The WikiLeaks Supporters Forum

The WikiLeaks Forum => Suggestions and Feedback => Topic started by: Teclo on September 13, 2012, 23:53:15 PM

Title: The Twitter account?
Post by: Teclo on September 13, 2012, 23:53:15 PM
When the Forum Twitter account posted:

Quote
The WikiLeaks Forum distances itself from Tweets made yesterday by @assange


who was it talking on behalf? (apologies I can't seem to upload a picture).

In Z’s latest forum announcement he states that “This forum will not take sides”. I imagine this necessitates a Twitter account that continues to simply signpost to the various discussions at the forum rather than declaring a ‘position’.

Either ‘the Forum’ is an open collective constituted of and subjectively owned by the many individuals who post and moderate there or the ‘The forum’ is owned by one or more key members of staff who make decisions about how the  forum and Twitter account is run independently of the collective that post there. 

I would suggest that the forum declares itself either to be a community owned space (and cease to publish personal opinion under the forum banner) or to make its owners more visible and their position with regards to WikiLeaks more explicit (so that personal opinions can be easily attributed to them and not the entire community that accesses the forum). Either way I think you should consider re-writing your mission statement to make it clearer as to the remit of the forum. Currently it states that forum is operated by WikiLeaks and makes no mention of the purpose of the Twitter account. This would lead people to believe from the above mentioned Tweet that there has been some schism within the official WikiLeaks organisation or that the Forum as a collective had made a decision in response to the WikiLeaks tweet regarding the US. Neither would be accurate.

Much more clarity is needed in my opinion, particularly as the forum appears to be undergoing change at the moment.

Teclo
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: anon1984 on September 14, 2012, 00:31:51 AM
Hi Teclo,

thanks for your feedback. I'm glad to answer your questions and adress your concerns as good as I can.

The twitter account is run by several members of the forum staff, and of course we are always determined not to express personal opinions when speaking on behalf of the forum.
As to the particular tweet which made you decide to post here: I am sure you have heard the sentence "silence means approval". Thus, not reacting to those tweets made by WikiLeaks yesterday might be considered just as much an expression of personal opinion as doing the opposite, namely distancing oneself from them.
I'd also like to comment on your suggestion here:
Quote
or to make its owners more visible and their position with regards to WikiLeaks more explicit
I'm sure you will understand that it is not possible to make the owners of the forum more visible. It is for the sake of their own safety and out of respect for their privacy that their identities are not to be revealed.

Also, this
Quote
Currently it states that forum is operated by WikiLeaks
must obviously be a misunderstanding. The Forum was founded with the help of WikiLeaks, but is operated by volunteers and WikiLeaks explicitly state this on their website, along with the disclaimer that WikiLeaks cannot be held accountable for actions or opinions expressed by the forum and its (staff-)members.

The purpose of the Twitter account is promoting the forum, drawing attention to new posts there and inviting people to discuss them.

Finally, you are right to say that the Forum is undergoing a change. While it used to be more like a "link-farm", we are now more than ever determined to encourage debate, to foster Freedom of Information and Expression and to make sure that everyone can make their voice heard and express their own point of view here.

I hope my reply seems sufficient - if however you do think there is a question I left unanswered, a point I did not clarify, then please let me know. I shall be happy to answer.

Thanks again for your input, Teclo :)

All the best,
anon1984
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Teclo on September 14, 2012, 00:53:47 AM
Thanks anon1984, but let me make myself clearer.

In the mission statement posted here at the forum ( http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,2365.0.html (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,2365.0.html) )

it is stated:

Quote
The Wikileaks Forum (www.wikileaks-forum.com) is an online discussion community operated by the non-profit media organization Wikileaks. Our aim is to create an open space for people to share their thoughts and ideas on Wikileaks and other topics.

I (respectfully) disagree entirely with your point about 'silence being approval' in this instance. If the forum was declaring itself as a neutral collective (which it appears to be when it states that it will not take sides) then it just should not position itself. Silence will just be read as continued neutrality. The forum is a vast collective and the Twitter account cannot claim to speak on behalf of everyone here. It did not speak for me in this instance.

If the Twitter account wants to position itself then it should make it clear 'who' is making the statement. Of course I am not suggesting people reveal their identities (?!) but we know there are many ways in which an author of a site can identify themselves as such. In the same way personal blogs reveal their authors identity while maintaining their anonymity so can the forum. At the moment the title of 'The WikiLeaks Forum' refers to a faceless collective of many many individuals- I am simply saying that the forum should either be neutral and resist using the title for posting opinions or should be clearer about who it is speaking on behalf of and who it is not.

Apologies for signing off now- I have work in the morning :)

Teclo
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: anon1984 on September 14, 2012, 01:36:39 AM
I see now that you were referring to our original mission statement. Please note that it was posted in May 2011, though. We have since then updated it, so to speak - we have made a new announcement which can be found here: http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,14177.0.html
We have clarified it there that
Quote
The forum is still run by supporters as explained on http://wikileaks.org/Supporters.html

It is true, we are trying to be a neutral collective. However, due to the sheer number of members on this Forum, it is only natural that every now and then someone will disagree with the actions taken on behalf of the Forum - like you are disagreeing with the tweet in question. It is impossible to always speak for everyone here, although we try our best. When members are dissatisfied, as you are, however, they are free to make themselves heard and start a discussion about what they are dissatisfied with. You see that we listen to your input, we take the time to answer - and everyone who reads this thread will know that you do not feel represented by this tweet. (This thread will, as all new topics here, be tweeted.)
We had an interesting discussion about the forums neutrality a while back - see here: http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,14076.msg38719.html#msg38719

I presume you suggest, then, that the people who are tweeting should somehow sign the tweets so everyone knows who was speaking there, for example by signing with our Forum names. However, we, the admins, have made the decision not to expose the people who operate the twitter account to the public, not even by their Forum names, as even this puts them at a certain risk and we are not ready to put our mods and admins at any risk. Also, when people were dissatisfied with a specific tweet, they have come to us and asked who had tweeted this and demanded we gag this person. It is also because of this that we are unwilling to make public who operates the twitter account - we are unwilling to gag them.

However, we do attempt to stay as neutral as possible. We are human, and we are not always able to satisfy everyone. But we do our best, and we will continue to do our best to stay neutral and to represent everyone satisfactorily.
However, I appreciate that you have brought up this issue :)
You always have a space here to bring up things you are not satisfied with. Thank you for your feedback :)

All the best & good night (or good morning...whenever you read it. Just choose the appropriate salutation ;))

- anon1984
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Teclo on September 14, 2012, 09:20:45 AM
Hi Anon1984

Quote
I see now that you were referring to our original mission statement. Please note that it was posted in May 2011, though. We have since then updated it, so to speak - we have made a new announcement which can be found here: http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,14177.0.html

Yes- I know, that's why I suggested you update your mission statement which, while old, still sits in a prominent place on the site. A threaded post should not replace a mission statement.

Quote
. However, due to the sheer number of members on this Forum, it is only natural that every now and then someone will disagree with the actions taken on behalf of the Forum

This is the point of my post- no-one can claim to speak on behalf of the entire forum as the idea of the forum is not to arrive at a consensus. Therefore the forum Twitter account should cease to operate as a conduit for personal opinion- it will be read by the Twitter community as a consensus position when it is not- I think this will fracture discussion rather than foster an environment for respectful dialogue.


Quote
I presume you suggest, then, that the people who are tweeting should somehow sign the tweets
You presume wrong! Of course this would not work, 140 characters is not long enough for signatures at the very least!!! I am not wanting to 'out' certain people for their views, I am simply pointing out that I think there is a contradiction in the way the Twitter account is run and the ethos of the forum itself that I would suggest needs to be resolved.

It could be resolved easily by the twitter account simply posting links and the admins not posting on there as individuals. This is what an 'objective' forum is- admins avoid expressing opinions and can post under alternative nicks if they want to express their personal opinions.

I simply believe the forum is acting in two conflicting ways at the moment- it is purporting to be neutral, objective and collective while positioning itself on Twitter via the decisions of a few individuals.

Kind thoughts,

Teclo


Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 14, 2012, 11:40:54 AM

Quote
This is the point of my post- no-one can claim to speak on behalf of the entire forum as the idea of the forum is not to arrive at a consensus

was Assange speaking on behalf of WikiLeaks and all its supporters when he tweeted this ?-- > http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/wikileaks-tweet-blames-us-policy-for-attack-on-libyan-embassy/story-fnbzs1v0-1226474129391 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/wikileaks-tweet-blames-us-policy-for-attack-on-libyan-embassy/story-fnbzs1v0-1226474129391)

Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: enrica on September 14, 2012, 13:38:44 PM
Teclo hi :)

The forum has all the place to express support for WL and Wikipeople, it also hosts the Support Assange platform for that kind of posts, where everyone can contribute.
Feel free of posting all the supportive articles, comments and news you think can be helpful.
Some of them will be surely also retweeted.

