Wikileaks Plans To Make the Web Leakier 94
itwbennett writes "At the Hack In The Box conference in Kuala Lumpur, Wikileaks.org announced a plan to enable newspapers, human rights organizations, criminal investigators, and others to embed an 'upload a disclosure to me via Wikileaks' form onto their Web sites that would give potential whistleblowers the ability to leak sensitive documents to an organization or journalist they trust over a secure connection. The news or NGO site would then get an embargo period in which to analyze the material and write the story, after which Wikileaks would make the leaked material public. At the same time, the receiver would have greater legal protection, says Julien Assange, an advisory board member at Wikileaks 'We will take the burden of protecting the source and the legal risks associated with publishing the document,' said Assange. 'We want to get as much substantive information as possible into the historical record, keep it accessible, and provide incentives for people to turn it into something that will achieve political reform.'"
Political reform? (Score:4, Interesting)
The leakiest of organizations in any country is the government. Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it. Most of the time it is used to float trial balloons, but sometimes it's used to mislead the public for purposes of control.
The American government is particularly good at this.
Up to this point Wikileaks has been an unbiased (as far as a left-wing org can be) third party. However reporters are typically not so neutral. By giving leakers the ability to target specific reporters simply means that the leaks will lose credibility. We know Olbermann and Matthews love Obama, so anti-neocon leaks are most likely to be reported there. OTOH, Drudge and Hannity will be much more likely to report anti-democrat leaks. Since the same old same old is reported by these guys, the leaks themselves lose a lot of their steam.
I don't think this is a good idea at all.
Re:Who verifies the source? (Score:5, Interesting)
I cannot imagine anyone worrying about verification in today's climate.
If it is a good story, it is going to make it out on the Internet. Period. If the "newstainment" on TV wants to pick it up, they will do so. If it is a good story, it is going to get lots and lots of exposure.
Truth? Has almost nothing to do with it. Truth today is in the eye of the beholder and it is all relative. If you believe that the World Trade Center towers were demolished by Israeli agents working for George Bush, nothing is going to deter you, and you will only listen to "news" that confirms this. If you believe that Obama is "the One" and can do no wrong, nothing is going to deter that opinion. There are believers for everything, no matter how wrong-headed it might seem.
Truth? Wikipedia might actually have a good idea. Truth is whatever the majority believes at the moment, and the majority can always edit the story to make it fit the latest fad.
Re:Who verifies the source? (Score:3, Interesting)