Wikipedia talk:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia

Latest comment: 7 years ago by This, that and the other in topic Not an essay
WikiProject iconEssays Low‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
LowThis page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Offsite discussion thread edit

There is an off-wiki discussion thread with a fair amount of useful research (along with the usual level of gratuitous and off-topic wisecracks) here: "Jimmy Wales: people think I'm responsible for Wikileaks" at Wikipedia Review. —Montana Mouse 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whois Record
Reverse Whois:
"Wikia, Inc." owns about348 other domains
Email Search:
is associated with about 336 domains
NS History:
2 changes on 2 unique name servers over 3 years.
IP History:
14 changes on 7 unique name servers over 3 years.
Whois History:
25 records have been archived since 2007-09-27 .
Reverse IP:
12 other sites hosted on this server.
Log In or Create a FREE account to start monitoring this domain name

DomainTools for Windows®

Now you can access domain ownership records anytime, anywhere... right from your own desktop! Download Now>
Domain Name:                                 WIKILEAKS.US
Domain ID:                                   D11634210-US
Sponsoring Registrar:                        GODADDY.COM, INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID:                146
Registrar URL (registration services):       whois.godaddy.com
Domain Status:                               clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status:                               clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status:                               clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status:                               clientUpdateProhibited
Registrant ID:                               CR16061522
Registrant Name:                             Michael Davis
Registrant Organization:                     Wikia, Inc.
Registrant Address1:                         500 3rd St.
Registrant Address2:                         Suite 405
Registrant City:                             San Francisco
Registrant State/Province:                   California
Registrant Postal Code:                      94107
Registrant Country:                          United States
Registrant Country Code:                     US
Registrant Phone Number:                     +1.6505480800
Registrant Email:                            
Registrant Application Purpose:              P1
Registrant Nexus Category:                   C21
Administrative Contact ID:                   CR16061524
Administrative Contact Name:                 Michael Davis
Administrative Contact Organization:         Wikia, Inc.
Administrative Contact Address1:             500 3rd St.
Administrative Contact Address2:             Suite 405
Administrative Contact City:                 San Francisco
Administrative Contact State/Province:       California
Administrative Contact Postal Code:          94107
Administrative Contact Country:              United States
Administrative Contact Country Code:         US
Administrative Contact Phone Number:         +1.6505480800
Administrative Contact Email:                
Administrative Application Purpose:          P1
Administrative Nexus Category:               C21
Billing Contact ID:                          CR16061525
Billing Contact Name:                        Michael Davis
Billing Contact Organization:                Wikia, Inc.
Billing Contact Address1:                    500 3rd St.
Billing Contact Address2:                    Suite 405
Billing Contact City:                        San Francisco
Billing Contact State/Province:              California
Billing Contact Postal Code:                 94107
Billing Contact Country:                     United States
Billing Contact Country Code:                US
Billing Contact Phone Number:                +1.6505480800
Billing Contact Email:                       
Billing Application Purpose:                 P1
Billing Nexus Category:                      C21
Technical Contact ID:                        CR16061523
Technical Contact Name:                      Michael Davis
Technical Contact Organization:              Wikia, Inc.
Technical Contact Address1:                  500 3rd St.
Technical Contact Address2:                  Suite 405
Technical Contact City:                      San Francisco
Technical Contact State/Province:            California
Technical Contact Postal Code:               94107
Technical Contact Country:                   United States
Technical Contact Country Code:              US
Technical Contact Phone Number:              +1.6505480800
Technical Contact Email:                     
Technical Application Purpose:               P1
Technical Nexus Category:                    C21
Name Server:                                 NS1.WIKIA.COM
Name Server:                                 NS2.WIKIA.COM
Created by Registrar:                        GODADDY.COM, INC.
Last Updated by Registrar:                   GODADDY.COM, INC.
Domain Registration Date:                    Thu Jan 04 00:31:53 GMT 2007
Domain Expiration Date:                      Mon Jan 03 23:59:59 GMT 2011
Domain Last Updated Date:                    Tue Sep 29 13:22:45 GMT 2009

Updated the page to be more accurate edit

Mr. Finkelstein, I would have guessed that you would have the technical skills to look up the CNAME record to realize that Wikia is not "serving" any content on behalf of Wikileaks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Wales, your estimation of my technical skills is correct, but the latter half of your sentence (not "serving") does not follow from the former part ("CNAME") - indeed, may be even said to contradict it. Often, I face the issue of having to translate complex technical information into short simple phrasing ordinary people will understand. For example, describing the relationship between the for-profit venture-capital funded company Wikia, Inc, and the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. While legally separate organizations, I believe leaving a description there would do a disservice to a reader in understanding the overall situation, which encompasses many informal (and occasional formal) connections. So, here, my goal was to find a word to describe the connection between what one sees at Wikileaks.COM, etc and wikileaks.ORG. I suspect others would have used "redirect", but it's not really a redirect, which to me technically means a HTTP code 302 or code 301 response. Since, whoever the legal owner of the domains, Wikia is currently the provider of their DNS service, I went with changing "owner" to "served", which to my mind was both technically accurate (again, per DNS service), and also reasonable English. I have no objection to more detail, but at the moment I was doing edits, that wording seemed sufficient.

