Embedded Files
Post date: Dec 06, 2010 9:15:23 AM
The doubt is really simple. Wikileaks claims to fact check all of its stories and it says that it cant be edited by random people. Also they say that they accept anonymous sources of information.
all of this is written in their "About Page"
1.2 How WikiLeaks works
1.2 How WikiLeaks works
WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related. Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents.
WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related. Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents.
As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people.
We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any material. We do not ask for material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it is done securely and that the source is well protected. Because we receive so much information, and we have limited resources, it may take time to review a source's submission.
We also have a network of talented lawyers around the globe who are personally committed to the principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and who defend our media organisation.
1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news stories
1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news stories
We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.
We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.
Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the way in which we show the public that our story is authentic. Readers don't have to take our word for it; they can see for themselves. In this way, we also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can view and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well see an angle or detail in the document that we were not aware of in the first instance. By making the documents freely available, we hope to expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds.
Now All i am saying is that When a news Channel like Aaj Tak or India Tv quotes wikileaks then you are seeing news that has come as a result of a lot of different influences. Somebody who was sitting in front of a computer uploaded some material. That material was fact checked by unknown Journalists. The Story was then published. Unknown Editors picked up on a certain story out of the tens of thousands of stories and presented it to you after sensationalizing it. So i guess all i am saying is that wikileaks is like other OpenSource projects. The final result can be great ( C++ was the result of Open Source), or it can be bad
Now All i am saying is that When a news Channel like Aaj Tak or India Tv quotes wikileaks then you are seeing news that has come as a result of a lot of different influences. Somebody who was sitting in front of a computer uploaded some material. That material was fact checked by unknown Journalists. The Story was then published. Unknown Editors picked up on a certain story out of the tens of thousands of stories and presented it to you after sensationalizing it. So i guess all i am saying is that wikileaks is like other OpenSource projects. The final result can be great ( C++ was the result of Open Source), or it can be bad
( No precedent that i could find). So i guess what I am saying is that this is probably the best thing that happened to News. ( because even in conventional media all these anonymities are there but they are coming from a single entity so they might all be influenced by a single common interest which is bad, with open Source that aint a problem)
( No precedent that i could find). So i guess what I am saying is that this is probably the best thing that happened to News. ( because even in conventional media all these anonymities are there but they are coming from a single entity so they might all be influenced by a single common interest which is bad, with open Source that aint a problem)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse