please note our disclaimer page – we have nothing in common with the Wikimedia Foundation

Article orchids on bullshit ground. Some say, BS always was a good fertilizer. Others answer: cowshit always worked, too. About Wikileaks bitching around recently on twitter and about Guardian entering the bestseller fight arena.

with 16 comments

[apk for wn030 – January 31, 2011, with updades.]


Let’s make it short. When in between of the fight for freedom in Egypt, in between news about Egypt’s unwanted “President” building a not-imagined before information wall against the rest of the world – about news able to let you lose your breath everyday (from closing of pages  like facebook and twitter, pages being used by journalists, too – to an entire internet shutdown, to SMS shutdown (SMS being sent by journalists, too), to foreign journalists reportedly being held in hotels, to arriving AlJazeera journalists being sent to the airport, to reports of violence against journalists [reporters injured by police], to a shutdown of a station [AlJazeera] to arrests of reporters and seizure of equipment]... when in the middle of indeed important news and calls of AlJazeera to bloggers for help – a spokesperson somewhere in a warm and cosy bulding*** is starting to bitch  about a sentence not being entirely read by himself, you may well have reasons to be a bit more than just halfway to exploding.

Yesterday night in Europe experienced such a moment. Lots of followers of the official wikileaks account were – in the middle of their own work – suddenly interrupted by a 2-tweet-nagging that we can call a Julian nagging, accoding to the attacked Guardian journalist who replied and noted that exactly this official account was hardly used by anybody else that night.

So, what exactly happened? Julian hinted at an article published on the Telegraph webpage on 30 Jan 2011 at 5:59PM GMT. The wikileaks spokesperson wrote his concerns regarding “Guardian names Manning as source” linking to the mentioned Telegraph article. Due to the 140 chars frame of twitter, we can only hope that the telegram style with a misquote was just a result of the twitter structure. If at all, we have to speak about 2  Guardian journalists naming Manning as what? According to the Telegraph newspaper, as the “alleged” source. Here’s the article quote, 2nd paragraph:

“The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, of The Guardian, name Specialist Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a US military jail, as the alleged source of the information which was passed on to The Guardian by WikiLeaks.”

So, what’s the problem, you might ask, so far this is nothing new to anybody following the case. Two Guardian journalists are not the “Guardian”, we might reply to Julian and alleged is an important word not forgotten by the telegraph. The article, describing the book of David Leigh and Luke Harding (thus, helping them a bit to reach the next bestseller list, something Julian of course right now is a bit touchy about, while his own book is as much in development as Daniel’s debut work as an author**), lists facts that are indeed no news to people following the Bradley Manning story since it started (re start: see the very last lines of this complement entry and re development of the case see Manning updates here). Still, what to think about Julians distracting two nighttweets? Tweets wanting to raise some attention at the book, before his own one hits the tables? (regardless of rumours about Julian’s book being written by ghostwriters – let’s still call it his own one, as long as we don’t have  real proofs about an author work misuse by WL in our hands than just some rumours spread by the other leak gang after the clash – a strategy that both gangs in quarrel widely use these days. Update: no, there are reasons to assume this is not just a rumour…). So again: what is this about, pure raising of awareness, attention gaining, some showfight-rant-advertising help for a book before  his own one – [or if written by other writers, then hopefully not naming JA as the “author” <- update regarding this question) – before his “own” one arrives in the shops? You shouldn’t exclude this sideway-consequences, of course readers will expect a reply when the expected next bestseller is there. They will pay for the reply if curious enough, so of course some ranting here and there will finally work fine as an upfront extra ad for the awaited bestseller candidate book title.

Just all this, awareness raising before the book-run Julian-Daniel-Guardian,  the bestseller-chase really starts, sure? Becalmed, we could impassively come back to other, more important topics if there wouldn’t have been some unexpected replies from one of the attacked authors, David Leigh, himself. In order to let you take a look at them yourself, please feel free to click at  this storify sample where wn030 collected some important reply quotes of David Leigh.

