| Revision as of 03:28, 18 January 2007 editPicaroon (talk | contribs)17,614 edits move section to correct chronological order, add project notice, add unsigned, add reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:45, 18 January 2007 edit undoF.F.McGurk (talk | contribs)322 edits →Necessity of wikileaks: about the facted sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?{{unsigned2|03:14, January 18, 2007|Schnitzi}} | Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?{{unsigned2|03:14, January 18, 2007|Schnitzi}} | ||
| :You're quite right; such statements should have citations, so as to comply with ] policy. Because of this, I've added a {{tl|fact}} tag. You can add these yourself to statements which you feel should cite a source. Be neither excessive nor stingy with regards to the use of the template. ] 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | :You're quite right; such statements should have citations, so as to comply with ] policy. Because of this, I've added a {{tl|fact}} tag. You can add these yourself to statements which you feel should cite a source. Be neither excessive nor stingy with regards to the use of the template. ] 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm going to take down that one fact tag; it's supported by current source , in the third paragraph. ] 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:45, 18 January 2007
 | Cryptography: Computer science Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2007 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
I speedily-kept the debate. If you disagree and your a regular wikipedia editor contact me on my talk page and I'll un-close it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
New article
- Added a ton of resources/RS sources. Needs cleanup, working on it. Please help! F.F.McGurk 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is Wikilinks a typo for Wikileaks or something different? Peter Grey 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- They're different. Wikilinks are where you type a page name in double square brackets. In the context of Misplaced Pages, they're usually just called links. Picaroon 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the edit I just made it was a typo. Mackenson got most of them before, we both missed that last one... F.F.McGurk 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And now it's popping up all over international media... F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism
Is it me, or do the statements in the criticism section not make sense? Lcament 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- The guy's own language, and not really, no. I put it just to have *some* balance for now. F.F.McGurk 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Each statement makes sense, but the second does not follow from the first. The first refers to the question of to what extent leaking of any sort is ethical in a democracy, and the second relates to misleading leaking (presumably including forged documents). I will attempt to fix this! JY, 16 January 2007
- At some point the bits got put in one paragraph rather than broken up. Read better? F.F.McGurk 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- This doesn't solve the problem - the Aftergood quoted refers to all leaking in a democracy, and the Wikileaks FAQ quote refers to misleading leaking (and as far as I can tell was not written in response to the Aftergood quote). I think we another sentance dealing with the possibility of misleading leaks, or no mention of them at all. JY, 17 Jan 2007 (I note that the misunderstaning seems to have begun in Friedman's article rather than here)
- At some point the bits got put in one paragraph rather than broken up. Read better? F.F.McGurk 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Each statement makes sense, but the second does not follow from the first. The first refers to the question of to what extent leaking of any sort is ethical in a democracy, and the second relates to misleading leaking (presumably including forged documents). I will attempt to fix this! JY, 16 January 2007
Wikileaks should integrate with Misplaced Pages
One of main my Misplaced Pages wishlist :
| “ | 'discussion' page on Misplaced Pages should have a section for debating where a NPOV/neutral admin moderator can summarize all the distinct points (typically there are very few even for hotly debated/controversial topics) and these distinct points should have voting buttons as well. | ” |
That wish list seems to be fulfilled by Wikileaks but I think Misplaced Pages will always have more visibility as compared to Wikileaks and hence Wikileaks should find ways to integrate with it e.g. the main page of a topic should always be the Misplaced Pages page and there should be a link to Wikileaks page (if it exists) having leaked data as well as it should support blogging/debating and should have buttons as well.
Vjdchauhan 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC). (Information should be centralized and rest all should be de-centralized)
it's possible
i wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is behind this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.243.245 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Necessity of wikileaks
Is it just me, or is the start of the fourth paragraph, stating that "it has been observed that" this sort of site is a necessity, just an opinion without any backing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 03:14, January 18, 2007 (UTC)
- You're quite right; such statements should have citations, so as to comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy. Because of this, I've added a {{fact}} tag. You can add these yourself to statements which you feel should cite a source. Be neither excessive nor stingy with regards to the use of the template. Picaroon 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to take down that one fact tag; it's supported by current source #12, in the third paragraph. F.F.McGurk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)