The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikileaks, not really a wiki?
thekohser
post Tue 27th July 2010, 3:21pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Tue 27th July 2010, 3:24pm
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Tue 27th July 2010, 3:26pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 27th July 2010, 3:27pm
Post #4


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



This "Writer's Kit" page seems interesting, but likely a work in progress.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 27th July 2010, 4:05pm
Post #5


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



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 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 27th July 2010, 4:30pm
Post #6


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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

What IPs have you seen editing the site?

I guess I just noticed this one, 1.0.22.53.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 27th July 2010, 4:45pm
Post #7


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



A couple of interesting things from their Submissions page:
  • They accept, even encourage, TOR.
  • "All staff who deal with sources are accredited journalists."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 27th July 2010, 4:53pm
Post #8


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post Tue 27th July 2010, 4:54pm
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu 1st Apr 2010, 1:46pm
Member No.: 18,566



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 27th July 2010, 5:16pm
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 27th July 2010, 5:26pm
Post #11


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 27th July 2010, 5:28pm
Post #12


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Tue 27th July 2010, 5:32pm
Post #13


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cookiehead
post Tue 27th July 2010, 5:33pm
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun 25th Jul 2010, 9:15pm
Member No.: 23,420

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Tue 27th July 2010, 5:33pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Tue 27th July 2010, 6:16pm
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 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: Tue 27th July 2010, 6:20pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Tue 27th July 2010, 6:20pm
Post #16


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

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).
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.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 27th July 2010, 6:23pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Tue 27th July 2010, 6:34pm
Post #17


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 27th July 2010, 7:21pm
Post #18


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 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.

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 27th July 2010, 7:21pm
Post #19


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



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 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: Tue 27th July 2010, 7:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 27th July 2010, 7:30pm
Post #20


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 10 14, 7:00am