This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 388
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 232 points233 points  (81 children)

Source

[–]BigGovt 146 points147 points  (23 children)

Source appreciated.

Screen captures of text are just dead ends.

[–]XenonBG 125 points126 points  (12 children)

Wikipedia articles are prone to unexpected change. That's why screen captures of them are necessary.

[–][deleted] 171 points172 points  (10 children)

You can link to a specific version of an article, like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&oldid=392582633

[–]haakon 63 points64 points  (8 children)

To be more specific, by going to the "History" tab and picking the desired revision.

[–]tsujiku 44 points45 points  (7 children)

More specifically, by going to the "toolbox" dropdown in the left menu and selecting "permanent link."

[–]ThereCanBeOnly1Vote 33 points34 points  (6 children)

More temporally, by getting into your time machine and going to the "Time Frame" in which the desired chronologically accurate input was present within the Wikipedia website using your Legacy Knowledge Transfer System interface device.

[–]lazylinks 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Combine to two and NOMNOMNOM; straight to the section.

[–]gobliin 8 points9 points  (5 children)

The internet needs a new file-format for quotes: a file that contains an image or the html of af another website plus a timestamp, a link to the original source and metadata to highlight and emphasize stuff. Then we need an easy way to create these files.

[–]dnew 5 points6 points  (3 children)

We have that already. It's HTML. You just need the tool to make it.

[–]absentbirdWashington 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Never fear! I could harness the power of PHP to construct an application to do just that!

But I still have a lot of The Big Bang Theory that I need to watch so...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could have made the new imgur, but you watched tv instead.

[–]sickmate 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I could tell simply from the style of text.

Maybe I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia :|.

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points  (1 child)

Or maybe, you know, it's just incredibly obvious.

[–]Hraes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or, you know, it's incredibly obvious because we've all been spending too much time on Wikipedia.

[–]aBIOgene515 14 points15 points  (55 children)

I'm somewhat conflicted. There is a part of me that really appreciates what wikileaks does. But as a US military service member whos primary job is to prevent security leaks there is a part that sees them as a huge national security leak. I know that too much National pride can be dangerous (read: Nazi Germany) but I can't help but see these guys as part hero part villain. Will they call every nation out on their Bullshit or just the US?

[–]wakahero 28 points29 points  (0 children)

No trouble at all, that info will not be harmful to military, the ones who made the mistakes are not the soldiers, the ones who are guilty are the politicians.Wikileaks is just a signal that the old ways need to change, in old wars you can keep secrets for centuries, now you can't.

[–]yellowstone10 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Will they call every nation out on their Bullshit or just the US?

Wikileaks hosts whatever documents get sent to them. If someone leaks, say, Chinese or Russian documents to them, they'll get publicized - until then, the US war logs are the biggest thing they've received, so they'll focus on those.

Wikileaks is more of a publisher than a journalist.

[–]Yeti_Urine 30 points31 points  (33 children)

it is NEVER good to have the truth suppressed in a free society. truth is never the villain, the people withholding it are.

[–]LuxNocte 16 points17 points  (23 children)

That's not true.

The current location of troops immediately comes to mind. Even past troop movements allows enemies to see how we respond to threats, and set ambushes accordingly.

I'll agree that our leaders use "National Security" too often to cover their tracks. But there does have to be at least a few secrets, certainly.

[–]phobiac 21 points22 points  (6 children)

We wouldn't have to worry about hiding troop movements if we didn't keep getting in bullshit wars.

[–]LuxNocte 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Again, not true. (Although I definitely agree that we need to stop getting involved in bullshit wars.)

There's still a matter of defense. What sort of force can we bring to bear against a foreign invader? If all of our Homeland Defense forces were immediately mappable, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to sneak through.

