http://www.cracked.com/blog/24-questions-i-shouldnt-have-asked-wikileaks-founder/

Best. Thing. Ever.

(Dunno if Cracked.com is blocked in China, but here's the whole article quoted in case it is)

Preamble

Quote :

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stormed out of an interview with CNN this week in which the interviewer began asking questions about Assange's personal life, in particular the sexual assault allegations that have been made against him in Sweden. Assange had evidently tried to set some ground rules before the interview, and upon hearing the line of questions, tore off his microphone and walked out of the studio, having learned a valuable lesson about gullibility.

During our regular editorial meeting at Cracked, we immediately saw a fantastic opportunity in this: to land a major interview and finally get the respect and admiration from the mainstream media that we surely deserve. "If we play this right, I bet Katie Couric will definitely put out for us," I suggested to a room full of enthusiastic nodding. So Cracked got in contact with Assange, and after extracting our spines thoroughly enough, agreed to every interview ground rule he wanted. Here's what happened next:

Interview:

Quote :

Cracked: Hello Julian, thanks for being here.

Assange: Happy to. I'm looking forward to this.

Cracked: Everyone always says that. Ok, let's get right down to it. So you run this website...

Assange: I actually run it with the help of a talented and dedicated team...

Cracked: ... that offers advice for people who are suffering from adult incontinence. What would you say is your biggest challenge with that? Is it the mockery?

Assange: ...

Cracked: It is the mockery isn't it? It's vandals ruining your laundry tips page with hateful, sophomoric comedy? I'm imagining yellow fonts. That's just awful.

Assange: -the long sigh of someone just discovering Cracked for the first time- The "leaks" in Wikileaks refers to leaked documents. In particular secret government documents which people - insiders within the government - wish to publish anonymously.

Cracked: Oh, I get it now. -flips through notes- Errrrrr. So this is basically about Obama's bed wetting problem then?

Assange: No, you don't understand.

Cracked: No, I do not understand.

Assange: I'll give you an example. Just recently we published a series of previously classified documents which shows statistics the military has been gathering about civilian deaths in Iraq.

Cracked: Iraq? That thing from 2005? Is there still stuff to learn about that?

Assange: There certainly is. One of the many things Wikileaks is capable of, is showing information about Iraq that people have never seen before.

Cracked: That's right! I heard about you guys now. You were the ones that figured out Saddam spelled backwards was Maddas.

Assange: What?

Cracked: That's pretty close to Mad Ass.

Assange: I...

Cracked: Ass. -enunciating clearly and kind of yelling- ASS.

Assange: No.

Cracked: That wasn't you? That sounds like it should be a Wikileak.

Assange: Wikileaks is not a venue for exchanging ancient and terrible jokes for children.

Cracked: It is terrible, isn't it? I don't want us to misrepresent ourselves here. Cracked does not condone that joke at all. As stewards of responsible chuckle-dealing, we simply can't make use of it. But if we were able to tell that joke anonymously, without damaging our reputations, no-one would know that we suck. Isn't that the point of Wikileaks?

Assange: This is nonsense. -starts to remove microphone-

Cracked: Mr. Assange, we have not crossed any of your ground rules. Now calm down. A big part of your role is coordinating Wikileaks efforts with the conventional media, and I know you don't want to get a reputation as a big interview-baby.

Assange: -freezes, fixes interviewer with steely gaze- All right.

Cracked: That's right. You're pooping on the big boy interview-toilet now. High Five. -extends palm upwards-

Assange: This interview cannot go on like this.

Cracked: That's totally fair. Ok, let's talk about your site administration. A big problem with conventional wikis is that anyone can edit them. Because of this, the information on them is often not considered reliable. How have you dealt with that at Wikileaks?

Assange: Yes! I mean, thank you. That was a very intelligent question.

Cracked: Please don't patronize me or my readers.

Assange: I'm sorry. Well, we initially followed a classic wiki setup, but ran into the reliability problems which you described. How it works now, is that we accept submissions anonymously, then have an editorial panel review the content to determine its veracity. If it looks ok, only then do we publish it. Users no longer have the ability to edit submissions.

Cracked: But then is that truly a wiki? It sounds more like... that website... what am I thinking of?

Assange: Yes, I know it sounds like a conventional news gathering organization, but...

Cracked: No! oprah.com! The Oprah website! That site's got editorial-reviewed content submitted by a variety of writers, just like your site. I guess they're more about life improvement and self-realization than Iraq, but otherwise the sites are basically the same.

