How many people do you know believe WikiLeaks is part of WMF

[Johnny Au]

There are quite a number of people who seriously believe that WikiLeaks is part of the WMF, especially given the fact that Wikipedia is the best known Wiki among the mainstream. However, we all know that WikiLeaks is not part of WMF. Read here: WP:WIKILEAKS (T-H-L)

Who do you know seriously believe that?

[Zoloft]

People in the street.

When I help them up out of the gutter, and hand them a moistened towelette, often the first thing they tell me is how sad they feel that Jimbo Wales is involved in such a sketchy website as bomis.com wikileaks.org.

[The Joy]

My mother came running in when Snowden was fleeing that Wikipedia was helping him escaped. As much as I would have enjoyed such a spectacle, I had to correct her. I can't imagine Jimbo taking that big a risk.

[Zoloft]

There was a time when Wikileaks itself claimed they were the "uncensorable version of Wikipedia"1

[thekohser]

There was a time when Jimmy Wales' for-profit spin-off of Wikipedia owned at least five of the Wikileaks' domain names. Per usual, Jimbo felt the best way to explain his way out of that one was just to tell more lies.

[lilburne]

I always encourage the belief.

[Zoloft]

I always encourage the belief.

I wonder what would happen if I ... *decides to keep his devious scheme to himself for later use*

[thekohser]

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but back in August 2010, there was this story by journalist Andrew Clark, published in The Guardian. At the time, I contacted Mr. Clark to let him know Jimmy Wales was the (then) chairman of the company that owned the domain registrations for Wikileaks.com, Wikileaks.net, and even Wikileaks.us, so it might be little surprise that Sue Gardner's mom might confuse Jimmy Wales for Julian Assange. This priceless comment by Gardner was amusing: "Wikipedia is adept at spotting agenda-driven edits of its entries." Hours after my e-mail to Clark, The Guardian deleted a public comment I had posted under his news story. I asked him why my public comment on his story had been deleted. I also asked him why a comment by Jon Awbrey, reading simply "Where is Seth Finkelstein when we really need him?", had also been deleted.

Clark's response:

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Just because Jimmy Wales has registered various "wikileaks" names doesn't mean he controls wikileaks.org. He might have registered these other names because he doesn't want any further "wiki" copies springing up. I haven't personally deleted your comments, one of the moderators in London must be doing it - and the reason, presumably, is that you're implying dishonesty by Wikipedia which could leave us open to libel action.

I thought that was a rather cowardly presumption, if true. Within a couple of months, Clark was no longer employed by The Guardian. He took up work for one year with The Observer, then spent a little over 4 years as the Deputy Business Editor with The Times. He has been (apparently) unemployed now for about 4 months.

[Kumioko]

I have also encountered many people who think that there is some kind of connection with Wikipedia/the WMF and Wikileaks.

[Poetlister]

Within a couple of months, Clark was no longer employed by The Guardian. He took up work for one year with The Observer

Just for clarity, I should note that both papers are owned by the same people.

[Zoloft]

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but back in August 2010, there was this story by journalist Andrew Clark, published in The Guardian. At the time, I contacted Mr. Clark to let him know Jimmy Wales was the (then) chairman of the company that owned the domain registrations for Wikileaks.com, Wikileaks.net, and even Wikileaks.us, so it might be little surprise that Sue Gardner's mom might confuse Jimmy Wales for Julian Assange. This priceless comment by Gardner was amusing: "Wikipedia is adept at spotting agenda-driven edits of its entries." Hours after my e-mail to Clark, The Guardian deleted a public comment I had posted under his news story. I asked him why my public comment on his story had been deleted. I also asked him why a comment by Jon Awbrey, reading simply "Where is Seth Finkelstein when we really need him?", had also been deleted.

Clark's response:

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Just because Jimmy Wales has registered various "wikileaks" names doesn't mean he controls wikileaks.org. He might have registered these other names because he doesn't want any further "wiki" copies springing up. I haven't personally deleted your comments, one of the moderators in London must be doing it - and the reason, presumably, is that you're implying dishonesty by Wikipedia which could leave us open to libel action.

I thought that was a rather cowardly presumption, if true. Within a couple of months, Clark was no longer employed by The Guardian. He took up work for one year with The Observer, then spent a little over 4 years as the Deputy Business Editor with The Times. He has been (apparently) unemployed now for about 4 months.

His article in October about stop signs I agree with: linkhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... e26902846/[/link]

[Johnny Au]

It is very unfortunate that the factoid that WikiLeaks is part of the WMF is very widespread, especially to those not in WO or heavily involved in Wikipedia (or its criticism).

[lilburne]

I always encourage the belief.

[Poetlister]

I always encourage the belief.

[Oblia]

It is very unfortunate that the factoid that WikiLeaks is part of the WMF is very widespread, especially to those not in WO or heavily involved in Wikipedia (or its criticism).

According to whom?

My personal answer to the question "How many people do you know believe WikiLeaks is part of WMF?" is zero.

[Poetlister]

My personal answer to the question "How many people do you know believe WikiLeaks is part of WMF?" is zero.

Why aren't you out telling people that it is?