Talk:Wikileaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Cryptography This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Contents

[edit] AfD

I speedily-kept the debate. If you disagree and you're a regular wikipedia editor contact me on my talk page and I'll un-close it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "...forcing the site offline..."

Wikipedia's frontpage news section claims wikileaks has been "forced offline", linking to this article. This is no correct. It's not in any way shape or form "offline". The only thing that has happened is that you can't use wikileaks.org to get to it. The IP address 88.80.13.160 or any of the many mirrors. The article itself notes this fact (although not very prominently). The headline on wikipedia's frontpage is therefore misleading. Can it be changed?

I USUALLY LOVE WIKIPEDIA, BUT THE BLATANT LACK OF NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER MADE ME QUESTION THIS SITE'S OVERALL NEUTRALITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.105.242 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I USUALLY WRITE PROPERLY, BUT THE BLATANT LACK OF COOL OF THIS COMMENT HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER MADE ME QUESTION THIS USER'S OVERALL COOLNESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.50.214 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article

  • Added a ton of resources/RS sources. Needs cleanup, working on it. Please help! F.F.McGurk 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is Wikilinks a typo for Wikileaks or something different? Peter Grey 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
They're different. Wikilinks are where you type a page name in double square brackets. In the context of Wikipedia, they're usually just called links. Picaroon 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For the edit I just made it was a typo. Mackenson got most of them before, we both missed that last one... F.F.McGurk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it's popping up all over international media... F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Is it me, or do the statements in the criticism section not make sense? Lcament 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy's own language, and not really, no. I put it just to have *some* balance for now. F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Each statement makes sense, but the second does not follow from the first. The first refers to the question of to what extent leaking of any sort is ethical in a democracy, and the second relates to misleading leaking (presumably including forged documents). I will attempt to fix this! JY, 16 January 2007
At some point the bits got put in one paragraph rather than broken up. Read better? F.F.McGurk 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't solve the problem - the Aftergood quoted refers to all leaking in a democracy, and the Wikileaks FAQ quote refers to misleading leaking (and as far as I can tell was not written in response to the Aftergood quote). I think we another sentance dealing with the possibility of misleading leaks, or no mention of them at all. JY, 17 Jan 2007 (I note that the misunderstaning seems to have begun in Friedman's article rather than here)

[edit] Wikileaks should integrate with Wikipedia

One of main my Wikipedia wishlist :

“ 'discussion' page on Wikipedia should have a section for debating where a NPOV/neutral admin moderator can summarize all the distinct points (typically there are very few even for hotly debated/controversial topics) and these distinct points should have voting buttons as well. ”

That wish list seems to be fulfilled by Wikileaks but I think Wikipedia will always have more visibility as compared to Wikileaks and hence Wikileaks should find ways to integrate with it e.g. the main page of a topic should always be the Wikipedia page and there should be a link to Wikileaks page (if it exists) having leaked data as well as it should support blogging/debating and should have buttons as well.
Vjdchauhan 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC). (Information should be centralized and rest all should be de-centralized)

Note that unless independently verified or written about, it is very unlikely that any document on Wikileaks would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Joshdboz 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessity of wikileaks

Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 18, 2007

You're quite right; such statements should have citations, so as to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Because of this, I've added a {{fact}} tag. You can add these yourself to statements which you feel should cite a source. Be neither excessive nor stingy with regards to the use of the template. Picaroon 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take down that one fact tag; it's supported by current source #12, in the third paragraph. F.F.McGurk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got it. Is there a way to use the same source twice there without having to redo the entire attribution on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. usage? Some right way to just put down the named <ref name=xyz>? F.F.McGurk 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New developments?

I found like link on Michaelmoore.com It basicly says " '...an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis...' | Or Is It | " The || is a link to this site http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm.

I don't have the time to sift through all this data, but I would asume that its stating that wikilinks not what it seems... would it be original research to post it on here?208.248.33.30 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR, I believe, yeah, as described by you. A valid RS needs to state, for it to be verifiable. We can't produce original thought, just condense, summarize and remix under NPOV. F.F.McGurk 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heinlein

In Revolt in 2100 Robert A. Heinlein wrote:

Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

This simply didn't belong in the article. I've moved it here. Shaundakulbara 10:58, 28 January 2007

[edit] More news coverage

See Whistle blown on Wiki site for whistle-blowers By Simon Rabinovitch (Reuters). BlankVerse 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When Online?

