Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Edit request from Douze-bis, 10 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the top right corner of the page, please add "wikileaks.vc" to the list of top-level domains for wikileaks. Thank you. Douze-bis (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do it, although that list is getting a wee bit long for an info box. For the record, what classifies this as top-level rather than 'just a mirror'? Ocaasi (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ccTLD wikileaks.ax is pointing to WikiLeaks as well. Apasmara (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

civil war at the heart of Wikileaks

please add this information to article:

• Secret war at the heart of Wikileaks;independent:
• At least a dozen key supporters of the website are known to have left in recent months. They say Wikileaks has ignored reams of new exposés because so much attention has been paid to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts
• WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety (Oct. 23);The New York Times:

Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he(Julian Assange) alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”Lookhot (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2 sources you provide aren't enough to include the premise I don't think + its very tangential to the Times article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• firstly :Independent:"At least a dozen key supporters of the website are known to have left in recent months"

this is a very important matter

• secondly: both independent and nytimes confirm Conflict in wikileaks+in nytimes;other important mater:

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said. Lookhot (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TROLL also WP:NPOV sums this discussion. Focus on the article please. Phearson (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

please read exactly Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and if you repeat personal attack ;I report a policy violation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Lookhot (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lookhot, if you want us to include some specific item in the article, please provide just a simple summary, with a link to the source. This isn't a forum for general discussion of the subject, and it is far from clear what you are expecting us to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a simple summary and exactly answer to your comment about important matter Lookhot (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with adding a section on the "dozen supporters who have left WikiLeaks recently," is that it is a vague statement that has not been well substantiated anywhere beyond the Jerome Taylor's account in the Independent. In Taylor's article he does not indicate who these people were (are they staff members or volunteers), why they left (there is only a single vague sentence in the Independent's article), and what the impact on WikiLeaks has been. We need more reliable sources indicating why this topic is notable before it can be added into the article. –TheIguana (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception by Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation

A serious case of censorship towards a section I have added. My addition about the reception of WikiLeaks , (especially during the last events) keeps getting reverted. I would like to say about my edit: 1.It is true that Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia have increased their warnings seeking to detach themselves from WikiLeaks. This has been documented and it's pretty obvious to every user and reader of this article. 2.Jimmy Wales has been an outspoken critic of WikiLeaks as shown in the sources I provided. I think Wikipedia being one if not the most important page that links to WikiLeaks and it's mirrors as added by any user should be referenced in this article in the section Reception as I originally intended. It is important and notable in my opinion to inform that even The Wikimedia Foundation, Administrators and Jimmy Wales himself have reacted towards the controversy of WikiLeaks by declaring the importance of detaching the project from any relation with WikiLeaks. This reactions have been covered by the media for the past 3 months since WikiLeaks released the Iraq War Logs.

I include the text i added and that has been reiteratively removed by User:AndyTheGrump whom has been actively deciding on what should and should not appear on this article. I should add that if you see the History of the Article, Andy has basically hijacked the article deleting and permitting editions at will. Thanks

Wikipedia and The Wikimedia Foundation

Template informing users thet Wikipedia and Wikileaks are not one and the same

Wikipedia and The Wikimedia Foundation have increased its warnings and disclaimers regarding the common perception by the general public that Wikipedia and its sisters projects have any relation to WikiLeaks.source

This assumption is the result of the common word Wiki used in both portmanteau words Wikipedia (wiki and encyclopaedia) and WikiLeaks (wiki and leaks).

With the goal of detaching even further from WikiLeaks and its related controversy Wikipedia added a template informing users that both websites have no relation whatsoever. This template is visible during the edition mode of the Talk Page of the WikiLeaks article. Founder of Wikipedia, member of the board of trustees of The Wikimedia Foundationsource and most well-known spokesperson of the Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Wales has been outspoken in his criticism towards WikiLeaks. AP reported in September 2010 that Jimmy Wales said in regards of WikiLeaks :

“ The issue that I have with WikiLeaks is they have a tendency to just want to publish absolutely everything, and I think that can be very, very dangerous ”

source

In addition Wales has expressed that if he ever had secret information WikiLeaks would be the last place he would send it to.source source

Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my actions regarding this article, you are free to bring them up at the appropriate places. Before you do this though, I'd recommend you look again at your edit, and ask whether it is actually of relevance to the article topic? This article is about WikiLeaks, not about Wikipedia, and I removed your edit (once) accordingly. Since you have brought my neutrality into question, I'll not intervene further, but leave this for others to deal with (and I should be in bed by now, so I can't be bothered to argue anyway...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have brought them up, I brought them up and I am explaining them. There is a section about Facebook in the article and this article is not about Facebook either, there is a section about Moneybookers and this is not an article about Moneybookers, my addition refers to the reaction of Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation towards WikiLeaks and its existence..this is the Wikileaks article isn't it? or do you expect me to add it to the Wikipedia article? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you study further the way editing on Wikipedia is done. You added text that seemed inappropriate to me (though this is a matter of opinion), and as is normal procedure, I reverted (once), and asked you in the edit summary to discuss the issue in talk, per WP:BRD. Had you followed proper procedure, rather than accusing others of 'censorship', you might find more sympathy for your arguments. As I said earlier, I'll play no further part in this, though I'll comment in passing that I think you are placing far too much emphasis on this particular issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to go through any procedure when i am collaborating with the article with the most fundamental of requirements.1.My addition is factual and is within the scope of the article. 2.Is properly sourced. 3.Is notable because Wikipedia is among the top 10 websites in the world, therefore a position taken towards WikiLeaks is a position that should be accounted for in this article. Also, I am not looking for sympathy about my addition. As long as my addition is logical and reflects my goal of making the article better it would/should be obvious that the edit should fall into place. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources you cite (with the exception of the source quoting Jimmy Wales) are all Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation's website. I think citing the board page is legit under WP:ABOUTSELF, but otherwise these citations are unduly self-serving. Has the press covered this? Is it a notable phenomenon? As far as I can tell, Wikipedia's warnings and disclaimers have not been covered by the mainstream press, and this material is unduly self-serving. By contrast, the only self-published source in all the other information about other organizations' responses is this one, but there are three newspaper articles indicating the notability of what Amazon has done. I would find a newspaper article on Wikipedia's reaction to WikiLeaks if you want to include information about it in the article. The closest thing I can find to press coverage of this is "I think that the folks at Wikipedia are acutely aware of this potential disaster and are working to separate themselves as best they can.". That sounds pretty good, but read in context, it's just conjecture. The post makes no reference to the WikiLeaks article on Wikipedia.--Chaser (away) - talk 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump and Nymf who both reverted this edit, the latter citing WP:UNDUE. The comment by Chaser above is also correct. It is highly desirable that the hatnote and the article briefly mention that there is no connection between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks because many readers are confused about that point, and it is a key fact that anyone interested in this topic should know. However, the text proposed by Camilo Sanchez is not helpful for an understanding of the topic (which is WikiLeaks). Further, the proposed text is essentially WP:OR since it is not supported by any secondary source. Facebook is mentioned because it apparently took an action against WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks complained. Moneybookers ceased collecting donations for WikiLeaks. These actions are not comparable with Wikipedia attempting to correct a misunderstanding about names. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you bringing WP:UNDUE into this? The hatnote about Wikipedia not having connection with WikiLeaks is the opinion of Wikipedia and The Wikimedia Foundation itself. Besides, all I am doing here is saying that my text simply takes into account the reaction of the organization and its most visible spokesperson towards WikiLeaks in light of the events of the last 3 months.If WikiLeaks was not/had not been a controversial website Wikipedia nor Jimmy Wales would have had said anything about it in the first place. Explain to me how is not that related to WikiLeaks, how is it not notable and how is my sources OR? It has become fashion now that whenever anyone wants to make an addition to an article that is receiving a lot of attention editors just start citing WP:This..WP:That without actually paying attention to the original intended goal. Also, what are you talking about the sources? I am providing links to media outlets that have interviewed Jimmy Wales (member of the board of trustees of the WM foundation) where he has talked about WikiLeaks and has given his opinion about it. There is a link to him talking to Charlie Rose on TV, how is that OR???--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez, I respect and support your editing on this and I believe you have made a great case for inclusion, both policy wise and notability wise. But your addition just,by nature not intent, feels too self (Wikipedia) oriented and grants too much( and any is maybe too much) attention to the messenger, or in this case, the messengers' editor. It just distracts from the many more important aspects of this event, I think. Ignore all rules seems to reasonably apply a lot in the development of this article and this may be another example of that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I must add to what you say, that it feels too self is in fact one of the reasons why I think it's important to add this section. How can you determine it is too self? Because it's a text that refers to Wikipedia within Wikipedia?.How do you determine it feels too self? In my opinion, the concept of too self as you have pointed out, is the reason why is not being added to the article more than anything else. In my view a very very weak reason not to include it.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Camilo Sanchez, can you find any outside sources commenting on Wikipedia's coverage of the WikiLeaks issue, or on the disclaimers? As Chaser indicated above, this might indicate that the subject you wish to have included is notable. To me this seems too much of a side issue: we are trying to avoid comments of uninvolved third parties (even notable ones) on WikiLinks being included in the article unless the media see them as having significance, and this seems very much in the same category. The article seems long and complex enough already to me, without adding peripheral detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:WikiLeaks#The_alternative. But I agree that this only gets at most a sentence or two. It's just not that relevant to WikiLeaks or these cables.Ocaasi (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have included the reaction of Jimmy Wales to WikiLeaks widely covered by abc news and the guardian, I have included the image of a Template telling users that Wikipedia has no connection with WikiLeaks. Also, regarding the discussion above, I think that discussion is centered around the hatnote, which I personally don't care about. I am talking about the whole attitude of The Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales towards WikiLeaks, in my opinion a pretty notable part of the internet in English. Keep in mind that Wales is the same guy hitting us for money every year for The Wikimedia Foundation...if that doesn't make him the spokesperson of such organization I don't know what would then. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't leave the picture of the template, because no outside source, let alone a reliable one has reported on it. Once the Guardian does some coverage of our template, then we can add it. But until then, it has to go. Ocaasi (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh give me a break will ya? . We need another source to report what we all can see? That's like saying we need a source to report that the wikipedia logo is gray. Don't they have a WP:COMMON SENSE here?--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We have WP:NOR and WP:IAR. The first tells us not to be our own sources, and that if something is really common sense, others will have noticed and reported on it, too. The second tells us to ignore that rule only if it really helps the encyclopedia. There's a small tension there, but we are extra-careful not to invoke IAR when it comes to content issues about Wikipedia itself. Self-reference is unbecoming for a serious encyclopedia, and we don't invoke it often, especially without sources. Moreover, the article about Wikileaks has the disclaimer at the top of it. Readers can see it. Is it really notable what the talk page edit template says? In other words, this is not just about sourcing, but about importance. Sources haven't mentioned it, probably, because it's just not that interesting. When Jimmy Wales goes on an hour-news show and blasts WL, that's interesting; but our internal site-notices are kind of mundane. I do think there's an argument for including a small bit about the serious coverage that has happened, but not the template part. Ocaasi (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on a reliably sourced section, start here. Ocaasi (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the template added in the article, I am refering to the template on top of the form when one is going to edit the talk page. The one I am adding in the image. I can careless for the template on top of the article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant the template, the one on the talk page. They can see both of them, but the talk page is particularly not-notable. Ocaasi (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted at this point to leave a message on User:Jimmy Wales's talk page, to see what he thinks, though frankly I suspect it would be a waste of time - this is just too peripheral to the article topic. I'm not sure I'd really call Wikipedia 'a pretty notable part of the internet in English', as flattering as this is, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't think is a big part of the internet ???check this out --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- just the opinion of a "mostly reader, not contributor" person. I think there is enough documentation to justify a separate free-standing page about the confusion of the general populace regarding "wiki-" anything. A google for "wikipedia confusion wikileaks" results in many pages (outside of wikipedia) that mention this. I agree that this factoid does NOT belong in an article about wikileaks per se, but why not document it elsewhere? Cheers 70.179.23.9 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea: see Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia. Ocaasi (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

cia front

why not mention of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfasdfysd89fy98 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We need sources, not theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Voila, but as it states "All bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy theory of course." I don't really think it merits a mention at present. SmartSE (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.91.177.15, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please replace "On 8 December 2010 the international civic organisation Avaaz launched a petition in support of WikiLeaks, which was signed by over 250.000 people within the first few hours." by On 8 December 2010 the international civic organisation Avaaz launched a petition in support of WikiLeaks, which was signed by over 300.000 people within the first 24 hours.

209.91.177.15 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we'll need a source that actually gives numbers: preferably an external one, rather than Avaaz itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, There does seem to be a number cited (here). I'm not entirely sure we can accept this as WP:RS though. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The site is listing the number of people signing the petition but what concerns me is it is a live tally that will not be particularly useful in the future if someone goes back to check the citation. If they were posting press releases for every milestone of signatories then the situation would be different and the numbers could have some use alongside secondary sources. My other concern is that I have not been able to find other reputable news articles with the number petition signatories beyond the German article that is currently being cited. –TheIguana (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed this before. If a newspaper was reporting on the fact that the avaaz petition had that many signatories, it should be included, but until then, linking to the petition in the article is too much like promoting the petition, which I don't think is appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not STATS, not NEWS, etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Maksmund, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Mirror List

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 1885 sites (updated 2010-12-12 11:54 GMT)

Maksmund (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source, such as a newspaper (not the list of mirrors) to confirm this? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The figure of 1885 mirrors comes from wikileaks.ch at [1], and is currently in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible bias editing

I'm sure in the last 24 hours this has been edited.

"The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[4] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine[page needed] describe Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, as its director."

From what I recall, the past paragraph mentioned it MAY have been and in a context of that it was a group of nationals. Also the reference [4] make no links to what is claimed above. I believe this maybe due it being used for a pro-Chinese forum discussion elsewhere.

Anom Dec 5 2010, 5:50 am (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.133.198 (talk)

Note about association with Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Several users have asked that an uninvolved editor assess the consensus here. I have read over the discussion twice now, and I see sufficient consensus to expand the intent of Wikipedia:Hatnote to cover this situation. For now at least, the disclaimer/hatnote should remain in the article. NW (Talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Not to be confused with...

What's this "Not to be confused with other websites such as the Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites that use wiki software and culture"?

I don't recognise that from other disambiguation messages. This sounds more like a pr comment on behalf of the WMF, and implicitly judgmental given the implication of wikipedia choosing to distance itself from this particular web site but not from say meatball wiki or wikianswers, rather than something you'd expect in an encyclopedia promoting a neutral point of view. 92.39.205.102 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair. Wikileaks is in the news a lot. There are probably a lot of people who think they're related.

On the flip side, there are probably some bozos out there who've given money to the Wikimedia fundraising drive because they think they're supporting Wikileaks.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Look up on this talk page. It used to be a section by itself, but I noted that it sounded exactly like what you say; PR. I wanted to remove it altogether. CompuHacker (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it from a silly 'this is nothing to do with us' disclaimer abuse of 'see also' into something more closely resembling a genuine attempt at reducing confusion. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is worth investigating, but considering Mr. Jimmy Wales funding drive it may be worthwile. Specifically, I draw attention to the idea that I am regularly correcting people letting them know that Wikileaks is not part of the Wikimedia group. I think that the negative publicity that Wikileaks is receiving on an escalating level may be harmful, even slightly perhaps, to Wikimedia. There is far to much hard work in Wikipedia and related sites to allow any undue negative publicity to go unchecked. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict WP:NODISCLAIMERS policy which means pages can contain offensive, harmful or illegal content (depending on jurisdiction), and there is to be NO warning. This policy should be respected.

Also note that anybody who has enough knowledge that they have even heard of the Wikimedia Foundation is likely to understand that that Wikileaks is not a part of it. OTOH, Wikipedia itself is much better known than the Wikimedia Foundation and there is a genuine chance of confusion. Therefore 'not to be confused with Wikipedia' is more than sufficient. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A peek on m:Foundation wiki feedback on any given day is going to show that a lot of folk manage to find their way to Meta from the fundraising page and give ... ah, feedback ... on that page quite often. Kylu (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

According to swedish Aftonbladet, the judge Assange saw today said wikipedia when he meant wikileaks. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8241411.ab Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the disclaimer appears to be politically motivated, either out of a kind of "It wasn't me." response or else as a tacit condemnation of Wikileaks. This doesn't seem very non-POV to me. Additionally it should be noted that "wiki" is a word in common usage and not in some way the property of Wikipedia or the WMF. Furthermore I have never seen a note quite like this anywhere on Wikipedia before, form and neutrality should not be influenced by prevailing political climate. Given these facts I would strongly suggest and lobby for the removal of the aforementioned note.92.3.72.57 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as a living project and non-profit project, desires to have its readers: a) know what the organization does in its name and with their money; and b) wants them not to think that an encyclopedia the sole mission of which is spreading encyclopedic knowledge has also been publishing classified information leaked from national governments and multinational corporations. In other words, it is political, but it's not anti-wikileaks, it's pro-survival of Wikipedia's reputation. Simply, WikiLeaks is a very hot button, and we want to make sure no one avoids Wikipedia because they don't want to touch it. It's not us!. That's all it says. Ocaasi (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not trying to condem WikiLeaks at all. It's driven from the fact WP/WMF has been receiving misplaced hatred and abuse by people who are under the incorrect assumption that this place and WikiLeaks are one and the same. Not only is the abuse just unwarranted, but it also wastes the time of the volunteer response team who have to deal with emails all day, every day. It's also not the most ideal opinion for people to have during a donation drive... The hatnote's only purpose is to clear confusion. If you could suggest a much improved wording, then we would love to hear it. --Dorsal Axe 23:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difficult position that Wikipedia and the WMF as a whole are in. But I maintain that an encyclopaedia should not make ANY political statement whatever the motivation. We have to ask ourselves whether the academic integrity of Wikipedia should be compromised because of outside political machinations. It's a matter of principal.92.3.72.57 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have replaced the hatnote at the top of the article and tweaked it to make clear there is no association between Wikipedia and Wikileaks. OTRS has gotten over 50 emails about wikileaks in the three days this has been on the In the news section on the main page. Some have been simply confused, but others have been quite angry. A clear hatnote is good editorial practice.--Chaser (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's narcissism that places undue coat-rack-y weight on a comparatively minor issue. We should not add distraction to the article solely in the name of our non-objective personal/community views of the distinction's importance; to do that is to editorialize. Also, hatnotes are supposed to be disambiguatory; this one isn't, it doesn't involve page titles being confused. It's legitimate article content which is now covered in the lede anyway. Unless one is such a pessimist that they don't think readers even read the freaking lede, the hatnote is duplicative and unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just replaced the hatnote. This talk page is getting abusive comments from people who don't seem to understand the distinction. Fact. I'd call that a clear enough justification for 'disambiguation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of inappropriate talkpage use to article content / hatnotes. By that reasoning, a whole crap-ton of articles which people frequently post to the talkpage asking questions about would need FAQ "hatnotes"; this not being the case, I don't a see policy/guideline/best-practice-based reason supporting having the "hatnote". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, ask yourselves this: Would Citizendium's "WikiLeaks" article have such a hatnote? Why? If the answer is No, then I argue we're violating WP:NPOV. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what NPOV has to do with correcting a common misunderstanding? In any case, Wikipedia does lots of things to encourage users to edit in the correct place. How is this any different? If people think they are addressing WikiLeaks when contacting or editing Wikipedia, are we not permitted to point out they aren't? The similar names are clearly causing confusion, and where confusion is likely, we disambiguate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers. Yes, normally we would not refer to Wikipedia, but in this case it is extremely helpful to explain a very common misunderstanding, so the "Wikileaks is not related to Wikipedia" hat note should be at the top of the article. There is no NPOV problem: we're not claiming that "wiki" implies "Wikipedia", and we're not presenting a view about WikiLeaks or Wikipedia: it's just a simple fact that many readers are confused about the point, and the hat note is helpful. We don't have a bureaucratic set of rules that prevent helpful text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cybercobra. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Get rid of it.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Citizendium argument is really right. The problem is, a reader here could think that because this is Wikipedia, and if Wikipedia were connected with Wikileaks, it might not cover the article completely or fairly due to some internal conflict of interest or for other reasons. To illustrate this in a different context, consider that the Wikipedia article also has a hatnote, "For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About." Yes, Wikipedia wants to present all content neutrally and without intruding itself into the process, but there are times when it is necessary to do so in order to prevent doing so. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apt analogy to Wikipedia's selfref note; I won't dispute that selfref note's existence further. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet again the hatnote has been reworded. It now reads "Not to be mistaken as being associated with Wikipedia", which looks to me like ungrammatical nonsense. Can we at least try to agree the wording, and stick with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I go into edit mode, I get a message at the top that says: Please note that the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely has an article about WikiLeaks.