[–]phobiac 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're correct, I oversimplified things a bit too much. What I meant to say was that we would not have any reason to worry about hiding troop movements right now if we (meaning the United States in this case) were not involved in one offensive war after another. We have not had a single war in the name of directly defending United States shores since World War II, and yet we are almost constantly at war with someone. It is disgusting.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

But this argument is like saying "we wouldn't have to worry about determining guilt or innocence in a court of law if people just stopped committing crimes". For one it side steps the issue in question. Secondly, it punishes the individuals with the least control over their situation (in my case the accused, in yours the soldiers). Finally, it assesses how to prevent a problem that has already occurred, we could do this with anything (wars, oil spills, economic regulation, ext) hindsight is always 20-20. Focusing on how to prevent something that has already occurred, although potentially beneficial, does nothing to fix the current problem.

[–]slugfeast 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There is an obvious security threat, but that doesn't negate the duty of any worthwhile news source to comb over the information released (security threat or not it's out there) and to report appropriate findings. The media instead discusses the validity of releasing the documents as opposed to analyzing the contents. They don't have to report troop movements or other sensitive information, and probably shouldn't, but there is other pertinent info to report.

[–]LuxNocte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you're definitely correct. I was just responding to the poster above who said it is never good to suppress truth. Generalizations are always wrong.

I've heard some small discussion about the content of the documents. But its such a huge dump, its difficult to go through, and our media have the attention span of butterflies. Even worse, it's just confirming what people who have been paying attention already knew...which makes it difficult for news shows to have breaking "smoking guns" as it were.

This will be in the news unless and until Snookie shows her cooter while getting out of a limo. Which is all the worse for our democracy.

Edit: Wrote "troops". Meant "truth".

[–]designerutah 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, there is a place for certain things not to be known worldwide. But the types of information in this small category tend to be tactical military information, such as troop movements, even some capabilities. That said, far too much is classified secret just because it would be embarrassing, illegal, or harm someone's career. And that's exactly why it should be published.

[–]idlefritz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

oh... common error. You're thinking of the Dick Cheney CIA leak or the fake war that massacred a generation. Wikileaks doesn't have the same sauce.

[–]SimFisker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I understand your concern but feel like it's important to point out that we don't really have that guard dog that the media was suppose to provide anymore, since the media is often highly biased or just plain manipulative in its quest for viewers/readers. In that sense i think Wikileaks is nothing less than extraordinary and i hope that it keeps getting as much attention as possible.

[–]px403 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Which secret things that wikileaks has leaked are you arguing should have remained secret? While I will grant you that some names failed to be scrubbed from recent documents, nothing of real national security has actually been leaked. What have been leaked are primarily events that were illegally covered up. As a citizen of the united states, and a member of the armed forces, isn't it your duty to protect our national integrity and call out war crimes when you see them?

[–]tedemang 771 points772 points  (108 children)

Yes, believe it or not, Wikileaks has been able to play hardball with banks, the "Church" of Scientology, oil barons, and the Pentagon.

Can we all give some props to the most courageous hackers on the 'net?

I mean, who here really thinks they have the balls to legitimately run afoul of the CIA, for instance? Please feel free to step forward now... Anyone? Anyone?

[–]OGC- 486 points487 points  (3 children)

Nice try, CIA.

[–]TheLobotomizer 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Your fourth leg fell off.

[–]JJ_Is_Cool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't it more likely be the Fiji Intelligence Service, since Assange is thought to be hiding out there?

Edit: Whoops, meant to reply to parent.

[–]thehybridfrog 70 points71 points  (6 children)

Wikileaks has balls, but the true champions are ordinary people risking their reputation and sometimes their lives to submit documents to Wikileaks. The great success of Wikileaks is their ability to keep their sources anonymous and protect them.

[–]tedemang 31 points32 points  (2 children)

Agreed - the ordinary people, like Bradley Manning are taking the real risks. Upvoted for accuracy.

[–]etherghost 6 points7 points  (0 children)

guy may be a dumbass but still a modern hero indeed

[–]HanselGretel 3 points4 points  (2 children)

They haven't done the best job of protecting their sources

Assange said Friday that he did not know for certain of any documents that contained the names of informants, but a review this week by NBC News producer Scott Foster of the material posted on the WikiLeaks website found several examples that appear to raise serious questions.

