Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ MediaWiki Software _ Wikileaks

Posted by: thekohser

I've finally taken some time to look into http://www.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.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 4:21pm) *

I've finally taken some time to look into http://www.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.

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: thekohser

This "Writer's Kit" page http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Writer%27s_Kit, but likely a work in progress.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 27th July 2010, 9:24am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 4:21pm) *

I've finally taken some time to look into http://www.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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:26am) *

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks, 1.0.22.53.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

A couple of interesting things from their http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Submissions:


Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:53pm) *

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.

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:54pm) *

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?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:16am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:53pm) *

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.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:30pm) *
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:26am) *
What IPs have you seen editing the site?
I guess I just noticed http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks, 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:28pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:30pm) *
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:26am) *
What IPs have you seen editing the site?
I guess I just noticed http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks, 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:Contributions/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)

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 3:26pm) *

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 http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin, but account creation is http://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup, 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 http://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&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 http://www.wikileaks.org/Special:Contributions is also private).

While http://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikileaks&action=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 (http://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?oldid=65592&diff=prev).
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:16pm) *

QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:54pm) *

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).
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:32pm) *

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.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 6:16pm) *

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.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 2:16pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:28pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:30pm) *
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:26am) *
What IPs have you seen editing the site?
I guess I just noticed http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikileaks, 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:Contributions/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.

QUOTE(WHOIS 1.0.22.53)
$ 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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:05pm) *

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


I seriously doubt it. Then again, "bot generated" style pages http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Fighter_escort_%28military%29 probably don't require any review whatsoever. So, that takes care of http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Dictionary_of_Military_and_Associated_Terms of the 90,000.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: tarantino

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 27th July 2010, 7:21pm) *


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


http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-1-0-0-0-1.

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/index.php?type=range&ips=1.0.0.0%2F8&limit=50 over the years, for example 1.1.1.227.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tata_Young&diff=prev&oldid=118261241
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICF_International&diff=prev&oldid=126207619

It's odd that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/1.1.1.227 only shows one of those edits.

This edit by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kate%2Flbtest2&diff=prev&oldid=17115250 looks like Kate playing around.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Per NPR this morning: The Obama administration has request that WL forgoes posting the remaining 15,000 documents claiming that they present serious risk to US personal and allies. They also claim this harm has already been done by the 90,000 documents already posted. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Obama administration is not inclined to act to censor and is infatuated with social media. But protecting lives of people who fight a war for you is pretty basic. WL has shown more restraint than Free Kulture fanatics might like but not posting material at all must go against their grain, especially when they have tried to play nice. It is a something we don't see often...a confrontation between moderates who have important interests at stake.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

The Wikileaks war dump has now http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627_pf.htmlabout the extraterritorial nature of internet and the need for nation states to be able to respond to threats rather than just shrug their shoulders and say "its the internet so there is nothing we can do about it." Former Bush speech writer Marc Thiessen has suggested that the US respond with the special rendition (kidnapping and detention) of Wikileaks founder Assange. Of course this is over the top cowboy stuff. But it arises from very real frustrations over security concerns. More sensible approaches would like take the form of high stakes diplomatic pressure and ultimately treaty provision among nation states facilitating appropriate intervention. But doing nothing is not an option when an internet source releases information that threaten the lives of assets, allies and civilians.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Per NPR this morning: The administration is asking WL to "do the right thing" and not post the remaining 15,000 documents. They go on to indicate that failing that some sort action would be forthcoming. WL has posted a large encrypted document entitle "insurance." The journalist didn't know what to make of this. Maybe WL is distributing this now and will provide a key later if any action is taken against them?

Add: Googled "Wiki Leaks insurance" it looks like the insurance file has been posted since at least July 30.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 6th August 2010, 1:41pm) *

Per NPR this morning: The administration is asking WL to "do the right thing" and not post the remaining 15,000 documents. They go on to indicate that failing that some sort action would be forthcoming. WL has posted a large encrypted document entitle "insurance." The journalist didn't know what to make of this. Maybe WL is distributing this now and will provide a key later if any action is taken against them?