If it's good enough for us editors to be informed in this very explicit, unambiguous way, it's good enough for our readers to be so informed. Let's copy that wording exactly to the article hatnote. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad idea in several ways; 1: 50 emails is nothing 2:Overt and disputedly unnecessary dis-association with a controversial entity is a weaselly type of pov; e.g."Wikipedia has no connection with the U.S. Government." 3:if its about name similarity then you ought to put it on every other article with wiki in it,now and in the future.

Get real, this "hatnote" ,is not cool, its paranoid narcissism in a very mild form. Our readers and editors aren't as illinformed as this "hatnote" assumes. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit w.r.t. the "hatnote."

See Talk:WikiLeaks#Hatnote

Can the existing hat note please be changed to something more professional? I.e. How about the initial text in the box above the edit winbdow, "Please note that the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the encyclopedia Wikipedia."? brenneman 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Only semi-protected, I now see. Apologies for being an idiot. - brenneman 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I made exactly the same suggestion @ Talk:WikiLeaks#Hatnote above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the non-action on that suggestions was what made me mistake this for full-protected. I was bold, and went ahead and made the change. - brenneman 11:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See hatnote, this is no agreement to even include any kind of hatnote, so the wording composition is moot at this time, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a degree of self-reference in the hatnote. Jimbo has pointed out in interviews that he receives e-mails from people who think that he is responsible for WikiLeaks [2], but there is no need to overdo the lack of a link. Personally, I would support removing the hatnote and leave pointing out the distinction between the two sites to the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is currently pointed out in the article body. See first paragraph of WikiLeaks#Name_and_policies. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The big advantage of a self-ref instead of distinguishing them in the text is prominence. Given the still high readership of this article and the fact that we are in the middle of a fund drive, I think making this as clear as possible to potential donors is wise. I am not expressing an opinion about WikiLeaks itself. But if people have this misimpression, we should proactively clarify.--Chaser (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The people most likely to be confused (and irate), are probably also the most likely not to read the article carefully before responding. This isn't normal policy, but then it isn't a normal situation, I think common sense probably suggests erring on the side of clarity, even if it looks a little strident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I might agree on a very practical level, but tailoring article pages to accomodate the confused and irate of this world might be a slippery slope, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be. I'd suggest we'd probably do better to wait until we see evidence that it is. Sadly, slippery slope arguments tend not to be particularly helpful when dealing with single events rather than trends. This is an admittedly-imperfect fix for a specific problem. Maybe a better long-term solution could be arrived at if it recurs, but for now we just have to make do the best we can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But its not a single event. Its the 3rd or 4th with the "big bank" thing to come,they say. Also, the New York Daily News ran a poll last week asking "Is WikiLeaks right in making these 'secret' documents public?"70% of the respondents said "Yes, the people have a right to know." So, I just don't see where this is a problem that needs fixing, at least not at this time. What's more important, I don't see where there is a consensus that the Hatnote is needed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for removing it, for that matter. Can I ask why you think this specific hatnote is problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that this is a clumsy solution only well suited for these rather extraordinary circumstances. If these pageviews go down, I'd be willing to experiment with removing the self-ref and see whether we're still getting confused messages about this.--Chaser (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To AndyTheGrump, I just don't see the need for this one, but I accept that others do see the need. Actually, I just realized that I haven't been considering the Volunteer response team in my thinking about this. I can see where the hatnote would help them. I'm ok with Chaser's plan. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Someone removed this claiming that talk page discussion showed a clear consensus against it. I'm a participant in the discussion, so I won't evaluate consensus. But I will count heads. Here's the count I get (support is those supporting a note in some form, which form has evolved over time):

• Support (9): AndyTheGrump, Brenneman, Chaser, Jack of Oz, Johnuniq, Randy, Sumbuddi, Wnt, 66.110
• Comments suggesting support (2): Grabergs Graa, Kylu
• Oppose (5): CompuHacker, Cybercobra, IanMacM, Sushilover, 92.39
• Unclear (1): Mr.Grantevans2, who spent most of the discussion opposed, eventually agreed (directly above) to my suggestion to use it while page views are high and we're still getting messages reflecting a confusion.

The head count suggests that consensus is anything but against this clarification.--Chaser (away) - talk 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I reverted the first removal made today by Reisio, but did not want to get into an edit war over it. Anyway Reisios statement in the edit summary that "status quo is best" is not in favour of his position, since the status quo included the hatnote. You can add me to the supporters btw. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote is completely ridiculous, inappropriate and out-of-keeping with out normal style. It makes us look like petty fools. Hatnotes are not a place to make announcements on behalf of the Foundation which it hasn't even asked for. No hatnote is needed because the "wiki" prefix is no-one's property, and if it were needed then the normal form would be nothing more pointy than "not to be confused with". --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

None of this addresses the comments made by others regarding why the exceptional circumstances make the hatnote necessary. FormerIP may know that "No hatnote is needed because the "wiki" prefix is no-one's property", but it is evident from comments received on this talk page (and elsewhere) that the world at large is very prone to assume it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those rare situations where we need to forget about things such as "normality" and "encyclopedic". It's all well and good saying that most situations wouldn't call for this. But let's get real. This isn't most situations. The fact of the matter is that people are coming here and mistaking WikiLeaks and Wikipedia/Wikimedia as being one and the same, firstly the fact they all have "Wiki" in their names, and secondly because they use the same software and consequently appear strikingly similar. Even some other Wikimedia sites have had to put up notices, due to complaints and abuse being sent through and other such nonsense. This is a one-off article, where we need to make a distinction up top, because it's clearly not clear enough without. Even the judge who presided over Assange's hearing yesterday mistakenly confused "WikiLeaks" with "Wikipedia". --Dorsal Axe 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes are not, per se, a place for correcting alleged common misconceptions. That would be giving undue weight to information that may (or may not) be appropriate in the body of the artcile. A hatnote would be appropriate if it really can be shown that people commonly believe that Wikileaks is the same thing as Wikipedia or Wikimedia. However, this is not the same thing as believing that Wikileaks is associated with WP/WM. To put a hatnote in on that basis would not be following our normal way of doing things. If a hatnote is needed (which it isn't) then wording it in the same way of other hatnotes would have the advantage of not giving people the impression that Wikipedia is populated by...petty fools. --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop referring to people who disagree with you names, per WP:NPA, and then address the issue at hand, which is the unusual circumstances, that many see make this necessary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant as a personal attack and I honestly wasn't referring to anyone in particular. The question is: do we want wikipedians to seem like petty fools? That may not be intended or deserved, but I think it is the impression given out by the current hatnote. There don't seem to me to be any "unusual circumstances" that would require us to deviate from our normal mission - to write an encyclopedia and leave our affiliations, insofar as we are capable, at the door. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that many people visiting the page do associate WiliLinks with Wikipedia etc, and some have indicated so by posting comments here. Though it is a little more explicit than is usual, we do similar things on 'normal' pages. For example, the page for Mike Hancock (UK politician) has a hatnote reading For the mayor of Brantford, Ontario, see Mike Hancock (Canadian politician)., in spite of the fact that entering Mike Hancock in 'search' leads to a disambiguation page anyway. All it is doing is ensuring that a common error is corrected in as clear a way as is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "Mike Hancock is not associated with...", because that type of wording would seem to general readers to convey an editorial stance (it would be worded disclaimer-style). A hatnote that said (for example) "For the online encyclopaedia see Wikipedia", although I would think it unnecessary, I would find much less problematic. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does "For the online encyclopaedia see Wikipedia" make clear the fact that there is no association between WikiLinks and Wikipedia? This is the common misapprehension we are trying to correct. As for taking 'an editorial stance' I'd say that we should take one if the stance is that people shouldn't be confused over the issue. Frankly, I am at a loss to see what is so objectionable about the hatnote anyway. It is nothing more than a short statement of verifiable facts, with appropriate links should anyone be interested in learning more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here is irrelevant

I've removed the hatnote again. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is currently marked as a "content guideline", but it's generally treated as policy, and such widely accepted principles (with whatever sort of colored rectangle at the top of them) are not subject to a single-page consensus to ignore them. I understand how that notice comes to be on the article; really, I do. But we don't make exceptions elsewhere for such self-reference disclaimers, and we shouldn't do it here. The editnotices are enough, and if they aren't enough, clear prose in the lead would be, without the need for a disclaimer that invites every other page to have one if one editor thinks it is needed. Again, a consensus of editors here is not sufficient to justify restoring the disclaimer. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the hatnote in question is in fact 'a disclaimer', but frankly, if people wish to argue that petty adherence to (supposed) guidelines is more important than actually giving people the information they clearly need, I can't see much point in continuing this debate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I think the point is that "information that is clearly needed" in this case belongs in the article, rather than in the hatnote. Hatnotes are not for dealing with common misapprehesions. They are for alerting readers that there is another article which might be the one they were actually looking for. I don't think that arises in this case. In the event of a consensus that it does, then there are more neutral and standard ways of wording the hatnote. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we'll reach 'a consensus' if that means getting everyone to agree, but I get the impression that a majority of those who've been involved in this discussion have wished to see a hatnote clarifying the situation. I don't see any way a 'standard' hatnote can be found for what is clearly a non-standard situation, and instead will ask if you can suggest any wording that you would find acceptable, while still making the relationship clear? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages: [...]" So, it's not a disclaimer by the stipulative definition of the guideline. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy: the only non-standard situation I see here is people wanting to use a hatnote for a purpose it is not normally used for. Material intended to educate people belongs in the body of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As Cybercobra (who is opposed to this note last I checked) points out above, this is not a disclaimer. Therefore, WP:NDA does not apply.--Chaser (away) - talk 03:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Call me Undecided actually. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that anyone who has a firm opinion on this issue shouldn't be taking part in the debate (!). It is a fluid situation, and we are making it up as we go along. We will probably need to have an 'inquest' afterwards, and maybe look at setting firm policy for the future, even if that policy is 'when the rules don't make sense, ignore them', which I thought was more or less policy anyway. Maybe we're getting over-involved in this - It is just words onscreen, and I suspect many of the visitors to this page couldn't tell a hatnote from a hacksaw. I think the hatnote is a good idea, but I can't prove it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rules may be what you are thinking of, but I don't think that is particularly helpful here.--Chaser (away) - talk 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NDA guideline really refers to disclaimers about the article content; this is all covered by the existing disclaimers. The current hatnote isn't quite the same. It's really more of a notice to make a distinction, if anything. Personally, I agree with the editors who feel that this is a one-a-kind circumstance where the guideline should be overridden/ignored. I admit that the wording is perhaps crude (though not as crude as it originally was), and should perhaps be revised. However, I feel that the principle for its inclusion is very much valid. --Dorsal Axe 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's completely specious logic to proclaim that the "no disclaimers" policy prevents us from being able to note this here. For one thing, as has already been said the policy applies to article content, there really is no precedent for this specific circumstance. Secondly and even more important, consensus is what policy is based on in the first place, if consensus indicates that an exception should be made we can safely ignore the rule in this case. I'm saddened by how many users these days insist on slavish obedience to policy instead of using common sense and granting the occasional exception to a rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Move the "wikimedia" disclaimer

The disclaimer that wikileaks aint connected with wikimedia or wikipedia needs to be struck. It is stupid. Nobody who knows what's up would ever confuse the organizations. It seems to me that this disclaimer is put in the article to try and stave off lawsuits or something. That may be fun, but it aint encyclopedic. Cut it!