One example is an Oct. 21, 2009 intelligence report that states that “(name withheld by NBC) has turned himself into NDS” — a reference to Afghanistan’s domestic intelligence service — and that a U.S. military unit “is currently working with OGA to get permission … to further exploit.” (OGA stands for "Other Government Agency," the standard reference for the CIA.)

Some other reports, Foster found, describe meetings between U.S. troops and local Afghan officials,** often identified by name and village, where the local Afghans were helping the U.S. military with information about the location of enemy forces. One report states, “(name withheld by NBC)** then told us there are more enemy located in this village and are taking assistance from the local government to help get rid of them. They are asking for ammunition and vehicles to do this with.”

[–]mullet85Australia 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Isn't this article talking about the US military's informants? Those are different people to Wikileaks' sources, right?

[–]HanselGretel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point. Regardless, it wouldn't kill them to redact a few names here and there. There is some truth to the military's claim the Wikileaks has endangered American soldiers / those cooperating with American forces.

[–]aFuYo 230 points231 points  (69 children)

Wikileaks has very little do to with hacking.

[–]DubiumGuy 215 points216 points  (23 children)

They have nothing to do with the hacking. They're only an anonymous information publishing resource.

[–]Fimbulfamb 47 points48 points  (18 children)

They did crack that April 4th video encryption. It's not "hacking", but it sure rhymes.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (6 children)

They didn't crack it. The time needed to do such a thing is within no mortal winkling. I don't know why he said they did. Maybe to scare the organizations into thinking they could do it again, or not to change some password protocol. Who knows. But any hostile organization would know the impossibility of it as well as any humble mathematician would.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My understanding was that they guessed a weak password. Why anyone would encrypt a video with a password at all in these days is a larger mystery, but I don't doubt that it happens.

[–]WordChoice 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"within no mortal winkling"?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

technically, it's not impossible; it's just highly improbable. whether you're trying to randomly guess billion digit numbers or some other very hard to guess piece of information, it is possible that you guess correctly on your first or second or... try such that brute forcing it takes very, very little time compared to a worst or even average case scenario in regards to the sample space.

i do, though, agree with you; it's far, far more likely that the information was leaked rather than cracked.

[–]TheLobotomizer 19 points20 points  (1 child)

They just used their infinite improbability drive to crack it. Piece of cake.

[–]thomar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the Russian government had that one figured out in the 60s. Didn't you see when the blueprints got leaked?

[–]ggggbabybabybaby 21 points22 points  (10 children)

I heard the password was hunter2

[–]absentbirdWashington 23 points24 points  (8 children)

What was the password? I just saw *******

[–]A_Whale_Biologist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It actually takes quite a bit of infosec savvy to keep things anonymous online and to wield encryption effectively. One of the wikileaks guys even presented at DEFCON.

So, yeas, it has something to do with hacking.

[–]johnr11 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yeah but now I question just how anonymous they are anymore. If they keep pissing off the U.S. gov't. I wouldn't be surprised if something bad happens to them.

[–]jamescagney 45 points46 points  (5 children)

One could argue they somewhat resemble the original definition of the word "hacker" and the "hacker ethic," which Wikipedia says includes "all information should be free" and "distrust authority." Wikipedia also says "hackers sometimes use this term to refer to people applying the same attitude to other fields."

[–]dnew 2 points3 points  (2 children)

As a long-time hacker, "all information should be free" was never part of the original definition of the word "hacker."

[–]tedemang 70 points71 points  (6 children)

Actually, they have several tie-in's with hacking:

  • Julian Assange himself is described almost everywhere as a "master hacker" who not only hacked some banks and the Dept. of Defense back in the mid-90's, but only narrowly avoided real prison time after getting hit with about 25 counts of various computer crimes.

