7 ms·
The faith in WikiLeaks isn't blind. It will only take one false publication to destroy its credibility. All that matters is whether the facts published are acc
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
The faith in WikiLeaks isn't blind. It will only take one false publication to destroy its credibility.
All that matters is whether the facts published are accurate. Maligning the source (particularly on speculation) is a pre-emptive ad hominem non-sequitor.
- Goronmon 10y agoThe faith in WikiLeaks isn't blind. It will only take one false publication to destroy its credibility. So, if WikiLeaks starting dumping private emails for random people, that would be acceptable because none of the information is actually false?
- admax88q 10y agoThat's not what they said. They said a false publication would destroy its credibility. They did not say that WikiLeaks is always in the right so long as they publish accurate information.
- __jal 10y agoCorrect. And the parent was asking a different question.
- Xylakant 10y ago> So, if WikiLeaks starting dumping private emails for random people Given what turkish-speaking people say about the so called erdogan leaks, wikileaks already has started indiscriminately advertising leaks of peoples private data, putting them at risk. see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...
- sigmar 10y agoDid you read the piece? Because it sounds like you didn't. It doesn't malign the source.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoDid you read my comment? It wasn't about the piece, but the comment I responded to.
- sigmar 10y agoThe entirety of his comment was summarizing the piece (To quote it: this is a..., The piece does not say...., It doubly says that if we..., This piece is a defense of...). and he didn't add any maligning.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI was referring to this: >The danger here is that were the government to effectively coop wikileaks itself, which you think is anti-government, it would become a brutal and effective trojan horse. The malignment is that "the government" would somehow use wikileaks to some negative ends [sneak into our minds?!]. >The entirety of his comment You'll note that the original article doesn't even contain the word "trojan", and only mentions Wikileaks twice -- never in the context of it being co-opt'd by a government.
- SubiculumCode 10y agoAs the articles argues, selective releasing of true facts cant paint a false moaaic.
- zemo 10y agoI'm not maligning the source, I'm maligning the material. I'm asserting that truth and utility are separate and equally important dimensions of scrutiny. It is not enough that a document be genuine: it must also be of consequence. Many of the Podesta emails are of no consequence whatsoever.
- oh_sigh 10y agoIf the faith is blind, then why would one false publication destroy it? If the faith was blind, then no false publications would affect how people see it.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI assume the author didn't mean literal-figurative blind faith, as how would you even know to associate something with wikileaks? The "blind faith" (I'm not suggesting it exists [nor that it doesn't], as the author does) is a result of previously publishing many things that appear to be true with no examples (at least that anyone here has revealed) of published falsehoods.
- krapp 10y agoAnd how do you determine that a publication is false? If someone denies that a leak is true, or accurate, are you going to believe them or Wikileaks?