And another thing: we need to put in the damn article that wikileakes aint really a wiki, As I say, wikis need to have the page be able to be edited by the people. You caint do that stuff with wiki leaks. That dude steals the wiki name for his own fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.112.145 (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument is fallacious in that relatively few people know what a wiki is and many would therefore be confused. The disclaimer isn't obtrusive and harms nothing, while serving a useful purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An italicized notice at the top of the article isn't obtrusive? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above on the first point. No opinion on your second point.--Chaser (away) - talk 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To your second point, it's covered under WikiLeaks#Name_and_policies. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer is a shame. Wikipedia removed the medical disclaimer (Template:Medical disclaimer) in medical articles because people must read the "Terms of Use", but this one about WikiLeaks is showed because "it can harm the Wikipedia reputation". The Wikipedia =/= WikiLeaks disclaimer must be showed, if any, as an explanation inside the article text. Also, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. emijrp (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That guideline does not apply. From the stipulative definition at Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles#What_are_disclaimers.3F: "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages". The note at the top of this article duplicates none of those disclaimers. Therefore, it is not a disclaimer and the guideline does not apply.--Chaser (away) - talk 15:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Towards the end of this article (subsequently quoted in the Guardian) it says: "The Wikipedia folks are hanging onto wikileaks.us, wikileaks.com, and wikileaks.net". Are they wrong or is there some tangential connection?--83.41.189.195 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Why don't you read the link in the disclaimer? It tells you why. [CharlieEchoTango] 17:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Under the circumstances perhaps that should be in the body of the article? I imagine that not many people will click the three links in the banner. The "information" has already been quoted in the Guardian.--83.41.189.195 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer

The hatnote

Note: WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

violates the widely accepted notion that disclaimers should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Please remove it ASAP. Thank you. --78.35.193.225 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above (credit to Cybercobra for noticing this), it is not a disclaimer.--Chaser (away) - talk 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Or more specifically, it isn't a disclaimer as defined in the article you have just linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, so basically WP:IAR. I get it. All hail the hypnotoad. --78.35.193.225 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... not even that. WP:NDA specifically refers to disclaimers covering article content, which are highly discouraged as they are already covered by existing disclaimers (and because we would once again end up with tons of unnecessary notices pointing out very obvious things, like "ZOMG SEXUAL CONTENT!1!!" on the Sex article, for example). The current hatnote isn't duplicated or replacable by any existing disclaimer, and isn't referring to article content, so therefore its not directly covered by the WP:NDA guideline. Even if it was, I'm not even sure WP:IAR would even be necessary, given that the guideline does state that room should be allowed for particular exceptions. Whether this, in itself, should be an exception is still very much up for debate though. --Dorsal Axe 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why you think this useful piece of information (see above) shouldn't be included? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dorsal Axe: the disclaimer is referring to article content. It is basically saying "all the article content below is not about something associated with Wikipedia".

Andy: Hatnotes are not normally used for highlighting miscellaneous useful information, which is reason enough in itself to get rid of this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We've already voiced abundant good reasons for keeping it. We need to avoid confusion on this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "abundant" is an accurate characterization. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the reasons expressed are good enough to take an unprecedented step like that. It smacks to be of a lack of objectivity over a trivial issue. I'm not sure how COI is supposed to work where being a wikipedian is what's giving rise to it, but that's the problem we have here. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to see a good argument for removing the hatnote, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or 'it isn't normal'. I can't see any COI at all, either. As it happens, I don't like that we have to include the hatnote, but all the evidence I've seen suggests that there is frequent confusion over the issue, and clarifying this right at the start seems to me to be the best option I've seen so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're putting the BOP back-to-front, Andy. Inclusion of the hat note is highly irregular (which no-one seems to dispute), so it should stay out until such time as there is a community consensus to include it. Confusion there may well be, but it has never been the purpose of hatnotes to address the existence of confusion per se. There's no good reason to change that in order to address this specific (trivial) issue. --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So your objection is 'it isn't normal', and you think we should continue to ignore the confusion until we reach a 'community consensus'? As I see it, Wikipedias first priority should be it's readers, not to the obsessions of its editors. If you think this is a trivial issue (I don't), I have to ask why are you so concerned to get it changed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"It isn't normal" is more than good enough as an objection. We have policies and guidelines and we need good reasons and consensus to deviate from them, not to stick with them. As I've said the hatnote creates the impression that wikipedians are self-regarding and lack objectivity, and it's on one of the currently most viewed pages. It's damaging to WP is why is should go. iPlayer, iRiver, iGoogle etc etc may all be mistaken as being products of Apple Inc. Lemmings don't really commit mass suicide. Richard Branson does not own Virgin Records. But none of this information is detailed in hatnotes in the relevant articles. Why? Because we are not serving our readers well if we give undue weight to random information. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote is essential to inform readers, many of whom are genuinely of the view that "WikiX" means "X is associated with Wikipedia". Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No. For any other article we use article content, not hatnotes, to inform readers. We use hatnotes only to redirect them. --FormerIP (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...And the hatnote redirects people who think that Wikipedia and WikiLinks are related to articles that show they aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Those people are not in the wrong place, though. Its a misuse of the hatnote and it makes us look stupid. --FormerIP (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

When someone comes to the Wikipedia WikiLeaks article thinking it is the correct place to contact WikiLeaks (usually with abuse), they are in the wrong place. I'm still a little baffled as why you think this issue is 'trivial', but spend so much time arguing over it...AndyTheGrump (talk)

This hatnote absolutely is not referring to the content. It is simply saying "X is not the same as Y", not "disregard all the below". I think it should be rewritten to read more like it's for clarification, rather than some sort of legal statement to distance ourselves. That being said, it doesn't violate WP:NDA, and even with a lot of stretching I can't see how that guideline could be applied here. Please, lets focus on the real flaws. --Dorsal Axe 11:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a disclaimer, per any of the 5 in WP:disclaimer. It's disambiguation per WP:Hatnote ("Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself") and WP:DAB ("Users searching for what turns out to be a homograph may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with a title that is a homograph should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one of the templates shown below"). These have more leeway to inform readers for their understanding and to avoid confusion. We're not telling them, 'be careful, this article is about classified information; we're saying, 'just so you know, one wiki is not another, and since these have been confused in the media especially recently, we're going to tell you what this is and is not'.

This hatnote cannot be compared to medical or other disclaimers, because there are thousands of medical articles and tens of thousands of articles with medical information or claims. Presenting a disclaimer in any of those situations would imply that its absence conferred a meaningful lack of risk. That is not the case here; there is no risk we're avoiding. We're disambiguating for reader awareness, and we do it all the time.

That said, an acceptable alternative is a short sentence at the end of the lead which reports on the confusion which has been documented in reliable sources. One sentence should do, either way. We can stretch DAB or strain LEAD and WEIGHT, but either way this information should be in the article. Ocaasi (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IAR

Given the extraordinary level of vitriol directed at WikiLeaks, and that Wikipedia is a community-edited and largely community-funded encyclopedia, this hatnote may be the best application of WP:IAR I have ever seen. Get over it, and go do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This a common and widespread confusion; and during the current furore it is sensible to inform visitors that we are not associated with them. If for nothing else than to avoid user confusion --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely baffled by the arguments made over the hatnote. Get over it guys, lets stay focus on the article itself. Phearson (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest anyone who thinks there is no need to make clear the difference between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks with a hatnote or similar to take a look at some of the vitriol here...AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Best Reason of All,imo

Actually I find the reasoning related to assumptions about how the public feels about WikiLeaks to be irrelevant,kindof mousy and according to most polls,e.g.[3] dead wrong.

However, I changed my mind into accepting the hatnote because of Chaser's edit which informed me of the existence of the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team which has to deal with whatever emails are coming in from the confused masses. I just think it is such a service to the Editors that these volunteers are willing to do this kind of work, which I wouldn't last a day at I'm sure, that if a little thing like a hatnote makes their work just a little bit easier, I'm all for it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The alternative

The alternative to this no-hatnote brigade is an actual paragraph in the article.

• "Somewhere around 250,000 internal cables from the State Department were posted on the website, which has no connection to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia." http://www.journalstandard.com/opinions/columnists/x1497405755/MY-VIEW-Wikileaks-new-pants-needed

• "WikiLeaks has no connection to the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS4FZ20101129

• "Wales has criticized Wikileaks before. Some of this bad blood stems from the fear that some people might associate Wikileaks with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation." http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/18/jimmy-wales-wikileaks/

• "'We try to tell people we have nothing to do with Wikileaks everyday.'" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11928899

• "'I have absolutely nothing to do with WikiLeaks and I don't even approve of what they are doing,' he said. 'I would distance myself from WikiLeaks. I wish they wouldn't use the name. They are not a wiki.'" http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=11742766

• "Instead of blaming Wikileaks, Sarkozy talked about the irresponsible behaviour of Wikipedia, the weekly writes, and “recalls” that Wikileaks is an organization which has been publishing the contents of confidential diplomatic documents for several days, whereas Wikipedia is a harmless encyclopedia. " http://www.emg.rs/en/news/world/141243.html

So, take your pick. A full paragraph with a sentence in the lead, or a hatnote. Or... both. Ocaasi (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, noting this in the lead is the right way to go. Given the opposition to a hatnote, I'm not sure why this hasn't already been done. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems clear now that majority opinion is against it, I've removed it. In an ideal Wikipedia, this means we now continue to discuss. Is this one? --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't work by 'majority opinion' but by discussion with the intent to find consensus. Secondly, I can't see any evidence for your 'majority' anyway. How about giving specific reasons for removing the hatnote, rather than procedural waffle and 'WP:IDONTLINKEIT?. If you want further evidence of why it is necessary, see here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If "procedural waffle" ( I prefer to say "policy-based discussion") and IDONTLIKEIT are out-of-bounds, then I don't see what other types of comment I'm allowed to make (!). The reason IDONTLIKEIT is I think it makes Wikipedia look foolish. The fact that there may be brand identity confusion out there is unfortunate, but we should chill out. We don't normally use hatnotes to defend brandnames from misunderstandings. There's no reason to start now and we give the appearance of having a poor standard of objectivity if we do. My procedural waffle argument is WP:BRD. Inserting the disclaimer was a bold move. I've reverted it. Now we discuss until there's a consensus. That's just the way it's supposed to work.

