Although we have declined more requests for comment about Wikileaks than we have responded to, some participants in the project feel that we have said too much.
Jay Lim of Wikileaks sent the following advisory email today:
“Who’s side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped.”
“You know full well if you make n comments about us and m negative ones about us it’ll only be the negative comment that is reported — since everyone else has only positive things to say and by your position at FAS there is an expectation of positive comment. You are not a child. As a result of your previous criticism it seem you are becoming the ‘go to’ man for negative comments on Wikileaks. Over the last year, our most quoted critic has not been a right wing radio host, it has not been the Chinese ambassador, it has not been Pentagon bureaucrats, it has been you Stephen. You are the number one public enemy of this project. On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page. Some friend of openness!”
“We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don’t, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond.”
“Jay Lim”
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
let me get this straight.
wikileaks reveals documents that present corporations, governments, and other authorities in a bad light, under the guise of free and open speech.
BUT… they don’t want you exercising the same rights to reveal opinions that cast wikileaks in a bad light.
do these guys not understand the definition of irony? because they certainly seem to be the living embodiment of it.
what I really want to know is, what do they really mean by “we will…. be forced to respond.” what are they gonna do, get a judge to pull your DNS listings?
- dan tynan
http://www.dantynan.com
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Though Jay Lim’s e-mail is off base, you have to consider that WikiLeaks is under a pretty severe amount of stress these days. So, I’d take that e-mail as the kind of outburst we’re all susceptible to in stressful times. We’re all on the same team, here.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It’s nice that this guy doesn’t have anything to worry about greater than what Steven thinks. What’s the bug up his tuchus?
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
This is a petty thing to do - for you folks to publish an e-mail that is clearly intended to be private. Now you can make the idiotic argument that Wiki does the same thing, but this is not a life or death situation, or a government or company trying to cover up misdeeds, etc.
It sounds like Steven has some personal vendetta against this group at Wikileaks, which is his and their business, but evidently this Stephen wants some help from his “peeps”!
I would give it some thought and think about why you folks would even publish this, and then hope that someone does not do some digging on your activities and personal e-mails. Then it would be “different”, right Steven?
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Sending a pissy email to the owner of a website that has been consistently critical of what you do, and on top of it you place a veiled threat at the end, and you would expect that to remain private?
It is apparent that the owners of wikileaks are not interested in improving their website, but instead only want the love and adoration of gushing sychophants.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Angry email != court ordered censorship. Doesn’t it say
“On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page.”
Irony would be if they attempted to edit that entry. Which they certainly could do. Yet the comment remains. Just because information is free and open doesn’t mean it isn’t supposed to piss you off.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Personally I though Mr. Aftergoode’s take on the wikileaks issue was quite fair. His conclusion seemed reasonable. I don’t take his lack of partisan cheerleading to be a bad thing. Wikileaks is an interesting concept but should not expect people to feign total support when they have reasonable reservations.
That said I tend to agree with the commentor above that this email is probably a product of stress. It might have been best simply to ignore it.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
If the site search is working correctly, there have been two prior posts about Wikileaks here. How can that be construed to be “constant harping”?
March 11th, 2008 at 1:22 am
“Constant Harping,” spelled HAARP…I am sure we are all aware of the program…a lot of coincidences going around these days…then again, I do not believe in coincidences…