The Forum has place also for critcal comments if someone notices there is something should be changed or improoved.

Z's post explains the reasons of the last mentioned forum's posts.

This is an Open Space where all the ideas can meet.

Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: anon1984 on September 14, 2012, 19:49:29 PM
Teclo, please forgive me having misunderstood your suggestion - I sincerely hope you do not think I am doing it on purpose.
So, let me try again:

Quote
it will be read by the Twitter community as a consensus position when it is not
I do still think that silence could in this case be understood as approval by the Twitter community - it would thus have appeared just as much as a consensus position. As we tweet every post on this Forum, we have also tweeted this discussion (see here https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum/status/246392150831550464) Thus, we show your dissent with this tweet publicly; this means that people will see it is not a consensus position.

I fully understand your point here:
Quote
This is what an 'objective' forum is- admins avoid expressing opinions and can post under alternative nicks if they want to express their personal opinions.
We are trying our best to achieve this, but as I said before, even Forum admins and tweeters are only human ;)

Also, as we are just discussing a tweet made by the forum in reaction to a tweet by WikiLeaks, I think it might me worth while to also discuss that original tweet. You, Teclo, felt misrepresented by the Forums tweet. But how about WikiLeaks' tweet? Doesn't the person/Don't the people who run(s) this account claim to be speaking on behalf of all WikiLeaks supporters? Well, did you feel well represented by this tweet? If you check the answers to it on twitter, or on Facebook (some are mentioned in the article posted here by =Z=) you will see that many supporters felt misrepresented by this tweet. Although we are a Forum, we still have a certain responsibility, and the person who was tweeting from the Forums account felt that this tweet was also in their name and in the name of all the work they have done for WikiLeaks.
While we are always striving for as much objectivity as possible, we are not just a link-farm. We were one in the past, and we certainly do not wish do go back to that.

The Forum is made up out of people, and we all have the right to question statements - whether they are made by the Forums twitter account or by WikiLeaks or Assange himself. I'm sure you will agree with me on that.

Cheers,

anon1984 :)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Teclo on September 14, 2012, 20:35:14 PM
With respect Z, anon1984 and Isis, your responses to my thread seem to be reacting to a perceived attack from me on opinions you hold about WL or the tweet regarding the US. This is inaccurate.


Your reply post to me Z:
Quote
was Assange speaking on behalf of WikiLeaks and all its supporters when he tweeted this ?

serves as a useful illustration to my point perhaps. Let me try to explain.

Firstly, I have not posted this thread to debate whether or not the forum should be open to those opposing WL or JA or whatever. My post is quite specifically about the Twitter account and clarity. It seems I have provoked quite a defensive reaction from some of you here which was not an intention, I was simply taking up the invitation to dialogue.

Secondly, Z  (and subsequently anon1984) you make a point in your post about who WikiLeaks were speaking on behalf of when they tweeted 'that' tweet. Well, they were speaking on behalf of the WikiLeaks organisation which is what we would expect. We would not expect them to speak on behalf of us supporters. We choose to support them or not by positioning ourselves to their work; it does not happen the other way around- that they position their work to align with our values.

The Forum however, it has been repeatedly stated, is a place for many people with varying views to engage in dialogue. The Forum Twitter account, we have established, is a faceless, nameless vehicle for promoting new posts. My point is that it should not blur it's focus and become a conduit for the opinions of certain individuals as those opinions will necessarily be read as those of the entire community.

Again I will be clear- I am not engaging in a conversation here about whether the forum should be open to the views of those who do not agree with WL/JA etc. Z (and perhaps others involved in this conversation) clearly are opposed to the tweet sent by WikiLeaks. I am not suggesting that you should not hold these views, nor that you should not express them on the forum. Here in a post we can quite clearly see who the opinion should be attributed to and who it should not. My point is that Twitter account reflects the entire forum community and should maintain neutral integrity regardless of what discussion is going on at the forum. From my position the Twitter account is repeatedly straying from neutrality and this is a great shame.

If the Twitter account continues to reflect the opinions of the admins that run it then you are going to stifle the open dialogue you are trying to foster in my opinion. Those that operate the Twitter account have a more powerful voice than those that post on the forum. It would seem responsible to be clear about how this is managed.

Despite the current shift of the forum towards 'open' and 'critical' debate it does feel quite a challenge (ironically) to critique the forum and changes here without prompting defensiveness or impatience. Perhaps this is inevitable as many of you must dedicate a lot of your time here on making the forum work. However this is also a shame and I hope that I am simply misreading your posts and Tweets wrong.

Perhaps those of you who replied to me in this thread simply disagree with me and feel that it is suitable for the Forum Twitter account to reveal personal opinions. Perhaps all I am asking is for this to be made clearer.

ps. I have just seen your last reply anon1984:

Quote
I do still think that silence could in this case be understood as approval by the Twitter community - it would thus have appeared just as much as a consensus position. As we tweet every post on this Forum, we have also tweeted this discussion (see here https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum/status/246392150831550464) Thus, we show your dissent with this tweet publicly; this means that people will see it is not a consensus position.

Again, if the Twitter account claims to be  neutral as you have stated then it's default position is neutrality. Those posting on the Twitter account who felt that they needed to make a statement about 'That' tweet could have posted a thread first and then simply signposted to it on the Twitter account. This would have maintained the neutrality of the Twitter account. Of course you may disagree and feel that the Twitter account should not be neutral and this would be a valid decision for those who own the forum to make. My point is that it can't be both things- it is either neutral or it is not and that what ever it is needs to be clear.

Of course I am not thinking you are deliberately misunderstanding me anon1984! I am always happy to make myself clearer- as you can see I like to engage in lengthy dialogue when I have the time!!

Kind thoughts,

Teclo


Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on September 15, 2012, 01:31:54 AM
     Well, this has been a lively discussion for sure.  :) I have been so busy lately- work and all - I feel like I have arrived quite late. There are many things that I would agree and disagree with of course and I will do my best to not repeat  things that have already been said.   

   Let's look at the tweet in question that started this whole thread:

>The WikiLeaks Forum distances itself from Tweets made yesterday by @assange<

   I personally do not believe that the forum twitter account expresses the position of the forum to the degree that some people believe it does, but that is just my own feelings towards the matter. I do not hold a strong opinion that the twitter account must remain in a neutral position at all times - because I personally do not put as much clout into each tweet by the forum as representing the forum as a whole. 

  For example, what if the tweet read like this:

  >WikiLeaks distances itself from Tweets made yesterday by The WikiLeaks Forum<

  I know that WikiLeaks is a different organization from a forum - they certainly can even have a well established opinion about most things and may not have to be neutral about anything they stand for. But my point is this, from the tweet above I am not going to assume that WikiLeaks as a group of people that work together ALL are distancing themselves from The WikiLeaks Forum. 
   In reality, I know that several people tweet for WikiLeaks and at that moment, the person that is tweeting for WikiLeaks is deciding that the tweets recently released by the forum are not of their liking and that they think that most people in the organization as a whole would agree with them so they decided to go ahead and make the executive decision to tweet it. Ok, that is all I am going to believe. I am sure some would like to argue that I am wrong- the statement clearly says WikiLeaks and represents all of WikiLeaks as an organization and I must then assume that the tweet is literal.

   I think I come to this apathy towards pinning down the opinions of tweeters - whether it be whole groups of people tweeting for one account or even single account owners- from my over exposure of people to draw black and white conclusions about everything in this story. I am doing my best to remain open minded. It is my experience in this conflict of opinions that when people want to believe something so badly, they will in fact find a way to bend the truth in their rationalizations to believe in the end exactly what they want to believe.   
                   
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Teclo on September 15, 2012, 10:55:56 AM

Hi Objectiviser and All,

I think this would be a great move forward. Adding the word THREAD before each Tweet is a good way of declaring neutrality. I also think your suggestion for separating an individuals contributions in terms of admin/non-admin is a good way of allowing everyone to be able to hold an opinion whilst recognising that when acting with administrator privileges that individual has more power.

I should imagine that any approach to managing a forum will have pro's and con's and will not entirely suit everyone- it's always good to keep having conversations like this, I think.

Kind thoughts

Teclo

As one of the newcomers, I do not know the history of the forum and so forth, and I am not in a position to judge the effect of recent changes beyond saying that they brought me here.

Having stated my ignorance, I won't refrain from having an opinion.  I think Teclo has raised a good point. If the twitter feed remains neutral, then (by definition) it should not state opinions. The suggestion of making a forum post and then tweeting it sounds good, but if the thread is created by an admin and states a policy, then it really amounts to the same thing, just at one remove.

If I may make a suggestion: perhaps the admins could start a discussion not with a statement, but with a question.