Incidentally, your link is exactly what we shouldn't be paying attention to. Regardless of where it is hosted, it is just an internet discussion forum. Under normal circumstances, we ignore internet chatter. And, so long as we maintain a cool head and a sense of proportion, these are indeed normal circumstances. --FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"We don't normally use hatnotes to defend brandnames from misunderstandings". True. We don't normally need to. Now how about giving a reason why you think this makes Wikipedia look foolish, and why the desire for us not to look foolish should override the need to clear up a common misapprehension in a simple and obvious way. Wikipedia's first priority should be its readers, not the over-sensitivity of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If we start bending our own rules to suit our own purposes then that is exactly what visitors to the page will see. Normal Wikipedia style is familiar to people and the proposed disclaimer sticks out like a sore thumb as being non-standard. Visitors to the page presumably want information about Wikileaks and we can give them that, including the information that it is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no need for us to go OTT and pester them to notice that bit of information above anything else. In the current context, it is way down the list of important things to know about Wikileaks. The bottom line is that we should, at all times, try to write the encyclopaedia objectively. If we break with that objective as soon as we perceive that our own interests are at stake (I would maintain that they are not in any case - Wikipedia is not going to be damaged by this episode) then I think we have the wrong attitude for the job. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the purpose of an encyclopaedia was to impart knowledge. I doubt that the disclaimer 'sticks out like a sore thumb' to most readers in any case, since they are unlikely to be familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia hatnote policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please list reasons for removing the hatnote: no disclaimers; makes Wikipedia look foolish; anything else?

Some claim that WP:NDA ("No disclaimers in articles") applies to the hatnote Note: WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.. That claim is not correct: WP:NDA is about disclaimers such as "article includes spoilers" or "not suitable for children". The hatnote is not a disclaimer: it provides key information that needs to be presented at the top of the article, but which is not appropriate for the beginning of the lead. This is a very rare situation which is exactly why WP:IAR was established: we know that a lot of readers are confused and think that "WikiX" implies "Wikipedia", and with no hatnote those readers think we are presenting an article on ourselves. The hatnote provides useful information, and without it we look foolish (writing an article about ourselves).

In the absence of a sound reason, the hatnote should be restored. No alternative is necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming WP:NDA. I'm just saying follow normal procedure until there is consensus not to. WP:IAR was most definitely not established in order for us to bend the rules to suit our own self-interest. Clarification as to who exactly runs Wikileaks is appropriate for the body of the article. There is no emergency here and if you think there is then draw a deep breath and think about it. The most important point, though, is that normally we require sufficient reason for an unusual step, not insist that an unusual step is okay because we're unconvinced by the arguments against. What good reason is there for the note? --FormerIP (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But why do you think this is "bend[ing] the rules to suit our own self-interest"? I'd say we are 'bending rules' to suit the interests of our readers. The fact that their interests (in not being confused over the issue), coincide with ours, doesn't alter the fact that it is worth doing for the readers. What harm can it do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly bending the rules to suit our own interest because we wouldn't dream of putting a similar disclaimer above the article for iPlayer, Mornflakes or, for that matter, Coke (fuel). The interest of our readers is, as always, to be given the best information we are able to provide with due prominence to each item. Considering that their leaks are in the news daily and their founder is currently in police custody, promoting their lack of association (judging from the above, it may even be questionable whether this is accurate in the first place) with Wikipedia to greater prominence that anything else is most definitely not in the interests of out readers. --FormerIP (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The other things you list are not currently the subject of a worldwide media firestorm.--Chaser (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, why would Coke (fuel) need a hatnote? The '(fuel)' bit is clearly there to avoid confusion. Actually, from what you've just written, FormerIP, I'm not sure that you aren't a little confused about the relationship between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks, which seems to come down to an issue over a few domain names registered for legal purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not need to add hatnotes to articles alerting readers about brand name confusion unless we have evidence that there is significant confusion. Also, brand names are defended in courts of law, and while we respect relevant law, it is not our role to act as brand name police. In the case of WikiLeaks, we know that many people think its name implies a strong connection with Wikipedia, and brand names are not relevant. Accordingly, the hatnote makes sense here to inform readers. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Johnuniq) How about the fact that the requirement for brevity makes the hatnote false by way of omission? That's at least as much a concern to me as the manner in which it makes us look both foolish and unable to cover ourselves neutrally. You will object that, in fact, "WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation" is plainly correct, but a neutral presentation of our non-association ought to explain that Wikia still holds some domain names for Wikileaks, and that Wikia, apart from being run by two prominent members of the WMF board, has donated office and server room space to the WMF. You can't fit that in a hatnote, but any claim that we're "not associated" (which I agree with) ought to present that factual material if we are going to observe WP:NPOV with regard to ourself. If we make that assertion at all, we must make both sides of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Except the "other side" of it is a small, inconsequential detail that is a consequence of defensive registration of domain names when WikiLeaks was calling itself the Wikipedia of Secrets (or something like that), which point is thoroughly covered in WP:WIKILEAKS, which is linked from the note. Conflating the two entities is a far bigger deal. What you're talking about is a mere trifle. Not every little detail triggers NPOV.--Chaser (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When we are covering ourself, especially when we are trying to distance ourself from controversy, every little detail does trigger NPOV, because there is just too much room for well-meaning editors to bend things in our own favor. We would never claim that every Wikipedia editor editing about Wikipedia runs afoul of the WP:COI policy, because that is not what it's meant for, but in practical terms we all do have a conflict of interest when we write about Wikipedia. If we can't do it neutrally, we shouldn't do it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

@Gavia immer: I agree that it is reasonable to be puzzled about Jimbo's fairly strong statements re WikiLeaks while bearing in mind the domain name issue. My response is that it is highly likely that the innocent explanation offered by Jimbo is valid, and it is not relevant to the issue: people really do think that WikiX means "part of Wikipedia" (and they don't mean in some technical sense, they mean "Wikipedia is hosting leaked documents"). Accordingly, the hatnote is not misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Headcount again

I ran the numbers again:

• Support (14 users, one IP): AndyTheGrump, Brangifer, Brenneman, Chaser, Dorsal Axe, Errant, Jack of Oz, Johnuniq, Mr.Grantevans2 (changed mind), Ocaasi, Randy, Rd232, Saddhiyama, Sumbuddi, Wnt, 66.110.6.119
• Comments suggesting support (2): Beeblebrox, Kylu
• Oppose (6 users, 4 IPs): CompuHacker, emijrp, FormerIP, Gavia immer, IanMacM, Sushilover, 92.39.205.102 / 92.3.72.57, 78.35.193.225, 189.149.112.145
• Unclear (1): Grabergs Graa, Phearson
• Undecided (1) Cybercobra [4]

These may be helpful to any admin called here to assess consensus. But in the meantime, the headcount, particularly among established editors, is clearly in favor of including the note. On that basis, I have restored it.--Chaser (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If I got my page history right, I am the one who complained and had that hatnote created in the first place. Now I see what I've unleashed. CompuHacker (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I reread a whole ton of information regarding public confusion about Wikileaks and Wikimedia and decided to try removing the hatnote and this page notice one time to see the reaction. CompuHacker (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Update again: I will not remove the page notice of this talk page. Just the hatnote for now, and if anyone disagrees undo it. CompuHacker (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this has gone far enough.

The hatnote in the article should be removed when the media fuss has died down (whenever that is :)) but it should stay for the time being. It is clear that not everyone likes the hatnote.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We're considering replacing the hatnote with a dismissable sitenotice; see the discussion here. --Dorsal Axe 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On the mainpage, really? That almost seems too much. Ocaasi (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The original proposal was a mainpage notice, which I personally don't think would ever happen due to the large and largely unobtainable consensus that would be necessary for such a change. And personally I think that would be a bad idea to go ahead with. Now we're looking at the idea of a MediaWiki:sitenotice, which could be dismissed forever once read. It might be preferable to the current hatnote. --Dorsal Axe 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this has gone far enough. I originally supported the disclaimer on this article, but this is just preposterous. I hereby withdraw my support for the hatnote on this article, since it is obviously a very very slippery slope. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Refactored by moving this from it's own section below to here, keeping discussion together. split discussions are harfmul. - brenneman 08:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I support the hatnote, and the current wording is neutral and factual. - brenneman 08:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I also support the hatnote. ----Divebomb is not British 10:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here and I'm going to not AGF and say that I suspect those against it to wish Wikipedia was associated with Wikileaks. Given the current confusion I fully support the hatnote in it's current state. [CharlieEchoTango] 10:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think those comments just demonstrate the hysteria that seems to be clouding the judgement of some editors. There is no need for the hatnote and it makes us look foolish. Anyone visiting the page has presumably come to it in order to read the article. All we need to do is make sure that the article communicates all relevant information. We don't need to give undue weight to our own pet concerns. --FormerIP (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, can you stop referring to people looking 'foolish', just because they don't agree with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm concerned about the hatnote because, as a Wikipedian, it makes me look foolish. --FormerIP (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a little idea, would it sound less distancing if we took out "Note:" and it just said 'Wikileaks is not affiliated...' Ocaasi (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't have "This article is about the whistelblowing website Wikileaks. For the online encylopaedia, see Wikipedia". The only conceivable objection I can see to that is "not enough drama and our parochial concerns are not sufficiently underscored". --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the text is phrased to be a little judgmental as possible. We're not ashamed of Wikileaks, or even passing judgment at all. It's just a disambiguation issue. Wiki is a new concept and people associate it with the place they learned it first, Wikipedia. Since WikiLeaks is in some people's eyes trying to overthrow world governance at the expense of American foreign security (not my personal opinion), a very small pointer is really not that big a concession. If anything, we might be better to just explain the background briefly, and say, "Some media have confused Wikipedia and WikiLeaks. Though both operate through voluntary contributions, the organizations are not related." Ocaasi (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to avoid miscount, I should say that I have been previously commenting as 92.3. (finally remembered my password) I just wanted to once again reaffirm my opposition to the hatnote. I agree with FormerIP on almost all points, but would additionally like to point out that the Hatnote is effectively a Press statement from Wikipedia and and encyclopaedia article is not the place for a press statement. We should not compromise form because of Self-interest (namely avoiding abuse that is intended for Wikileaks). Like everyone else I hugely sympathise with the Volunteer Response Team, who have to deal with it, but we cannot compromise NPOV, and, hell, the purpose of Wikipedia to be an objective, crowdsourced body and hence protected from being motivated by self-interest. I feel that what the hatnote represents is a relinquishing of our principles for the sake of avoiding (possibly) being caught up in a media storm.Scrooge (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding this discussion being put in a templated box

I'm suprised to see that this discussion has been "closed". I don't think that all the participants in the discussion above had finished saying what they wanted to say, and there was ongoing discussion only minutes before. - brenneman 05:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

AgreedScrooge (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When they came for the Communists I wasn't concerned: I had clearly stated publicly that I was not affiliated with the Communists or Communist foundations, and when they came for the Jews I wasn't concerned: I had clearly stated publicly that I was not affiliated with the Jews or Jewish foundations. And then.... 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this has gone far enough.

