kdc69: Obviously wikileaks has a two-fold effect, one being that it does to a certain degree shed light on people in power who have not been held accountable for their actions. I?don't?agree though with its second fold effect of releasing sensitive information that will cause further?chaos.
They are not able to shed light on the type of stories they do without also releasing their source documents. The type of stories they break are ones that powerful people do not want to come to light and any shadow of doubt that can be cast on WikiLeaks would be bad for them.
The documents they release hardly _cause_ further chaos but rather inform people of the absolute truth of a situation. The chaos that may or may not ensue once the documents are released is directly a result of the actions of those involved or affected.
I would much rather journalism based on the WikiLeaks methodology; being able to access source information and interpret it yourself in case you are suspicious of a biased slant to a story is pure gold.
kcd69: ...it is?completely?contradictory?to Assange/wikileaks aim, so therefore it is unfair to?completely?praise wikileaks as they have not fully taken responsibility for the effects they are causing by releasing some of this sensitive information.
Once again I disagree that they actually cause anything by releasing documents. At the very most they might sufficiently cause an event but the majority of their releases are at best contributory causes.
kcd69: But i?disagree?with their irresponsible release of information and cables that give away peoples names and other personal information as these people have not?committed?or been involved in unlawful acts.
If they have not committed any unlawful or shameful acts then why is it an issue that their names are being released?
kcd69: This has no benefit for anybody. The recent release of these cables has been?completely?irresponsible as it has stirred tension, thankfully not much, in some volitle areas. Non of this information is particularly astonishing as a little bit of inside knowlegde and research would indicate, but it is an unhealthy distraction from actual progress.
Who are you to decide what information is useful to be released or not? If you agree with the right to freedom of speech then you agree to allow others to say everything that you (or others) do not want to hear. I would say that hiding this kind of information is irresponsible.
kcd69: I think you are muddling clarity in the sense that wikileaks is releasing documents creates clarity? I think it furthers confusion to be honest and this results in more tension thus chaos.?
Iraq was obviously one of these bad decisions but i think with time it could become clearer the thought behind that decision.
This makes no sense to me. Making assumptions based on no or very little/biased information will always result in a greater level of confusion, chaos and tension than having access to all or at least a massive portion of unbiased information.
kcd69: So yea i think you should not praise wikileaks completely, an open and non biased view will always be more analytical and help in weighing up what is right and wrong. Never trust anything completely, including a website?
This sentiment is true. You should never trust anything completely but what WikiLeaks are able to provide is a massive unbiased source of information. Where else are you able to find something like that?
