Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-06/WikiLeaks

← Back to WikiLeaks

Discuss this story

Beck

Beck amazes me. Does he even understand the concept of open-source software? Has he even read the preamble of the GPL? Most likely, somewhere, someone using MediaWiki is violating the law. Somehow. Does this make WMF responsible? Nope. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Man, you don't need to ascribe any logic to Beck's beliefs/statements- he's saying that all "open society" "things" are connected and therefore personally started by George Soros. That's not a logical chain starting from bad starting assumptions, that's a chain where none of the links are connected at all. --PresN 04:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I heard this broadcast, and it seemed rather obvious to me that the comment, "Wikipedia is also a part of it though. Those bastards, and their 'free' encyclopedia! I hate those people!" was a sarcastic quip. The show now takes a fairly morning show format, with the two co-hosts providing a large amount of satirical statements. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa wait a second here. While the rest of the quote is in context, "Those bastards, and their 'free' encyclopedia..." comes across as sarcastic. Glenn Beck's program frequently talks about such matters in jest on his program (and is in turn misquoted by Media Matters... the two have a hate-hate relationship, never quite able to accurately criticize each other in full). I'm not sure we should regurgitate anything mentioned by any of these media watchdog groups, and this is a perfect example of why. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually spent the time to click on the link and read that "perfect example" before making that sweeping judgement? The "bastards" quote is from the original recording (as provided by Media Matters), not from their commentary. (The "As observed by Media Matters ..." referred to the initial confusion of Beck.) I agree that "sarcastic" might be a possible interpretation, but considering the serious "anti-wiki" sentiment in the rest of the comments, it is by no means an obvious one. That's why the interpretation is left to the reader in this Signpost article; either way I considered it a noteworthy information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Right; the rest of the comments were of course stupid, as we've agreed. But, especially given it's a living person, and one known to get annoyed about being quoted out of context, we ought to be careful to not quote him out of context. Everything but the "bastards" comment appears to be in context though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree one needs to be careful about that kind of thing, but I don't think the "bastards" comment was quoted out of context. In any case it is not attributed to Beck in the Signpost article, but to one of his sidekicks - based on the timing of the comments and the difference in voices, having listened to it a few times. Do you think it was Beck himself who said it? Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that was clearly "Stu", and he was clearly kidding. On the other parts though, yes, they were just pulling stuff out of thin air. Like I said, the rest is fine. I just think the post should have done without the "evil bastards" comment, as it was tongue-in-cheek. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanger

Dr Sanger is leaving WatchKnow around now (I believe funding has run out - though I could be wrong), so presumably "Wikipedia co-founder" is better on the resume than "Citizendium founder" - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of Sanger and his judgment is so low that my opinion of Wikileaks has actually improved because of Sanger's comments. I'm still not a Wikileaks fan though. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks domains

The article should also have mentioned recent developments regarding the wikileaks.com, wikileaks.us etc. Internet domains, which appear to be registered to Wikia and used to point to the original Wikileaks domain www.wikileaks.org (according to Jimmy Wales' statements at WP:WIKILEAKS and on a recent Charlie Rose show, the domains were offered to Wikileaks long ago, but for some mysterious reason Assange failed to complete the transfer). The content of Wikileaks.com recently changed to a Godaddy parking page [1] and then to a "not available" message [2]. A notable development, especially considering current events regarding wikileaks.org, wikileaks.ch etc. [3]

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Account deactivated

Is it really possible to deactivate an account? (WP:USERNAME says: "It is not possible to delete user accounts") --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The request was not to remove the account entirely, more like what is called a "request to vanish" on Meta. His user page was deleted, however I just noted that the requested blocking of the account does not seem to have been carried out. It might also be remarked that he hadn't been too active on the wiki in recent months.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate graphic...

WikiLeaks is not Wikimedia Projects.png

AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Really people, it's not that hard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

Anthere twitted this 1 hour ago: RT @PaulLarrouturou: Sarkozy condamne Wikipédia au lieu de #WikiLeaks en cseil des ministres (Canard Enchaîné d'après @fsionneau) . I also think that this whole story is damaging our fundraising. --Elitre (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation? Powers ^T 20:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sarkozy condemns Wikipedia instead of Wikileaks in council of ministers." Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realize it was French. However, I can not find any source for it except Twitter. --Elitre (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Titanium balls

I read the Forbes article, & it appears that that Gerard is talking about the website "Suburbia", not WikiLeaks. Now that I read it, ISTR that Gerard made that exact comment on his blog about "Suburbia". Hmm. While Gerard may believe Assange's testicles are made of that stuff (& whether or not Gerard does, I'll go on record to say that -- even though I'm not anyone worth quoting), in this matter I believe he has been quoted out of context. But I'm confident he will speak up for himself if this is not true. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoted out of context by whom? Certainly not by this article, which made it clear that the quote was about remembering Assange's "resistance to efforts to censor a website of Gerard's in the 1990s at an ISP [i.e. Suburbia] where Assange worked as sysadmin."

David Gerard has already commented on the quote here, but only concerning a different problem with the Forbes article - that it described Assange as the founder of Suburbia, despite David Gerard telling the journalist otherwise (a user identifying as the actual founder had objected on that talk page). Interestingly, that misinformation seems to have come from Assange himself ("I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993." [4])

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was quoting from memory this blog posting by Gerard. Although I was right that his comment was about Assange's managing suburbia.net, since it was about Assange, my memory wasn't as accurate as I thought it was. (It didn't help that the Forbes article was unclear to me in specifying whom Gerard was referring to.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(coming to this rather late) No, it was quite in context - I was talking about Assange's fine work defending my Suburbia page, but also the entire Wikileaks project. I think the objective evidence of titanium balls is readily apparent. In fact, this article was particularly accurate in quoting me and using material I supplied, compared to many press quotes - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)