If a new thread was created and the title was something like:

"Do our members support the tweet by Wikileaks today about sieges?"

and had a body that said something such as:

"Among the admins there is discussion about the tweet, and we generally think X.  What does everyone else think?"

then that would perhaps be a more neutral way to do it, as the tweet would link directly to contrary opinions.  Even more neutral would be to omit the opinions of the admins and just let the debate happen.

A tweet could be sent from the twitter account to the thread.

It could also be argued that the role of chairing a debate should be neutral.  The chair can sum up the arguments of both sides, and must represent the views fairly.  In cases such as the siege tweet (or even this very thread), it could be permissible for the main twitter account to summarize the discussion along the lines of:

"WLF siege tweet sparks debate on forum. Is this twitter account neutral? Is it changing? Admins reply, Objectiviser trolls everyone."

Side note: yesterday the forum was criticised by somebody when it tweeted the title of an article. It was taken as an opinion of the forum (perhaps this illustrates Teclo's point rather well).  It may help clarify if the feed prefixed tweets with the word: "THREAD:" or something, to make it clear to people who don't yet follow the account that it's not an opinion in the tweet but a link to a discussion.

Side note 2: should the admins have to remain neutral at all times? I get the principle, but the consequences are:
a) intelligent people don't get to join the debate, where they could make useful contributions
b) some people who would make good admins do not accept as they would have to surrender their right to comment.

Some forums have a policy whereby an admin account is marked in a different colour when in admin mode, or account names could be "=Z=" and "Admin =Z=". One could be used for debate, the other for modding.

The rule of neutrality would have to still apply, so an admin should not be able to mod a thread on which they themselves have commented.  Or it could be divided by sub-forum. But it is a shame to lose individual contributions as people get kicked upstairs into modhood.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: ariana on September 15, 2012, 22:37:59 PM
To be honest, we don't need to use the word "thread" in twitter as we are the forum and 99% of all links point to a thread. Anything other than a link to a thread is either an announcement or a statement.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: anon1984 on September 16, 2012, 00:17:11 AM
Oh well, sometimes the titles of threads do get misread, for example when they are questions.
For example, see this tweet and the reply below: https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum/status/246193712735088640
(I know, not a question, but still it serves as an example ^^)

It might be useful to add the word "Thread" or "Discussion" in such cases, just to make sure to prevent misunderstandings :)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 16, 2012, 14:02:21 PM
I agree with Ariana on this....we are just a forum. I dont think we dont need to add anything to our tweets. 99.99% of tweets links back to the forum in the form of a thread. Anything else is simply either an announcement, statement or simple message ( can even be a link to a youtube vid ).



















Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Erasmas on September 16, 2012, 15:51:33 PM
but most of the people think, that these threads are official wl statements. with adding this little word you provide misunderstanding.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 16, 2012, 17:34:58 PM
but most of the people think, that these threads are official wl statements. with adding this little word you provide misunderstanding.

how can anyone think that statements made by the forum are " official wl statements " ?
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: enrica on September 16, 2012, 18:05:56 PM
Erasmas wl site says the forum isn't directly run by wl and the only "official" statements can come from public wl ppl like JA or Kristinn.
The forum is an indipendent platform to discuss about wl.
That the tweets include words like "thread" or "discussion" or not, they have to be' considered tweets Of The Forum and it can happen they are different from wl tweets.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 16, 2012, 18:39:36 PM
but most of the people think, that these threads are official wl statements. with adding this little word you provide misunderstanding.

how can anyone think that statements made by the forum are " official wl statements " ?

also see this on the main wikileaks site: http://wikileaks.org/Supporters.html

"Supporters run our irc channel, Facebook site, and the WikiLeaks Forum. Whilst we appreciate their work we can not vouch for their security or content. No official WikiLeaks comment will be given over these channels"
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Erasmas on September 16, 2012, 21:50:41 PM
i know this and understand your points. but pls recgnize, that most twitter users only see the word wikileaks and don't realize, that the tweet is from the forum. meanwhile i ask myself what happened to this forum? where is the frienly sound in the posts been gone? i am not an enemy, just erasmas.  ???
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 17, 2012, 00:08:51 AM
i know this and understand your points. but pls recgnize, that most twitter users only see the word wikileaks and don't realize, that the tweet is from the forum. meanwhile i ask myself what happened to this forum? where is the frienly sound in the posts been gone? i am not an enemy, just erasmas.  ???

oh dear....sorry if you misread the tone of my answer. You can be 100 % sure that my answer was just trying to answer your question, whilst doing a million things at the same time....so once again, sorry if it sounded unfriendly as it wasnt intended this way

Have a box of chocs on me ;-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Erasmas on September 17, 2012, 16:41:17 PM
delicious choclate ;D
thanks for apologize.  i am a bit 'gnawed', cause my right arm is broken.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 17, 2012, 17:06:33 PM
delicious choclate ;D
thanks for apologize.  i am a bit 'gnawed', cause my right arm is broken.

Oh my God !....Im sorry to hear that. How did you manage that?. This means that the choc box just grew in size. I hoep I speak on behalf of the whole forum in wishing you well and hope things get better :-)

take care....
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Erasmas on September 17, 2012, 17:20:08 PM
thank you, Z! I crashed with my mountainbike, broke the head of the bone into 5 peaces and the great tendon is broken, too. but now there is time for the forum, and that's great! ;)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Z on September 17, 2012, 17:36:15 PM
thank you, Z! I crashed with my mountainbike, broke the head of the bone into 5 peaces and the great tendon is broken, too. but now there is time for the forum, and that's great! ;)

maybe u can poat the xrays here so we cann see what a multiple fractures look like. Keep away from the bike and dont type too much ;-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Erasmas on September 17, 2012, 17:55:45 PM
still haven't seen them. I only type left, 'cause I need to wear a box to abduct the right arm.
it is so crazy!
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 15, 2015, 13:46:20 PM
When the Forum Twitter account posted:

Quote
The WikiLeaks Forum distances itself from Tweets made yesterday by @assange


who was it talking on behalf? (apologies I can't seem to upload a picture).

In Z’s latest forum announcement he states that “This forum will not take sides”. I imagine this necessitates a Twitter account that continues to simply signpost to the various discussions at the forum rather than declaring a ‘position’.

Either ‘the Forum’ is an open collective constituted of and subjectively owned by the many individuals who post and moderate there or the ‘The forum’ is owned by one or more key members of staff who make decisions about how the forum and Twitter account is run independently of the collective that post there.

I would suggest that the forum declares itself either to be a community owned space (and cease to publish personal opinion under the forum banner) or to make its owners more visible and their position with regards to WikiLeaks more explicit (so that personal opinions can be easily attributed to them and not the entire community that accesses the forum).

[...]
Teclo

I still see the same problem on Twitter today. The forum posts non-neutral messages about Wikileaks on Twitter, I thought there was just one owner/general admin and I suggested in my tweet to defend their opinion publicly if it's just one person having the will to reveal something about Wikileaks or go further into the debate.

But when I asked the question, someone answered me that it's a collective account, and that there is no "Mark" on the Twitter account present now, and we still don't know who he is even if some supporters used this name when they tweeted to the forum.

"Because"Mark"is the scapegoat and the forum founder.I dunno(I really haveNOidea)if/how much he's present 1/2"
https://twitter.com/EPJas2/status/555700500105269249


"The @wikileaks_forum (https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum) account is a collective; for what I know once it was managed also by mods. Many persons can use it"
https://twitter.com/EPJas2/status/555699562451845120


So posting non-neutral messages about the Assange case on the forum Twitter account, taking side in this swedish affair could be engaging the opinion of all people who are tweeting on the forum "collective" account.
I don't understand the policy of the forum.
Are you just trying to make some buzz? are you defending a personal opinion/attacks in the swedish case, or are you definitely neutral ?
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 15, 2015, 13:59:23 PM
* read the comment *

on twitter I replied as myself, now member of the forum and NON admin, so consider the info I have may be just personal opinions.

I'm going to partecipate to this discussion soon, with more concentration than now.

I'm fully aware the @wikileaks_forum account has always been used by many admins or mods together; I have no idea who uses it atm; I'm sure who replied to you was another person; I'm sure none of us is entitled to open a spy investigation on where is Mark or who is the forum account owner; I'm sure everybody is perfectly free of disagreeing with the content of the WLforum account's tweets (I certain time did, without problems).
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 15, 2015, 14:00:09 PM
** "I've read the comment* I mean, cya.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: All Spiric on January 15, 2015, 15:18:11 PM
@Kimono

I read your post and your tweets and all I have to add to this discussion is that it is None of your business WHO owns or runs the Wikileaks Forum or the Twitter account. If you are worried the Forum is run by the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, freemasons, Illuminati, NSA, Mossad, UKIP, Assange critics or even Assange himself, then I suggest you don't visit the Forum and unfollow the Forums twitter account. If, however, you wish to support freedom of speech and freedom of expression, regardless, then you are welcome to stay.

