Wikileaks, not really a wiki? Options

[thekohser]

I've finally taken some time to look into Wikileaks.org -- and boy, does it take some time to look into, thanks to page-loading speeds that would make a tortoise proud.

I don't see any mechanism for registering an account with the site, and therefore, I wonder whether there is any "community" editing going on. It appears that there is, but there's no "edit" function. So, are the various IPs that are editing Wikileaks all "insider" accounts that have been granted access to the edit button? I don't quite get it.

[Eva Destruction]

I've finally taken some time to look into Wikileaks.org -- and boy, does it take some time to look into, thanks to page-loading speeds that would make a tortoise proud.

I don't see any mechanism for registering an account with the site, and therefore, I wonder whether there is any "community" editing going on. It appears that there is, but there's no "edit" function. So, are the various IPs that are editing Wikileaks all "insider" accounts that have been granted access to the edit button? I don't quite get it.

It's moderated; everything you post there gets vetted before it goes live. It's not a wiki in the Wikipedia (or MWB) sense; it's effectively a big bulletin board.

[NuclearWarfare]

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges does not exist. Indeed, their draft FAQ page says "WikiLeaks integrates technologies including modified versions of MediaWiki, OpenSSL, FreeNet, Tor, PGP and software of our own design." I am not sure who updates the front page of the site or the articles that are released , but I would assume that it would be Julian Assange (T-H-L-K-D) or part of his staff.

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

[thekohser]

This "Writer's Kit" page seems interesting, but likely a work in progress.

[GlassBeadGame]

I've finally taken some time to look into Wikileaks.org -- and boy, does it take some time to look into, thanks to page-loading speeds that would make a tortoise proud.

I don't see any mechanism for registering an account with the site, and therefore, I wonder whether there is any "community" editing going on. It appears that there is, but there's no "edit" function. So, are the various IPs that are editing Wikileaks all "insider" accounts that have been granted access to the edit button? I don't quite get it.

It's moderated; everything you post there gets vetted before it goes live. It's not a wiki in the Wikipedia (or MWB) sense; it's effectively a big bulletin board.

I heard on NPR this morning that some additional material would be released after it had been partially redacted. So it seems some level of vetting of content occurs. Also their pre-release to select media outlets seems quit responsible. Not at all Free Kulture-ish. I wonder if each of 90,000 pages was really reviewed?

WL seems a mixed blessing. It provides material that can be vetted and used by real journalists. It does seem to permit anon posting (which even journalist would permit to get leaked docs) but journalistic standards of vetting the authenticity of the are likely lacking. A real journalist would either know the ID of the anon of make some effort to verify reliability. That is probably not the case on WL. A complete anon could post docs. It is rather context-less. Eventually it will be subject to hoaxes and manipulation. It is not a problem with the "war dump" as the administration seems to vouch for the authenticity but it seems to present many of the problems of other social media with at least some thought to mitigating the worst aspects.

The most disturbing aspect was in some coverage of the history of WL on MSNBC. They talked about the "stateless" nature of WL information. This did sound pretty FreeKulture-ish. I'm not sure what steps WL takes. Maybe the commentator merely was referring to the general notion (naive) that the internet is somehow beyond reach. Maybe WL takes some special measures.

[thekohser]

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed this one, 1.0.22.53.

[GlassBeadGame]

A couple of interesting things from their Submissions page:

• They accept, even encourage, TOR.
• "All staff who deal with sources are accredited journalists."

[GlassBeadGame]

Mod Note: Why is this in MediaWiki Software? I will move this to "General" if no objections. It is a little off topic but has rich issues concerning social media.

[Theanima]

It is definitely a wiki, just not one that we're all used to like Wikipedia. MediaWiki is, if you didn't know, very compatible and can be configured in all kinds of ways to fit certain requirements.

[thekohser]

Mod Note: Why is this in MediaWiki Software? I will move this to "General" if no objections. It is a little off topic but has rich issues concerning social media.

Nuke's post above sort of illustrates why I put this topic here.

MediaWiki is, if you didn't know, very compatible and can be configured in all kinds of ways to fit certain requirements.

I run a configured MediaWiki site with 63,000 pages, so yeah, I did know that. But, when you say that it's "very compatible" -- with what?

[GlassBeadGame]

Mod Note: Why is this in MediaWiki Software? I will move this to "General" if no objections. It is a little off topic but has rich issues concerning social media.

Nuke's post above sort of illustrates why I put this topic here.

Ok, I'll refrain from moving it.

[Moulton]

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed this one, 1.0.22.53.

Network 1.0.0.0/8 ?!? Really?!?