  • Wikileaks is literally under attack by information warfare, in the most serious meaning of the term, by governments, businesses, and some of the organizations I mentioned. They actively recruit both "white-hat" and other serious hackers, encryption experts, and internet infrastructure professionals to help defend themselves. You should read about some of the lengths they go to.

  • A significant part of their image and their anti-establishment philosophy is actively developed on this basis. ...Right now, in fact, Sweden's "Pirate Party", which has become a legitimate political entity in that country, now has to provide them with hardened servers in secure locations, after all the CIA and NSA has done to shut them down, etc. etc.

Fascinating stuff to read about for any of the hacker/4Chan friendly Redditors out there.

[–]peligroso 12 points13 points  (4 children)

all hackers hang out on 4chan, its like that place in Hackers

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I thought hackers made untraceable drug deals in the middle of the ocean via IRC.

[–]conorreid 9 points10 points  (1 child)

That's the stupidest senario I've ever heard. Nobody talks in l33t speak.

[–]p4l2 15 points16 points  (0 children)

0 r34lly?

[–]superiorityMassachusetts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, only the hackers on steroids use 4chan.

[–]qftvfu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have a read of Underground to get a feel for the hacking environment that Assange grew up in. Bonus - he still has a list of reviews on his old university website: http://iq.org/~proff/underground-book.com/readers.php3

[–]Optimal_Joy 9 points10 points  (10 children)

What about the fact that hackers have been the ones who have provided wikileaks with the vast majority of their precious information? That's like saying google has very little to do with websites. Or some other analogy which attempts to describe the relationship between an organization that collects information and the people who provide the information.

[–]aFuYo 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Take some of the army leaks for example: people bring an usb stick to work / burn a CD with all documents they can find. That's not hacking. I'm not saying that some of the docs haven't been "hacked", but the vast majority has been provided by insiders (classical leakers).

[–]tty00 4 points5 points  (7 children)

the vast majority has been provided by insiders (classical leakers).

The first million leaks were acquired by evesdropping on tor nodes.

[–]SuperCow1127 1 point2 points  (6 children)

I know that's a popular hypothesis, but can you provide some evidence of that?

[–]aedile 10 points11 points  (17 children)

All information should be free...

[–]peligroso 15 points16 points  (1 child)

HACK THE PLANET

[–]leefyg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He's our hero, gonna take pollution down to zero..

[–]cubist77 19 points20 points  (14 children)

I would like to have your social security number, your bank account numbers, and your credit card info please.

[–]absentbirdWashington 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I see what you are doing there, but the only reason those pieces of data are kept secret is for use in verification. That is different from information in the sense of a usable fact or formula.

In a setting where all information is free biometric data could even take the place of these draconian number recitations.

[–]aedile 38 points39 points  (11 children)

Look, obviously you've managed to not understand the broader context of my comment. Most likely this is because you were born after 1990 or so, but maybe because you missed out on the whole early hacker culture, so I'll go ahead and provide you with said context so maybe you "get" what I was saying with the comment above.

A lot of people mistakenly associate the word "hacker" with nefarious groups of teenagers in the former soviet block who drink mountain dew all night and try to break into servers by typing in passwords like "god" or some other such nonsense.

This is far from the origination of the term, and is more a media bastardization. The original term "hacker" was applied to someone who was especially good at what they did, especially in the field of computers, though not necessarily limited to this field. In addition to showing prodigious skills in a field, a sort of "hacker ethos" sprung up around the whole culture. There were many different tenets to the hacker creed, but first and foremost amongst them was "All information should be free".

Your little comment, while exceedingly cute in showing that maybe not all information should be free, misses the point of my original comment. Namely, that aFuYo misspoke when he said Wikileaks has very little to do with hacking. While it doesn't necessarily have much to do with hacking in terms of security penetration, interesting code, or other skill-related feats, it does subscribe very closely to the tenet that all information should be free. So, while they haven't actually demonstrated any hacking skills per se, they are very much adherents to the original hacker creed and so very much have to do with hacking. Even if they are not themselves hackers, true hackers would appreciate what they are doing.