On Jan 31st, at 0:23, David Leigh surprised with the following charming reply content and tone: @wikileaks absolute pack of lies against the Guardian. Manning not our source. Who says “free Bradley” on their logo?# Wikileaks does”. From the “pack of lies”, we can easily conclude the Guardian journalist is heating up a bit. From the 2nd sentence, however, it gets visible that the book will hardly be worth a deeper looking review. If the entire book follows the same thorough arguing as this 2nd sentence, we can perfectly cancel “Wikileaks: Inside / Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy” from our watchlist of possible bestseller top hits.  Some former incredible crazy claims spread on the twittersphere  by diverse people – claims that money help might be regarded as an “admitting” of Bradley as source – were hard enough to watch and to stay patient. Although these claims may not have been the only reason for the awkward delay of Wikileaks’ legal help donation to the Manning support network (see more about the delay in the middle part of this complement entry),  everybody who took part in these flat,  stupid and greedy looking self-justifications should simply learn to think before logging in into his/her twitter account. But David’s second sentence here is just too much for being called a gaffe. When a Guardian journalist regards support – in this case, via a small graphical addon, an account avatar sticky, needed and as for the support itself, long awaited given that it took the Wikileaks spokesperson himself quite a long while to accept his  co-responsibility for Manning, a responsibility existing absolutely regardless of the fact whether Bradley was the person who submitted the material or not and absolutely regardless of the fact that an upfront link between them can be perfectly excluded (update regarding this, july 13th/14th 2011) –  so, if this Guardian journalist regards an avatar sticky as an “evidence” for a “source” – then let’s forget about the book, we can perfectly expect the same journalistic “thoroughness” from this author part.

Article orchids on bullshit ground (and cowshit, of course, in order to stay politically correct and to emancipatedly “genderize” where appropriate). The first orchid got visible just a few hours later, an article reply by x7o. The original form of this orchid was ready at an unknown hour and previously posted on wl-central, a wikileaks supporters platform, copied to freshhorse due to a short wl-central overload after the wikileaks account spread the link to this orchid reply via twitter. Let’s assume some other word plants will follow earlier than expected.

But in the meanwhile, let’s return to the small “showfight theory”. Of course, there are no reasons at all for anybody, neither any spokesperson on earth nor for any Guardian reader, to expect or fear so-called “loyality” from a newspaper. “Loyality” is simply not what newspapers are for, originally, neither regarding governments, nor regarding companies, nor regarding networks like Wikileaks or their spokespeople. The argument that the same newspapers are publishing material they got from Wikileaks is no argument at all. Newspapers – like any other older or newer media as long as they feel committed to journalism – have other duties, being contrary to any “loyality” expectation. Thinking about it in a less emotional moment, Julian would have to admit to it either, given that his approaches to achieve official status as a Journalist are for real. Will realizing this fact – the fact that no contract on earth will turn a medium to a “loyal” one – be able to make him rethink his decision to turn to “exclusive” contracts,  a decision that made Wikileaks less and less recognizable as the platform it originally was? We think: hardly, at least not yet.

But what does it tell us about where the Guardian is aiming at (aside of aiming the bestseller list)? A newspaper like the Guardian might – in their coverage of the Wikileaks saga – have other reasons for a careful positioning than “loyality”.

Let’s remember for a moment what the platform originally was. It made access to journalistic raw material accessible. While being published and available (before Wikileaks turned to “exclusive”), it made something quite interesting possible. Suddenly, for a short moment (until “exclusivity” showed up), the accessible material made a fair competition between workers in the media universe possible. Suddenly, it was not the question how large your network is, how much your network can afford – but the quality of your own work – both regarding research as well as text style quality – your work as a journalist decided over the quality of your result, the material coverage. In the very same moment, allowing for a quality comparison not only between journalists themselves but between the media, a quality based competition between old, new, established and free media platforms and networks. An extremely interesting moment in the Wikileaks history, now gone (although, at least in Germany, we should keep our ears open as for  how long this will be the case, we expect a media debate about this exclusivity problem in March).

So while other media have acually indeed no reason at all to bother what will happen to the platform or its spokesperson since it lost its status as a potential raw material provider for them – what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling its readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff nowadays?

You as a reader might in this moment have the wish to interrupt: positioning about Wikileaks? What has Wikileaks to do with it, we are talking about Guardian showing unprofessionalism re the Bradley Manning topic, why Wikileaks? My answer would be: simply because this is not the first showfight between Guardian and Wikileaks, it’s just another fraction of an ongoing battle, at least from the readers’ point of view. Many Wikileaks followers are debating these two nighttweets even days later with referring to the Guardian publishing police reports of the Swedish case. At which point returning to a sentence above might get replicable: what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling their readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff there? While other media have hardly any reason to bother, for Guardian this is attacking one of their valuable raw material providers with a bending down to the level of the Expressen or the German BILD.