<<refactored, there is disucssion at Talk:WikiLeaks#Oh, this has gone far enough. that this section goes with better>>

May need to revisit splitting up article again soon

Hi-just a note, this article is getting pretty big >140kB again. We may need to revisit splitting off sections to the related pages, or paring down the article a bit. When you click on the edit button, the page takes awhile to load, and I'm sure it's getting a lot of hits. Would like your help and/or suggestions, please! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as I mentioned above we could split off any attempts at censorship/lawsuits into a separate article. Reception of WikiLeaks is another option, but this could perhaps be dealt with better by moving statements about specific leaks, rather than WL in general, to the specific articles related to the leaks. SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of the statements in the section are about Wikileaks in general, though I may be misinterpreting it all. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea about moving the more detailed information about the specific leaks to their related articles. That would be a good place to continue to pare down the article, as you guys discussed above. This article will continue to get bloated, and it shouldn't be just a collection of all the published news source quotes from around the world, without any real focus. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's 9,000 words of readable text, which is at the upper end of the range on Wikipedia:SIZE#Readability_issues.--Chaser (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I also favour splitting the censorship/lawsuits to a separate article, as mentioned two times above. I quickly scanned the whole article and it seems that there is far too much weight on administration and reactions by others, at the expense of what Wikileaks actually does: leak. I would therefore favour simply moving the leaks sections from 2006 to 2010 up to just below the History section (or to within the History section). My view may be motivated by the fact I first heard of wikileaks in connection with Kenyan scandals, and then later by leaks about toxic dumping in Africa. From my European viewpoint the current article is, understandably considering wikipedia's demographics, too oriented on matters concerning the USA. -84user (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

info is repeated in this article.

in paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 (under history) this phrase appears:

"founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".[2]

can someone please remove one of these instances? I tried, but must have funked up a citation in a bad way in the process. I don't know, but someone undid my edit. help. S*K*A*K*K 03:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. The phrase is important to the general lead-in on what WikiLeaks is and to the history section on WikiLeaks founding. –TheIguana (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence regarding 2009 needs a little help with its grammar

Currently: "These were originally created to prevent access to child pornography and terrorism, but the leaks revealed that other sites that are unrelated to these." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.80.210 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone fix the spelling errors

"Organization" is not spelled "Organisation". Will someone please fix this mistake. It is made multiple times.

See WP:ENGVAR, this article currently uses British English, so it is not a mistake. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not read this engvar policy. it's sounds like something out of orwell. but i do know what british english is. so, why does this article currently use birtish english? is there some queerball english that's neither british nor american but perfectly non-offensive and straddly? that seems like it would be perfect for wikipedia. S*K*A*K*K 03:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no. And such a hypothetical dialect would involve quite awkward circumlocutions to avoid using non-dialect-agnostic terms. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The word is spelt "Organisation" in the U.K. variety of English. While it is understandable that people around the world will be unaware of how English words are spelt in all the different varieties of English, it is unforgivable that some people remain ignorant that different varieties of English even exist, (have a wild guess at which country breeds such woeful ignorance). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 13:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I rissent dat. FWIW, the majority of the business-doing world isn't English speaking so that they can communicate with the UK. Nonetheless, this debate is silly and just requires a touch of education. It's just spelling; the words mean the same. Ocaasi (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As a user of neither US nor British English (although I do admit my Australian version is closer to British) I see two kinds of "incorrect" spelling corrections in Wikipedia. There are those where the author knows that more than one version of English exists, and uses the wrong one. These mistakes happen through misunderstanding and are made by users of all versions. Then there are those who don't know that another version beyond their own exists. I have only ever seen the latter mistake made by Americans. This little thread is but one example. As a global encyclopaedia, our job is education (ignorance can be cured), so that must be our approach to such errors, but gee they're frustrating! HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It only seems to be Americans who are unaware that other varieties of English even exist. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be pointy at what country is ignorant of the different spellings. People could view it as a personal attack. But could we all be in consensus that there are different variants of English and that they are acceptable in this article per WP:ENGVAR? Phearson (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia policy is to use only one spelling variant in an article, and where applicable, this should be based on the preferred usage of the subject matter. WikiLeaks is an Australian organisation, and as such uses 'British' spelling. (It calls itself an 'organisation' as another poster has already indicated). I think I've already commented on the fact that with a rapidly-changing article like this there is bound to be some inconsistency, and that it may be difficult to keep everything entirely in order, so we need to be a little tolerant for now. Note also that the tag {{Use British English|date=December 2010}} appears at the top of the article edit page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This chart in pay prove helpful to this discussion.

Phearson, I have no problem with someone being unaware of the different spelling for different words in different English-speaking countries. But, some of us a bit fed-up with Americans who automatically assume that every non-America spelling for a word is simply wrong, (even when they're in foreign jurisdictions!) I encounter that kind of ignorance/attitude in the business world all the time and it pisses me off (and American firms frequently lose my business because of it). Rant over. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get upset about the spelling errors! It's not worth it. I know that many Americans don't realize that there are spelling differences out there; that's a fault of our education system. I realize that an article like this will have both the versions in it, as someone stated above. I would like to point out that even the WikiLeaks site isn't consistent: on their main page, see: wikileaks.ch, they use the spelling "organization"; and on their About page, see: wikileaks.ch/about, they use "organisation". Also, I'm not sure that WikiLeaks can be considered an Australian organisation, they seem very elusive about their mailing address, and the original wikileaks.org was registered in California, and sunshinepress.org was registered in Stockholm, Sweden. But I'm fine with using British English throughout, but just want to remind editors that if it is a quotation, WP:ENGVAR states to use the spelling form from the actual quotation, even if it differs from the rest of the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

google pushing wikileaks site down!

http://213.251.145.96 used to be top result, and now it is about 5th [5]. please put back this main ip in the side box on the article. thanks. 216.80.93.67 (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The new main address seems to be wikileaks.ch, and there are many mirrors, which the infobox no longer lists. People do not usually access websites via the IP address, so there is no need to give these while there are plenty of active mirrors. Wikipedia is not responsible for how Google lays out its results, and they change frequently so it is hard to keep up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider putting http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable/ as this is coming top in Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeowch (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful. Listing the main address is really all that needs to be done. We don't need to worry about the current top result on Google unless there is proof that Google is doing something to lower it. Phearson (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving problem

Have I missed out on something, or have some of the old talk page threads been deleted rather than archived?

This edit by MiszaBot I said it was going to archive conversations into Archive 2, but it didn't do so for those ones. Not even for threads that had many replies.

A similar bug seems to have occurred with 9/11 conspiracy theory talk page archiving.

Either that, or MiszaBot I is really a CIA operative... Andjam (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I see you have already posted a message at the bot's Talk page. The bot's contribution history for 2010-12-10 around 15:43 shows that it normally copied sections of other talk pages to their archives before deleting, but in Wikileaks case it appears to have just deleted. I then manually archived the lost talk sections from this revision into Archive 2 - I got a "Spam filter notice" referring to leaks dot viviti dot com, so I had to obfuscate that link. -84user (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would be because that was being spammed, and was added to the meta blacklist after being added here. Good catch Andjam! SmartSE (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.207.199.34, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

easyDNS was never subject to a DOS attack with respect to wikileaks. easyDNS was never knocked offline as a result of these non-existent attacks.

What did happen was an internet backlash ensued against the company until it got the word out that it had been confused with everydns. Later, the wikileaks fallback domain wikileaks.ch (operated by the Pirate Party of Sweden) and wikileaks.nl started using easyDNS for DNS services.

See the timeline of events from easyDNS http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/07/timeline-of-an-epic-fail-the-wikileaks-takedown-fiasco/

66.207.199.34 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please offer a specific suggestion of what should be changed, and what it should be changed to? --Elonka 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from I9avici7a5, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I9avici7a5 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what change do you wish us to make? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, either this is vandalism or a mistake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

New Air Force image

See right, picked this up off Huffington Post (PD due to being a US federal work). Feel free to use if useful. I'm in the process of obtaining a higher-quality version. Dcoetzee 00:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether the image is valuable or not, but think the phenomenon could do with better coverage in the article. It's not a minor thing that's going on IMO. It would be nice to have a catchy name for it too (as with Great Firewall of China). The best I can think of at the moment is to say that this employee has encountered a Nyet-isburg Address. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Giving it your own name is original original research, FormerIP, so I'm glad to say we won't be using that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pah! Don't nobble my meme before it can even walk. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

lede is pro WikiLeaks, not neutral

Given the intense criticism that Wikileaks has received from so many unrelated quarters, the glowing praise of the lede seems biased. And as mentioned above, I am not sure why the article does not mention that Jimmy Wales & the Wikipedia Foundation has been critical. Do others object to moving a summary of criticism to the lede? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I teeter back and forth sometimes with this. My only concern with giving criticisms in the lede is that it would be NPOV. Though wikileaks has received intense criticisms, it has also received a lot of support. Would you have any specific rewording in mind?74.83.33.194 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added 'controversial' to the first sentence, which probably helps a bit, though maybe it needs more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this has now been reverted (with a less than helpful edit summary:diff). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Describing it as controversial in the very first sentence is major POV. Something to the effect could fit in one of the other paragraphs further down, though. Nymf _hideliho! 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that there is little question that WikiLeaks is controversial. How is stating this POV? Note that I added it in response to suggestions that the lead lacked neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial is an adjective that can mean many things. It doesn't tell us that many governments and large corporations hate it. The controversy could be over something entirely different, such as a display of pornography, or blasphemy. And it is inevitably someone's opinion, even if it is many peoples' opinion. Such adjectives may make editors feel better, but don't really inform the reader. Adjectives rarely help at all in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, you wouldn't describe the U.S. as "The United States of America is a controversial federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district," even though they undoubtly are. See the problem? It is not neutral. Not even Islam mentions any controversy in the lead. Nymf _hideliho! 19:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that Islam is any more 'controversial' than Christianity, but then, as an atheist, I wouldn't. The USA is another matter. I'd see nothing wrong in suggesting that some of the reactions to WikiLeaks from US sources were controversial, but the USA does a lot of other things other than reacting to leaks. Given that WikiLeak's actions are designed to cause reactions (positive and negative), one might suppose that they'd not object to the description. Still, if the consensus is that my edit was incorrect, I'll accept that. I still think that the OP's point that the lede needs balance needs addressing though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it does mention support of wikileaks more than criticisms. There is mention of the support of Russia, and awards it has received. Maybe moving the comments made by the government of Russia? There is still the talk of awards, which do seem to show wikileaks in positive light. Then again, they are relevant to the article. Does have an opinion about these? 74.83.33.194 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "Several of Wikileaks publications have caused (major) international controversies." with approriate sources?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that that would really lead to an appearance of neutrality. The way to make the lede neutral would be to remove all the gratuitous praise I think, e.g. the Russian government's opinion that Assange deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. A simple sentence along the lines of, "While many have commended the work of WikiLeaks, others have criticised it as being irresponsible". The rest belongs in the support section. At the moment, it looks very pro-Wikileaks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