80.56.94.31 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When will Wikileaks go live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007.

I think there was an earlier date online, it does seem to take forever, anyone knows more about this?

[edit] Wikileaks taken down / censored?

Wikileaks seems to have been down the last 12 hours or so! ... does anyone know why? I've emailed, but no reply and the washington number does not answer.

From my following of earlier recent changes it is clear that they were about to release this doozy:

http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)/Chemical_weapons&strip=1

http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)&strip=1

James Hardine 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the site seems to be back up, along with those pages. No mention about the downtime though? --Gwern (contribs) 22:36 3 November 2007 (GMT)
Al of the domains seem to be gonig up and down. Perhaps DOS? 210.138.109.72 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks was on slashdot recently. Lurker (said · done) 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly. There are accusations that Wikileaks is a front for the CIA,then there are accusations that the US military controls the internet. I'm taking down the claims in the introduction until somebody rewrites them with some factual content. --Chopz 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA front

Does anybody else think this section reads ridiculously? It seems like somebody is struggling to make a connection, in an almost numerological fashion.FFLaguna 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that's pretty ridiculous, you're right. +sj + 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the Intellius reference to a "Va Reston" is probably a misinterpretation of "Reston, Viriginia (VA)." I don't have the wherewithal to track this down, but it occurred to me. - No user name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.26.27 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed text

every time the site is down for more than a few hours, someone claims it is an intentional censoring of the site. Are its servers really all in one place? it seems more likely that these downtimes relate to surges of traffic... I removed related text from the page:

However, after this news became widespread on the 15th November the Wikileaks website became inaccessible.[1]

+sj + 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That text was put in by me - Someone else had written a long thing about some sort of conspiracy which just seemed a bit ridiculous to me, so I shortened it to that (though I didn't add the ref). But clearly now its all irrelevant. --129.67.115.253 13:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outage

Where are these servers with .org.uk, .cn, .nz etc. domains? It sure seemed like some kind of event to find every mirror down like that - for well over a few hours - especially if these servers are not in the same place. Why does it seem 'more likely that these downtimes relate to surges of traffic?' Have you any evidence of this?

Rumour has it the bank BJB filed suit, and the name servers for wikileaks have been removed from whois. TRS-80 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the big warning added to the article--this isn't the place to include speculation/service updates. Mackensen (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some part of the outage needs to be specified in the article. And a link should be provided for people to actually view wikileaks. I will add the relevant information in a section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.82.246 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added the link to the Belgian mirror. The outage really can't be discussed until some new organization picks it up (which I'm sure it will). Unreferenced speculation will be removed. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please justify why you need to delete this section, when references are provided.
Makes sense. 24.228.82.246 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're all self-references. Wikileaks is claiming these things, but there's no independent verification. For that matter, the text added isn't even supported by the self-references (Judge White isn't named, for example)! I've rewritten a little, but there needs to be independent verification of some kind. Mackensen (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've temporarily replaced the main link to the wikileaks site with the site's IP (that is, http://wikileaks.org is now http://88.80.13.160/ in the article). When it looks like they are no longer having DNS issues, I'll stop by and change this back. Dxco (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Take down order - not well explained

Okay, something is not really right here. Some section of wikileaks says the law in USA protect the release of this kind of information. Very good. Then, the documents released seem to be implicating the bank to illegal activity, which mind you the USA courts are very much against. I believe since 9/11 moving money around is closely monitored and heavily punished to minimize terror financing activities. So, taking the above into consideration, its very hard to see how a USA court can force them to take down the site, the system (meaning the judge) has very little to defend their action. Something else could be going on here..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is censorship, as they quite rightly state in their press release. I have added a section, feel free to incorporate. Pnd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More info at Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal or illegal isn't really the issue here. It's perhaps likely that Dynadot would have won, if it pursued the case, but it didn't want to. Nobody is going to force Dynadot to host a domain name it doesn't want to, for any reason. I'm pretty sure that domain name registrars are allowed by ICANN to lock or shut down domain names for more or less any reason. Certainly there are lots of complaints that GoDaddy and other major registrars will shut down domain names at the slightest provocation. So really this has the flavor of a voluntary agreement, that I can see, not a legally-imposed one: Dynadot kills the domain name, the bank doesn't sue them. I don't know what the requirement is for judges to approve settlements, but generally there's a rule that judges aren't supposed to consider arguments that the parties haven't briefed them on, AFAIK. If neither party brings up free speech issues, I don't know if the judge can reject the settlement on that basis. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All this demonstrates is that Dynadot and other registrars hold too much power, and no restraint (i.e. they can pull the plug on a website whenever they feel like it). Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended, not just to Federal and State governments, but also corporations to guarantee free speech of corporate employees or customers. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as i can figure out, the problem in this case is that Wikileaks is an anonymous Web site, so there is no one to go to court and represent their interests. In a more typical situation, the Web site owner would be a party to the case and could presumably assert its rights, such as they are. Of course they would face whatever legal recourse Baer might have against them as well.--agr (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fire

