Jump to content

Talk:WikiLeaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Dot questionable?

[edit]

@Cambial Yellowing I partial reverted [1], why are the Daily Dot articles questionable? Softlem (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has determined it to be questionable for the reasons given at the time it was raised. It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact. Cambial foliar❧ 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has determined The RSP you cite says There is no consensus.
It does not say It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact. It says there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Why do you think the statements are contentious? If it is we can attribute it like the RSP you cite says Softlem (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but given that this appears to be the only source which makes certain claims, it's more appropriate not to give this slightly dubious source excessive weight in the article. Cambial foliar❧ 23:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again. Why do you think the statements are contentious?
Why is it WP:DUBIOUS? it is not unlikely, particularly difficult to verify, ambiguous and open to interpretation, and no RS makes different claims
Why is it WP:QUESTIONABLE It is not widely acknowledged as extremist, promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions Softlem (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the Daily Beast is not regarded as a high-quality and reliable source, particularly for statements of fact about living people. Cambial foliar❧ 23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer. Please stop ignoring questions.
About Daily Beast, you were blocked for that edit warring last time with no consensus and nothing has changed
And WikiLeaks is not a living person, BLP does not apply to the organisations Twitter account [2] does it? Softlem (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some instances have other sources, so the use of low-quality sources is redundant. Others make claims not reported on by any other sources, not even by better sources (such as Wired) that focus on tech/cyber reporting and that closely reported on WikiLeaks. We ought not to give undue weight to 1 source lacking a strong rep for reliability. Cambial foliar❧ 02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors. You have cited things and said they had consensus for things they did not. You mention other policies that do not seem supported and are not answering about it Softlem (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s time to stop making false claims that I’m ignoring questions. What you mean is that I’m not answering them the way you want. That's not on me. Cambial foliar❧ 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should be using mainstream news organisations with strong reputations, not shoestring sites with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability. Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with The Atlantic. Cambial foliar❧ 05:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability. You described WikiLeaks
Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with The Atlantic You replaced one source with The Atlantic and removed the others without replacing them, or even adding a [citation needed] first like I did
And you still havent explained why it is dubious or contentious Softlem (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first and last sentences of your own comment. Your posts are becoming absurd. Cambial foliar❧ 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My input is probably not warranted here, but I would like to point out that you are not answering. You call the source "dubious" despite the fact that there is no concensus behind it. Leaving unanswered the question of why you think the statements from the source are questionable. 2001:4C4E:1B89:E500:AD0B:C28F:EED7:21DC (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to point out what you claim, but given it's not true, it's not "pointing out" something but merely making a false claim about the above comments. I agree that such input is not warranted, nor is it productive. Cambial foliar❧ 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donations via cryptocurrency: oddly missing from the article

[edit]

The article prose mentions "donation" or "donations" 30 times, and extensively covers bank and credit card donations, and the ectensive efforts of various state and financial entities to stop or halt such payment channels to WikiLeaks. Yet it makes no mention at all of WikiLeaks accepting donations in cryptocurrency.

Odd that. The official website of WikiLeaks, linked as the first item in the "External links" section of the article, clearly indicates that WikiLeaks is set up to receive donations in at least a half dozen digital assets, that do not pass through banks or credit card processing centers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

[edit]

MINOR GRAMMAR EDIT:

Line says "times were" - source article uses grammar that I think is correct "instances where" - if not protected I'd have changed it to "times where".

Line in question:

In response to a question in 2010 about whether WikiLeaks would release information that he knew might get someone killed, Assange said that he had instituted a "harm-minimization policy." This meant that people named in some documents might be contacted before publication, but that there were also times were members of WikiLeaks might have "blood on our hands."[50] One member of WikiLeaks told The New Yorker they were initially uncomfortable with Assange's editorial policy but changed her mind because she thought no one had been unjustly harmed.[50] Delicious Edits (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Askarion 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:NOTLEAKS announcement on the top

[edit]

I think it's very necessary to add the announcement about "WikiLeaks is not part of, also have no relations with us Wikipedia" at the top of the page. But I can't find a proper way to add it. So I want to ask others' opinions about this suggestion. Awdqmb (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence anyone is confused?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a problem many years back with people who clearly were confused posting hostile comments on this talk page: see e.g. this [3] discussion. I'd be surprised if it is still happening now with enough regularity to be an issue though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

[edit]

The word "raided" is mistakenly repeated in the sentence "In March 2009, German police raided raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany and the homes of Theodor Reppe, who owned the registration for WikiLeaks' German domain while searching for evidence of 'distribution of pornographic material'." 2001:16B8:DEF:E100:507E:A9D5:6C00:932C (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mindmatrix 15:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump–Russia relations

[edit]

Is this really relevant ? 2600:1700:2120:7DD0:3D7B:12EB:4BE1:F386 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thats how templates work Softlem (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]