Has WikiLeaks gone too far?

Online whistleblower WikiLeaks has made quite a splash of late.

By making available various pieces of information that governments, corporations and mainstream media don't want us to know, it's been busy rewriting the rules on information sharing.

It has attracted fierce critics from the right, supporters from the left and caused lively debate in both the traditional and social media, while its eccentric founder Julian Assange has become quite the mystery man.

It's even made its way onto Stephen Conroy's list of sites to be banned under the proposed controversial internet filter.

But by releasing documents related to the war in Afghanistan that contain names and locations of informers, has WikiLeaks gone too far?

In this article from The Australian, Assange denies having blood on his hands after the Taliban started tracking down and killing some of those named. Instead, he lays the blame at the feet of the US military, saying it was widely known on the ground who the sources were and the US military failed to protect their safety.

"We are a source protection organisation that specialises in protecting sources and have a perfect record from our activities," he said, continuing "In our four-year publishing history, no one has ever come to physical harm that we are aware of."

But how can he be sure that there are incidents that he is not aware of? And even if it was known in Afghanistan who US sources might be, WikiLeaks did the Taliban a wonderful service by collating them all in one, easy to find, place. Can he really say there is zero blood on his hands?

What is WikiLeaks really all about?

I'm not opposed to whistle blowing. There is always more than meets the eye to every issue that the media won't tell you. Media outlets will always have their biases and their agendas. It's quite refreshing to have a cat amongst the pigeons, or dare I say, a "shit stirrer".

But what is WikiLeaks' real purpose? Are they about releasing privileged information in its raw form, and leaving it up to the consumer to make up his/her mind? Or do they have their own agenda?

In this video (four and a half minutes long and well worth watching), Assange explains that due to a lot of the source documents WikiLeaks gets being exceptionally long and difficult to understand, they are interpreted – and Assange admits this interpretation goes beyond a mere summary – to make them understandable and consumable for the general public.

The problem is that the minute anyone interprets anything its meaning gets altered. There is no journalist on Earth who can take thousands of pages of complicated source material and transform it into one page of plain English without affecting, and indeed influencing how its meaning will be perceived.

To his credit, Assange explains that the original material is always released alongside the interpretation. But he’s already said the source data is too long and complicated for most people to understand. So what are the chances of them going back to it to check that what they’ve just read/viewed is an accurate interpretation?

Assange adds that the material is edited for impact. Given that impact is an extremely subjective thing, this further complicates matters given that the perceived meaning of the material will then be firmly in the hands of the editor.

Assange also freely admits that WikiLeaks is indeed an activist organisation, with a goal. Yes, that stated goal is an honourable one – justice – but the mere existence of a goal at all means the organisation can’t be objective.

The bottom line

WikiLeaks has done an enthusiastic job of keeping governments, organisations and the mainstream media in check, but who will keep it in check?

What do you think? Please leave a comment and join the discussion.