Wikileaks (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
until now, I see nothing that hurts American politics. Some leaks are lies just to try to make some internal problems in some countries like in Turkey for example.
What USA is leaking there is just claiming that the PM has secret bank accounts in Switzerland just to decrease his party's chance of winning the coming elections just because his acts don't agree with the American politics.
I'm starting to doubt that these documents are really leaked without the approval of the American politicians.
What USA is leaking there is just claiming that the PM has secret bank accounts in Switzerland just to decrease his party's chance of winning the coming elections just because his acts don't agree with the American politics.
I'm starting to doubt that these documents are really leaked without the approval of the American politicians.
My point wasn't that a fully transparent system cannot work. It's that Wikileaks makes no distinction between what should and should not be fully transparent, which makes them naive and irresponsible.
If they are taking a stand that all things should be fully transparent, they are burying their head in the sand and acting like a four-year-old to the realities of how human politik works. If they are not taking such a stand, then by setting no rules or guidelines about what is or what is not objectionable to publicize proves them incapable of using information constructively. It proves Wikileaks to be clueless and blind to the values of information management.
Either way, it reflects failure on their behalf.
If they are taking a stand that all things should be fully transparent, they are burying their head in the sand and acting like a four-year-old to the realities of how human politik works. If they are not taking such a stand, then by setting no rules or guidelines about what is or what is not objectionable to publicize proves them incapable of using information constructively. It proves Wikileaks to be clueless and blind to the values of information management.
Either way, it reflects failure on their behalf.
Absolutely. Because they're making no stand and taking no responsibility for what should be considered responsible use of secretive information and what shouldn't.
It's this kind of complete oversight that adds to the questions I have about how much is this a mission for a cause and how much this is about building personal notoriety. Anybody truly committed to the cause of transparency would make an example of themselves, first and foremost. It's the ones who don't that have me worried re: motivations. Otherwise, they're no better than religious leaders who don't practice what they preach.
It's this kind of complete oversight that adds to the questions I have about how much is this a mission for a cause and how much this is about building personal notoriety. Anybody truly committed to the cause of transparency would make an example of themselves, first and foremost. It's the ones who don't that have me worried re: motivations. Otherwise, they're no better than religious leaders who don't practice what they preach.