Wikileaks set to release 100k's of pages from corrupt banks, detainee system, Iraq, China and UN, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 7-1-2010 @ 08:03 PM by rexusdiablos

The Wikileaks site is currently down due to funding until January 11th. The following excerpt is in plain site on their current home page:

We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release. You can change that and by doing so, change the world.

What do ATS members make of this?

Don't know what Wikileaks is? As an ATS member, it's your best friend:

Wikileaks is a website that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive governmental, corporate, organizational, or religious documents, while attempting to preserve the anonymity and untraceability of its contributors. Within one year of its December 2006 launch, its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents, leading to many front-page newspaper articles and political reforms.

They've already brought us leaks on the Bilderberg meetings, Guantánamo Bay, Scientology and many more.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by rexusdiablos]

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 08:28 PM by Magnum007

I have just one problem with this system...

"Wikileaks is a website that publishes anonymous submissions"

I can make something up and just put it there and people will claim it's real. How can we verify anything on that site if there is little or no insight on what is being posted? I.E. We know almost nothing about Bilderberg. I can write something completely preposterous and it will be taken at face value?

There has to be a way of validating sources and finding out where the information comes from, otherwise it could all just be hogwash.

Peace,

Magnum

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 08:33 PM by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by Magnum007
"Wikileaks is a website that publishes anonymous submissions"

I can make something up and just put it there and people will claim it's real.

Interesting point. Honestly, I'm not overtly familiar with their screening process. It seems good enough for the mainstream media but then again, that might not be saying much.

Can anyone shine any light on Magnum's point? I'd like to know myself also.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by rexusdiablos]

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 08:44 PM by kozmo

I am no Wikileaks expert, but it is my understanding that they are actually comprised of a dozen or so different watchdog groups and have access to "experts" that they consult to validate and authenticate. Being human, however, I suspect that some less than accurate or downright fabrications pass through.

Perhaps this link will shed some light on it. For more information, Wikipedia has a pretty in-depth description and history.

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 09:11 PM by Magnum007

[\en.wikipedia.org...quote]

"The "about" page originally read: "To the user, Wikileaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands"

I think that's self explanatory.... There is little or no oversight. The only thing to do is to "discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity"... Wow, I think I will get started on some leaks myself...

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper really is Stephany Harper according to the following medical records"

jk

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 11:07 PM by jafoa55hole

Wikileaks is the most up to date form to publish the truth. Spend the time and view their site. Documents are authenticated prior to posting. They have been sued unsuccessfully many times and have been vindicated each time. Governments have tried to shut them down. Magnum007, entertain me, write some BS stuff here in this form, then send it to Wikileaks. 100:1 your BS won't make the site. I'm amazed that 'you' and others still try to discredit this site. Good to see our money is well spent on dis-info tards like you.
Truth will set you free.

reply posted on 7-1-2010 @ 11:21 PM by Magnum007

reply to post by jafoa55hole

Now now, no need to make accusations... You make a good point but I am merely trying to illustrate that there may be a flaw in the way this information is processed. The issue I have is the fact that it is not very transparent, albeit for obvious reasons.

The issue I have is the "who will guard the guards" problem. How can we tell if the information there is or is not dis-info? I'm sure there is a treasure trove of real, valuable, and credible information there, but there must almost certainly be an equal amount of wrong and planted information by the government to throw people off.

Wouldn't you want to put out wrongful information on that site if you were the government?

And yes, I must agree, the truth will set you free. But who's truth is the right truth?

reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 12:21 AM by Chett

Originally posted by Magnum007
I have just one problem with this system...

"Wikileaks is a website that publishes anonymous submissions"

I can make something up and just put it there and people will claim it's real. How can we verify anything on that site if there is little or no insight on what is being posted? I.E. We know almost nothing about Bilderberg. I can write something completely preposterous and it will be taken at face value?

There has to be a way of validating sources and finding out where the information comes from, otherwise it could all just be hogwash.

Peace,

Magnum

Exactly the same thing can be said of wikipedia and in fact pretty much everything on the internet. hmmm come to think of it that goes for newspapers and TV news and and ...
All we can do is read and use our own good judgement.

reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 12:29 AM by seattletruth

Awesome. Too bad a mega corporation *cough*google*cough* can't help 'em out with funding. But I'm sure nobody wants to touch that festering, infectious, rotting dead carcass with a 20 ft pole. Can't really blame 'em for liability reasons.

I hope they get the funding they need. I wish I could help, and be a part of history.. I'm sure I'm far broker than them though.

reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 09:10 AM by conar

Do they think they can survive on donations?

why dont wikileaks have add banners on the site? (problem solved?)

why dont they leak some of the 22 million emails George Bush tried to delete from his hard drive ?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by conar]

reply posted on 8-1-2010 @ 06:13 PM by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by conar

Do they think they can survive on donations?

why dont wikileaks have add banners on the site? (problem solved?)

why dont they leak some of the 22 million emails George Bush tried to his hard drive ?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by conar]

These are all questions I've asked myself. They fantastic legal support but fall short on the financial assistance.

reply posted on 18-1-2010 @ 06:59 PM by wiredamerican

UpDATE,

Wikileaks is now OFF LINE , asking for a RANSOM of 200,000 dollars to continue the service.

Pages: ^^TOP^^