While respecting their duty to stay illoyal (to any official body, network, government, company, lobby) is in general an extremely valuable turn – this bending down here, a handshake with Expressen, is indeed proving that some journalists there forget about a simple and tiny but maby worth reminding problem behind: as soon as the media [Guardian included] lose platforms like Wikileaks, after these platforms have shown and proven their relevance for the media landscape, their importance for a return to work that can call itself journalistic again – especially in times when pure cheap PR work is more and more jeopardizing this profession – as soon as this happens, they [Guardian included] will be simply redundant. Careless cooperating for the aims of  cenzoring bodies, i.e. raw  material destroyers while cooperating on a bottom-feeding yellowpress level is working on their [Guardian included] self-destruction as a whole.



** Daniel – as a puterexpert – is the story teller in this book. The text was written by a Zeit author. For a computer expert, acually a perfect decision. (There is an update regarding this.) But for someone who wants to be described as a “journalist”, as observed in the case of JA in the last weeks, this will be quite something else. Not few working on the network prefer and propose to stick to “spokesperson and editor” and in fact this is exactly our proposal, too. We just want to hint at the fact that the book of JA – in progress – a book that will quite for sure be also a book written by a ghostwriter (see comments below for the 3rd confirmation, 1st ones reached the public by reports of former WL network coworkers [not Daniel] – that in this case the public may react to the ghostwriting a bit differently. See the GuttiGate for just an idea of the wind that may reach WL in case the book does not name the real author of it and for the case JA still asks for being named as a Journalist.

Workers in the network explain this is needed in order to help the USA gov to realize they are messing around with an online publication platform. This is no explanation  at all. The fact that it’s hardly possible to describe WL as something else is simply too obvious for anyone who managed to read a newspaper with WL topic in the last months and it will be hard to find a web user who didn’t. Editor (and spokesperson) is absolutely enough as a help for the US gov to finally realize what exactly they are actually trying. There is no reason at all to call sb. a Journalist without enough work in the public in order to judge it and say thumb up or down. We have not seen an article list of articles written by Julian. We also have not read other publications by JA. And a “Journalist” who needs a writer in order to write “his” book is like a GP who needs his secretary to dictate him the diagnose. Talking about “Underground” : he knows fairly well that he was described as the researcher for this book (regardless of the question whether being involved as one of the protagonists or not – we are talking about the writing work). Researcher: this is an assistant job. You just don’t jump up from an assistant to a journalist without a single own text online. And in case of the Wikileaks page: we see what we see as WL work, the work of – the network. That’s one of the reasons why we – so far – would not question the function of WL as a journalistic platform, publishing raw material for journalists plus the interested public – and some work done by the network in order to present them. (We – btw – have no idea whether the network as a whole is happy with the danger of WL turning from this function to the function of pure infodealers [via exclusive contracts]). But back to the journo role: show us the article list and we’ll talk on about it. With the background of the role as a spokespip at WL, this might even have been possible: it was and is a spokespip role, but it was and is a spokespip neither for a gov nor a comp nor a lobby circle but for a journalism related platform, so the rule PR=/=Journalism [which usually forbids a switching between them, regardless of how long ago someone worked in the other lake and is a rule for the mentioned cases] does not apply here. But: without an article list with articles written by your own there’s no chance. Since you decided not to prove your journalistic writing skills in the book but preferred to work with a person having the skills for that, we understand that you understand that this is the proof that your roles as editor and spokespip are absolutely enough.  Anyway there’s enough to do with these two responsibilities, isn’t it?




… interesting. regarding the “auhorship” question, now suddenly there is an

UPDATE 2012.

regarding this book, we’re actually talking about a CO-AUTHORSHIP, in opposite to the assumption of a firedoglake author, but – we’d say, so far, this is at least something. let’s see.




