Journalism Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Has anyone seen any source discuss the possibility this alleged DDOS is really just a lot of real people hammering wikileaks because of reading about this upcoming leak? Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I was on /b/ a little while before, and there was a lot of speculation there about it being from a single source. It didn't seem like it was them - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a single source? Then, it is not a _Distributed_ Denial of Service. emijrp (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume they meant someone running a botnet or something. (Not that I have any idea how they know that.) You're right a single source is not a DDOS, and a non-distributed DOS generally doesn't work anyway since it's trivial to block or take down one IP. I would still like more details on why Wikileaks believes this to be a DDOS but I guess that will just have to wait (stupid sources which say it's a 'hack' don't help). Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even know how significant the DDOS was. When I saw it on Twitter, I tried accessing wikileaks.org (somewhat contributing to the problem, I suppose) and didn't get an answer. Here's the thing: Wikileaks says, via Twitter, that they're being hit by a DDOS. Fine. The news then reports this. Fine. I try accessing wikileaks.org again. Fine. No, seriously, I got in without a problem, maybe 10 minutes after I'd last checked. Whatever it was, it didn't last long. I think the coverage over the DDOS has been hugely overblock since the media just doesn't understand how a DDoS could affect something like Wikileaks (and it's the media calling it a "hack"). What part of wikileaks was subject to a DDOS? What does a DDoS even mean to an organization like WikiLeaks?

My point is that this is maybe not such a huge issue deserving of so much speculation or coverage (edit: well, coverage, yeah). Maybe. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I largely agree with you (somewhat why I started this discussion), particularly since wikileaks seem to have somewhat of a flare for the dramatic, it's difficult at the moment since most sources are just parotting what wikileaks said. Funnily enough the wikileaks main site while mostly working fine doesn't seem to have been updated so anyone visiting it will be mystified where these cables are. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By 'single source' I meant it is not a bunch of real users all around the globe, but rather, an attack coming from thousands of computers in (just an example) China. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links regarding criticism of the British action in Afghanistan and the actions of its royal family reveal very little information. Does anyone have any better links as to what was actually said? -- jfry3 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't see any, I suspect we'll have to wait until those cables are released Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw one thing about the royal family, I'll try to dig it up again. C628 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no luck. C628 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see something about Prince Andrew but it did not say what he did. Was it that? -- jfry3 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Guardian, it is only "inappropriate comments about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country." [1] Quite mild for Andy, given his track record! Physchim62 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the nature of this, with more info expected to come over time and a lot of info likely to be revealed, I think we have to be careful not to cover stuff in too major detail. Ultimately the sources and reactions should tell us what to cover but in the meantime, I question whether we need to cover stuff like the Ukrainian nurse bit. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Contents section will be growing on a daily basis, I suggest to add subheadings so that it would be easier to edit without edit conflict notices. John Hyams (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now it's much easier to edit each topic. John Hyams (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to define Diplomatic Cables more clearly. Does an article about diplomatic cables exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? Is it a term for general diplomatic correspondence? Does it specify classified messages exchanged within the American diplomatic corps and intelligence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.29.144 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term "diplomatic cable" is not properly explained on Wikipedia and currently it refers to an obsolete term of actual cables underwater. This event is about emails and other types of correspondence media, not related to submarine cables. John Hyams (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Reactions' subsection includes only reactions from national governments, and not any from other individuals, organizations, international groups, etc. Three of the five government reactions currently listed come from the United States and its two closest allies (Canada, UK). I believe a larger variety of reactions would help balance the point of view in this section. Tyro (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I agree that it is needed. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]