Assange: I will admit to having not actually visited oprah.com, but can nevertheless assure you that they're completely different sites.

Cracked: Would you say that your ongoing rivalry with oprah.com is the defining feature of Wikileaks?

Assange: No, I would not. Go back to the good questions now please.

Cracked: Of course. -checks notes- Ok, this will be delicate. It strays a little close to one of the ground rules we discussed earlier.

Assange: -through gritted teeth- This interview is to be about Wikileaks only.

Cracked: I understand, and this question is about Wikileaks.

Assange: All right.

Cracked: There have been allegations that Oprah Winfrey has been sexually harassing you. Do you have any comments on how that has affected Wikileaks?

Assange: Who's been alleging that?

Cracked: Some guys. They might work here. Would you say that Oprah's fluctuating weight has put a stress on your relationship? Has that stress impacted Wikileaks?

Assange: -begins removing microphone-

Cracked: Would you say that your inability to get an erection since Dr. Phil left to start his own show, and the resulting problems you developed with explosive involuntary urination was the impetus for starting Wikileaks?

Assange: -storms off, urinating wildly-

Cracked.com is the best.

Heh, he deserved it. That guy is so f*cking stupid.

Noteworthy that this didn't actually happen.

Sorry, was referring to very 1st quote, 1st paragraph. He got arrested today too MUAHAHAHAHAHA

Why is he stupid, may I ask?

Fluberwinter wrote:

Why is he stupid, may I ask?

Leaking U.S government secrets to the public and (possible) enemy countries is stupid by me. Julien Assange is the representation of stupidness, and finding loopholes in the whole "press freedom" treaty/agreements.

Urubaen wrote:

Fluberwinter wrote:

Why is he stupid, may I ask?

Leaking U.S government secrets to the public and (possible) enemy countries is stupid by me. Julien Assange is the representation of stupidness, and finding loopholes in the whole "press freedom" treaty/agreements.

I wouldn't call him stupid. Some might say it's illegal what he is doing, but in a way I think it is good what he or wikileaks is doing.
There is too much crap going on in this world and wikileaks is pointing fingers now, which is inconvinient for those people.
Just remeber Wikileaks is a platform for those, who want to publish information. It's not Wikileaks, that hacks into Computer Systems to steal information. They receive the Info and then they publish it.

it would be stupid if they only do this to the US government and not others... Haven't read it though just observing

So basically if I discover something considered a "valid" secret to someone, and If I were to expose it, it may ruin relations, should I send it to Wikileaks?

I don't think Wikileaks is a correct website at all. To some extent, they are similar to all the tabloids, i.e. giving away one's personal life and such, which is already considered a violation of private property and life.
When you start leaking government secrets to the world, who knows how fools might react? It is true that freedom of press is a good thing, but only if it's a restricted country, such as N.Korea for example. If the government hides something from you, there's a reason for it. Hence the term secret. Of course there are some secrets which concern manipulating the public, but otherwise, secrets are just secrets. Leaking them for the public's "profit" is not a valid reason at all; it's more like an excuse, adding the fact that the site is hiding behind the whole "freedom of press" treaty, or whatever you want to call it. How would you like it if your neighbour started to leak secrets on you on the web? In fact, the admins from wikileaks knows that what they are doing is wrong. They were so freaked out because of the U.S cutting their servers/services that they moved to a swiss host.

=P

Urubaen wrote:

It is true that freedom of press is a good thing, but only if it's a restricted country, such as N.Korea for example. If the government hides something from you, there's a reason for it. Hence the term secret. Of course there are some secrets which concern manipulating the public, but otherwise, secrets are just secrets. Leaking them for the public's "profit" is not a valid reason at all; it's more like an excuse, adding the fact that the site is hiding behind the whole "freedom of press" treaty, or whatever you want to call it. How would you like it if your neighbour started to leak secrets on you on the web? In fact, the admins from wikileaks knows that what they are doing is wrong. They were so freaked out because of the U.S cutting their servers/services that they moved to a swiss host.