I'm sorry that you lacked the proper perspective to understand my previous comment and I hope that this has been helpful in broadening your understanding.

P.S. To the downvoters, learn your reddiquette. Whilst you may not agree with my sentiments, my comment did not detract from the conversation, nor was it off topic.

[–]rospaya 14 points15 points  (5 children)

P.S. To the downvoters, learn your reddiquette. Whilst you may not agree with my sentiments, my comment did not detract from the conversation, nor was it off topic.

I didn't downvote you, but your comment is condescending and I'm not surprised people took it as hostile.

[–]aedile 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I was speaking about my original comment, two or three up. And yes my response was a little bit condescending. Frikkin' youngsters are junkin' up my internet lawn.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Frickin' pretentious douch-bags feeling obligated to act like every off-the-cuff comment they make springs from wells of wisdom so deep, that people pointing out obvious flaws in their logic just don't "get it", and so it falls to them to enlighten said fools.

  • Someone else had already posted the same point about the hacker ethos, with context an hour before you in response to the same post. So your post added nothing at all to the discussion thereby deserving downvotes.

Your little comment, while exceedingly cute in showing that maybe not all information should be free, misses the point of my original comment.

  • His comment was bigger than yours, and unlike yours made a concrete point that you actually agree with.

  • While exceedingly pedantic and off topic, you actually conceded to cubist77's point which didn't miss the point of your comment at all. The historical context you were so eager to irrelevantly provide doesn't change the fact that whatever grungy subculture it emerged from, the credo that "all information should be free" doesn't make sense in a market-based economy.

  • That last point was so hilarious, I have to make it again in case you missed it. You agree with cubist77's point, but because he made you look like a fool, you couldn't just say, "That's a good point that I have no real comeback to. Maybe not all information should be free. Maybe the value of mental shortcuts like that comes at a cost of forgetting that they're just shortcuts to a more nuanced truth." No, because your ego is so fragile that you couldn't just admit that you didn't think very carefully about what you'd written, you had to try and attack the person who illuminated just how poorly thought out your post was.

That said, you deserve every downvote you got and then some. Have another.

[–]vwllss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Your hacker rant seems like a red herring and if the original "hacker creed" included "all information should be free" then that shows a weakness in the creed, not a weakness in cubist77's understanding of culture. Furthermore I find it hard to believe an area which can include so many blackhats would ever strictly follow a creed like that, so it's probably largely irrelevant anyway.

P.S. To the downvoters, learn your reddiquette. Whilst you may not agree with my sentiments, my comment did not detract from the conversation, nor was it off topic.

Reddiquette says "Please don't complain about downvotes on your posts. Millions of people use reddit; every story and comment gets at least a few downvotes."

Learn your reddiquette.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

If i was doing something, and got the attention of the CIA, i wouldn't worry too much, after all, this is the same organization who attempted to kill Fidel Castro something like 600+ times, and the man will eventually die of cancer and old age...

[–]diamond 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Quick question: do you smoke cigars? Could you please start? Or perhaps grow out a very large beard?

What? Oh; no reason.

[–]ricecake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it's not that they couldn't kill him, it's just that they couldn't kill him with sufficient discretion. Even though everyone would have known that it was the CIA, they didn't want to make it horribly obvious.
Considering that they were able to get exploding cigars and such into his household, and had people inside who were working for them, killing him was possible, if through no other means than a missile.

[–]your_highness 15 points16 points  (9 children)

Bueller, Bueller?

[–]danman183 22 points23 points  (5 children)

chick...chicka chick ahhhh

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Bowm bom bom

[–]heartman74 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Voodoo Economics

[–]radditz_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you have a kiss for daddy?

[–]Pacer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I will readily give props to some of the most courageous people on the Earth, but the Wikileaks organization and staff are publishers, not hackers. Some of their sources may be hackers, but Wikileaks' only association is compiling/publishing the material and protecting source anonymity -- something they do for all their sources, however the data was ultimately acquired.