You may find it amusing (or may not, though maybe others might), that in fact I wondered if there's a bug in Wikia's DNS setup here, and thought about sending a report to Wikia. But then I decided doing that might be playing "The Engineer And The Guillotine", as it was unlikely to be appreciated.

Further on the skills point, note if I meant you any ill-will here (rather than neutrally fixing errors on a topic where I'm knowledgeable), I would have pointed out that in the Wikileaks email leak, one can find that the original "Administrative Contact" for wikileaks.net was "Wales, Jimmy", along with much speculation as to the purpose of those registrations (John Young - "Wales is attempting to protect his investment. He's businessman before all else, meaning without scruples. Consider his action an attack on WL, perhaps to be followed by others if it threatens his commercial operation of reputation building pretending to be a public service -- like giving out free cigarettes.")

Sigh. One of my sayings is that while people don't have to like me personally, I do ask they respect my work. I'm always thinking that if I'm scrupulous with facts and rigorously intellectually honest (which does not mean being a patsy for flackery, quite the reverse), then even those at odds with me will recognize my devotion to truth, justice, and fair play. But, sadly, the world doesn't work that way. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

NPOV edit

Clearly not NPOV. This essay is very slanted toward Jimmy Wales' point of view. --173.13.177.205 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, this essay is excluded from NPOV. Someone else should write a counter essay, I guess. Somehow I doubt it would survive, though. --173.13.177.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC).Reply

It's not 'very slanted'.. but the way its written is kind of cold and impersonal.. why are we even making this an issue? 69.134.27.229 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding NPOV, what do you think is not being included which should be included? I'm provisionally inclined, at the moment, to give Wales the benefit of the doubt on this one. Wikileaks didn't respond to an inquiry I sent about the transfer, and they do seem to have other things to worry about. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I believe it was written by the Wikimedia foundation, and is thus exempt from community consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, it wasn't written by the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, as one of the people who has contributed to it, and note is often critical of the parties involved (to put it mildly ...), what do you think is problematic about the page? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question edit

As somewhat of a keen observer as well as a fairly avid user on wikipedia, I'm interested to know as to why Jimmy Wales purchased those wikileaks domains in 2006? What would have happened were wikileaks allowed to obtain them first? Dark Prime (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Quick_question.2C_seemed_a_bit_odd... --Cybercobra (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hmm ... domains registered around 03-jan-2007 ... checking against the WikiLeaks email leak shows a burst of publicity at the time. Fact-check, pass, on the matter of timeline. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
unless there was some campaign by those associated with wikipeida (Davis/Wales) to register wiki*.com, etc. - which there is some evidence - wikipedia, wiktionary, wikiquote etc. it would be interesting to find out what the foundations forecasted purpose for the wikileaks domain might have been.Cander0000 (talk)
Wikia, not the Wikimedia Foundation, made the registrations. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page cited in Supreme Court filing edit

This page was cited in an amicus brief filed in a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. See [1], p. 10, footnote 3. The brief is filed in Golan v. Holder.--Chaser2 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Off-topic but in good faith edit

I searched WP:Wikileaks but arrived this page. On wikileaks site, I found some important facts and I believe is not a false information. Can I cite a document on Wikileaks? --Cheol (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

That depends on the article, the text in the article to be supported by the citation, and the precise source. The matter should first be discussed at the talk page of the article, but WP:RSN could be used for a more general answer (however, they would also say that precise information would need to be presented). Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

2013 edit

wikileaks was controled by wikimedia foundation when it had been founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马达汉 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Source? --Geniac (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not an essay edit

I don't think this is an "essay". It contains only factual information and does not present a point of view; it is much more akin to a "help" page or a simple informational page than an essay. Since this page is likely to be viewed by many people who are unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia's project namespace works, I think that essay tag is doing more harm than good, by creating doubt about the objectivity of the page.

Since I couldn't find a more appropriate header template I have boldly removed the essay tag and replaced it with a simple shortcut box. Please discuss if you disagree. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply