I'm torn on this. On one hand, I think it's very valuable to have a place which collects and makes available important leaked information.
On the other hand, newspapers can, and do, already provide this function.
Wikileaks relies on the examination of users to ensure validity, which is pretty shakey from a legal standpoint. Newspapers etc rely on fact checking by staff to ensure that they are safe from challenge if an article gets published.
I think both have a function, and that Wikileaks may bring things to light which may, or may not, have ever reached a suitable newspaper. I've only discovered it fairly recently, so it would have been nice to spend a little more time seeing what it came up with, and how that material was cross-examined.
Someone
· 1 year ago
Shutting down their main site is as useless as shutting down a torrent site, mirrors were already being distributed around the internet and this will just make the mirrors go up faster.
That poll was not fair... number one and three are not contradictory :) I think most people voted for one, because it was first and true. While number three is true as well.
All Comments
On the other hand, newspapers can, and do, already provide this function.
Wikileaks relies on the examination of users to ensure validity, which is pretty shakey from a legal standpoint. Newspapers etc rely on fact checking by staff to ensure that they are safe from challenge if an article gets published.
I think both have a function, and that Wikileaks may bring things to light which may, or may not, have ever reached a suitable newspaper. I've only discovered it fairly recently, so it would have been nice to spend a little more time seeing what it came up with, and how that material was cross-examined.
http://www.wikileaks2.com
http://www.wikileaksmirror.com