That has to be DARPA itself. I have never seen Network 1.0.0.0/8 before.

[Zoloft]

It's a wiki, because of the software, but configured in ways that go against what a wiki is presumed to be - in terms of the open collaboration and free editing (for 'free' read 'merciless').

WikiLeaks is a very sharp blade - capable of being useful or deadly.

[cookiehead]

This is going to make the Pentagon Papers seem like a Lindsay Lohan flap (ooh, bad word choice there).

Sell your stock in Afghan War Inc. now.

Now if only they'd wikileaked those BP engineer concerns about blowout preventers before April. And been around to wikileak those o-ring concerns in 1985.

Wikileaks has arrived. The photographers-as-videogame-targets incident was just a warmup. Someone's got to do what Mike Wallace is too old to do now.

This post has been edited by cookiehead:

[NuclearWarfare]

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed this one, 1.0.22.53.

Network 1.0.0.0/8 ?!? Really?!?

That has to be DARPA itself. I have never seen Network 1.0.0.0/8 before.

Interestingly, a userpage exists for that IP (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/User:1.0.22.53), but a contributions page does not (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Cont...tions/1.0.22.53).

The userpage includes an interesting note: "This is an anonymous address that does not belong to any single user. 1.0.22.53 22:43, 14 November 2007 (GMT)" I wonder how and why it was done that way. I also wonder how the IP managed to post to http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks at all, there is no edit button besides "view source" when logged out ( as opposed to logged in, which like Greg I am unsure how to do)

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[CharlotteWebb]

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges does not exist.

It exists but is visible only to logged-in users (as with most "special" pages). By this I mean the "permissions error" is replaced by a phony 404 and an http-refresh redirect back to the home page.

The log-in screen is in the usual place, but account creation is disabled, and thus would require an existing admin to create an account and e-mail you the password for it.

The closest thing available thing to a list of editors is an index of pages in namespace 2, but this excludes "red link" accounts which haven't posted a user-page, fails to exclude pages for which no account exists, and offers no immediate way to see which ones have made any edits (as Special:Contributions is also private).

While edit history for a page is disabled, you could reconstruct it from individual edits if you know what you're doing and there is a page you're curious about.

That's because one thing they forgot to suppress is the "diff" view (example).

MediaWiki is, if you didn't know, very compatible and can be configured in all kinds of ways to fit certain requirements.

I run a configured MediaWiki site with 63,000 pages, so yeah, I did know that. But, when you say that it's "very compatible" -- with what?

Compatible with a wide variety of needs and purposes, I think (e.g. YourWikiBiz employs features for which other sites may find no use, and vice versa).

It's a wiki, because of the software, but configured in ways that go against what a wiki is presumed to be - in terms of the open collaboration and free editing (for 'free' read 'merciless').

Shrug. Definitions will always vary.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[CharlotteWebb]

The userpage includes an interesting note: "This is an anonymous address that does not belong to any single user. 1.0.22.53 22:43, 14 November 2007 (GMT)" I wonder how and why it was done that way.

That's because the [user spoofing that] IP address posted it there manually.
http://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?oldid=23607&diff=prev

How said IP avoided a permissions error is unclear. Maybe the configuration was less restrictive at the time of 1.0.22.53's edits, or maybe there is an alternate domain with a differently configured front-end but which accesses the same database. Hell if I know.

[Moulton]

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed this one, 1.0.22.53.

Network 1.0.0.0/8 ?!? Really?!?

That has to be DARPA itself. I have never seen Network 1.0.0.0/8 before.

Interestingly, a userpage exists for that IP (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/User:1.0.22.53), but a contributions page does not (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Cont...tions/1.0.22.53).

The userpage includes an interesting note: "This is an anonymous address that does not belong to any single user. 1.0.22.53 22:43, 14 November 2007 (GMT)"

OK. Network 1.0.0.0/8 evidently does belong to IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) which administers the Internet.

$ whois 1.0.22.53

OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID: IANA
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country: US

NetRange: 1.0.0.0 - 1.255.255.255
CIDR: 1.0.0.0/8

Most likely, that address was edited into the page to make it clear that the real IP is anonymous. It's exceedingly unlikely that anyone at IANA is really editing WikiLeaks.

[thekohser]

I wonder if each of 90,000 pages was really reviewed?

I seriously doubt it. Then again, "bot generated" style pages like this one probably don't require any review whatsoever. So, that takes care of at least 11,970 of the 90,000.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Moulton]

I don't know if you've been listening to NPR, but an elite team of professional journalists spent several weeks reviewing these documents before WL went ahead and posted them.