Did the fire happen the same day as the denial of service attacks? I've only found two articles that mention the fire and they say that the fire took out all of their servers after the attacks, but they don't go mention the day or time. Is the site down everywhere now? Or just in the US? 68.107.196.111 (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Only the DNS resolve from the .org is switched off, the site can be reached under the .be link cited. Pnd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The fire apparently affected service on Saturday, which has since been restored. The injunction affected service starting on Monday. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wtf

this section...

The Chinese government currently attempts to censor every web site with "wikileaks" in the URL. This includes the main wikileaks.org site as well as regional variations such as wikileaks.cn and wikileaks.org.uk. However the site can be accessed from behind the Chinese firewall at the time of writing using https://secure.wikileaks.org/ or one of the many alternative names used by the project, such as ljsf.org or sunshinepress.org. As these alternatives may change frequently, the site suggests users from the mainland of China search for "wikileaks cover names" on non mainland-china search engines such as google.co.uk to locate the latest alternative names. Mainland based search engines, including those of Baidu and Yahoo, also censor references to "wikileaks."[17]

Additionally Wikileaks says users may bypass Chinese censorship by making Tor connections to Wikileaks' hidden server at gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion after installing the Tor software.[18]

With so many alternative names, there is a danger that whistleblowers may connect to a "fake" Wikileaks, run by, say, the Chinese government. To prevent this possibility, the site asks users to tell their web browser to "show the site certificate" and verify that it is for "secure.wikileaks.org" and signed by "Equifax Secure, Inc."

it's like a friken guide on "HOW TO AVOID OFFICAL CHINESE GOVERMENT BANS ON INTERNET SITES", even though that would be illegal, atleast in china, why exactly is there a guide on how to help chinese people break the law?--Jakezing (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As Yanks or Brits or Aussies or Canucks or Kiwis or whatever, we are not bound by Chinese law. —Nricardo (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
However we are bound by wikipedia policy which states we are not a guide but an encylopaedia Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya, but why would we help chinese people break their law? and it is a guide therfor should be retooled to not help people in china break laws, and still tell us there are other links. it just seems, bad in the long run.--Jakezing (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject on closed proxies "helps chinese people break their law." --Thinboy00 @945, i.e. 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
But if we have to remove the guide like info, then we should just transwiki to WikiBooks or something. --Thinboy00 @949, i.e. 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Prior to today, I do not recall ever trying: < http://88.80.13.160 >; < http://wikileaks.be >.

So, please, what is different?

Prior to redirecting to: < http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks >; < http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks >, the server[s] very briefly shows us a quote in such a manner that it is virtually impossible to read, unless we stop the browser & copy the page:

Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. — Martin Luther King, Jr. Please wait while loading...

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship in transmission?

Besides domain name censorship, denial of service attacks, and setting the servers on fire, is there also censorship in transmission? I had no trouble accessing the bank documents, but every effort to download tactical-questioning.pdf from either the "original" IP address or the .be mirror seems to stop right at 969 to 987 KB of 1.6 MB. Can anyone confirm this? Wnt (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Never mind - after all the downloads "completed" incompletely, now it downloaded from .be just fine. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] massive rewrite of some areas

its a friken guide, the Exter's are almsot entirly jsut ways to get around a govemrnet censor, and still seems like a guide down there, hell, it says a way to get around the "great firewall of china"--Jakezing (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I sympathize with the motives, and it is entirely reasonable for the external links to link to the site by ip address if this is the only possible way, but this section is irrelevant and written in the first person:

You can add this IP address to your local hosts file to allow certain broken links that reference the wikileaks.org site to work. Here is the line that I added to my local hosts file.

88.80.13.160 wikileaks.org

On a Windows computer the local host file is located in the directory C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc. On a Posix compliant system the file is usually located in /etc/ You may have to later remove this reference again when wikileaks.org domain name service comes back online in the US.

128.138.64.77 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There are no mirror sites as yet

Despite the false claims in the BBC article, there are no mirrors for Wikileaks. There is only the site in Sweden with a lot of alternate DNS names that all point to the one IP address. That situation might change, but as of 19 Feb. 2008, there are no full, up-to-date mirror sites. All of these other DNS "cover names" just point back to http://88.80.13.160/ .--Veritysense (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See www.wikileaks2.org, www.wikileaks3.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bughouse26 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 22 February 2008
Those just relay to wikileaks.be and wikileaks.in, which all point back to the PRQ host in Sweden. Relays are little more than an alternate name. A mirror consumes resources but provides for meaningful redundancy in case of data catastrophe.--81.91.65.211 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism, revisited

The "Criticisms" section is not currently well-tied to the subject of this article. There are two lengthy quotes included, but neither has the author tying the statements directly to Wikileaks or anything else in the article. As such, they sound like attempts to use this article to make larger political arguments.

The Aftergood quote is bad enough, because it's from an unidentified interview in an unidentified publication (possibly his newsletter, but this is not clear even within the cited source), cited by yet another person (Friedman) who himself uses the statement to support his article on Wikileaks. This is absurdly indirect when there should be quotes to be had from people specifically responding to these issues surrounding the Wikileaks situation in specifically identified reliable publications. This kind of indirection has the feel of gossip, an experience all too common in the modern media, and must be avoided.

Worse, it encourages editors with other opinions to add in their own generalized material, as one editor has done with the Rawls' quote. That quote has no tie whatsoever to this subject other than ideological, and we Wikipedians are not permitted to make general ideological arguments, even by well-sourced proxy. That is forbidden original research (OR) because the assertion of its connection comes not from the source, but from the Wikipedia editor. Such connections should be made only by properly cited secondary and tertiary sources.

If a quote is specifically talking about the article subject or event involving the subject, it may be appropriate to mention the larger ideas, but only so long as the connection is clear. For example, I felt the David Ardia suggesting the site shutdown was prior restraint was worth including. But that was not an excuse for me to add a discourse, or even a famous general quote from a famous person, on the subject of prior restraint. The Ardia quote itself must stand scrutiny for being relevant and may ultimately not be deemed by the community to be especially worth including as events develop.

In short, each and every sentence should be specifically about Wikileaks and directly related people, organizations, and events. If a reliable source claims that the subject or its situation is an example of "X", cite it and see if the community feels it's sufficiently relevant to keep in a tightly focused, well-written article. But if the person making the connection is a Wikipedia editor, it must be deleted as OR. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the statements above regarding the Aftergood and Rawls quotes, and only posted the latter on the understanding that a criticism section was appropriate. On might argue that because Wikileaks is such a radical and novel form of civil disobedience that at least some balanced atention be given to the issue in the wikileaks article on wikipedia. If, this view is to prevail, then Aftergoods comment and something like Rawls's should be included under a dedicated heading. I am neutral on this point, and willing to go with the flow.

My reference to Rawls was deleted as synthetic OR, which is hardly defensible in the context of any section paying fair attention to the issue civil disobedience under democracy, as I took the criticism section to be. Jeff Q is right to point out that Aftergood's comment invites such balancing responses as the Rawls quote; since the former is a partisan opinion on an explosive topic. This being so, it appears that the continued inclusion of Aftergood's comment, no longer in a section devoted to meta-issues like civil disobedience in democracy, or even general criticisms, is effectively synthetic OR.

It is stated on the NPOV section of the WP:NOR page that

when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

Since this cannot be done with respect to Aftergood's opinion (by no means a majority one) without paying direct and balanced attention to the issue of civil disobedience in democracy, I have deleted his opinion. I would be more than willing to see it restored, in a section where comment on its prevalence status with respect to contrasting opinions is supplied, and which would therefore include reference such as that, recently deleted, to Rawls.