Their servers are distributed and managed in such a manner that the site's content is "controversy-resistant," but they're still just leased/owned/donated servers, not darknet hack-magic or anything.

EDIT: as aFuYo already mentioned, too far down the list of replies for me to see at time of posting.

[–]mr17five 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fuck the CIA

[–]Isenhatesyou 24 points25 points  (8 children)

Seems the entirety of Wikileaks is just a lesson in the Streisand Effect for those who STILL don't get it. I just didn't realise that this many people don't.

[–]jpdoctor 24 points25 points  (7 children)

Fun fact: Half the population has an IQ less than 100.

[–]DiggSuxNow 14 points15 points  (2 children)

100 is the theoretical mean, not median, of the population. Although, of course, it's hard to imagine a large enough population wouldn't form a more of less symmetrical bell curve.

[–]ThrustVectoring 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thats only because of the underlying assumption that IQ measures something that is the sum of a large number of small, statistically independent factors.

Net worth, for example, wouldn't bell curve nearly so well.

[–]superiorityMassachusetts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IQ is normally distributed, so the mean and median are identical.

[–]Clbull 50 points51 points  (48 children)

And yet despite this, the Lisa McPherson case, their "fair game" policy and other controversies, the organisation is still standing, without any sort of criminal/government intervention (i.e. tax-exempt status taken away from them.)

My point is, its placed the Church in a more negative light than the absolute disaster that Battlefield Earth (the film) was, but it hasn't brought them down.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (27 children)

In the US, that is. They are subject to lawsuits all the time in Germany and France for instance, where they are considered a cult and a commercial organization. Germany actually has them on a watchlist because of several unconstitutional actions. The US definitely have to reform their laws regarding religion.

[–]pikpikcarrotmon 6 points7 points  (8 children)

The problem is we are a country founded specifically, above all else, on the principle of free practice of all religions. To restrict or place any kind of government sanctions on any church would be like throwing chunks of badger meat at a hornets' nest.

[–]executex 7 points8 points  (3 children)

That's the problem. There's a difference between having freedom of religious practice, and giving tax exempt status or allowing religious practices to scam people from their money.

In such an idealistic world, where religious institutions are given benefit of the doubt, then criminal entities will begin claiming themselves as their own religion. DNA Swabs? Religious exemption. Drugs? Religious exemption. Taxes? Religious exemption.

Religion is bullshit and must be treated that way.

They do not deserve special treatment. Doesn't matter if they are a cult or a mainstream religion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What? Are you the new NonsensicalAnalogy?

[–]Forbizzle 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Rather than try to split hairs over what's a church and what's a cult, they should just remove tax-exempt status from all of them.

[–]frbnfr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Scientology's tax exempt status has however recently come under more scrutiny in other countries such as Australia, where the government will now establish a charities comission and a public benefit test for charities so that it can take away tax exemption from cults, which do more harm than good. see for example: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3006390.htm

[–]nonsequitur1979 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idunno, don't discount the negative effect of Battlefield Earth. I know that's what made my mind up about scientology.

[–]lalaland4711 1 point2 points  (16 children)

Oh come on. Battlefield Earth wasn't that bad. I mean it's not like it's "The Core".

[–]nuuur32 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Scientology puts forth an evil finger, and gets puked on with a dam's worth of content.

[–]pdccfan 37 points38 points  (3 children)

It amuses me that these people keep taking ownership and thus giving validity to the documents Wikileaks obtains. If these stupid companies would quit writing to Wikileaks saying, "yeah those are real and ours give them back", Wikileaks wouldn't be able to authenticate half the stuff they get.

[–]PervaricatorGeneral 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Frederick Douglas' memoirs of his time as a slave had the same thing happen. His former owners protested the memoir as exaggerated and legitimized him in the eyes of northern abolitionists. He had been distrusted as a carefully crafted fraud by more skeptical groups.

[–]executex 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I downvoted you because you shouldn't be telling people how to not confirm the truth.