it is relevant to the lede that wikileaks has won awards. I would suggest it would be more fruitful to add some instances of criticism to provide a more rounded lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that a sentence like "Several of Wikileaks publications have caused (major) international controversies." would do the job. I would also remove the statement from the Russian government, which only seemed to be eager to score some extra points. The rest of the lead is fine and does not deserve a POV tag.--spitzl (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly it would be a start if the statement from the Russian Government (which according to WikiLeaks cables may be a mafia state) was removed. Such a statement looks to be an obvious geopolitical ploy to damage their strategic rival, the United States, rather than sincere.

Then, it needs to be at least clear that all of the awards were given before WikiLeaks started getting a lot of criticism from governments. The recent revolt within Wikileaks is not mentioned, the release of names of Afghan & Iraqi informers which drew criticism from human rights groups and Reporters Without Borders, the damning critiques of Assange by Daniel Schmidt & a number of others who have resigned citing Assange's irresponsibility & bias. And of course, the fact that these recent actions -- especially the 'Cablegate' -- has been condemned by many governments. I think all of this is too much for the lede, so in the interests of neutrality, it would be better to cut back on the praise. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that statement by Russia, we were having a similar discussion over at Assange's bio and have removed the nobel info from there, so it seems stupid to mention it here but not there. I think we should probably try a major rewrite of the lead somewhere, as it is currently too short for such a long article, but don't think the POV tag is necessary at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I added criticism, which it did lack entirely. I also updated the description of the kind of media they publish. Check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism you added was unsourced and another has reverted it, can you add sourced criticism? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While I concede there is a problem with the lede, I have removed the criticism just added by Occasi, as it seems unsourced, and vague. Which Government is making criticisms? Which Journalists? And who's 'public opinion'? The Amnesty criticism needs to be put into broader context too: they were not criticising WikiLeaks per se, but the release of particular details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a draft, paraphrased from this article's own criticism section. I beefed it up with new sources and added some more specific phrasing. Please work with it to make it sufficiently detailed. The NPOV problem is there and needs to get fixed. Ocaasi (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do recent edits justify removal of the neutrality tag? Ocaasi (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't realise you were still working on it, though really with an article getting this much attention, drafts are probably best done on the talk page. I've added 'in the United States' to the section about negative public reactions (per sources), but otherwise it seems somewhere about right to me. Others will no doubt wish to comment, but I'd say the tag can go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The changes all look good to me. My concerns about bias have been mostly addressed with the new wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not really happy with the sentence "Negative public reactions in the United States have characterized the organization as irresponsible, immoral, and illegal". It is definitely true but it is also true that media reports have also praised WikiLeaks for supporting public accountability, breaking the heavy veil of government and corporate secrecy that is slowly suffocating the American press, and improving democracy in general. Either we include or remove both, positive and negative reactions from the lead.--spitzl (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, that this is part of the criticism overview, specifically the part dealing with polls. If there is praise, we can include that as well where it fits in the first half of the paragraph. Also, if there are polls which show public support, we can include them. The current phrasing isn't even intended to imply that all public reaction was negative, only that the subset of reaction which was negative had those reasons., which from my quick glance showed that about 60% of people surveyed thought WL was harmful and in the wrong. What's you're suggestion? Ocaasi (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...See 'Opinion poll results in 'Criticism' section' below for more on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx Ocassi for changing the lead. I'm ok with it now.--spitzl (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion poll results in 'Criticism' section.

An editor has just added the results of a poll conducted in the USA by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. I'd like to ask other contributors whether they think this appropriate? Personally, it seems inappropriate to me, as only of passing significance, and as only reflecting the opinions of US residents - this is an international encyclopaedia, after all. I'd also ask whether it should go in a section entitled 'criticism' in any case, given the fact that the results are mixed pro and anti. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Think this shouldn't be included on the basis of a primary source, at least. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We can easily find secondary sources for stuff like that.

Public opinion is relevant because it shows the character of the times. There will be more polls later, and we can cite them, too. We have entire articles on public opinion of certain issues.

The fact that it's only about U.S. opinion doesn't matter. Just because we don't have one yet on non-American opinion doesn't mean we won't have that eventually.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion its not about the source, since int. media has already picked up on the topic (see e.g. the Washington Post [6]). The real question is, whether we should include national polls to the article at all, given the risk that we might add too many country specific polls. Above all we also have to answer the question, which country polls we should and which ones we should not include. Are polls from the US [7], the UK [8], Germany [9] noteworthy? What about polls from other smaller countries? Personally I have a rather mixed feeling about this. At the one hand I do believe that such polls add interesting/valuable information. On the other hand I can't really answer the questions raised above. How was this solved in other articles? --spitzl (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC) (I added the poll to the article)

Wikileaks isn't all about the USA. Find a global poll and I'll be happy. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All points mentioned above are reasonable, with the exception of the absence of one point: the majority of leaks have focused on US foreign policy, war-making, and diplomacy. That gives US public opinion particular relevance to this article, though not exclusively of course. Ocaasi (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? In Australia, our media is giving us lots of stuff from Wikipedia about our government. Maybe it's a reporting bias in each country that leads to you only hearing about the American stuff. (I'll concede an assumption on my part that you are American. ) HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That goes for Sweden as well, but it´s still reasonable that US opinions has somewhat more weight since all the leaks are from their diplomats (I think). Opinions from other countries are of course also interesting, as and when they become available. I´ve only seen web-polls in Sweden though.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that U.S. opinion has more weight. We shouldn't need to hold off on documenting public attitudes until Botswana's population is polled.

That would be like saying we can't do an article on Wikileaks until they've posted leaks from every country.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has published information from sources worldwide. Though the recent leaks are from US diplomatic cables, they have hardly reflected well on many other countries. Wikipedia is an international project. US public opinion does not have more weight over this issue than any other - to suggest it does would be to set an extremely bad precedent. (And I happen to think the population of Botswana is more likely to be objective about the issue than some of the participants here) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the particular case of the United States diplomatic cables leak. I assumed that was what the poll (which I haven´t read)mentioned. But even if it is about Wikileaks publications as a whole, the US-related ones have been, imo, the most notable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote no. Phearson (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the average Botswanan probably cares more about the Geneva Conventions than the average Wikileaks supporter, but that's hardly the point.

Wikileaks is worldwide but its impact is not. The U.S. and its allies have troops in the field who've been put at somewhat greater risk.

Still, editors are free to include surveys from any nation as far as I'm concerned. It's even important for Americans to know which side the rest of the world is on. I just don't think some of them should be back hostage until those other surveys are in.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Americans are not the only ones to visit the English WP. Just wanted to point that out. Phearson (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's indeed worth pointing out. I would think that when Manning is presumably tried, and perhaps never again sees the light of day, I would think non-Americans would be interested in knowing why most Americans are glad of it.

Likewise, I would think that Americans would be curious to know who non-Americans feel.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that citing exclusively "American" (i.e., U.S.) opinion estimates is very dubious for the purpose of this page, particularly as "criticism", which it isn't. It is, at best, a snapshot measure of general opinion of one particular segment of people, and which may change rapidly, and can not even reflect any general opinions outside of one particular arbitrary segment of the world, even temporarily.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider discussing edits here first then, rather than ignoring Wikipedia WP:BRD policy? I agree absolutely that the opinions of US citizens shouldn't be taken in isolation, but blatant editorialising isn't the way to rectify this. What we actually need is a wider perspective on the question. How about looking for some opinion polls from elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee these won't be forthcoming. Opinion polls are done to measure the opinions of "consumers" who are relevant to profit-making. There won't be any wider perspective because there are not enough businesses who care to fund the acquisition of that wider perspective. Mark my words.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'guarantees', I'm interested in evidence. Have you actually looked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...If you had, it probably wouldn't have taken long to find this, from Angus Reid. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Eh, a couple 'America Juniors' is not quite what i had in mind by "wider perspective". Was thinking more like Africa, South America, Asia. Won't hold the breath.Ronaldc0224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Given that we now have another opinion poll (above), covering Canada and the UK, as well as the US, Would it be worthwhile creating a 'public reactions' section, where we can report both pro and anti-Wikileaks poll results? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have a "public opinion" section, where we can add the other polls from Britain, Canada and Germany.--spitzl (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

About format, style, content, etc.

A couple of things that I wanted to notate, and would like input and assistance with:

1. The "out of date" template in the Hosting section - is there someone that could update this section, so this template could be removed? Or maybe the out-of-date content should be removed? It sure seems like it's been there a long time.
2. Use of flags in the By countries sections--probably not a good idea, because of the reasons listed at MOS:FLAG. Maybe section headers should be used instead? Also, in the "Praise by governments" section, the United Nations is NOT a gov't, it's an organization, so that needs to be moved somewhere else.
3. Regarding the sections scheme of the "Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance" section and then, later on, the Support, praise by gov'ts, and then the related Criticism and Criticism by gov'ts-- this is getting a little confusing to readers, including myself. For example, in the many paragraphs about the USA's involvement, there is significant overlap with the Investigations section, the Criticism by gov'ts section, and the Potential criminal prosecution sections. The chronology of the sections doesn't seem to follow either. Whereas the Leaks section is listed by year, the Praise and Criticism sections seem to be mostly about the "new" praise and criticism out there, mainly after the last leak. There needs to be more continuity between all these sections.
4. The article is getting too big again (over 157 kB), and the emphasis on recentism needs to be pared down. Just opening up the edit button tends to freeze up my browser at least 15 seconds, if not crashing altogether. If we keep reporting in the article on every single thing that happens, we could write a book.
5. Regarding the Hosting, Name Servers, and Site mgmt issues sections, maybe these could be combined, since they're all about related topics concerning the infrastructure of the website?