The Forum doesn't owe you or anyone else an Explanation as to who owns the Forum and why.

signed

another secret member of the Wikileaks forum admin team who doesn't give a damn.

Wishing you a nice day :-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Elaine Davis on January 15, 2015, 16:53:11 PM
Erasmas wl site says the forum isn't directly run by wl and the only "official" statements can come from public wl ppl like JA or Kristinn.
The forum is an indipendent platform to discuss about wl.
That the tweets include words like "thread" or "discussion" or not, they have to be' considered tweets Of The Forum and it can happen they are different from wl tweets.


Tweets, greetz, feats, or seats.  No offense to anyone arguing about the platform used for expression here or there, it's not worth distinguishing which why what or where. Respect. =)

Personally, I have never viewed this forum as particularly subject to discussion about WikiLeaks. There are other subjects here, perhaps some of the same subjects WikiLeaks is interested.  Why does WikiLeaks itself have to be on the other side of the world from this forum or its members based on a few vengeances from a few here or there? It's just a question to ponder and not one to resent in the slightest. Clear minded for a moment....it's just a question.


From what I understand, the forum still carries the name WikiLeaks because it was born with that name and changing the name might mean getting lost in searches, having to move domain...whatever.

Is it possible that we can discuss or critique WikiLeaks itself, given the name WIKILEAKS as a header, traceable by search, without having to just totally hate on WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks representatives not hate on us?

IT IS POSSIBLE....

I personally have offered some critique on the new 'proposed' WikiLeaks....Bitcoin, Anonymity...etc. I don't like the idea...I like the original WikiLeaks and the way it was operated.   I did critique that...and maybe there are some things I do not understand....YET.

I have learned a lot just by reading on the forum...and most of the information I have read and absorbed has little to do with WikiLeaks itself....

This forum is not just about WikiLeaks.  Am I right?
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 15, 2015, 17:14:02 PM
This forum is about freedom of information and its origins come from being a place to discuss anything WikiLeaks. Julian Assange and his cult attacked this forum for keeping the name WikiLeaks when it decided to allow all things to be discussed about Assange even things that were critical.

 The forum stood strong on this issue because as you say it would loose its original google standing it was built on, but also because it does contain a huge amount of WikiLeaks material and tons of discussion about the subject of WikiLeaks. Almost all other WikiLeaks websites are for information and do not have an interactive platform for discussion.

 I still thumb my nose at all the whiny little Assange cultist that claim this forum is a fraud because it did not materialize into a place to worship Assange and glorify him. The forum is about WIKILEAKS not ASSANGE. I wish the bone heads would get a clue someday. WikiLeaks was an idea, Assange is just the self serving narcissist that tried to use its idea for his own purposes.

 The owner of the forum is none of any ones business. If anyone thinks that is harsh, you yourself should try to be the owner and suddenly become the main target of a bunch of vile vindictive Assange cultists that will try to gut you personally, professionally, in any way they can. The owner is providing a platform for us to discuss things we are interesting in discussing at their own risk. The only thing the owner is required to do is stay within the law of the guidelines of web site ownership and pay the money required to host it. Nothing more.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 15, 2015, 17:29:27 PM
...and as far as the twitter account remaining neutral, I do know why it is not neutral. Essentially that account keeps getting attacked, and then attacked and then attacked some more. I personally do not feel like the account represents me because I have my own twitter account. Even though I help staff and support this forum I do not feel like the twitter account represents my own views, it is just who ever might be tweeting for the forum at the time reacting to attacks. 

     I can understand why a member of the forum might be concerned that as a member, the forum twitter account may say something that a member may not agree with and therefore may feel slighted or upset. However the twitter account is an extension of the platform itself to discuss things in general, it is not a bot that just post links on twitter.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Elaine Davis on January 15, 2015, 17:33:13 PM
   I still thumb my nose at all the whiny little Assange cultist that claim this forum is a fraud because it did not materialize into a place to worship Assange and glorify him. -quote Riney-



Thank you Riney. I recall somewhere on this forum, somewhere...LOL...God only knows where and under what thread or topic, I said exactly that using different terms. The forum is not about one man and no platform of any kind should be about the mediation of, comtemplation of upholding, or even assassination of one man. It will fail.

The owner of the forum is NONE of my business...and I will never make it my business. As a contributor here to whatever extent I am, I have never thought of that as my business. LOL...it doesn't matter altogether.

WikiLeaks was an idea, Assange is just the self serving narcissist that tried to use its idea for his own purposes.     -Quote Riney-


WikiLeaks was an IDEA. Yes!!! An idea that evolved into something projected on the evening news like Dow Jones...only WikiLeaks was providing alleged secrets instead of stock info. An IDEA. I agree...but sometimes even IDEAS become their own monsters after being hit by the media. Assange is among many narcissts who develop a need for control of their monster...NARCISSM is an evolution that arrives after the effects of being mediated, critiqued by a world. I am not saying ASSANGE was perfect at all, I am saying that NARCISSM is a virus induced by society.  No particular individual affected by it should suffer particular wrath unless he commits murder, steals or plain abuses physically.

The requirements of being a forum owner should not include any more than you mention. Shoot, why should it? We all volunteer to be here, just like we volunteer to be traced by the powers that be, including the NSA, when we sign on to the web. We never got upset, or considered it an invastion of our privacy when TV companies include us in their figures for ratings...we never got upset when the satellite went up and could view everything on earth and focus in, but we get upset if we are prismed by the NSA for our web activities, which INCLUDE the potential to hack, steal, affiliate with porno. Just like with so many other things, we have to suffer with those who will abuse the abilities of the internet, to keep ourselves protected from them.

The Bank asks me for my ID every time I go in. It's for my protection, but it's still a little creepy to think I am being protected and suspected at the same time.


Just thinking out loud...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 15, 2015, 18:04:33 PM
@Elaine

The Wikileaks Forum stands behind the principle of Wikileaks as projected by Assange himself. The Forum hosts 131 pages of thread dedicated to Wikileaks, in Addition the Forum hosts this information in 18 languages.

The Forum also offers translations of most leaks found here http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/the-leaks/470/ (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/the-leaks/470/) into approx 30 languages. Wikileaks supporters have actually translated the COLLATERAL DAMAGE video dialogue from English into Spanish, French, Russian, Italian, German and Polish.

The STRAFOR files http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/languages/263/ (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/languages/263/) have been translated into 24 languages. The list of translations is endless. There are 60 threads alone for the
•Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and 80 threads suggesting ways of raising donations to Wikileaks.
•
•The Supporters WikiLeaks Projects board is currently showing approx 160 threads introducing the Projects of other Wikileaks Supporters.
•
•All 12 episodes of The World Tomorrow are hosted on the forum, some of which have been translated into 5 languages by Forum staff members and other volunteers.

The Forum also provides Information on Whistleblowers and their political fallout, NSA etc etc....it's all there.

Furthermore, we publish information from all 4 corners of this planet, most of which are hosted in their respective languages. http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/regions/490/ (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/regions/490/)
•
•The WIkileaks Forum is almost 4 years old. It has grown into the largest open Wikileaks community on the net and welcomes posts on ANY subject in ANY language.
•
•We don't ask for donations, we don't allow spam, we don't allow any form of commercialism, we don't have sponsors, or advertisers. We finance this project alone.
About 2 years ago, a small group of Assange fanatics decided to open their own "Wikileaks Supporters Forum". It was a carbon copy of this forum and every effort was made to duplicate our work our ideas and our efforts. Unfortunately the forum failed after only 4 months. It didn't fail because of us,( as suggested ) it failed because freedom of speech was being suppressed. Any form of critique directed at Assange or Wikileaks was instantly deleted and it's members banned for life. Needless to say, their forum became a blog with one way traffic only.

This Forum allows criticism of Assange and Wikileaks, * we even allow criticism of the way we choose to run this forum, but we allow it. So yes, if you have something to say, say it, if you want to praise Assange for his work, please do, but if you choose to question, criticize or scrutinize statements and actions made by Julian Assange, the forum MUST allow space for these opinions to be heard.

We do draw the line when it comes to protecting this forum against attacks on forum staff, members, or their children. Recently, a wave of revolting attacks on forum staff members have been seen in Twitter, mostly from hardened Assange fanatics who can't fathom the fact that not everyone on this planet like Assange; hence, threats of rape and violence against the forum owners children have been made, and yes, we take these very seriously. We ( the forum ) will make every effort to protect the privacy rights of the owner of the domain. We do not give out Information on other admins or mods.

Maybe ask yourself why the forum continues to operate at such a great expense, both financially and personally, who knows, maybe you will find your answers there . . . . . .

other than that, the statistics speak for themselves ---> http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/stats (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/stats)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Elaine Davis on January 15, 2015, 18:45:32 PM
Koyaan...everything you mention or direct to me is all very obvious to me and very deeply appreciated by myself and I assure myself, many, many others.