Add: Googled "Wiki Leaks insurance" it looks like the insurance file has been posted since at least July 30.


http://cryptome.org/0002/wl-diary-mirror.htm explains a bit more. It seems to be insurance in case the site is taken down, either by court order or physical seizure. I wouldn't be surprised if Cryptome or even a lawyer unconnected thus far to Wikileaks had access to the decryption key.

Posted by: thekohser

A state document that was made available to me, which I uploaded to Wikileaks about 10 days ago, has still not been published on that site.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 6th August 2010, 8:43am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 6th August 2010, 1:41pm) *

Per NPR this morning: The administration is asking WL to "do the right thing" and not post the remaining 15,000 documents. They go on to indicate that failing that some sort action would be forthcoming. WL has posted a large encrypted document entitle "insurance." The journalist didn't know what to make of this. Maybe WL is distributing this now and will provide a key later if any action is taken against them?

Add: Googled "Wiki Leaks insurance" it looks like the insurance file has been posted since at least July 30.


http://cryptome.org/0002/wl-diary-mirror.htm explains a bit more. It seems to be insurance in case the site is taken down, either by court order or physical seizure. I wouldn't be surprised if Cryptome or even a lawyer unconnected thus far to Wikileaks had access to the decryption key.


I might be giving WL too much credit but my take on them is that they are not completely in the camp of internet libertarian extremists. I base this on their pre-releasing the war dump to select mainstream outlets and holding back some material for further vetting. They seem like Indy-Media...one foot in a more socially responsible and truly progressive camp. Cyrptome seems peopled by folks who live inside a Neal Stephenson novel. Hopefully they just downloaded the files so they can later join in the fray and aren't a real part of WLs camp. The problem is that Assange is getting a lot of adulation from the libertarian extremists right now.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 6th August 2010, 4:11pm) *
I might be giving WL too much credit but my take on them is that they are not completely in the camp of internet libertarian extremists. I base this on their pre-releasing the war dump to select mainstream outlets and holding back some material for further vetting. They seem like Indy-Media...one foot in a more socially responsible and truly progressive camp.


I would tend to agree with that analysis as well. However, something that one should remember is the relative newness of Wikileaks. They have had major leaks before 2010, but their first one to affect US military operations was about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike (T-H-L-K-D), where they simply posted the video on a sister site and let the mainstream media start from there. I wouldn't be surprised if they are still experimenting and trying to figure out the best way to reveal secrets without doing too much damage to individuals. The next release of materials will probably be distributed in another method entirely.

QUOTE
A state document that was made available to me, which I uploaded to Wikileaks about 10 days ago, has still not been published on that site.

What was this state document? Wikileaks does have some standards for what it publishes, and your document might not have met them.

Posted by: Ottava

Out of all the hoopla and the rest, am I the only one who's only impression over this whole matter is that the WikiLeaks guy looks really, really creepy?

Just the image of him shuts off my brain's ability to really think about the rest. His look is almost horror movie kinda weird.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:22pm) *
Just the image of him shuts off my brain's ability to really think about the rest. His look is almost horror movie kinda weird.

You're probably thinking he looks like http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1043828224/nm0780133, aka "The Tall Man" from the Phantasm movies.

Which he does, sort of... blink.gif

Image



Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:45am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:22pm) *

Just the image of him shuts off my brain's ability to really think about the rest. His look is almost horror movie kinda weird.


You're probably thinking he looks like http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1043828224/nm0780133, aka "The Tall Man" from the Phantasm movies.

Which he does, sort of … blink.gif

Image

BOOOYYY!!!

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 7th August 2010, 3:36am) *

What was this state document? Wikileaks does have some standards for what it publishes, and your document might not have met them.

Probably Jimbo's marriage license or something similar. dry.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 7th August 2010, 1:17am) *

QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 7th August 2010, 3:36am) *

What was this state document? Wikileaks does have some standards for what it publishes, and your document might not have met them.

Probably Jimbo's marriage license or something similar. dry.gif


Sort of the opposite.