Poirot,

It wouldn't have taken long to detect Manning as the source, given the volume and specifics of the material.

How is Wikileaks to prevent this sort of thing? Journalists have used leaks, but given the range and volume of the former ...

As stated before, I believe there are inherent risks involved in Wikileaks, and also the potential for abuse and disinformation.

And ... a great deal of the material is in different languages ... Given that Wikileaks are unable to translate these and are relying (hoping) upon such as those who contribute to Wiki, this is a potential minefield.

I believe in freedom of the press ... with the ethics we have seen in much professional journalism.

How transparent is Wikileaks iteself.

I thought you could buy the press? Buy different media outlets and newspapers etc.

I also thought that all media is set up somewhere solid, like they are all established in whatever country under whatever countries laws that they abide by or feel responsible for whoever their neighbours are.

WikiLeaks has no home. What do we want from it and which laws or culture do we want it to represent or should what we want matter?

I kinda assumed the point was that they are rogue.

As grownups can we decide ourselves what the information means or do we need someone telling us?

Yes I realize that is an awesome question coming from me who is always asking what things mean. But at least I can ask people myself without it being presented it in a way where I am being told what it should mean. That is stuff I often forget to question.

What ethics should they use when publishing the unethical?

Seems to me they are different questions Danielle and it appears the Wikileaks leaked claim, stands refuted.

As for the other questions you raise they are perhaps questions for another post.

Your last question was a good one, Jewely.

Danielle,

There are inherent risks involved in just about everything...and there's plenty of abuse and disinformation practiced by governments and corporations all over the world on a daily basis.....Whadayaknow! - Wikileaks is a tool that can expose it!

Senior U.S. political analyst, Fareed Zakaria had this to say at the end of his article in the latest Time Magazine:
"If Private Bradley Manning had not gone to Wikileaks, he would have found some other outlet to disseminate the data. Our anger at Wikileaks should not obscure the fact that it is Washington's absurd data-sharing policy that made this possible. That's the scandal here that needs fixing."

Should a government wish to distribute misinformation about itself, or indeed fabricate another's, Wikileaks would be the way to go. Undoubtedly, someone somewhere has already deduced this.

True, this could be attempted at the domestic level, but local journalists would have some idea as to whether the information were likely, if not, undertake further investigation.

What does Wikileaks have in place to ascertain the accuracy, or not, of its information.

It appears to me that many will accept any, and all, information Wikileaks makes public.

Wikileaks' blow for free speech may well be more apparent than real.

I am well aware of the various pressures and laws put on the media. Nothing of portent can be taken for granted.

A few ago, two US journalists were detailed to look into environmental polution; their
findings were damning. However, their findings pointed to their paper's leading advertiser. Financial considerations determined that the story was pulled.

There are many influences upon the press. None should take the media at face value.

The risk lies now in accepting information from Wikileaks without question ... (Indeed, up 'til now, much of it, is just someone else's opinion ... or self-evident.)

The religious belief in Assange (christ-like) and the hysteria surrounding Wikileaks, however, seems dangerous.

Surely people are not going to sacrifice their power to exercise reason, to evaluate and to question facts, on this altar. Unfortunately, it seems so.