Full data sets of WikiLeaks Afghan war logs

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010

by agconway • 16 years ago

80 35 16 years ago

wikileaks.org

tzs• 16 years ago

Is this complete, or have they edited or omitted items that are at odds with the political viewpoint of wikileaks?

jimmyjim• 16 years ago

I'm sorry to see that you've been had and misinformed by Wikileaks-attackers.

It's been made clear numerous times now that Wikileaks never edited or omitted any parts of any of its leaks, any that were charged with the accusation at least. If you're thinking about the recent 39 minute video, here's a Gawker article that puts light on that: http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-...

The relevant part:

Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did.

woodall2• 16 years ago

I need to clean this comment up.

Even with this release they sold out, giving The New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel copies a month early. Of course, for a fee. Also note that Wikileaks withheld 15,000 “as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source."[6]

This tactic of "the source said so" is in itself untrustworthy as you can never verify the source. These are not forged or faked, however, withholding data is not being "transparent". Which is wikileaks mission.

Here is a better, IMO, review of the video and context leading up to the attack: http://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/bn5lg/badass_take_...

I think George Brock said it best in his post entitled "Julian Assange and the Wikileaks agenda" where he wrote, "Assange’s style is an odd mixture of insight, nonsense and brass-neck salesmanship"[2] The fact that Wikileaks has an agenda and are out to sell information to the highest bidder does not speak well, IMO[3]. If you are going to promote transparency be transparent your self.

The Wau Holland Foundation has told reporters that Wikileaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travel and bandwidth, however they have not produced any detailed receipts for this[4]. As any charity should do- some are even required by law to do so.

On their twitter feed they call cryptome out for full primary sources, this is very hypocritical on their part[5]. Many of their problems did not start until Assange took the "helm", and many will not cease until he leaves.

They have also released bank numbers, addresses, SSN, and other private information on individuals(see BNP and Bank post). This is not necessary. You claim to "fight the power" then do it, do not hurt civilians along the way.

[1] http://www.tcij.org/

[2] http://georgebrock.net/?p=853

[3] http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-ec...

[4] http://www.techeye.net/internet/wau-holland-foundation-sheds...

[5] http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17960055502

[6] http://security.unt.edu/aggregator/categories/1

anamax• 16 years ago

> Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did.

That's what Andrew Breitbart said too.

tlrobinson3• 16 years ago

Perhaps they haven't edited leaks, but it's pretty obvious Wikileaks has some biases, particularly anti-war. The branding of the Iraq airstrike video as "Collateral Murder" stained their credibility, IMO.

The fact that they don't edit/omit parts of leaks also says nothing about which leaks they choose to publish.

That said, I think it's a valuable service, I just wish they remained an unbiased source of leaked information. Of course, journalism is rarely unbiased.

jmount• 16 years ago

They say they left out 15,000 articles to protect and it sounds like they released 91,000 (see: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/25/wikileaks-releases-c.ht... ).

Hagelin• 16 years ago

According to the press conference with Julian Assange 91,000 is the total number and includes the 15,000 not yet released, i.e. they have released 76,000 documents.

JulianMorrison• 16 years ago

What kind of items were you thinking they might omit?

jgg2• 16 years ago

They never edit anything out. If they release a summarized or abridged version of something with a political spin to it, you can always find the full, unaltered sources if you bother to look on wikileaks.org.

mcculley2• 16 years ago

The original encrypted version of the video that WikiLeaks claimed they needed super computer time to decrypt would be a start towards the transparency they claim to value.

tibbon• 16 years ago

The NYT in fact is redacting information. Wikileaks also wa working with the White House to hold back a few key pieces of info according to the NYT.

Names of public figures (generals, prominent police officials, governors, warlords and senior afghan officials) have not been not redacted, though on a case-by-case basis, the names of lower-level employees have been removed. Similarly, well-known insurgent commanders or terrorists are not redacted, but the names of lower-level figures are.

The types of information that have been removed from the documents include:

  Names or precise identifying information of sources.
  Names of buildings under surveillance.
  Names of prisoners.
  Names of kidnap victims.
  Times required for various tactical military reactions.
  Radio frequencies or phone numbers used in insurgent communications.

earl• 16 years ago

You know, in any of these cases that I presume you're discussing (the helicopter murdering civilians, etc), the US government is fully capable of releasing more videos or documents, if there were any, that would show this information in a different light. The fact that the government doesn't is, I think, sufficient to know that the information is safe to interpret as showing the most charitable possible interpretation.

w00pla• 16 years ago

I don't know why you are downmodded. It is pretty clear that Wikileaks (at least Assange) has a very strong political viewpoint and is not objective.

When he was asked if it was okay okay to selectively show video (and label it as "collateral murder") he blamed the "right wing reality distortion field". It is immature to blame someone else for an an action that he took, and it is clear that this individual has an agenda.

kevinelliott• 16 years ago

It's sad that your legitimate question was hijacked by purely political interests. I too would like to know if the data is complete and not edited and politically biased.

roder• 16 years ago

Its really awesome to see that wikileaks provides this data in CSV, SQL, and KML - any thoughts on what information you can farm out of this?

jonah2• 16 years ago

I'd like to see all the reports plotted in time on a map. We can then watch the flow of the war over the months and years.

buro9• 16 years ago

Some of it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/interactive/2010/ju...

murthy2• 16 years ago

"The full report- unaltered/no summary report": when will it be published for public knowlrdge? Dr. Murthy

murthy2• 16 years ago

no comment

Full data sets of WikiLeaks Afghan war logs

Related Stories