… and guess what, regarding the topic “arena showfights between Guardian journo twitter accounts and the WL acc”, there is an update, too:  Dec, 2012

Link 1 (Malala vs Manning, about the twitter showfight on Dec 12, 2012)


and don’t miss

Link 2, too  (discussion)


(regarding the topic “Malala vs Manning”, tweets from December 10th, 2012 – the incredibly poor Guardian article re Manning winning the Guardian Person of the Year poll and the even more poor reaction to this by the person tweeting from wikileaks’ main twitter account)



And now hold your breath: there is even another UPDATE, also December 2012, regarding those missing own articles mentioned in the text above and further discussed in the comments section of this page:

Articles with an author finally show up online (link to the text “Two Years of Cablegate as Bradley Manning Testifies for the First Time” by J. Assange, posted on Huffington Post, according to the page on Nov 29, 2012, and sent out via email on Dec 12th) – Comment to this text: it looks fine and it definitely looks like an acceptable article. Research help done by the network as well as other text editing steps like proofreading (checking for typos) are typical parts of the workflow – however, in case facts ever shop up proving that parts of this article were -written- by other people than the signing author, there might be rasons for a real shitstorm on the websphere. Let’s hope this will never be necessary.


*** re the “warm and cosy building” – note the date when this text was written. This was written when Mr. Exclusive was dining in a luxurious chateau. The expression in this sentence does not refer to the current situation (2012) in the Ecuadorian Embassy.



wn030: sadly, however there is another update necessary.

January 3rd, 2013.

x7o, the account mentioned in the text above, has proven to be what the person probably calls erm… “logical”. namely, while defending the repost of nazi content and links to a right wing populistic paper, x7o calls us – the account hinting at this issue – what? well, “extremist”. yes, you actually heard that right. we really loved that. it would have caused an overwhelmed, bright laughter if the issue itself was not as serious as it sadly is.



Written by wn030

January 31, 2011 at 7:01 pm

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. – Why it was not the Guardian that outed WikiLeaks’ source (guardian, 31.1.)

    some additional recent links fitting to this topic and added btw. – LONDON | Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:31am EST – (“Reuters news story on the turbulent relationship between Julian Assange, Guardian and New York Times”) – Friday, February 4, 2011; 4:49 PM – Assange’s bond has soured with two of the media companies he once allied himself with, the New York Times and the Guardian. … (6.2.2011) – …verschlechtert sich das Verhältnis zwischen Assange, der New York Times und dem Guardian bis hin zu öffentlichen Twitter-Beschimpfungen vonseiten des Australiers. …Das Buch der Amerikaner (nytimes) sei »eine weitere Schmierkampagne«, der Guardian ist für ihn »die schleimigste Medienorganisation von Großbritannien«. … – … With Assange himself becoming as big a story as his leaks, his relationship with the Guardian, already strained by a dispute over our decision to share the cables with the New York Times, became increasingly testy. When a copy of the police file in the Swedish case found its way to the Guardian’s Nick Davies, the paper plainly had to publish a story on it. But the world’s most famous champion of transparency didn’t see it that way. … and a (perfectly accurate) Guardian report about an unsavoury Holocaust denier’s links to WikiLeaks. … (related to this: see also the article “Suspicion of antisemitism in Wikileaks“, taz 17.1.2011)

    the guardian quote above (in bold) was btw hinting at this article: (“Holocaust denier in charge of handling Moscow cables”)

    jerusalem post on 17.12.2010: – WikiLeaks employs Israeli-Swedish Holocaust-denier’

    mit demselben thema setzt sich auch die folgende seite auseinander: – empfohlen: ein blick auf die dortigen kommentare, manche davon sind wirklich gelungen.

    Another link, just found online: “Aha, a holocaust denier? So, let’s talk about it…”

    2nd link regarding the holocaust denier. “So let’s talk about it even more concretely.” – wikileaks’ nightly statement after another tweetfight with daniel leigh. and some questions regarding this statement.


    February 3, 2011 at 11:43 pm

  2. btw sampler of interesting questions for the wikileaks roundtable is here:

    reaction to the first roundtable (without apologizing for the 5 day delay, finally online on feb 5th)

    sample of interesting questions for roundtable nr.2:


    February 7, 2011 at 6:56 am

  3. update re ghostwriter rumour:

    estheraddley (Esther Addley, Guardian news writer) writes via twitter:

    Andrew OHagan, rumoured assange ghostwriter, arrives as part of JA party. That’s one rumour confirmed, then? (twittered on feb7th, 10:45 gmt+1) (source. scroll down to 10:45) — Esther repeated it on the following day, scroll down to 6:30 or search page for term “ghostwriter”)


    February 7, 2011 at 9:52 am

  4. alright, so let’s prepare for the bookrun.

