Wikileaks: to trust or not to trust? (wk 7)

In Week Seven the class held debates over the very contentious topic of Wikileaks. The class was split into three sub-debates all covering the issue of whether Wikileaks is a good or bad thing for society. Our particular debate focused on the issue of trust. I will discuss our points in a moment but first, I want to look at a few other things that came up while listening to other debates.

Firstly, a big question regarding Wikileaks is that of whether the organisation acts as a journalistic group. Does the production of material on a website count as journalism? If so, call me a journalist. One word explains why this question needs to be answered: responsibility. As a blogger, I can post nearly anything on the web, so long as it does not breach criminal or private law. For example, I could quite freely suggest that Julia Gillard is having an affair. Because I have absolutely no credibility as a writer, a comment like this will go largely unnoticed. As a journalist working for a newspaper however, it would be impossible to suggest such a baseless statement without being sued for libel. With the title of 'journalist' comes a need for responsibility.

So where does that leave Wikileaks? They do not produce a daily, weekly or monthly print publication, but all of their product is online. Many might say this makes it a blog site. But there appears to be a great deal of credibility attached to these documents. Julian Assange, the leader of Wikileaks, says that the documents released are all checked for credibility. This goes back to my point about blogging. My post about Gillard would almost certainly be ignored because, amongst the millions of bloggers, I have little to no credibility. But the Sydney Morning Herald site has a great deal of credibility as a journalistic website, therefore they would be pulled up on such a story. It could then be argued that Wikileaks is journalism.

So can we trust Wikileaks? They upload confidential government documents without any apparent discretion. There is no visible organisational structure. Julian Assange is an unelected leader of the organisation. Lives have been jeopardised at the release of the Afghanistan War Diary. These are all negative points to consider. Then there is the credibility of sources. Assange says they are entirely credible. Many are disgruntled former government employees. But does credibility alone mean we can trust Wikileaks? If we give a comment to a New York Times journalist, while we know they are a credible newspaper, how do we know they won't spin our words and omit key statements? Wikileaks is also stateless. This is cause for serious concern when deciding whether they are trustworthy. Websites are the only businesses that can remain stateless. This means they are not operating under the jurisdiction of any nation. They are lawless. Wikileaks therefore could release anything without fear of prosecution. How can we trust someone or something that has nothing to lose?

These are some of the questions that arose during the Wikileaks debates. They are not easy to answer as the debates (often disintegrating into all out arguments) showed.