Wikipedia talk:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 14 October 2012. The result of the discussion was snow keep. |
Offsite discussion thread
editThere is an off-wiki discussion thread with a fair amount of useful research (along with the usual level of gratuitous and off-topic wisecracks) here: "Jimmy Wales: people think I'm responsible for Wikileaks" at Wikipedia Review. —Montana Mouse 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Whois Record Reverse Whois: "Wikia, Inc." owns about348 other domains Email Search: is associated with about 336 domains NS History: 2 changes on 2 unique name servers over 3 years. IP History: 14 changes on 7 unique name servers over 3 years. Whois History: 25 records have been archived since 2007-09-27 . Reverse IP: 12 other sites hosted on this server. Log In or Create a FREE account to start monitoring this domain name DomainTools for Windows® Now you can access domain ownership records anytime, anywhere... right from your own desktop! Download Now> Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.US Domain ID: D11634210-US Sponsoring Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 146 Registrar URL (registration services): whois.godaddy.com Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registrant ID: CR16061522 Registrant Name: Michael Davis Registrant Organization: Wikia, Inc. Registrant Address1: 500 3rd St. Registrant Address2: Suite 405 Registrant City: San Francisco Registrant State/Province: California Registrant Postal Code: 94107 Registrant Country: United States Registrant Country Code: US Registrant Phone Number: +1.6505480800 Registrant Email: Registrant Application Purpose: P1 Registrant Nexus Category: C21 Administrative Contact ID: CR16061524 Administrative Contact Name: Michael Davis Administrative Contact Organization: Wikia, Inc. Administrative Contact Address1: 500 3rd St. Administrative Contact Address2: Suite 405 Administrative Contact City: San Francisco Administrative Contact State/Province: California Administrative Contact Postal Code: 94107 Administrative Contact Country: United States Administrative Contact Country Code: US Administrative Contact Phone Number: +1.6505480800 Administrative Contact Email: Administrative Application Purpose: P1 Administrative Nexus Category: C21 Billing Contact ID: CR16061525 Billing Contact Name: Michael Davis Billing Contact Organization: Wikia, Inc. Billing Contact Address1: 500 3rd St. Billing Contact Address2: Suite 405 Billing Contact City: San Francisco Billing Contact State/Province: California Billing Contact Postal Code: 94107 Billing Contact Country: United States Billing Contact Country Code: US Billing Contact Phone Number: +1.6505480800 Billing Contact Email: Billing Application Purpose: P1 Billing Nexus Category: C21 Technical Contact ID: CR16061523 Technical Contact Name: Michael Davis Technical Contact Organization: Wikia, Inc. Technical Contact Address1: 500 3rd St. Technical Contact Address2: Suite 405 Technical Contact City: San Francisco Technical Contact State/Province: California Technical Contact Postal Code: 94107 Technical Contact Country: United States Technical Contact Country Code: US Technical Contact Phone Number: +1.6505480800 Technical Contact Email: Technical Application Purpose: P1 Technical Nexus Category: C21 Name Server: NS1.WIKIA.COM Name Server: NS2.WIKIA.COM Created by Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Last Updated by Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Domain Registration Date: Thu Jan 04 00:31:53 GMT 2007 Domain Expiration Date: Mon Jan 03 23:59:59 GMT 2011 Domain Last Updated Date: Tue Sep 29 13:22:45 GMT 2009
Updated the page to be more accurate
editMr. Finkelstein, I would have guessed that you would have the technical skills to look up the CNAME record to realize that Wikia is not "serving" any content on behalf of Wikileaks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, your estimation of my technical skills is correct, but the latter half of your sentence (not "serving") does not follow from the former part ("CNAME") - indeed, may be even said to contradict it. Often, I face the issue of having to translate complex technical information into short simple phrasing ordinary people will understand. For example, describing the relationship between the for-profit venture-capital funded company Wikia, Inc, and the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. While legally separate organizations, I believe leaving a description there would do a disservice to a reader in understanding the overall situation, which encompasses many informal (and occasional formal) connections. So, here, my goal was to find a word to describe the connection between what one sees at Wikileaks.COM, etc and wikileaks.ORG. I suspect others would have used "redirect", but it's not really a redirect, which to me technically means a HTTP code 302 or code 301 response. Since, whoever the legal owner of the domains, Wikia is currently the provider of their DNS service, I went with changing "owner" to "served", which to my mind was both technically accurate (again, per DNS service), and also reasonable English. I have no objection to more detail, but at the moment I was doing edits, that wording seemed sufficient.