    publication updates: – WP feb7th 2011 – “… The book will be released in Germany, Australia, South Korea, Britain and 12 other European countries on Feb. 11, according to its German publisher Econ Verlag. In the United States, it will be published four days later, on Feb. 15. Other countries including Japan, Brazil, and Russia plan publications soon. …” – erm btw dear WP: “… in Australia, South Korea … and other 12 European countries”?

    since this article was delivered to the subscribed newspapers as an agency message, it was – on the same day – also published in:,0,3158846.story – LA Times – feb7th 2011

    AP am 10.2. 1pm gmt+1 zum ab dem 11.2. erhältlichen buch von DDB: klick hier. (“Assange portrayed as ’emperor’ in insider book”)

    und los geht’s. noch vor 3uhr nachmittags ist die erste rezension online:–domscheit-berg-rechnet-ab_100033151.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=23&cHash=1a7285c4c36d6d86fa8423c13232a069 – hier schön nochmal unterstrichen: das buch ist von tina klopp geschrieben. unterschied zu assange diesbezüglich: erstens pocht DDB nicht darauf, als “journalist” bezeichnet zu werden (dabei aber auf ghostwriter für seine ‘eigenen’ texte zurückgreifen zu müssen) und zweitens nennt das buch tina klopp wenigstens offen als co-autorin.

    zeit online am 10.2.:

    kurz vor 5 uhr nachmittags twittert spiegel: Wikileaks-Buch: Enttäuschte Liebe,1518,744677,00.html (“… Eine junge Zeit-Online-Redakteurin namens Tina Klopp hat die 305 Seiten als Ghostwriterin für den Berliner Diplom-Informatiker geschrieben. …”)

    kurz nach 6 uhr twittert wdr: “Schlammschlacht um Wikileaks”

    kurz vor 7 twittert die FAZ:

    2 minuten später ist die huffington post twitterfertig:


    February 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm

  5. und weil’s gerade etwas zum thema dieser seite insgesamt passt (wie auch zum erwähnten startenden bücherwettlauf) – interessiert, wie es in der bei netzpolitik erwähnten frage zu “rechtlichen konsequenzen” der mitnahme von daten durch DDB aktuell aussieht?

    hier ist ein beitrag, der diesbezüglich interessieren dürfe. es fliegen – kurzum – die fetzen. wie assange es bereits bei birgitta j. einst gemacht hatte, als sie einen personalwechsel vorgeschlagen hatte (assange twitterte, brigitta [die frau, die intensiv an der vorbereitung des collateral-murder-videos mitgearbeitet hatte und ihre arbeitszeit unvergütet wikileaks angeboten hatte] hätte nichts mit WL zu tun und im grunde nie wirklich zu tun gehabt…) – dieselbe masche zieht WL nun im bezug auf DDB durch. klar. für assange ist wikileaks nur assange. abgesehen von der recht durchsichtigen schlichten frechheit dieser behauptung – der schlichten ignorierung des einsatzes vieler menschen zum einstigen erfolg von WL – bleibt die logik dieses vorgehens schlicht umwerfend. assange pflegt eben dasselbe mythos, das die US-regierung braucht, um ihren eigenen streifzug weiterzuführen, respekt. unterschied: diesmal wird die antwort nicht von assange selbst abgeschickt, sondern durch den jetzigen 2. sprecher Kristinn Hrafnsson

    hier ist der beitrag:

    “… Domschiet-Berg was never an architect for the organization, technically, or in matters of policy. He was a spokesperson for WikiLeaks in Germany at various times, but he was never the spokesman for WikiLeaks, nor was he ever WikiLeaks editor, although he subedited some articles. He was also never a computer scientist, or computer security expert, …”


    “… I was _a_ spokesperson for the project, not _the_ spokesperson, and have never claimed otherwise. You can check international media that I have handled if you feel my role was restricted to Germany only. … I acted as an editor as much as I have an understanding of what an editor’s role is.”

    der link nochmal:

    es ist kurz nach 10 uhr morgens und netzpolitik hat bereits einen post dazu online:

    kurz danach: FR online zur “schlammschlacht”:—die-enthuellungsplattform/wikileaks-wirft-ex-sprecher-sabotage-vor/-/4882932/7177930/-/index.html

    “schlammschlacht?” – “kindergarten?” – Sie verlieren etwas den überblick? – kein problem, mit dieser infografik werden Sie geholfen: .

    (via – sehr hübsche visualisierung des geschehens von daniel broeckerhoff.)