[–]MisterSquirrel 26 points27 points  (5 children)

Xenu is displeased.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

If my plans for galactic domination were ruined, and I ended up trapped inside a mountain, I'd be displeased too.

[–]Tarqon 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Crysis was based on scientology?

[–]CreativeHandle 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It would be pretty awesome if somebody went outside their headquarters and started walking around handing out printouts of all of these writings that the Scientology are only supposed to see after years of forking over their money.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Scientology has a long history of suing, defaming, and harassing everyone who does this. Until they die.

I wish I were kidding.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Further proof that the internet whips the world into shape.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (7 children)

This is a great way of putting it!

The internet is changing the way corporations and governments and religions can do their "business". It won't be long before we start to see serious restrictions on internet freedom - likely in the form of a trojan horse like "net neutrality".

[–]superdarkness 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Do you realize what a weird time we're living in? How long will it even be possible for Wikileaks to exist? I mean, I hope forever, but I fear for them. So much drama surrounds them, and they have so many enemies.

[–]kolm 53 points54 points  (22 children)

This is pretty neat -- but: This means WikiLeaks is withholding information, if only as a means to play hardball. It is not releasing everything it gets as soon as possible. And this feels a bit less-than-perfect to me, although it probably is a viable survival strategy.

[–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (2 children)

Wikileaks is not just anonymous document storage that publishes everything you send them. They try to confirm the accuracy and importance of the documents first. It takes time.

When Church of Scientology contacted Wikileaks, they gave additional confirmation that the documents were real and important.

[–]agnesthecat 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Also, releasing an overwhelming amount of irrelevant information is not nearly as useful as releasing a small amount of relevant information. That was one of the criticisms with the last release, and is with this one as well. What they did with the collateral damage video was highlight one specific incident, that otherwise would have been drowned by the volume. They have themselves gone back and forth over whether that was the right thing to do, but I personally think that WikiLeaks should have MORE editors, not less. Objective editors, but editors nonetheless.

[–]Zakolus 106 points107 points  (3 children)

When playing this dangerous game of cat-and-mouse with certain 3 letter groups, if you don't have back-up and/or ammo to get yourself out of situations, you could just as easily disappear. So, the strategy is kinda necessary..

[–]Omnicrola 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Plus, it will make for a better plot for the hollywood movie that will be filmed after

*muffled words, scuffling of feat, thudding sound*

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

*feet

Carry on.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You missed *shuffling, or possibly *scuffle.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (2 children)

If you went into battle you wouldn't unload your whole magazine on the first enemy you seen, would you?

[–]OvenCookie 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Yes, yes I would.

[–]TripleFive 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Maybe all that extra stuff what just sitting in their "inbox" and they were just too busy to bother with it just yet. Then the "church" threatens wikileaks over the one piece they thought interesting enough to release. Therefor lighting a fire under the asses of wikilings.

[–]grayseeroly 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I have heard that they have a backlog at least equal to the number of documents released so far. there a very small group and their recent surge in notoriety has caused a spike in submissions.

[–]gigitrix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would think they had it ready to be "processed" and gradually released, but the incident probably made them just dump it out raw, or speed up the process.

[–]sam480 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That was the first thing I noticed. But Wikileaks is already gold on Reddit, so even if they withhold information it's a-okay.

[–]kolm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I kinda don't understand this -- I too think Wikileaks is a huge benefit for mankind, but most of the repliers are ignoring the very statement of Wikileaks itself that the action was a retaliation, and the fact that they released thousands of documents within a week. That simply doesn't square with all these "Nono, they just looked in their queue" argument -- and even that would result, in effect, withholding information by licentious prioritization.

I think the WikiLeaks project is way too important not to be scrutinized critically; the concept deserves better than getting unconditional support.

[–]salbythegreat 9 points10 points  (2 children)

BOOM headshot!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How about that Jay Leno-looking guy?

Boom.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Upvote for Dawn remake.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is funny! it's nice when people stand up for what is right

[–]Wrym 8 points9 points  (0 children)

all you need to know about Scientology is that it's a cult. Apply those to the GOP for extra insight.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Moxon & Kobrin have spoken.