Multipole (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war in progress over this section. I restored the original criticism with some edits to remove editorializing. The site is controversial as criticism is appropriate. What's there now seems balanced. Yes, it needs better sourcing. I'd rather give people a chance to do that than simply lop the meat away.--agr (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikileaks.org is censored in US...

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/02/us-judge-censors-wikileaksorg.html Any one knows more information about that..? I was redirected to an error page stating so (occasionally) when I tried to access... Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that's the bank vs Dynadot dispute thing. The .be site should still be up... The order only talks about the domain name not the site itself. --Thinboy00 @948, i.e. 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - Guantánamo Bay procedures

The excerpt from the Reuters article regarding the designation of some prisoners as off limits to visitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross is misleading. While military procedures make allowances for the possiblity of some prisoners being denied ICRC access, the document never lists any prisoners who were actually denied access. If this happened, then the documentation must surely exist.

While I consider Reuters news service to be a biased source, even their story allows that, "The manual clearly mandates humane treatment and advises that "Abuse, or any form of corporal punishment is prohibited". Oddly, this tidbit was omitted. Danindenver (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random cautious editorialising

I removed this passage added by an anon:

There is always the possibility your information will not be secure. Look what happened with the advent of wikiscanner. Many editors who presumed they were anonymous were not. Always be wary of submitted information. Anonymity is never guaranteed on the internet and anything is traceable given the proper resources.

This particular paragraph didn't really fit in with the general style. Besides, basically, this passage could be summed up as "You probably aren't as anonymous as you think - business as usual". In other words, it's pretty useless statement: it describes a general condition (lack of anonymity in the net in general) rather than the site specifically (lack of anonymity on this particular site).

Rather than vague borderline FUD, this article should describe exactly how the site tries to ensure the anonymity on this site. Does anyone know the technical details? Do they purge the IP addresses or what? (I've never looked at a page history in that site =) Currently, the article just has some vague technologies listed (tor, etc) but not how they're practically applied to ensure the anonymity! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging lawsuit article here

I've talked a bit about my reasoning why the article about the lawsuit should be merged here in Talk:Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit‎. Any other comments? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge One is an article about the lawsuit, the other about the organization. There are plenty of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly discuss/analyze both subjects separately and independently of each other. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's merged here, the relevant portions should also be merged into Julius Baer Group, which currently points to the lawsuit's page for information on the suit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] freenet

how is this shit based on the freenet software package? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.58.98 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 March 2008

A little hard to say. Based on links like this, it's my guess that FreeNet only comes into play for leakers -> WikiLeaks, not WikiLeaks -> everyone else. It wouldn't be too hard to set up, just have WikiLeaks set up a well-provisioned node and then it could correspond with leakers over the message boards as to the ID on FreeNet of a leaked file. --Gwern (contribs) 18:11 14 March 2008 (GMT)


[edit] Wikileaks down

I'm moving the following comment (which appeared under the heading "Censored Videos of Tibet Uprising") to here for now:

As of 22:00 GMT on the 14th of April 2008, wikileaks appears to be down.

This may only become notable if Wikileaks remains down for an extended period of time. And even then, a verifiable source would be good. --Ernstk (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http://wikileads.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/more-info/ A recent blog post about the April 14th 2008 downtime of Wikileaks.org and other affiliated websites. Rumour has it that China (government or public, I don't know) is initiating DDoS attacks on the Wikileaks servers in response to the leaked images and videos of the Tibetan protests. --142.162.70.157 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that they had a traffic problem several weeks ago [1] ("servers to be unable to meet the demand of over 164 gigabytes of download traffic within twenty-four hours", it is also possible that they could not handle the trafffic. I'm curious to see which it was.--Ernstk (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As of 3:19 EST, its still down. When you ping the server, the request either times out, or you get a message that says, "Destination Host Unreachable". Only the IP given for the "Destination Host" is NOT Wikileak's IP.--*Kat* (talk)

[edit] 2008-05-03 Wikileaks down

  • I tried Wikileaks site and mirrors and using proxy servers: Wikileaks seems to be down. I don't think its my ISP. Has anyone had similar problems? What is it? ISP blocking? DoS attacks? Anthony717 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Several mirrors read "Error 503 Service - Unavailable - Error talking to backend - Guru Meditation: XID: 990002896 - Varnish" or similar. DoS related to Tibet protests? Anthony717 (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Site back up. Anthony717 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)