Looking forward to your comments, help is always appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:#4, Editor Lihaas previously removed the government praise and criticism sections entirely. I reverted, since I wasn't sure where that content should be, but on second look, I think it indeed would be better at the Reactions to Cablegate article, especially, because it is mostly recent responses as you said. That's a big chunk, like 10k, so, a start... Ocaasi (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea--the info about the reactions to Cablegate is probably already duplicated at the reactions article. Maybe the amount of info about that subject on this article could be pared down and moved over to both the contents and reactions articles? It surely would be a start! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunshine Press?

What's the Sunshine Press, and why is it notable enough for the second sentence of the lead if we don't have a wikipedia article on it? Which one of those is the problem? Ocaasi (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The person/organization owning/operating any media property is a basic fact which merits mentioning. However, I do agree that it would be nice if the lede's flow could be adjusted to not require a separate sentence for this information. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I more mean, why can't it just be in the section on History or Hosting, rather than in the lead. Or maybe in a footnote, or a refnote. As is, Sunshine Press gets mention but the fact has zero import, since it's not even wikilinked. It's like, oh, sunshine press, wonder what that is--next sentence... Ocaasi (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it works like this: A bunch of people got together to make a transparency group called the Sunshine Press. The Sunshine Press came up with a project called WikiLeaks, and a website to match. Since then, Sunshine Press has spent 100% of its energy on the WikiLeaks project. This has led practically everyone to talk about an "organization" called WikiLeaks, when technically there is only a project called WikiLeaks and the organization is Sunshine Press. (Or at least, that was the original intention.) The two terms are basically synonymous at this point. The only time you see the words "Sunshine Press" is in the account ownership field for the WikiLeaks donation fund. ([10] "Sunshine Press Productions ehf"). Hope that answers your question. Sonicsuns (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A case of weasel-wording

Currently, below the text reading "his practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands." we have the text "In 2010, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks have left the website." This reads like a weasel-worded attempt at implying that those "dozen key supporters" left because they considered that the website will have "blood on its hands". In reality, the source for the second claim states that they left because Wikileaks had neglected "reams of new exposés because so much attention has been paid to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts" and was thus was not being faithful to its original concepts. So that "In 2010, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks have left the website." sentence should actually be placed in the site management issues subsection of the Administration section. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The "blood on our hands" is also quoted out of context: [11]. aprock (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the first part: the supporters leaving is in it's own paragraph. I think we just need to add a sentence to it so that it stands more on its own. Check it now, I've edited it a bit.Ocaasi (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Idea for re-ordering: Move section 6 (Leaks) to between sections 2 (administration) and 3/4/5 (responses,criticism, spin-offs). Reason: currently we talk about the responses and even copy-cats before describing the actual actions. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And me SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards section

Currently, Awards has its own section at the end of the article (like it's a discography or something). Should we make it a sub-section of Responses:Praise rather than have it hanging? Ocaasi (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, ditto for the TOC above. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the UN response shouldn't be under the "gov'ts" secion, that needs to be moved to be under "Organisations". --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The UN is a Governmental Organization, though. It is a government, or at least a multi-national governing body. It has members and laws and courts (kind of) and such. It's more like the U.S. than it is like Mastercard. So, I'm not sure on your suggestion. Ocaasi (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The UN is not a government, by any reasonable definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Maybe we can change the wording to include governmental organizations? Also, since the bit about the guy who left & is forming OpenLeaks has been added, I'd suggest to move the info from the Spin-offs section up there, and delete some of the red-linked details, by just saying that in addition to OpenLeaks, sites were also started in... I don't think Spin-offs needs its own section, and it's not placed very well, either, in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected, by WikiAnswers no less. So, [Governmental Organisation] could be used for the first half, although it is a bit non-specific for China, US, etc, but it does work for the UN. [Governments and Governmental Organisations] is more specific but even longer. We could have a separate header for the UN under [Governmental Organisations] although it would be the only one listed, since we don't have any others, really. I'll take a look at the spin-offs. I could go either way on it. Once those orgs are actually up and running, it'd be nice to have the spin-offs section. Now it's a bit of an eyesore. Ocaasi (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS question about TOC

More of a general query: the final 5 sections are all [end-stuff] related:

• 7 See also
• 8 Notes
• 9 References
• 10 Further reading
• 11 External links

And each one has its own H2 header. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an overarching H2 header like, Addendum or something, and then have see also/notes/refers/furtherreading/external links be h3 subheaders? Ocaasi (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done where Notes, Refs and Further were combined under References, and then each sub-section was made by using a semi-colon ";" in front of the words, like

Notes

so that would eliminate the h3 headers, and there'd only be 1 H2. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. WP:APPENDIX covers this, but I'm not 100% sure if it's saying H2 is standard or not. Not a big deal, but it seems a bit excessive to have 5 appendix sections in an article that has only 6 content sections. Ocaasi (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried it with 5 h3 headers under [Appendices]. It looks ok to me, but I bet some MOS sticklers won't care for it. Ocaasi (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph order

WP:LEAD suggests we summarize the body, presumably in the order of the body. It also prefers max 4 paragraphs and we have 5. Re the first issue, I'm thinking about moving the Leaks paragraph above the praise/criticism paragraphs to mimic the recent body re-order. Re the second, that last paragraph about the Wiki/DNS status is kind of bugging me. I kind of want to put it with the first paragraph or kind of want to just chuck it from the lead, since it's a bit technical. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Put the Wiki/DNS stuff under either Hosting or Name Servers. Also, since you added the add'l section headers under History, I think that Funding and Operational issues needs to be moved to the Admin. section, where there's already sub-sections about the same stuff. That would leave Founding & Purpose under History, which makes more sense. The Appendices section looks fine. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved Wiki to the first paragraph and DNS to Hosting. Not sure about History yet. If we take out Funding and Operations, it's kind of empty. The History parts are also written more in timeline form whereas the Admin section is more general. Feel free to have a crack it. Ocaasi (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Header Title

I previously changed the section title [Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance] to [Institutional response]. Mr. Grantevans2 changed it back. I prefer the former for being shorter, more general, less POV, and I think also accurate. Headers are not supposed to be lists, IMO, although I am open to better phrases than Institutional Reponse (though I don't understand why it's so objectionable). Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something in between? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

When reading the section, it incudes all 4 things in the older heading. What do all 4 have in common? They are all negative perhaps reaction,,intimidation, I think I have it "pressure". What about "Reactive Pressure"? or maybe "Institutional Pressure" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd think "Institutional reactions" would be better, but it still doesn't sound quite right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Institutional backlash and pressure? Institutional reaction and pressure... Ocaasi (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Institutional backlash and pressure" is perfect,I think. Covers it all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

ok I put in "Institutional backlash and pressure" for the time being. Feel free to change it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While it's more precise then the old title, will people understand what "Institutional backlash and pressure" means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.177.82 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it... The small problem is that 'pressure' kind of hangs, since it's further from 'Institutional'. It's clear that the 'backlash' is from institutions, but it's not quite clear if pressure is as well, or if it's a more general or unrelated pressure. And I kind of want to know, pressure to what? Maybe 'Institutional backlash and response' would be better. But it's still an improvement. Ocaasi (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New Categories

BrekekekexKoaxKoax does not seem to have read WP:BRD ;) but to help; here is a talk page section for him/her to make their case for the two newly added categories. I see no sensible reason to categorise Wikileaks under "Political Scandals in the US" and "Crime in the US". --Errant ^(chat!) 14:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - with Crime in the US Petrb (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Political scandals is relevant to articles about certain issues revealed by website. Petrb (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't those be on the pages of the scandals revealed, and not the page about the website revealing them? If I am understanding you correctly, that line of logic implies that virtually all news organizations should be in the category... though that may be the case :-/ . 129.137.170.6 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment of these tags not being appropriate or accurate. BrekekekexKoaxKoax added them again, and I reverted again. BrekekekexKoaxKoax, pleased do not add back without discussion or consensus. Rmosler | ● 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with crime in the US. It is dubious to think that something blatantly covered under freedom of the press in the US and many other countries, should be tagged "Crime". Rmosler | ● 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the WikiLeaks organization hadn't been convicted of any crimes in the U.S. Regarding political scandals, wouldn't that relate more to corruption within the U.S. government, or to a politician? I don't think that category should be there either. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, neither the 'scandal', nor any alleged 'crime' have taken place in the US. Do I have to remind people that Wilkipedia is an international cooperative effort, and the release is actually having significant effects elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to self-revert as apparently such categorization is 'controversial', but others appear to have preempted me. I didn't realize inclusion within these categories might be considered controversial. Re political scandal I refer you to Google (passim). Re crime in the US, I was thinking more of the content provided by WikiLeaks rather than WikiLeaks as provider. I have heard it suggested, for instance, that there may be recidivist links between US $bn Corporation DynCorp and child prostitution (Cable 09KABUL1651) and links between US $bn Corporation Pfizer and blackmail (Cable 09ABUJA671). I do not know whether such activities are only classified as a crime once guilty parties have been convicted. I also do not know whether in the US attempting to cover up such activities is also a crime. Maybe there is a page more suitable for inclusion within these categories. Think I need to leave this discussion to users more knowledgeable than I. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Would have posted entry sooner but keep getting edit conflicts.

Until a conviction takes place, calling something a 'crime' is almost certainly against Wikipedia policy (in some cases it might even be potentially libellous) - in any case, adding a category where it is unclear what exactly is being referred to isn't much use. Categories are really only useful where their criteria for inclusion are clear and uncontroversial. Thanks for discussing it though. And I know what you mean about edit conflicts - they drive me mad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) [Aye. Don't know if you would care to share your wisdom at the bottom of the Bradley Manning talk page too? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] _{I completed your signature SmartSE (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)} [Hello again! BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)]

I was only taking the word of the US Embassies in Abuja and Kabul for it - maybe you are right though on the crime front, maybe we should let authoritative statements re child prostitution and blackmail go... I notice below on the categories front that categorization as B-class internet culture and low-importance Sweden is seemingly less objectionable to a number of users! Any takers for at least the political scandal category? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how anyone seeing a category referring to crime in the US would understand that it referred to child prostitution in Afghanistan. As for the Bradley Manning article, I've not been involved in that - I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)