Wikileaks Shuts Down Temporarily (?)

Wikileaks, which has been shuttered by litigation previously, now finds it self shut down by that all too familiar reason: lack of money.

The site's mission statement is to allow whistleblowers to anonymously release government and corporate documents, "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." It's done that in the past, posting leaks from many sources. Now, it needs the help of the public. On their site, they say:
To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations, but will be back soon.

We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release. You can change that and by doing so, change the world. Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands and $1000, a million.

We have raised just over $130,000 for this year but can not meaningfully continue operations until costs are covered. These amount to just under $200,000 PA. If staff are paid, our yearly budget is $600,000.
Although the site has won awards, including the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression Award as well as the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, as it says, "these accolades do not pay the bills." The site adds "Nor can we accept government or corporate funding and maintain our absolute integrity."

Just how long the site will remain offline is unclear. However, what is clear is that if the site doesn't manage to get some influx of capital, it's probably gone for good. Here's an interview that details how Wikileaks spends its money.
Via:  Wikileaks
Comments
rapid1 4 years ago

Yeah a site like this they all throw the accolades, but no one wants to be tied to it in any meaningful way if something goes bad.

gibbersome 4 years ago

 

This statement sends the wrong message. It basically states pay us money and you'll get all the juicy details you want...kinda like tabloids.

They should have indicated that they needed the money to for legal purposes (though they apparently have lawyers working pro bono), continuing their research, and to pay for bandwidth. According to the interview the site is run by five guys, all working without financial incentives. I respect what they do, and have visited their site many times before. $10 donated.

It's important to note that their fund-raising methods in the past haven't always been kosher:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/wikileaks-aucti/

mhenriday 4 years ago

Let us hope that the Wikileaks shut down is, indeed, only «temporary». The people working there - together with the whistle-blowers who provide the information - are performing a service vital to the maintenance of the last small vestiges of democracy we still possess. An optimist might go so far as to say that perhaps we can even hope to claw some crumbs back - but only if we can ensure that we can inform ourselves on the antics of our political and economic masters....

Henri

gibbersome 4 years ago

[quote user="mhenriday"]

Let us hope that the Wikileaks shut down is, indeed, only «temporary». The people working there - together with the whistle-blowers who provide the information - are performing a service vital to the maintenance of the last small vestiges of democracy we still possess. An optimist might go so far as to say that perhaps we can even hope to claw some crumbs back - but only if we can ensure that we can inform ourselves on the antics of our political and economic masters....

Henri

[/quote]

 

Haha Henri, sounds like the introduction of a John Pilger documentary! I'm always suspicious when a politician's personal life is smeared all over TV (recently, John Edwards) because it almost always happens to distract the public from another political scandal.

mhenriday 4 years ago

Gibbersome, when I refer to the «antics of our political and economic masters», I am not concerned with their sexual peccadilloes (perhaps my voyeurism quotient is unusually low), but rather with the foreign wars of aggression they have started, the bloated military budget, the secret deals with corporations and their lobbyists, etc, etc, i e, what I presume you mean by «political scandalSleep». This latter, rather than the more salacious personal scandals dear to the heart of a certain type of moralist (who seem as often to be the protagonists of such scandals as the politicians) constitutes, from what I've seen, the content of Wikileaks. In any event, we seem to be in agreement that this other type of scandal is a useful - and often used - tool for distracting the public from what is going on. If that sounds like a John Pilger documentary, than I confess myself flattered....

 

Henri

Post a Comment
or Register to comment