Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Discussion report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Discussion report

Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Wackywace
The whistle-blowers' website WikiLeaks is leaking 250,000 cables, detailed correspondence between the United States Department of State and its diplomatic missions around the world.

A request for comment (RfC) has been filed over the use of classified documents on Wikipedia as the whistle-blowers' website WikiLeaks continues to publish 250,000 cables, detailed correspondence between the United States Department of State and its diplomatic missions around the world. The contents of the cables describe international affairs from 300 embassies dated from 1966–2010, containing diplomatic analysis of world leaders, an assessment of host countries, and a discussion about international and domestic issues. The documents, leaked to The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El País and Le Monde, have been the subject of much controversy in public, with a number of politicians calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange—editor in chief of WikiLeaks—for leaking the documents. Several days after the RfC was started, there had been much debate over the legal and moral aspects of citing the embassy cables and other leaked documents on Wikipedia.

Wnt (talk · contribs) highlighted ethical concerns, saying that private security systems for storing secret documents are "starkly and diametrically opposite to everything that Wikimedia stands for." DKqwerty (talk · contribs) disagreed, saying, "If leaked classified information is presented to effect any kind change within any institution, then it's certainly not being presented in a neutral fashion (or at least not for neutral purposes). I hope that I didn't misunderstand your comment, but if I haven't then it's implications fall far outside the bounds of neutrality." Wnt replied by stating that "if we accept that the ethics concerns raised by some opposed to using the documents are irrelevant to Wikipedia. However, if we allow ethics to become an issue, then we must think through that issue and recognize that freedom of inquiry is in fact the most ethical policy."

One view, strongly endorsed by a number of contributors, was that of ErrantX (talk · contribs). "The issue of legality is one naturally brought up ... Even if it were, no one here is sufficiently qualified to make an absolute judgement on the matter; this is why the WMF exists," they said. "We can safely work under the assumption that anything 'borderline' will be noticed, considered and commented on by the foundation – and that in lieu of such comments we can assume they have no qualms about our actions. Of course, if editors are still concerned it seems reasonable to explicitly raise it with the [Wikimedia] foundation." ErrantX further questioned the reliability of the cables, saying that they would not class WikiLeaks as "a de facto reliable or unreliable source," and the leaks must be judged on a case by case basis. They said sourcing an article "purely to a cable with no secondary sourcing is unacceptable," and "just because one of the news outlets has picked up the cables content does not mean it is definitely truth." They added: "We should treat each cable with the relative weight of their reliability, context, contents and verifiability. Where a cable is reasonably likely to contain accurate information and a secondary source has taken the same stance then I think we can safely make use of it as a reliable source."

Editor Rd232 (talk · contribs) agreed with ErrantX, adding, "because of the way the cables have been published, with involvement of major newspapers, we can accept that the published cables accurately represent the documents produced by and for the US government; so they are acceptable primary sources." However, they said, "it remains the case that they are documents produced by and for the US government in a particular context of diplomatic communication, and are not reliable for statements of fact; they are essentially statements of opinion." Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) also said that, because the files had been published in respected newspapers, they had little concern over copyright. On the ethical issues of using the cables as sources, they said, "I consider that ethical issues are not relevant to us here, for it is WL that released, and one media station per country has done the spreading. Thirdly, as to authenticity, I am happy to say The Guardian reports the cable saying '[the Sizewell B nuclear power plant] is considered a terrorist target'. Proper attribution is the key here."

ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) suggested WikiLeaks documents could be used as external links in articles, but not as sources. "We should not use the documents as sources due to the high risks of misuse in accordance with the primary sources rule. As much media coverage as there has been and continues to be," they said. "We should have no shortage of secondary sources to cover the contents of the documents." Enric Naval (talk · contribs) opposed this suggestion, however, saying, "I am not comfortable with blanket forbidding the citing of any cable. We don't do this with other types of primary sources." Silver seren (talk · contribs) said the legal issue of the documents would not be a problem for the Wikimedia Foundation. "I am setting aside the classified issue, because it is my opinion that classified information once published is considered to be public access," they said. "Wikileaks can get in trouble for publishing it, possibly, but we cannot since we are essentially a tertiary source for the information. The government would have to sue all of the newspapers, magazines, and journals that also copied over and published the information ... before we could be prosecuted. Of course, that is under the assumption that they are even allowed to prosecute for such as the dissemination of the info, which they are not."

