WikiLeaks; Why is it considered credible?

[Realist Peter Pan]

I tried asking on reddit, but I just got idiots responding to me. I didn't get any decent answers, so here I am on a tech site asking a bunch of dorks. 

 

Pretty much the title though...

 

What makes it credible?

 

If sources are unkown, wouldn't it lose most of it's credibility?

 

What makes wiki leaks more reliable than any other site?

 

Couldn't the government just say any of the leaks are lies, and brush it off? 

 

EDIT:

 

Where do the sources come from?

 

What makes unknown sources docs reliable? 

 

How are sources validated by WikiLeaks?

 

I think you get the jist of what I'm trying to understand here, and would appreciate some accurate information, or explanations. 

Thanks for reading.

[stconquest]

7 minutes ago, Realist Peter Pan said:

I tried asking on reddit, but I just got idiots responding to me. I didn't get any decent answers, so here I am on a tech site asking a bunch of dorks. 

 

Pretty much the title though...

 

What makes it credible?

 

If sources are unkown, wouldn't it lose most of it's credibility?

 

What makes wiki leaks more reliable than any other site?

 

I think you get the jist of what I'm trying to understand here, and would appreciate some accurate information, or explanations. 

Thanks for reading.

The credibility is directly linked to the responsible parties the leaks are referring to.  How do they respond?

 

Wikileaks:  We found this!

 

Accused party:  ???

[Realist Peter Pan]

Just now, stconquest said:

The credibility is directly linked to the responsible parties the leaks are referring to. 

 

Wikileaks:  We found this!

 

Accused party:  ???

Yeah, but why can't they just brush it off, and be like "It's a lie!".... maybe I'm just not politically knowledgable, but I don't see how it's a big issue. 

[stconquest]

3 minutes ago, Realist Peter Pan said:

Yeah, but why can't they just brush it off, and be like "It's a lie!".... maybe I'm just not politically knowledgable, but I don't see how it's a big issue. 

The accused could say that they are fake.  ...and then wikileaks proves they are not.  Now the accused looks worse.  Best to just keep quiet, for the accused.

[Realist Peter Pan]

7 minutes ago, stconquest said:

The accused could say that they are fake.  ...and then wikileaks proves they are not.  Now the accused looks worse.  Best to just keep quiet, for the accused.

I don't even know what any of the shit says in the leaks, I'm just looking for examples, or some reasonings here. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

I don't even know what any of the shit says in the leaks, I'm just looking for examples, or some reasonings here. 

The leaks are for everyone to see.  They are not released to be used in court preceding or anything.  The leaks or data dumps are vast sometimes and takes journalists, and interested parties, quite a while to sift through.

[Realist Peter Pan]

6 minutes ago, stconquest said:

The leaks are for everyone to see.  They are not released to be used in court preceding or anything.  The leaks or data dumps are vast sometimes and takes journalists, and interested parties, quite a while to sift through.

I understand that, I'm more curious about who in particular posts them, and how they are determined credible. Most of this stuff is really intense, and it's of interest to me how he/she/they get ahold of it, and get it to wikileaks. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

I understand that, I'm more curious about who in particular posts them, and how they are determined credible. Most of this stuff is really intense, and it's of interest to me how he/she/they get ahold of it, and get it to wikileaks. 

Julian Assange posts them.  People send him the stolen data.

[Realist Peter Pan]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Julian Assange posts them.  People send him the stolen data.

That's interesting, but what makes the files that are sent to him credible? I've heard about the TPP or whatever, and the Hillary emails, but is there any way for us to find out how they came about, or to tell that they are fake? 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

That's interesting, but what makes the files that are sent to him credible? I've heard about the TPP or whatever, and the Hillary emails, but is there any way for us to find out how they came about, or to tell that they are fake? 

Only what they (wikileaks or the thief) tells us. 

 

Manning released data, he is currently in jail.  Manning verifies the data is good, wikileaks vets it (not sure how) and posts it.

[Realist Peter Pan]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Only what they (wikileaks or the thief) tells us. 

 

Manning released data, he is currently in jail.  Manning verifies the data is good, wikileaks vets it (not sure how) and posts it.

Manning was one of the military guys who stole data/documents right? 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

Manning was one of the military guys who stole data/documents right? 

yup...

 

That video of the unarmed people being gunned down from a chopper.

[Realist Peter Pan]

Just now, stconquest said:

yup...

 

That video of the unarmed people being gunned down from a chopper.

Yeah, I saw that, pretty brutal. I guess I won't really get my asnwers then will I?  

[stconquest]

4 minutes ago, Realist Peter Pan said:

Yeah, I saw that, pretty brutal. I guess I won't really get my asnwers then will I?  

They're leaks.  How do you know what you watch on NBC News/FOX News/CNN is credible?  News flash!  You don't.  These avenues present indirect evidence to each one of us.  Unless we go out into the world and investigate we don't really know when we are being lied to... if the lie is really good. 

 

Always be skeptical and keep your ears open.  Information can't hurt you unless you let it.

[Realist Peter Pan]

Just now, stconquest said:

They're leaks.  How do you know what you watch on NBC News/FOX News/CNN is credible?  News flash!  You don't.  These avenues are all indirect evidence to each one of us.  Unless we got out into the world and investigate we don't really know when we are being lied to... if the lie is really good. 