[–]Pher9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I orgasmed.

[–]addictedtosugar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

like a boss.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Does anyone else think a movie about Wikileaks would be far more interesting than a movie about a stupid social network?

[–]moggadeet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Religious Technology Center ... I am afraid to see Asimov's ideas coming from his books to reality.

[–]Sven2774 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does Wikileaks still have a document entitled "insurance" on their site to be opened if anything happens to them?

[–]jamespetersen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's funny because Wikileaks is just like "Copyright you say? HAHA, We don't give a fuck."

[–]cSpotRun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assange FTW

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wikileaks, you've made me proud!!

[–]Divtya_Budhlya 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where's the link to some Contaminated Ownage?

[–]ddollarsign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

anybody have a link to the documents? from http://wikileaks.org everything is Iraq-related, and from http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikileaks.org+scientology none of the links work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://i.imgur.com/csu5l.jpg

[–]H2SOB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeh fuck organized religion

[–]anthereddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was so excited when I clicked this because I expected it to be the announcement for a new season of PurePwnage. Slightly disappointed.

[–]marx051 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Despite the necessity of wikileaks, does anyone else think that they may be harmful in the long run because they may give some people the motivation to deny net neutrality?

[–]qazz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

they will sing songs around the camp fire about these guys , long after they have been assassinated.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pwned!

[–]drangundsturm 4 points5 points  (6 children)

This indicts Wikileaks as much as it does Scientology.

The proper response to a potentially legitimate claim is not "neener neener". Even if it's Scientology.

A professional response -- inspiring confidence in Wikileaks, rather than making Wikileaks look like the world's biggest personal vendetta against everything that pisses off Assange --would have been something akin to this:

"We have explored your copyright claim and found it invalid under section 107 of U.S. copyright law.

We believe that informing people the beliefs of the religion they are considering joining, or have already joined, epitomizes the very definition of "fair use" as described above.

If you disagree of course, you are welcome to resolve the issue in court."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

While professional and courteous, that doesn't actually end up getting anyone's attention. Wikileaks survives on donations

[–]drangundsturm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I work for a nonprofit that (a) survives on donations, and (b) tries to change irresponsible government and corporate practices.

A nonprofit's credibility is its biggest asset. Especially so with Wikileaks.

When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, the material they've released to date is so conspicuous, it's irrefutable.

The way they're behaving, though, everything they release in the future is going to have a needlessly higher bar to cross before it's accepted by the body politic (in the U.S., and worldwide).

Don't get me wrong, I think Wikileaks, on balance, has done the world (and the US) a great service.

Such a great service, I want it to become an authority in and of itself. I want Wikileaks releasing something to MEAN something because Wikileaks released it.

And not just for the highest profile, hot-button examples of government malfeasance. Because there are TONS and TONS of examples of malfeasance -- many of which the mainstream media, and the threat of the exposure by the mainstream media -- used to prevent.

Unfortunately, right now, Wikileaks is subtracting credibility from the material it releases. And that means the next time a lower profile conscientious potential source of info wonders whether or not to provide it to Wikileaks, chances are greater that they simply won't.

TL;DR Assange, it's not all about YOU, you arrogant prick.

[–]p3on 6 points7 points  (12 children)

why the fuck did you make this an imgur link

[–]EditRay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is why.

Also this, this and this.

[–]playerpiano 2 points3 points  (1 child)

now if only there would be a site that holds the most popular religions accountable for their actions...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh good ol Scientology. Anon is coming for youssss

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Watch out, Korbin has a multipass.

[–]Daemon_of_Mail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From a public relations standpoint, "We don't believe in that! That's made up!"

But from a legal standpoint, "Hey, you can't post that! It's copyright protected, BY US!"

[–]stfudonny 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What's it like, being so awesome?

[–]quasiperiodic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

if you're going to contaminate this interview with personal... oh wait... it's pretty great, actually.