=P

So the US is not a restricted country? Look at what has happend since 9/11. Up to now ppl still don't know who was behind the terror act.
The theory that the own govmt is behind this, is possible. IMO, all this informations about terror acts is just trying to make ppl afraid and so it's easier to control the ppl.
A govmt. being allowed to arrest whoever and whenever they want is very dangerous and in my view the US is just as restricted as North Korea. Even worse, in North Korea it is public and in the US it is hidden.
What you are saying, that this is not good is exactly what the US govmt is wanting you to say and think, so that they can continue with their BS. Rich get richer and more powerfull, the rest is only getting poorer.
Wake up and start thinking about what is going on man. This is not about your neighbour telling everyone about your affair. This is about manipulating ppl.
Remember what happend in Germany? Financial world crisis, ppl having no jobs, and one guy manipulating the country. Probably you know the outcome.

Obama is going to start WWIII?

StiXx wrote:

Obama is going to start WWIII?

I'm also one of those that believe there are some guys that got sensibly more strings to pull than the democratically elected president and his staff.

Muhan wrote:

So the US is not a restricted country? Look at what has happend since 9/11. Up to now ppl still don't know who was behind the terror act.
The theory that the own govmt is behind this, is possible. IMO, all this informations about terror acts is just trying to make ppl afraid and so it's easier to control the ppl.
A govmt. being allowed to arrest whoever and whenever they want is very dangerous and in my view the US is just as restricted as North Korea. Even worse, in North Korea it is public and in the US it is hidden.
What you are saying, that this is not good is exactly what the US govmt is wanting you to say and think, so that they can continue with their BS. Rich get richer and more powerfull, the rest is only getting poorer.
Wake up and start thinking about what is going on man. This is not about your neighbour telling everyone about your affair. This is about manipulating ppl.
Remember what happend in Germany? Financial world crisis, ppl having no jobs, and one guy manipulating the country. Probably you know the outcome.

Where in my post did indicate that the U.S was not a restricted country? Contrary to popular belief muhan, freedom of press doesn't mean a country doesn't have a certain level of censorship.
Sure it may be BS, but politics are about manipulating people. The public needs a guiding hand, a leader, that is the government. Call it the sheep phenomenon.
If you want to leak secrets, how about first checking if it might have an impact on international relations? Ecuador has already offered political asylum to Assange, so he could "collaborate" with them.
It's also easier to control the people when they are afraid. Rebelling is less likely. That's how it has always been; no country in the world is really democratic, always been a minimum level of control. If you take the opposite, and say all voices are valid in politics, then might as well screw the president, let the people do the thinking, except there's one problem: the people don't think like one organism, but individually. so what would you have? Civil war again?

If you've never realized that the government's job is to manipulate people, then don't vote. That's another manipulation perhaps? Especially if you're in a federal government. Can a country really afford to discuss their next political moves, only to have the public discover it? It'd be back to what? Plato's government? Anarchy?

Urubaen wrote:

That's how it has always been; no country in the world is really democratic, always been a minimum level of control. If you take the opposite, and say all voices are valid in politics, then might as well screw the president, let the people do the thinking, except there's one problem: the people don't think like one organism, but individually. so what would you have? Civil war again?

Look at Switzerland Civil war? I don't think so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

"Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law."

"any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months"



Just some thoughts about the US govmt, why did JFK die? Maybe because he wanted to take the power of the CIA?

Of course the govmt has to take some sort of controll and insure that laws are followed, if not there will be chaos.
But honestly they are not doing it for the people, they are doing it to have power and become even richer. Therefor they need to cover up some things and call it Top Secret so no one can see what they are realy doing.

So, did the publishment of the documents kill anyone so far?
Besides the documents about Irak, what was published? Nothing spectacular, only some info about what ppl in an US embassy think about the politicians in the country they are based.

I agree with what Kevin Rudd (Australias's Minister for Foreign Affairs) said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that. I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material."

It might be not damaging now...

But what if he would get his hands on some kind of documents that could prove stuff as the government beeing behind all the terrror rist attacks and the war on terror seems to be only for securing resources for the richer country's in the world.

Should this be posted on wiki leaks, would it be worth the risk of having WWIII just to see this information or is it better left unsaid?

If this would be better left un said then what is the point of wiki leaks it would be another form of manipulating the public but just a little bit less censored.

Im not sure what kind of guy Assange is but wiki leaks would be fine if they just take out some rotten eggs but it shouldnt be posting to serious stuff...

As I see it, somethings are better left unsaid,

e.g. its nice that I have a lot of choice at the butcher in different kinds of meat, I dont want the guy showing me pictures of what a lovely rabbit it was when it was still alive.

Looks like he was granted bail. Kudos to the lawyer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930

A really good PLACE here