The debate over open information sharing has been sparked by a host of developments, namely the activity of WikiLeaks, an international non-profit organization that specializes in document disclosure.
On November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks released a number of United States diplomatic cables, classified documents containing correspondence between the State Department and its international diplomatic missions. The site posted the first 220 of 251,287 documents that immediately garnered coverage from five major international newspapers, including The New York Times.
But first, some background: In 2005, Chinese journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison after he published an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Across the globe, concerned citizens lamented journalists’ inability to speak the truth without fear of oppressive governments. And thus WikiLeaks was born, providing anonymity and thus protection to suppliers of information. The site was launched in December 2006 by Chinese dissidents and assorted other journalists and startup technologists.
Originally, WikiLeaks was created quite literally in Wikipedia’s image. Users could post information and edit it in a wiki forum that possessed an interface nearly identical to that of Wikipedia. In fact, a statement on its 2008 webpage boasted, “What Wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, Wikileaks is to leaks.”
WikiLeaks was successful. It uncovered a number of international scandals and had over 1,200 registered volunteers by June 2009. It epitomized a system of democratic, open information sharing that protected its contributors. In 2008, The Economist gave WikiLeaks its New Media Award. In 2009, Amnesty International bestowed to it the UK Media Award.
But at the end of 2009, WikiLeaks changed its policies—it abolished the Wikipedia model. Today, one may find on its official website the following statement: “Unlike Wikipedia, random readers cannot edit our source documents.”
Instead, users now deposit information in an electronic drop box, the contents of which are screened for publication. Who reviews the submissions and decides what to publish and when to publish it? The selection committee, which remains anonymous, is likely comprised of but a few people led by Julian Assange, director of the site.
The transformation of WikiLeaks from a completely user-generated and governed forum to a secretive and perhaps autocratic organization is worrisome regardless of the supposedly unchanging intentions of the site.
I support the concept of open information sharing, but I question the nature of its implementation. Rather than frame a discussion about WikiLeaks as a discussion about censorship versus freedom of speech, examine the various ways in which information can be shared openly.
I urge the reader to ask why WikiLeaks abandoned its Wikipedia-like approach to information sharing. And as the debate about WikiLeaks escalates to a theoretical level, ask yourself whether you necessarily have to defend WikiLeaks if you defend freedom of speech. If you criticize WikiLeaks, are you supporting censorship?
Some methods of information sharing are more truly open than others. When Julian Assange and a core group of employees have the sole say in what reaches the site and when—and thus in what reaches the media and when—the information sharing is not open.
So what is the best way? OpenLeaks, whose creation was announced in December 2010, attempts to correct the flaws of WikiLeaks. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former German spokesman for WikiLeaks, is forming the new site. According to initial statements, he intends OpenLeaks to pass information directly to the press instead of acting as a publisher itself. He also stresses that OpenLeaks will have a large, democratic selection committee.
This system will certainly protect the anonymity of sources while leaving the media to decide what information is published. Is it an ideal model of open information sharing? Perhaps. But as society further explores the intersection between technology and moral issues, perhaps this experimentation is necessary.
What might the U.S. diplomatic cable leakage have looked like on the old WikiLeaks? The anonymous possessor of the cables would have uploaded them to the site himself. Assange would probably have made a public statement to the media directing them to the cables. In both this scenario and that of reality, the media ultimately obtained the information. If the result is the same, true openness does little to hinder the stated mission of WikiLeaks.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
This was an interesting read, thank you. I think there were some short-sighted points made, however.
“When Julian Assange and a core group of employees have the sole say in what reaches the site and when—and thus in what reaches the media and when—the information sharing is not open.”
One thing that distinguishes a site like Wikipedia from a peer reviewed journal, for instance, is that one can have relative confidence in the accuracy of the latter. A truly wiki-based framework creates a pool of data that are not verified for accuracy. With the review process, one obtains the added element of legitimacy, assuming that we trust Wikileaks’ methods. To date, however, the issue of credibility has never arisen precisely because no documents have been leaked (on the new model) prior to verification. Note that there is no question of the authenticity of the cables, for instance.
The other thing that is lost in a truly open system (like the one you allude to here) is harm minimization. This aspect is crucial for the purpose of protecting innocent parties, and in some cases, even for purposes of protecting guilty parties from unjust punishment (to say that one should be punished for breaking a moral code of conduct is not to say that this individual should be subjected to the worst possible punishment; so Wikileaks might, for instance, avoid publishing the names of individuals currently engaged in an under cover operation if this would be life-threatening).
In sum, it would be quite irresponsible, indeed reckless, to operate on a fully open system.
What would the cables have looked like on the open system? I have a more pressing question for you. What would the Iraq or Afghan War Logs look like in the absence of harm minimization–in the absence of name redaction? Think it through.
Cheers,
ke
Thanks, a good article.
The biggest challange is to vet content. How does one keep the level of garbage or plain lies to the lowest possible level?
Wikipedia is struggling with the sames, see relevance discussions.
IMHO, WikiLeaks changed its model to attract more publicity and through this attention and donations. The money is needed for vetting as well.
Before, WikiLeaks toured congresses, gave speeches, etc. Did “the public” take notice? Very little.
With the new setup and policy publicity increased. Julian Assange seems to be a smart marketer.
some good points in here. exactly, wl is definitely turning closer and closer as we observe the move. not long ago, the wl spokesperson hinted via frontlineclub at the “black markets of information” as dangers for information and press freedom. now what to think about these decisions of a former network (now a group of people behaving as an information dealers company) to push the “exclusivity” model. first cases of misuse of unpublished cables are observed, where mis- and disinformation spread through the media (SPIEGEL) needed much effort to force a release of wrongly described (and wrongly quoted) cables.
we have to face the fact that the closure has nothing to do with harm minimization, but with clear business decisions (exclusive contracts). thus, now diving in a kind of dark grey market…
in germany, there is a complaint at the presserat issued, scheduled for march. the body will deal with the question if the exclusive contract with the spiegel breaks the press kodex 1.1 – against information monopoles. journalists expect an interesting debate at least.
more about it on: http://shortlinks.de/3izc
(small correction of the above. obviously, “more and more closed” was meant here, not “closer and closer”, apologize for the mistake)
“What might the U.S. diplomatic cable leakage have looked like on the old WikiLeaks?”
This might have been dangerous for a lot of people! There already was a lot of discussion about the fact that Wikileaks endangers the lifes of soldiers and operatives mentioned in the cables. This can only be prevented if the content is checked before it’s released into the public. Besides, if content is accessable AND editable by everybody, how can you never tell if the given information is true? (even Wikipedia is criticised for this. And i guess they spend a LOT of money on this problem!)
And if you’re really interested in , why don’t you ask them for a statement?
So, I’m not convinced about the impartiality of this article.
yours
Nicolas Menze
The way I see it is big brother is getting too close for comfort! How come common people cannot create a site and share information as they please? At the end of the day if the information provided is not accurate, people will stop trusting the source. Wikileaks could exist at the same time as the open system you are talking about. The idea would be competition, a simple economic principle that works. Government needs to stop telling us what to say, when to say it, and more important what we need to be reading. Hitler anybody??
My biggest fear is that we keep taking liberties away and we are going to wake up one day having none. What is next?? Twitter users will not be able to write without filters?? The world has changed and news travel fast, extremely fast! The sources of information have increased exponentially as with a search engine and a mini computer one can find thousands if not millions of articles. Miss information you say… Perhaps a revolutionary group trying to persuade others? In my view not an issue. Create categories, “sources verified by a specified standard,” or does not meet the standard.
Freedom of speech needs to be respected, and protected!
{ 5 trackbacks }