MY remarks were not about what the forum offers ...I also understand that some of the original 'information, and work' was done by some of the original members. My personal appreciation goes to the current members as well.

I appreciate the information you put together on this thread in response to my previous posting.

Of course the forum allows critique of Assange and it really should, as I allude to in my previous post.

But maybe there comes a point and time when the overload of critiques adds fuel to the troll fire when simple Marshmallow roasts are no longer allowed without being presumed as a forest fire?

This forum holds a wealth of information as you admit. It is a gold mine of information translated into different languages. Respect. Guarding a goldmine can be a trying thing to do when those who believe or know they had any part in contributions come back to visit....

Thank You.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: J.C on January 15, 2015, 18:59:35 PM
I just add 2 cents ( after switzerland crashed into the market today) 2 euro cents :-P ..

We live in very connected times that we sometimes forget about a world outside the whole internet stuff. we are addicted to it like cats to catnip sometimes. let´s not forget the internet is just a tool real life doesn´t twitter - many times mostly in the wikileaks community some could observe, tools like twitter become a personal (body-) part of everybody - which does not mean it is false or a failure in our evolution but to be honest,

it´s just the internet and sometimes it´s more fun to watch real birds tweeting :-)

oh btw if you are on twitter (we all know we had this before) expect twitter-blabla about forum deletions ;-) old story, nothing new - guys are running out of ideas (nothing special if you forgot the world keeps turning)

Joker out.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Elaine Davis on January 15, 2015, 19:02:28 PM
Agreed.

I think what happens sometimes when a thread/conversation such as this one keeps building, reading the posts of another ignites the need to respond and it dominoes. Thus, we look like addicts.

I really have to time myself on Twitter now. LOLO! =)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 15, 2015, 19:02:55 PM
@Elaine

thanx for your feedback. The Forum is always open for suggestions and we do our best to address each and every question asked on this particular board.

I would just like to reassure you that there is no "overload of critique" on this Forum. The Forums data base currently hosts 66,041 unique posts of which no more than 300 are critical of Assange and/ or Wikileaks. In mathmatical terms, that's about 0.45% of all posts. Even if it were 600 negative Posts, that would be 0.9%.

I love maths :-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Elaine Davis on January 15, 2015, 19:06:36 PM
I would just like to reassure you that there is no "overload of critique" on this Forum. The Forums data base currently hosts 66,041 unique posts of which no more than 300 are critical of Assange and/ or Wikileaks. In mathmatical terms, that's about 0.45% of all posts. Even if it were 600 negative Posts, that would be 0.9%.
-quote-


Good...then I'll just keep blending out the critiques of Assange with my NSA article BS. LOL! (Don't take that comment seriously, I just had to interject.) Te he. Laughing as I go...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 16, 2015, 09:51:24 AM
...and as far as the twitter account remaining neutral, I do know why it is not neutral. Essentially that account keeps getting attacked, and then attacked and then attacked some more. I personally do not feel like the account represents me because I have my own twitter account. Even though I help staff and support this forum I do not feel like the twitter account represents my own views, it is just who ever might be tweeting for the forum at the time reacting to attacks.

 I can understand why a member of the forum might be concerned that as a member, the forum twitter account may say something that a member may not agree with and therefore may feel slighted or upset. However the twitter account is an extension of the platform itself to discuss things in general, it is not a bot that just post links on twitter.

but why then the WL forum account on Twitter is attacking pseudo-pro-wikileaks accounts and claiming there are owned by Wikileaks staff?
I don't understand why the forum is trying to provoke this debate on Twitter?

if you're just a forum, a collective account, the person who tweeted this thing should tweet these attacks on her/his personal twitter account - and not use a collective account as a a way to express a personal point of view.

that's the problem

and also, why are you constantly asking those pro-wikileaks accounts (claiming they are fanatics, while it's not proved, because you don't know why these people are saying this)- about the swedish affair?
even if the forum tweets the link to the articles posted on the forum, it doesn't mean that the forum has to engage in discussions on Twitter and taking a side on the debate
> because it sounds like there's an official point of view coming from the forum, while you pretend neutrality

> yesterday I was blocked by the forum, however it's strange that the forum blocks people who asks few questions about their link with Wikileaks, while the forum is not blocking anymore Assange "fanatics" and regularly engaging long useless debate with them on stupid subjects ...
it's a really strange atmosphere...
you prefer discussing with Assange "trolls" rather than with people having serious questions?
that's why I have so much doubts now about the forum
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 16, 2015, 09:57:49 AM

Maybe ask yourself why the forum continues to operate at such a great expense, both financially and personally, who knows, maybe you will find your answers there . . . . . .

other than that, the statistics speak for themselves ---> http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/stats (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/stats)

Sorry, it says "you are not allowed to view the statistics"

I think this page is private
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 16, 2015, 13:54:39 PM

If you're just a forum, a collective account, the person who tweeted this thing should tweet these attacks on her/his personal twitter account - and not use a collective account as a a way to express a personal point of view.

that's the problem


It's not a Problem

I've asked aruond and it seems no one blocked a twitter account called "kimono"

As much as no one tells you what you are allowed or not allowed to tweet from your account, you have no right to dictate what we tweet, nor should it be of any concern to you.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 16, 2015, 13:58:00 PM
... the twitter account has another name... anyway...

The statistics are visible for me, strange you can't see them.

-

I think whatever I wanted to say on yesterday has been awesomely said by everybody, from different prospectives.

-

I was reflecting on "neutrality" and "support".
Supporting WikiLeaks as it was created for, at the beginning, means supporting truth, freedom of information, of expression and transparency (in respect of the privacy).
So I find perfectly normal that when a WL supporter finds lack of transparency & even corruption inside how WL/Assange are dealing with their own volunteers, and one sees Assange is completely silent on the fact important endorsed WL supporters/volunteers bully and stalk other volunteers... when Assange keeps being silent on the fact his cooperators like @shafpatel and @cabledrummer stalk and even send threats (than try to cover them by deleting the intimidatory tweets!)... Well, at this point "Supportive and Neutral" means reporting the wrongdoing.
Staying silent/doing nothing in front of an injustice means letting the wrongdoing continue.
Neutrality also means one is perfectly free of disagreeing with the personal views, and here some of us are doing; or are facing the things from another prospective.

I certain times told I'd prefer the WLF account to tweet the posts and the "breaking news", better than the opinion of the person who is tweeting at the moment. But this is just my opinion. Such decisions on how to tweet are of the admin team and the owner: if they decide on their site this is the most correct thing to be done, than ok. It's their own freedom of expression on twitter. And it's not my personal account.

I also have a personal account on twitter (two, actually), and I can express my ideas there, as myself.

There are situations where not taking a decision means supporting lies. Total neutrality isn't always possible unless risking to support a wrongdoing.

" it sounds like there's an official point of view coming from the forum, while you pretend neutrality "

It sounds also to me.
And I don't feel about asking for the opposite, honestly.
When one sees a wrongdoing, than the coverup of the wrongdoing or staying silent over it, than spreading falsities, by an account @wikileaks that pretends to support transparency and truth... I would see as a bad thing if the aware people staied silent.
When she was active, Assange C. has often asked people incl. Jemima Khan to only talk about these issues in private, not in public... This is more or less what I understand is happening between the WL volunteers, also about serious issues like having an Assange that wants a veto power over the WLParty that is lead by MANY persons, not just one... Should people stay silent?... Well if they speak they get bullied (it even happened to WAKA, directly by @wikileaks).
This totally betrays the WikiLeaks principals.

If Assange has changed inside and wants to hide forever, he can do; but he has that what he "teached" to his supporters is now being practised: they speak out.

-

"attacking" ... is "criticizing" the 99,9% of the times or sometimes  "provocating2, in my opinion...
Can I reverse the question?
"Why are WikiLeaks volunteers or supporters since 2012 stalking and threatening the WLF staffers or members or supporters? And Why Assange has NEVER spent a word to condemn this very negative behaviour?"

What the forum account does is generally criticism. Provocatory criticism, also, may be. Wich doesn't neutralize the conversation. It causes debate. It's a forum.

-

"blocked by the forum" ...on twitter you were pretending to know who is the owner...
One gets tired at a certain point I guess... (my opinion).

Every 2-3 months the same people come out with the very same questions: "Who is the owner?" "Why are you attacking"... It's a circle.

About ownership: at the beginning of this site nobody knew who was the owner; WikiLeaks was protecting the identity and the personal info of whatever staffer of this forum; the WL team was aware of the risks of being eventually exposed.
Nobody would never have known who was the previous owner and staff-team, unless fanatics, after endorsed by Assange, had published it on their sites.
It has become a habitude to ask "who is the owner" because of the stalkers.
If we go on a whatever other site, we go there for the site, not to ask for the identity of the staffers.
The main thing is that the site works well.
This works well, very well. I don't see any reason to stalk the owner by seeking his/her personal info.
Our personal info. can happily stay OUT of the internet life.
I agree with admins saying that identities are "none of our business". We can interact with the avatars. This is "another dimension", not "MaterialLand".