 

Always be skeptical and keep your ears open.  Information can't hurt you unless you let it.

I never really watch the news, I read articles, and follow their sources, and my various other ways to validate things... which I guess is the best way to go about it. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

I never really watch the news, I read articles, and follow their sources, and my various other ways to validate things... which I guess is the best way to go about it. 

There is no substitute for direct evidence.  Things you can tangibly hold on to (touch, see, taste, smell, hear).  That is why video is so appealing when compared to text.  We trust our eyes more than someone's letters on print.

 

Understanding things on a scientific level, laws of physics and such, helps to weed out lies.  If you build a solid foundation of understanding the universe that you live in, it is harder for someone to guide you in the wrong direction.

 

No matter how well you research second hand evidence, it is not the same as first hand evidence.  You should always separate the two.  The second hand evidence helps direct you to gaining first hand evidence.

 

Many others, including me, act like second hand evidence is as good as first hand.  That is a bad habit.

[Realist Peter Pan]

Just now, stconquest said:

There is no substitute for direct evidence.  Things you can tangibly hold on to (touch, see, taste, smell, hear).  That is why video is so appealing when compared to text.  We trust our eyes more than someone's letters on print.

 

Understanding things on a scientific level, laws of physics and such, helps to weed out lies.  If you build a solid foundation of understanding the universe that you live in, it is harder for someone to guide you in the wrong direction.

 

No matter how well you research second hand evidence, it is not the same as first hand evidence.  You should always separate the two.  The second hand evidence helps direct you to gaining first hand evidence.

 

Many others, including me, act like second hand evidence is as good as first hand.  That is a bad habit.

I try to learn as much about science as I can, but sometimes it's a bit overwhelming... there is a heft sum of things that need some philisophical inference to understand properly. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

I try to learn as much about science as I can, but sometimes it's a bit overwhelming... there is a heft sum of things that need some philisophical inference to understand properly. 

Philosophical Inference = Theory?

[Realist Peter Pan]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Philosophical Inference = Theory?

A more philisophical perspective more so...since science can't always fill the gaps of psycology, or social behaviors. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

A more philisophical perspective more so...since science can't always fill the gaps of psycology, or social behaviors. 

That is exactly what science can do.  We are not magical creatures that cannot be explained.

[Realist Peter Pan]

Just now, stconquest said:

That is exactly what science can do.  We are not magical creatures that cannot be explained.

Philosophy covers a lot of obscure topics that science cannot address appropriately. I'm not saying science can't do it eventually. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Realist Peter Pan said:

Philosophy covers a lot of obscure topics that science cannot address appropriately. I'm not saying science can't do it eventually. 

Name one please. 

[Realist Peter Pan]

24 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Name one please. 

Mostly I would consider many of the subjective areas of life to be considered an area for philosophy such as;

 

-Purpose of existence ( science of course may come to this, but is in the feild of philosophy until that time) 

 

-Morality between humans/animals (some areas of science do cover this)

 

-General ethics 

ie. Equality between sexes, What laws should be imposed on others, socialistic beliefs (a lot of other politcal stances like this) 

 

-Issues where people draw binary conclusions a lot.

 

Many of the things I list have a common relation by being extremely subjective, and varying between individuals. 

I'll edit as I go I'm at work, and getting ready to end...so I might be a while. 

[stconquest]

20 minutes ago, Realist Peter Pan said:

Mostly I would consider many of the subjective areas of life to be considered an area for philosophy such as;

 

-Purpose of existence ( science of course may come to this, but is in the feild of philosophy until that time) 

 

-Morality between humans/animals (some areas of science do cover this)

 

-General ethics 

ie. Equality between sexes, What laws should be imposed on others, socialistic beliefs (a lot of other politcal stances like this) 

 

-Issues where people draw binary conclusions a lot.

 

Many of the things I list have a common relation by being extremely subjective, and varying between individuals. 

I'll edit as I go

We have no inherent purpose other than existing until we do not.  From the time we begin to exist to the time we do not, we make our own purpose.  This is observable and readily available information to any life.

 

Morality is based on intelligence.  The better you understand the benefits of cooperation between individuals, the less likely you are to do harm to others.

 

Equality among individuals is all that is necessary.  Being considerate for each individual as considerations are required.  As long as an individual is not doing harm to another person, they should be free to do what they want.  Believe it or not, trial and error is a big part of the developing landscape for this subject.  Quad copter laws being introduced is but one example.

 

Binary conclusions?  Sometimes things are "black and white".  They grey area refers to the unknown, or a question that has more than one solution (usually depends on unknown criteria to be addressed beforehand).

 

So I look at it like this:

 

We live.  We gain experience with our senses as input and our brains as storage.  We use the stored information to ask questions and investigate life for answers.

 

When we commune, we share our experiences.  This makes our first hand evidence second hand evidence to others, and vice versa.  Then we take the second hand evidence and investigate life to verify it's validity so it can be first hand evidence. 

 

Rinse and repeat.

[apm]

theres no reason to believe that the information is not credible.

the project went downhill in the last few years but the leaks were still legit.

 

there are also still a few encrypted insurance files, in case something happens to the plattform and/or julian assange.