This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 152.91.9.167 (talk) at 23:13, 17 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:13, 17 January 2007 by 152.91.9.167 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
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
- 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).