---

... WikiLeaks itself has born as "an exception": because it's illegal to publish secret documents... unless you do this in the interest of the rest of the humanity to denounce wrongdoings...

But the action is "technically wrong".
What makes a leak a good leak is the fact that it is Helping.

I think it also applies on the concept of neutrality. There are issues where you can't shut up.

And leaking does Not apply to "personal data sharing" of persons that have done nothing bad; they have done nothing but Talking and Thinking.
What some extremist WL fans -in my opinion supported by Assange- are trying to do, is applying the "leaking" concept to the personal data of persons they disagree with that have done nothing but being themselves and talking. And after they threaten these people by telling they would hurt their families.
For revenge. Like the mafia. It's a snake that bites its tale: they ask (pretend) for the info on the critics, than they ignite fanatics against them.
One must speak out.
And one needs privacy protection to avoid this.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 15:55:06 PM
"because it sounds like there's an official point of view coming from the forum, while you pretend neutrality"

     Who is pretending neutrality? I see the forum as a platform for discussion, allowing all points of discussion, and not taking a clear stand one way or the other. The tweets may sound one sided when they are defending the forum, because of course the forum is going to defend itself, from many points, because it is being attacked from many sides. 

     I think people have a strong need to define and label things. The forum needs to either be pro this, or anti that. If you are thinking that the forum is neutral on all stands, you are either wanting it to be that way, or feel the need to force it to conform to some social standard. I do not see the forum taking a stand except when it is in some way having to defend itself. 

     As far as someone tweeting with their own personal twitter account, good luck with that. That would be extremely dangerous since the Assange cult is known to attack anyone that they can with an actual name. They threaten, degrade, coerce, intimidate, and exploit anyone that they can find that does not worship Assange like they do. 

     The fight for the freedom of speech by this forum has gotten nasty. It is because the cult has turned it into an Assange worshiping game, and that turns out to not be about freedom of speech at all. It is never going to be a nice neutral utopia of discussion again. 

     On the other hand, if you want to point fingers at non neutrality, point at the true source. Assange has manipulated and politicized the official WikiLeaks twitter account like no other source of information I have ever seen. WikiLeaks does claim to be neutral and just and collects a lot of money from donations that they claim they use only for the common good. It turns out to be a way for Assange to collect funds to further is own interest.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 16, 2015, 15:55:55 PM
It still says:

 
 "An Error Has Occurred!
 
 You aren't allowed to view the forum statistics."

maybe they just blocked me because I ask too many questions about this forum...

no problem, I have my own blog and my own statistics :)

well, once again, I see that the forum doesn't block the supposed Wikileaks "trolls" on Twitter like gerge42 or other accounts.
those accounts don't give any kind of interesting info about the Wikileaks case, and they don't add any element to the current debate

this is a sterile debate, while I thought it was more interesting to ask: if Wikileaks was a governmental operation/owned by secret services, would they have an interest to make us think that the WL forum is their enemy?

do you think Wikileaks tried to censor this forum, for allowing posting articles denouncing Wikileaks as a governmental psyop?
or is it just that by accusing this forum of being infiltrated by the FBI, maybe Wikileaks tried to hide that they are themselves infiltrated by FBI (Sabu & other informants) or other secret agencies?...

I know the forum Twitter account was nervous against me, but I have to ask those questions! seeking the truth is something common to all Wikileaks supporters! :)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 16:15:16 PM
@Kimono, 

       I just tried that link for forum stats and it did not work for me either, let me look into this...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 16, 2015, 16:16:42 PM
It still says:

 
 "An Error Has Occurred!
 
 You aren't allowed to view the forum statistics."

maybe they just blocked me because I ask too many questions about this forum...

no problem, I have my own blog and my own statistics :)

well, once again, I see that the forum doesn't block the supposed Wikileaks "trolls" on Twitter like gerge42 or other accounts.
those accounts don't give any kind of interesting info about the Wikileaks case, and they don't add any element to the current debate

this is a sterile debate, while I thought it was more interesting to ask: if Wikileaks was a governmental operation/owned by secret services, would they have an interest to make us think that the WL forum is their enemy?

do you think Wikileaks tried to censor this forum, for allowing posting articles denouncing Wikileaks as a governmental psyop?
or is it just that by accusing this forum of being infiltrated by the FBI, maybe Wikileaks tried to hide that they are themselves infiltrated by FBI (Sabu & other informants) or other secret agencies?...

I know the forum Twitter account was nervous against me, but I have to ask those questions! seeking the truth is something common to all Wikileaks supporters! :)


your making me laugh,,what twitter account are you referring to ? Please state the NAME of the twitter account that was blocked

Also, the Forum hasn't "blocked" you from anything. If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to ramble on in this thread.

I have also noticed you belong to "conspiracy theory" squad, and so I am proud to inform you there are no conspircies to "silence" you. You may WISH that to be true but it's not,,,,,sorry :-(
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 16, 2015, 16:17:51 PM
@Kimono,

 I just tried that link for forum stats and it did not work for me either, let me look into this...

Oh dear, you know what that means right ? It can only be a conspiracy !!
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 16:30:27 PM
Oh Koyaan...


             underneath the line "view the most recent posts on the forum" on the front page, it used to have a link:

                   [More Stats]

             it is no longer there... check it out.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 16, 2015, 16:40:06 PM
I'm translator and I can see the statistics. 
If only Hero Members can't see them there' s may be just an error in those members' settings, with no need of claiming cospiracies that they are being hidden.

Block in twitter does not prevent anyone from posting.

For the sake of the transparency here are the statistics, till the problem won't be solved! 

https://twitter.com/epjas2/status/556112516385079298
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 16, 2015, 16:42:15 PM
Block ON twitter ... damn the t9 is a words killer xD
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 16:54:00 PM
There is a technical glitch with the forum stats link, when I signed in on another capacity to explore the technical glitch I could not resolved it though. I can see the link when signed on in another capacity. 

   Yes Koyaan, it is a conspiracy, the usual technical computer glitch conspiracy that strives to make us all go crazy! :-P
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 16, 2015, 17:12:47 PM
will ask the Illuminati and Freemasons if they can fix it....last thing we need is another conspiracy theory
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 17:33:29 PM
I thought you were the Illuminati Koyaan? Ha Ha... :-P
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 16, 2015, 18:19:44 PM
It is fixed! Thank you Koyaan!
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 16, 2015, 20:26:12 PM
If you're all Illuminati here, know that when it's going to be the end of the world, you're going to disappear from this earth just like dinosaurs 4 million years ago... May God save your poor little souls! :) it will make pshhhiiiittt! like a balloon in the sky! :)

as for Twitter, yes I was blocked and even your forum account said that my tweets are stupid - but I don't care. I'm happy of being blocked, then I'm saved from reading their stupid tweets too :)
I'm saved from reading their retweets, and from responding to their false opinions - while they're never able to justify their positions.

the forum Twitter account will disappear in the depth of the night, in the depth of a nightmare being chased by Wikileaks founder and its wolves, while they're all shouting in the night hiding from the moon, they were all claiming that they were defending the truth - but it seems that they were all eating its dead body and pretending to fight for it.
...but they all killed the truth and now, what's going to happen in this terrible night if there's no more truth in the world?...

(this is all humour, of course) :)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 16, 2015, 22:55:26 PM
false opinions

Something tells me you are not joking ....you really do need to explain what "false opinions" are
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 17, 2015, 09:03:46 AM
by "false opinions" I mean that the forum pretends to attack Assange on Twitter, but when you try to give them an advise to start a real debate, contact the media to debate on this problem (you can be interviewed and stay anonymous, just like other hacktivists are doing it), but then they say that "no, it's not a revolt, we are neutral and we're not trying to debate, we want to remain anon" etc

for me, this is a false attitude: or you really believe in what you're saying, or better not to start tweeting things you're not able to defend to the last end

for the other things, that was just humour, because the reaction of the forum on Twitter are sometimes brutal (like blocking suddenly people): it reminds me the attitude of a wild animal :)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 17, 2015, 11:35:15 AM
I think you have been blocked surely not for your opinions but for somehow pretending to know personal data or to impose what to be tweeted by the forum.

Nobody knows "The Truth" unless one is God, aware of being God.
... I don't think any of us can pretend to have this kind of awareness.

So the forum account, as well as our accounts, may post opinons we disagree with and we'll never know what is "The Truth"; we can only accept that there are opinions (aka points of view) and eventual disagreements.

If one can't accept thaf disagreement exists, there one has an attitude of pretending their own side of the facts is the only one... Wikileaks did so, that's why it's being criticized... I have a totally different impression on the forum account...