One opinion disputed by several contributors was that of The Four Deuces (talk · contribs), who said no-one could independently verify them. "I see them as unreliable primary sources," they said. "We have no way of knowing that they are genuine and must rely on secondary sources to determine their veracity. If no reliable secondary sources mention a document then it lacks notability. I do not however see any ethical problems with them, since they are in the public domain, especially if we only report what has been picked up by news media." Elonka (talk · contribs) said that, even though they were created by US officials, they may not actually be in the public domain. "Classified documents are still classified documents. Permission has not been given for their public display," she said. Cyclopia (talk · contribs), addressing the issue of verifiability, said, "We also have no way to know if any given new scientific article contains genuine results or is the result of a fabrication: yet we usually assume they're meaningful unless proven the contrary. The default position of both news organizations and governments is that cables are indeed genuine unless differently declared."


The discussion continues.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • I'm not surprised. I routinely encounter Wikipedians who don't understand or don't agree with core policies like WP:Original or WP:Verify. In those situations, pointing to a policy is often not enough; you have to rehearse the rationale behind the policy and make the case that the policy be applied. That appears to be what's happening here. —Kevin Myers 09:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comment --- Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of those documents are works of the U.S. government, therefore PD-US-Gov applies, so where is the problem to use them? --Matthiasb (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Mike Cline (talk · contribs) has pointed out at the discussion page, USC Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 798, Disclosure of classified information, applies here; this is not about copyright. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is a work of the United States government, does not mean that it is automatically in the public domain. Classified documents are obviously not intended for public distribution, so just because they have been stolen, does not mean that they are free to use. And, as pointed out above, classified documents are still classified, even if stolen. They have not been declassified and approved for distribution. It's also worth pointing out that because they are classified in the United States, U.S. law applies regarding their distribution. Since Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, it is indeed U.S. law which must be considered. --Elonka 19:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Everything created by the US Government is automatically in the Public domain. However, "public domain" merely means "not covered by copyright"; it does not mean "anyone can redistribute this for free". In this case I feel that New York Times Co. v. United States is adequate precedent to establish the legality of redistributing the cables at this time (I'm not a lawyer, and in particular I'm not the WMF's lawyer (or anyone else's)). --NYKevin @339, i.e. 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is created by the government, does not automatically mean that it is in the public domain. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. You do raise a good point about redistribution though, that just because something was created by the government, does not mean it is okay to redistribute it. As a simple example: Social security numbers are produced by the government, but absolutely should not be redistributed. As for the NYT case you cite, it's an interesting precedent, but not a definitive one. We still have a situation where it is illegal to do something in the United States, and Wikipedia, since it is in the United States, should abide by U.S. law. This means that Wikipedia should not be used to distribute classified material. If such material is covered in reliable secondary sources, we can of course use those sources for our articles, but we shouldn't be simply using the primary sources to do our own distribution. --Elonka 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Are you trying to say the cables are "works produced by contractors"? I see no other exception there which might apply here, and calling diplomats "contractors" seems iffy. Furthermore, you are assuming "it is illegal to [reproduce the cables] in the United States". While I agree that this is not totally certain, the NYT case casts a lot of doubt on that, and we should assume it's legal until WMF contradicts us, sort of like WP:PERFORMANCE. --NYKevin @958, i.e. 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the stance, "Unless WMF says it's illegal, we should assume it's legal." That is very poor logic. Further, we should be able, as reasonable adults, to interpret laws to some degree ourselves. To me, it is clear that there are laws against the distribution of classified information in the United States. Wikipedia runs on servers in the United States. Therefore we should not be distributing classified information. Now, I will allow that there is a difference between distributing information that is sourced only to a stolen classified cable (a primary source), vs. distributing information that is sourced to a reliable secondary source such as The New York Times. Wikipedia runs on secondary sources. See WP:BURDEN. Contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. It is the burden of those who wish to include disputed information to include reliable secondary sources. Without secondary sources, as soon as anything sourced to Wikileaks is challenged, it should be removed. Then if someone can come up with secondary sources, the information can be re-added, but the default position is to keep challenged information out of our articles until it can be reliably sourced. If our only source for something is a stolen classified document on a Wikileaks mirror somewhere, that is not a solid source. --Elonka 08:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless otherwise falsified the cables are good as source for the individual writers opinions. They will be questionable sources for any described fact, but they will be signed documents from the individual authors. Wetter they are a good source for official US policy is another question, but as those writing the cables are in official roles it would be very interesting if they do not conform to official policy, so interesting in fact that the discrepancy alone would make it necessary to make a note and a reference to the cables. Jeblad (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-12-20/Discussion_report&oldid=1193865879"