<story><title>WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer&apos;s murder</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-20000-seth-rich-dnc-2016-8</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dvcc</author><text>WikiLeaks is becoming a political mess with Assange leading the charge.&lt;p&gt;The philosophy that all information should be public is just absurd. There is a reason that the whistle-blowers prior passed their information to reporters, it allowed for certain pieces of information to be redacted.&lt;p&gt;Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone. Leaking the private conversation of a man and his daughter does not benefit anyone.&lt;p&gt;Assange&amp;#x27;s crazed obsession of having WikiLeaks in the news doesn&amp;#x27;t help either, it only leads to further politicization and larger claims. The whole site has just turned into a show more than anything.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>SmellTheGlove</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s simpler than that.  In the past, information was passed to trusted reporters because the media was trusted.  A lot of what Wikileaks is reporting now is that the media is coordinating with the same people that these leaks are about in the first place.  In other words, the media isn&amp;#x27;t trustworthy.  So it&amp;#x27;s a choice, put it out whole, or take a real risk that it&amp;#x27;ll never see the light of day.  You could argue that Wikileaks could be doing its own editing to redact sensitive irrelevant information, but then they&amp;#x27;re curating the content and are open to criticism regarding whether they&amp;#x27;re editing with a bias.&lt;p&gt;I get it, I don&amp;#x27;t like that innocent people&amp;#x27;s information is out there.  However, it&amp;#x27;s a hard choice that Wikileaks is making there in how to put the information out there.  It&amp;#x27;s not as simple as running it through reporters, because you don&amp;#x27;t know if you can trust them.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s a political mess, though.  You only really hear that when the information casts the &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; in a bad light.  It&amp;#x27;s a lot easier to rip Wikileaks when it&amp;#x27;s a matter of national security, but in this case, it&amp;#x27;s fairly evident we had a biased primary and the media was complicit in that.</text></comment>
<story><title>WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for information on former DNC staffer&apos;s murder</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-20000-seth-rich-dnc-2016-8</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dvcc</author><text>WikiLeaks is becoming a political mess with Assange leading the charge.&lt;p&gt;The philosophy that all information should be public is just absurd. There is a reason that the whistle-blowers prior passed their information to reporters, it allowed for certain pieces of information to be redacted.&lt;p&gt;Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone. Leaking the private conversation of a man and his daughter does not benefit anyone.&lt;p&gt;Assange&amp;#x27;s crazed obsession of having WikiLeaks in the news doesn&amp;#x27;t help either, it only leads to further politicization and larger claims. The whole site has just turned into a show more than anything.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>imron</author><text>&amp;gt; Sending out the name of every woman voter in Turkey does not benefit anyone&lt;p&gt;It was not wikileaks who did this.  See here:  &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;glomardisclosure.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;the-who-and-how-of-the-akp-hack-dump-and-wikileaks-release&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;glomardisclosure.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;the-who-and-how-of-t...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Specifically from the summary at the end:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;1. Because they tweeted the link to the item, they were blamed by the article. This provoked what seems in hindsight to be an overly defensive reaction. Given the accusations that Russia supplied WikiLeaks with information to publish and some construing this to mean that WikiLeaks is controlled by Russia, it’s easy to see how this could happen.&lt;p&gt;2. Even though my name was on the page as the uploader and I had tweeted it out first, WikiLeaks never tried to pass the buck to me or say that it was my upload or my fault. They never reached out to me privately to ask me to do or say anything about it, despite the fact that that would have made things easier for them or taken the pressure off of them. I can only conclude that this is because doing so would have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of their source protection policy by placing the blame on me or pointing the Turkish government in my direction. For that, I’m grateful.&lt;/i&gt;</text></comment>