Being blocked on twitter by that account anyway has no effect on the possibility of posting, so it's good to see your posts here, kimono.

Whoever is running the forum account if we disagree with it we can simply tell without pretending and unfollow when we don't like it (not my case atm).
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Alan Tayler on January 17, 2015, 13:48:47 PM
by "false opinions" I mean that the forum pretends to attack Assange on Twitter, but when you try to give them an advise to start a real debate, contact the media to debate on this problem (you can be interviewed and stay anonymous, just like other hacktivists are doing it), but then they say that "no, it's not a revolt, we are neutral and we're not trying to debate, we want to remain anon" etc

for me, this is a false attitude: or you really believe in what you're saying, or better not to start tweeting things you're not able to defend to the last end

for the other things, that was just humour, because the reaction of the forum on Twitter are sometimes brutal (like blocking suddenly people): it reminds me the attitude of a wild animal :)

The forum doesnt "pretend to atatck assange", it continues to expose him as a liar and a criminal
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 17, 2015, 15:18:23 PM
The forums stand against Assange is quiet clear on twitter, with all of the tweets discussing him aside, there has been an official tweet that has been pinned to the top of the feed for months on end....


    User Actions

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000781420596/f89cd040db345ef9a473480271533a10_bigger.png)The WikiLeaks Forum‏@wikileaks_forum (https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum)
The #WikiLeaks (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WikiLeaks?src=hash) Forum supports the WikiLeaks cause but dissociates itself clearly from #Assange (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assange?src=hash)'s lies,smears and media Manipulation #wlsup (https://twitter.com/hashtag/wlsup?src=hash) 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks_forum/status/494977881844764672

  That above all other statements that other forum staff may make while tweeting for the forum, is the basic stand.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 18, 2015, 17:59:49 PM
So this is not neutral toward the Assange affair - if the forum stated in its mission that it's neutral, then maybe they have to change the text ?...
It would be clearer for the supporters.

Are they the "enemy" of Assange lies, or just trying to open the debate and let people choose if they want to see the truth or the lies?...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 18, 2015, 18:04:01 PM
the latter
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 19, 2015, 00:14:23 AM
@Kimono

 I think the confusion is with the distinction between the forum as a place, or the forum as a person (persons). I think of it as neutral because I think of it as a place for discussion. I certainly can see your point that the people tweeting for the forum, tweet things that are not neutral in order to defend the forum.

 When people attack the forum mostly on twitter though, they are usually attacking a person. They are seeking out who ever the owner might be and trying to destroy them because they want to destroy the forum itself.

 All I can say is neutrality died with Assange and the battle for free speech, when it became apparent that his personal needs for fame and money became the priority for him, up and above any ones right to free speech.

 I personally do not mind that the forum took a stand like it did. I am not requiring any staff member or member of the forum to remain neutral at all. To remain neutral in the face of attacks is not only unrealistic, it is restricting peoples rights to the freedom of speech to defend themselves and the forum.

 That official tweet pinned by the forum is a not neutral stance. However, it is not going to stop people from coming to this forum and posting things like.... "I think Julian Assange is the man that can save the world and the only reason he has not already is because the evil corrupt governments that he exposed are now involved in a secret covert operation to keep him detained." No one is going to stop someone from coming here and posting that, it is not going to be deleted. In that respect the forum truly is just a platform for discussion...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 19, 2015, 00:31:08 AM
 When people attack the forum mostly on twitter though, they are usually attacking a person. They are seeking out who ever the owner might be and trying to destroy them because they want to destroy the forum itself. 

They should know by now that they can't close a Forum. The surge in attacks on Forum / ex-Forum members shows fear and Desperation.The Forum is almost 4 years old and we will be eating lots of cake and Cookies :-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 19, 2015, 09:52:42 AM
@Kimono

 [...]

 All I can say is neutrality died with Assange and the battle for free speech, when it became apparent that his personal needs for fame and money became the priority for him, up and above any ones right to free speech.


If you think that Assange is so corrupted, why do you think journalists are not raising this question publicly? many journalists interviewed him and nobody asked him.
and why the forum or forum admins are not trying to say this in the media, that he's only interested in money and fame?
why nobody is saying this on TV, public debates?...

If I were you, I would seek an answer. But on one side and the other (wikileaks forum/wikileaks side/journalists side, etc), you see that there's nothing, no aim to come to a real conclusion.
Are they people who can prove that Assange only did all he did only for "fame and money"?...

A tweet from the forum is not enough to prove this. I would like to have more opinions about that.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Koyaanisqatsi on January 19, 2015, 13:13:26 PM
Quote
"If I were you, I would seek an answer"
[/size]

Thank God you aren't us ! :-)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 19, 2015, 14:10:58 PM
...Actually journalists are asking themselves questions about the reliability of  Julian Assange; not all of them laud him. Assange has accused whatever professionist that criticized him, of willing to profit of the situation for personal inrerests (fame, success), starting from The Guardian... Ending with Jemima Khan (his supporter) and the Alex Gibney documentary for now.
He is trying to bully whoever criticizes him.
If he doesn't do it directly, Assange lets that his fans and associate do this.
No need of proof to see that endorsed @shafpatel (owner of Slur) and @cabledrummer (WL cooperator) post priavate info of their critics for revenge.
The idea that the main part of the media and public opinion are pro-Assange is very unilateral. Many media/persons simply don't give a damn of WL and JA, also.
Between the wikileaks supporters  there are big individual differences and people who don't always agree with everything Assange does. Imagine if we include also the WL critics: there are infinite nuances between hard core support or criticism.

The @wikileaks_forum account may express many opinions; it may tweet several posts, including the pro-Assange ones (it often did) when posted here.
The account is clearly run by persons that consider the Assange's attitude of trying to censor WL critics by all the means (including stalking) as Wrong attitude.


But the site of the forum is open to all, including Assange supporters.
Indeed there are and there will be many pro-Assange posts and as even guests now can post, pro-Assange people are able to comment even without being registered (given they generally don't trust the forum, this is a democratic opportunity to debate).

The forum is about WikiLeaks, in general, with leaks, news, pro/contra... It's not called "The Assange Fans Club".

@kimono that you post your pro-WikiLeaks opinions is a good thing, it makes everybody see other sides.
Also on twitter one can "disagree". "I disagree, I think different, ..." etc are all things that happen. One can also unfollow, block, whatever one wants (I'm also blocked: by @wikileaks and all the legion of their "fans").
But in my opinion this should not lead critics to try to smear this site as some sort of "FBI site" just because we don't like the things Assange tweets via @wikileaks or certain of his leaks or the way he uses them.

Asking for proofs is a good thing.
On the other side, anyway, all absorbed in this internet flat litteral world, let's not forget that humans are social because they can guess the motivations of the other posting... not always... but we can, considering in what context the words are put, draw our own conclusions on what is being said.
I'd consider an insult to the human intelligence pretending people to consider the @wikileaks ' tweets only litterally, without asking ourselves what those tweets are meant to say; idem for the @wikileaks_forum tweets.
So let's look for proofs, for confirmation; but at the same time let's also try to understand what the other wanted to say. I know this is subjective. But knowledge is also subjective; it isn't just a serie of data, or we would be computers.
... Certain WL fans only always ask for proofs, but when one asks them "Can you prove that Assange is surely innocent?", they go on the subjective side "He hasn't been charged because he may be fears extradition to the US, he may be has been trapped..." etc. instead of the objective side that he has lost 7 Court appeals and he isn't charged because he refuses questioning.
My point is: IF we are so indulgent and can feel empathy with Julian Assange (because he's a leaker, because he leads a change, etc.), why can't we so easily feel the same empathy with his critics in the moment himself has tried to hurt and censor them? Why do we have to pretend that they show us this or that, when it's Enormously evident the amount of harsh, stalking tweets coming from Assange endorsed supporters that Assange Never did a step to mitigate?


The forum isn't "neutral", nor WikiLeaks and his fans are "neutral" and they are even violent with their words and privacy violations, and they started it before this forum had any problem with the opinions of Assange himself... Also WikiLeaks was supposed to be a bit more neutral given its original manifesto. It isn't at all. It even support extremism. This because of his leader Julian Assange. Should we stay silent? Or it's more correct to take our own responsibility as ex-Assange supporters (my case) of telling that attitude isn't correct?


At least this is my opinion.
Don't retweet it if you don't like it or disagree.
Tell me you disagree. No problem.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 20, 2015, 01:26:18 AM
@Kimono

 [...]

 All I can say is neutrality died with Assange and the battle for free speech, when it became apparent that his personal needs for fame and money became the priority for him, up and above any ones right to free speech.


If you think that Assange is so corrupted, why do you think journalists are not raising this question publicly? many journalists interviewed him and nobody asked him.
and why the forum or forum admins are not trying to say this in the media, that he's only interested in money and fame?
why nobody is saying this on TV, public debates?...

