One comment on "Just An Online Minute... Wikileaks Has Last Laugh"

1. Christine Bacon from Morgan Stanley
   

   commented on: February 19, 2008 at 4:05 PM
   This is the first time I've heard of Wikileak and I find this site now very interesting. I think the idea of it is great, but is it a good thing that people can post accusations on the web without any checks for validity? I realize in certain parts of the world, posting information about government corruption, human rights violations is a huge risk. And I don't know anything about this situation with the banker. But I am wondering what happens to public (or private) figures, whether a US politician, an actor, an athlete, whoever, when someone posts an inaccurate accusation against them. The site's position seems to be that the public can decide if the accusation is true or not. But don't many people assume that if there's an accusation against you, you must be guilty? I mean, just look at the case of Roger Clemens. I don't know if the man used steroids. But everyone has decided he's guilty, although the source is not entirely credible, and the case didn't really go through the real scrutiny of a trial. My point is that people don't practice the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Just by being a part of an accusation on a site like this tarnishes the reputation. And once on the web, it's out there for life. So how do you stop someone from using the site for their own personal agenda (imagine how Karl Rove could have used this site to attack John McCain during the 2000 election)? I’m not sure the court's ruling to shut down the site is helpful in the big scheme, but if the site is going to compare itself to other journalist organizations, shouldn't they develop a responsible practice for verifying the posts made on the site?

Leave a Comment