You may find it amusing (or may not, though maybe others might), that in fact I wondered if there's a bug in Wikia's DNS setup here, and thought about sending a report to Wikia. But then I decided doing that might be playing "The Engineer And The Guillotine", as it was unlikely to be appreciated.
Further on the skills point, note if I meant you any ill-will here (rather than neutrally fixing errors on a topic where I'm knowledgeable), I would have pointed out that in the Wikileaks email leak, one can find that the original "Administrative Contact" for wikileaks.net was "Wales, Jimmy", along with much speculation as to the purpose of those registrations (John Young - "Wales is attempting to protect his investment. He's businessman before all else, meaning without scruples. Consider his action an attack on WL, perhaps to be followed by others if it threatens his commercial operation of reputation building pretending to be a public service -- like giving out free cigarettes.")
Sigh. One of my sayings is that while people don't have to like me personally, I do ask they respect my work. I'm always thinking that if I'm scrupulous with facts and rigorously intellectually honest (which does not mean being a patsy for flackery, quite the reverse), then even those at odds with me will recognize my devotion to truth, justice, and fair play. But, sadly, the world doesn't work that way. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV
editClearly not NPOV. This essay is very slanted toward Jimmy Wales' point of view. --173.13.177.205 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently, this essay is excluded from NPOV. Someone else should write a counter essay, I guess. Somehow I doubt it would survive, though. --173.13.177.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
It's not 'very slanted'.. but the way its written is kind of cold and impersonal.. why are we even making this an issue? 69.134.27.229 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding NPOV, what do you think is not being included which should be included? I'm provisionally inclined, at the moment, to give Wales the benefit of the doubt on this one. Wikileaks didn't respond to an inquiry I sent about the transfer, and they do seem to have other things to worry about. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it was written by the Wikimedia foundation, and is thus exempt from community consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't written by the Wikimedia Foundation. Again, as one of the people who has contributed to it, and note is often critical of the parties involved (to put it mildly ...), what do you think is problematic about the page? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it was written by the Wikimedia foundation, and is thus exempt from community consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding NPOV, what do you think is not being included which should be included? I'm provisionally inclined, at the moment, to give Wales the benefit of the doubt on this one. Wikileaks didn't respond to an inquiry I sent about the transfer, and they do seem to have other things to worry about. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Question
editAs somewhat of a keen observer as well as a fairly avid user on wikipedia, I'm interested to know as to why Jimmy Wales purchased those wikileaks domains in 2006? What would have happened were wikileaks allowed to obtain them first? Dark Prime (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Quick_question.2C_seemed_a_bit_odd... --Cybercobra (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm ... domains registered around 03-jan-2007 ... checking against the WikiLeaks email leak shows a burst of publicity at the time. Fact-check, pass, on the matter of timeline. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- unless there was some campaign by those associated with wikipeida (Davis/Wales) to register wiki*.com, etc. - which there is some evidence - wikipedia, wiktionary, wikiquote etc. it would be interesting to find out what the foundations forecasted purpose for the wikileaks domain might have been.Cander0000 (talk)
- Wikia, not the Wikimedia Foundation, made the registrations. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This page cited in Supreme Court filing
editThis page was cited in an amicus brief filed in a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. See [1], p. 10, footnote 3. The brief is filed in Golan v. Holder.--Chaser2 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Off-topic but in good faith
editI searched WP:Wikileaks but arrived this page. On wikileaks site, I found some important facts and I believe is not a false information. Can I cite a document on Wikileaks? --Cheol (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- That depends on the article, the text in the article to be supported by the citation, and the precise source. The matter should first be discussed at the talk page of the article, but WP:RSN could be used for a more general answer (however, they would also say that precise information would need to be presented). Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2013
editwikileaks was controled by wikimedia foundation when it had been founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 马达汉 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Source? --Geniac (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not an essay
editI don't think this is an "essay". It contains only factual information and does not present a point of view; it is much more akin to a "help" page or a simple informational page than an essay. Since this page is likely to be viewed by many people who are unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia's project namespace works, I think that essay tag is doing more harm than good, by creating doubt about the objectivity of the page.
Since I couldn't find a more appropriate header template I have boldly removed the essay tag and replaced it with a simple shortcut box. Please discuss if you disagree. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)