most amount of damage to Java's reputation with regards to performance.

    • But Freenet covers the anonymous distribution angle.

      How many nodes or super-nodes would you need to control to compromise Freenet's security? It strikes me that the more pieces you have on the table, the easier it is to solve the jigsaw puzzle.

      • That is a problem with opennet mode, but I believe darknet mode [] addresses that concern. Basically, in opennet you connect to random strangers (less secure), whereas in darknet you only connect to nodes run by people you trust (more secure).

        Kind of a pain, though, if you're nomadic or don't have a lot of geeky friends.
  • Or sabotageeee?

  • the one called wikipedia. it's an open collection of interested individuals

    (for absurdity, here's the wikipedia article about wikipedia:) []

    and it works

    what about wikileaks?

    its run like the illuminati: []

    and its a wheezing barely functional wreck

    of course, editting a wikipedia article does not expose you to the kind of danger that vetting a wikileak does, but obviously, there is a lot of eager flesh out there that would

  • Not by accident... (Score:4, Informative)

    by metrometro ( 1092237 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:14PM (#32760670)

    Not by accident that Reporters Sans Frontiers has launched an "anti-censorship shelter" online, consisting of VPN, onion routers and training docs. Sound familiar?

    Wikileaks is essentially a pilot project. They have demonstrated the need. The day-to-day work will be picked up by long running groups with funding models and full time staff and a CEO who doesn't go out his way to piss off every anti-secrecy activist who so much as murmur reservations about their comprehensive lack of transparency.,37809.html []

    • Reporters Sans Frontiers/Reporters Without Borders are primarily funded by the US government [] [] through the National Endowment for Democracy which was founded during the Reagan administration to channel funds to organizations abroad that would support US foreign policy. Sometimes this funding is direct [] [], sometimes it is conducted through the international arms of the US Democratic Party or Republican Party [] [].

      I'm sure that the US government would much prefer that

  • Hm? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dotKuro ( 1762182 ) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @02:28PM (#32760924)
    I don't see the problem with Wkileaks, frankly. All sites have downtime; people simply mock the famous ones when they are down. I hardly think that downtime is "falling into disrepair".

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll