Value of Wikileak Services
2
With the r ecent publica tion by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of classified documen ts f rom the U.S. Military and other agen cies related to the war in Afghanistan, some are calling into question the value of the organization¶s service s. There are a few things more sensational in journalism than top secret or classified information being made public without the authorization or complicity of the secretive parties involved. Throug hout recent history, s uch revelations tend to bring down political regimes and expose conspiracies , the depths of which the general public can only begin to understand. As WikiLeaks has begun publishing secret docume nts related to the war in Afghanistan, it seems appropriate to ponder exactly h ow much value this type o f service offers the pub lic at large . Certainly, there is value to having a media arm that is capable of and willing to publish secret documentation without fear of consequences from the powers that be. That alone is certainly worth somet hing, espe cially in instances where corruption an d injustice are exposed to the eye s of the w orld . The value begins to get a littl e skewed, however, when top secret docume nts are published that can h ave an adverse impact on individuals with no knowledge of the documents themselves. That would seem a likely outcome of this most recent "WikiLea k", although in fairness to the organization, they seem to go to great lengths to vet the information they receive in order to pre vent such instances, if they are in fact avoidab le. Julian Assange , the f ounde r of WikiLeaks, is an appropriately shadowy figure in his own right, although to his credit he has been available to make statements in support of his company¶s mission and their actions, even when they find themselve s under sc rutiny from the most powerful governments and inte lligence orga nizations in the world. And among some of the i nformation in the newly leaked Afghan docume nts, there seems to be gr owing support for claims th at Pakistani military and intelligence officials have been actively supporting the Taliban even while U.S. efforts are ongoin g to defeat them. This would seem to b e very interesting information for the American public, but it¶s hard to quantify exactly wha t such information means. To further illustrate the complexity of the issues surroundin g WikiLeaks, the s ite¶s About Us page reads, in part, "W e believe that transparency in government activities l eads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people." And while that s tatement in and of itself seems wholly true, it still creates problems when the necessary transparency an d scr utiny i s provided by a third party who ultimately decides just how transparent it wants to b e with the information it has received. It¶s also difficult to d etermine context when only certain documents are "leaked", when others may exist that refute or question th e "facts" in the leaked docume nts. Ar e the leaked docume nts that most relevant to the iss ues at hand, or are they simply dr afts or documents that have contributed to reaching a much different conclusion, not discussed in the documents themselves? When documents are leaked that reveal new information or provide clarification on a specific situatio n or event, it¶s difficult to place a qualitative value on the information without a c omplete pi cture of "all" of the documentation involved. Suffice to say that w e¶ll probably never receive that level of transpare ncy in any g overnment, nor would that necessarily be a good thing. And when on ly a portion of the picture of any situation is reveale d, are we running the risk of demonizing the wrong parties or of per haps adding more misundersta nding and corruption to a situation where it would h ave otherwise been avoided ? These are difficult questio ns that must be considered and answered as much as possible each time WikiLeaks posts new information on its site. The intent of the site appears to b e in the right place, b ut the likelihood of maintaining a positive impact when releasing otherwise secret informatio n seems extremely r emote, at best. Once a rmed with any new and revealing informatio n, the general public i s still helpless, f or the most part, to effect any immediate change on its own. For that to occur, a new election cycle must occur (where democratic governments are involved), and by then the primary players in any government cover-up or conspiracy will have had plenty of time to cover their asses and create new stories to explain the exposed informatio n. At the end of the day, it¶s difficult to leverage any information from WikiLeaks as citizens, but I suppose i t¶s possible to use the leaked information to prod legislato rs and other leaders to act appropriately in the f ace of the danger that they themselves might one day be exposed. By Buzzle Staff and Agencies Comment [N1]: Issue #1 Comment [N2]: Assumptions #1 Comment [N3]: Justification #1 Comment [N4]: Reason for release Comment [N5]: Potential setback Comment [N6]: Negative impact Comment [N7]: justification
Transcript of Value of Wikileak Services
8/4/2019 Value of Wikileak Services
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/value-of-wikileak-services 1/2
With the recent publication by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of classified documents from the U.S.Military and other agencies related to the war in Afghanistan, some are calling into question the valueof the organization¶s services. There are a few things more sensational in journalism than top secret
or classified information being made public without the authorization or complicity of the secretiveparties involved. Throughout recent history, such revelations tend to bring down political regimes andexpose conspiracies, the depths of which the general public can only begin to understand.
As WikiLeaks has begun publishing secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan, it seemsappropriate to ponder exactly how much value this type of service offers the public at large . Certainly,there is value to having a media arm that is capable of and willing to publish secret documentationwithout fear of consequences from the powers that be. That alone is certainly worth something,especially in instances where corruption and injustice are exposed to the eyes of the world . The valuebegins to get a little skewed, however, when top secret documents are published that can have anadverse impact on individuals with no knowledge of the documents themselves. That would seem alikely outcome of this most recent "WikiLeak", although in fairness to the organization, they seem togo to great lengths to vet the information they receive in order to pre vent such instances, if they are infact avoidable.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is an appropriately shadowy figure in his own right,although to his credit he has been available to make statements in support of his company¶s missionand their actions, even when they find themselves under scrutiny from the most powerfulgovernments and intelligence organizations in the world. And among some of the information in thenewly leaked Afghan documents, there seems to be growing support for claims th at Pakistani militaryand intelligence officials have been actively supporting the Taliban even while U.S. efforts areongoing to defeat them. This would seem to be very interesting information for the American public,but it¶s hard to quantify exactly what such information means.
To further illustrate the complexity of the issues surrounding WikiLeaks, the site¶s About Us pagereads, in part, "We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption,better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny bythe world community, as well as their own people." And while that statement in and of itself seemswholly true, it still creates problems when the necessary transparency and scrutiny i s provided by athird party who ultimately decides just how transparent it wants to be with the information it hasreceived. It¶s also difficult to determine context when only certain documents are "leaked", whenothers may exist that refute or question the "facts" in the leaked documents. Are the leakeddocuments that most relevant to the issues at hand, or are they simply drafts or documents that have
contributed to reaching a much different conclusion, not discussed in the documents themselves?
When documents are leaked that reveal new information or provide clarification on a specific situationor event, it¶s difficult to place a qualitative value on the information without a complete picture of "all"of the documentation involved. Suffice to say that we¶ll probably never receive that level of transparency in any government, nor would that necessarily be a good thing.
And when only a portion of the picture of any situation is revealed, are we running the risk of demonizing the wrong parties or of per haps adding more misunderstanding and corruption to asituation where it would have otherwise been avoided? These are difficult questions that must beconsidered and answered as much as possible each time WikiLeaks posts new information on its site.The intent of the site appears to be in the right place, but the likelihood of maintaining a positiveimpact when releasing otherwise secret information seems extremely remote, at best.
Once armed with any new and revealing information, the general public i s still helpless, for the mostpart, to effect any immediate change on its own. For that to occur, a new election cycle must occur (where democratic governments are involved), and by then the primary players in any government
cover-up or conspiracy will have had plenty of time to cover their asses and create new stories toexplain the exposed information. At the end of the day, it¶s difficult to leverage any information fromWikiLeaks as citizens, but I suppose i t¶s possible to use the leaked information to prod legislators andother leaders to act appropriately in the face of the danger that they themselves might one day beexposed.
By Buzzle Staff and Agencies
Comment [N1]: Issue #1
Comment [N2]: Assumptions #1
Comment [N3]: Justification #1
Comment [N4]: Reason for release
Comment [N5]: Potential setback
Comment [N6]: Negative impact
Comment [N7]: justification
8/4/2019 Value of Wikileak Services
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/value-of-wikileak-services 2/2
Published: 7/31/2010
![[Quick Video] Value of Professional services](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/58f00f931a28ab81588b4589/quick-video-value-of-professional-services.jpg)