If I were you, I would seek an answer. But on one side and the other (wikileaks forum/wikileaks side/journalists side, etc), you see that there's nothing, no aim to come to a real conclusion.
Are they people who can prove that Assange only did all he did only for "fame and money"?...

A tweet from the forum is not enough to prove this. I would like to have more opinions about that.

 Journalist have very limited access to Assange, and when they do get access he demands strict control over the questions that can be asked. There probably will not be an actual statement anywhere that Assange did what he did for fame and money. I am only making my judgement by his actual behaviors...

 Assange asks for donations on a continual basis, he does not give full transparency to how much money he collects. He sent Sarah Harrison to find Ed Snowden to latch on to him and get on a bank roll of Ed, basically to profit by association. Sarah collects a nice paycheck for herself now as the director of the courage fund, which collects money to help aide whistle blowers, namely Ed Snowden himself. Assange got himself listed as one of the lead positions on the board of the courage fund. No one knows for sure how much they profit from this, all of their money collecting is quiet non transparent.

 Going back to the early day of Assange's climb to fame, all the way back to the original release of the Collateral Murder material, Assange's behavior was disgustingly self serving. Right at the time that Chelsea Manning was essentially loosing her grip on life, having just given away a mega ton of government secrets, knowing the devastating effect this was going to have on her life legally and personally....Assange was behaving quiet the opposite. He was busy using his new found fame and fortune to sleep with any hot Swedish women he could get his hands on.

 Think about that @Kimono.... what kind of person would take advantage in this way? Manning was the real whistle blower here, not Assange. Manning put herself into a huge line of fire, and certainly took the bullet. Assange on the other hand used Manning's huge sacrifice to put himself in the lime light, collect lots and lots of money, claimed to protect any whistle blowers, but in the end gave a very minimal amount to Manning's defense. The amount of money that Assange has spent on his own personal defense, against getting out facing sexual assault allegations is absolutely HUGE compared to what he sent to Manning's defense.

 There were other hacktivist that in the early days of WikiLeaks that soon became aware that Assange was interesting in profiting from leaks, to the tune of millions of dollars. Assange himself had a very easy time claiming victim of justice, having a bunch of rich friends contribute a very sizable sum for his bail, only then to violate his bail conditions to have all of those people completely screwed out of their money. Some of those people were not rich, just disillusioned and they lost a ton of money they thought was going to a good cause.

 I could go on about Assange all day @Kimono, but you know what, you can believe what ever you want to believe. It is not my job to prove to you or anybody for that matter about what the true intentions of Assange actually are. I do not think that all facts about anything can be known and stated in some official way in the media, and certainly the media is full of misinformation as well. It is up to each one of us to observe things in our own way, and decide how we want to feel about Assange. I do not care what others believe, I have my own thoughts on the matter. To each is own.

 I am just waiting around to watch Assange go down, and I do believe he will go down, maybe not today, or even tomorrow, but someday he will go down. He is on the road to ruin...
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 20, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
I'm not particularly pro-Assange or pro-Forum (the forum blocked me on Twitter, while I was trying to go further into the debate)

I'm trying to find the truth about all this situation

- on one side, I think the critics are not gooing too far, the forum only posts opinions: in few months, we can see as well that all these rumors are false

- on the other side, the forum could be doing all this in complicity with wikileaks, maybe to obtain from the people to focus on something else, while Wikileaks could be preparing new leaks for example (and they need less attention from the media)...

- on another side, I heard myself supporters saying things wrong or bad about Wikileaks, but at least I had a real opinion from a real person, not from a forum where I don't even know who are those admins...
when 2 ecuadorian or spanish women were talking to me when I was in London in august 2012, they really told me what they saw in front of the embassy, so I can really believe what they told to me...
But here, it's very difficult to believe in those rumors!

I don't like having doubts about something.

Or Assange is OK, or Assange is evil. But not everything at the same time, please.
I think the forum should help the supporters to have a clearer idea and opinion about Wikileaks, but now I think the forum is more about doubts and rumors. I don't like this.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 20, 2015, 15:03:04 PM
@Riney " Journalist have very limited access to Assange, and when they do get access he demands strict control over the questions that can be askeed"
Really? I mean, I can imagine one gets informed on what to be asked during an interview, but the interview would be helpful if reflecting the true point of view of the interviewed. How can these "interview" be reliable if the answears are studied before and/or journalists are strictly limited in asking questions? 

@Kimono... that the forum account blocks you isn't a nice sensation (I know how it is).

... guys/gals I confess that I'm damn scared of the potential harsh reaction each time I criticize this forum... [feedback]

My best suggestion is to keep posting what we feel correct here, according to the guidelines.
I also think that the way questions are asked here or on twitter, should take in consideration the situation of those being asked: the WLF isn't like Assange, controlling what is being asked, but clearly may decide not to reply when it comes to personal data or things already posted a million times.

"I'm trying to find the truth about all this situation"

Great. Me too. We all. We have experienced different situations about WL and Assange; about the forum; so we have different simpathies and/or informations on these entities.

I hate having doubts too. And I'm full of doubts on everything. That 99% won't be cleared, because, specially online, one doesn't see everything (no expressions, no body language, no real knowledge of the people).
So I get that you are willing to interact with concrete people, not just avatars.
But I please ask you to understand that the real people at the moment are being stalked and, starting from myself, I have no intention with all the risks of extremism we are facing nowadays in Europe and with Assange almost supporting ISIS, of revealing my actual face and position, putting at risk all my familiars.
I think this applies also to the other forum staffers or ex-staffers.
I was about going to London in summer 2012 to meet Emmy... after the idea was postponed and thank God it was, as in august/september 2012 she came out ranting with the WLF hijacked account the name of real people (not myself).
As the WL supporters community includes people that aren't afraid to publically share whoever's data just for revenge when they are angry, I don't think secure, in this moment, to become a public face for anyone here.
[And I still disagree on some posts of the WLF staffers on the stalkers' personal data here].

Let's remember that till he was not accused, also Julian Assange used to keep his destinations and personal data as hidden as possible, for security reasons, despite being a famous person.

@Kimono I hope you and everybody can keep using this site and also the twitter accounts to spread what we think.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 20, 2015, 15:04:14 PM
* the like is because despite i think a bit different, i feel what you want to say.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: Riney on January 20, 2015, 15:40:12 PM
@jujyjuji, It is not uncommon for any high profile person in the public eye, that agrees to interviews with journalist to dictate at least some of the content of an interview. The journalist usually does a preliminary interview with the subject or the with the subjects public relations agent and/or personal assistant to come to an agreement about the subjects to discuss. Having read Andrew O'Hagan's piece in the London Review of Books, about the ghost writing of Assange's autobiography, I got a keen sense of just how Assange controls the information about himself that is publicized with an iron grip.

  "I think the forum should help the supporters to have a clearer idea and opinion about Wikileaks, but now I think the forum is more about doubts and rumors. I don't like this."


 @Kimono,

 You want iron clad proof about everything, you want court tested documentation I assume. You will not find it here. This is not a court room with verifiable evidence. This forum is just a place to discuss things. I do agree that things have slipped into what you call "doubts and rumors" in the subject of WikiLeaks, but do not blame the forum for it. Julian Assange has been manipulating the information about WikiLeaks as an organization to the media for years on end now. I am sure he would tell you to your face that the only "true" information about him and WikiLeaks come from himself, and anything else that anyone would say about him are full on lies.

 I do not expect anyone from the outside to understand what Assange has done and continues to do to this forum. I think that the forum staff here have a unique experience all their own of what they experienced from Assange.

 Again, everyone should believe what ever they want. I will not provide any iron clad evidence of anything. I am just here to discuss observations and experiences. I disagree that information presented here on the forum would help any supporter interested in WikiLeaks decide what to think. I believe people arrive with their own beliefs already intact, they come here only to augment what they already believe. If they find anything that does not support what they already want to believe, they simply find a way to completely disregard it.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: kimono on January 20, 2015, 16:35:33 PM
so all this mess between Wikileaks and the forum, it's not a psyop ?

it's a real epic battle ?... not a conspiracy ?

:)
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: J.C on January 20, 2015, 20:20:50 PM
how does it come that you think this is a psyop?
I also see no "battle" just some people that want WikiLeaks to be their church with a unfailable leader.

there is no human without human errors, that makes us human - and criticising Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and co is not different from criticising the Government - and if there is something fishy about, you can discuss it here.
Title: Re: The Twitter account?
Post by: jujyjuji on January 21, 2015, 13:17:26 PM
@The Dr. Joker You are a Mason ---> (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/26956/m-pf9J0PRF8VkjBfK1m1qgQ.jpg) you are SURELY a psyop possibly connected with the Illuminati ---bwahaha Sith laughters again---