    Sie haben von der vernetzten JA-hörigkeit etwas genug? DDB als “von geheimdiensten angeheuert” lockt Ihnen auch nur ein müdes lächeln ab und über titel wie “assange touched my pussy” haben Sie schon ausgelacht und den kichermuskelkater auskuriert? perfekt, dann ist dieser link hier das richtige für Sie:

    Christiane Schultzki-Haddouti zu ‘Inside Wikileaks’:


    February 10, 2011 at 9:37 am

  6. Kurzkritik wn030 zum von einer Zeit-Autorin geschriebenen Buch (Schliff der von Daniel aka DDB erzählen Story für die schriftliche Form der Publikation)

    Kurzum. Ist ok, einen Verriss werden wir dazu nicht schreiben. Aber: einen Eintrag in der Feuilleton-Sparte wird es dazu auch nicht geben.

    Man sieht dem Text kurz gesagt eine solche Vielzahl stilistischer Schwächen an, dass eine Rezension – ein richtiger Beitrag dazu hier bei uns auf wn030 – notgedrungen in einem Verriss enden müsste. Würden wir versuchen, die stilistischen Schwächen mit der heißen Nadel zu erklären, mit der es gestrickt werden musste, würde das den Verriss nur etwas krasser machen, als er sowieso werden würde.

    Daher sparen wir uns das. Aber in wenigen Worten: Als Buch für Neugierige und am WL+OL-Thema Interessierte superspannend und gut zu lesen.


    – dann hätten wir das also auch geklärt hiermit. –


    February 20, 2011 at 7:01 pm

  7. ok, and now JA prefers to turn himself to an official idiot, not only a hidden one.

    David Leigh: Assange @WikiLeaks tells Private Eye’s Hislop of a”Jewish conspiracy” against him

    comments found online:

    wikinews030 @davidleigh3 @WikiLeaks aha “jewish conspiracy” well now he’s really getting mad.HEY JA HERE’S YOUR “CONSPIRACY”!

    via @davidleigh3 so @WikiLeaks dreht jetzt völlig durch.die “jewish conspiracy” ist jetzt hinter ihm her. (CC one of the Antifa channels)

    the article is on:

    comment online shortly aferwards. …

    nytimes – WikiLeaks Founder Complains of Jewish Smear Campaign

    arriving at 20:37 via WLlegal: Wikileaks responds to the “Jewish conspiracy” article in Private Eye in a press release:

    20:51gmt+1 davidleigh3 /David Leigh
    Assange @WikiLeaks explains his Jewish conspiracy claims to Private Eye editor were supposed to be “off the record”.

    Linda Grant @davidleigh3 These anti-semites are always being unfairly recorded

    fieldproducer/Neal Mann
    Oh OK then RT @davidleigh3 #Assange explains his Jewish conspiracy claims to Private Eye editor were “off the record”.

    skdadl @davidleigh3 Oh gosh – there’s a recording? Someone cld actually quote? That would be great.

    wikinews030 erm plz excuse me @skdadl but could you please ask @wikileaks first for a “recording”? would be great because a holocaust denier still there @davidleigh3 – so you really need a “recording” of these quotes? where is JA’s erm “recording”?

    skdadl @wikinews030 Sorry. I don’t talk to agents or to useful idiots, and you’re one or the other. @wikileaks @davidleigh3

    wikinews030 @skdadl aha ‘nother one. that’s how simple the world in some ppl brains can be. @wikileaks @davidleigh3

    @skdadl sry i don’t comment on bottomfeeding tweet quality.either about topic then without closing eyes or notatall @wikileaks @davidleigh3

    skdadl @wikinews030 I don’t swear as well as JA does, but you are srsly tempting me. @wikileaks @davidleigh3

    wikinews030 @skdadl ok then try to swear as good as i can. again WHAT IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER DOING IN THE WL TEAM LIST!!!! @wikileaks @davidleigh3

    let’s finally talk about antisemitism…

    um 23:10 kommt von WL endlich was zum thema. (= around 11:10pm on march 1st, WL releases a statement finally fitting a bit to the topic)

    reply to this from somewhere in the web

    WLLegal: Here’s @ggreenwald’s take on the NYT article (strangely reporting Private Eye allegations as fact) I referenced earlier

    but here. is another reply. from somewhere on the web. a reply preferring to stick to the point.


    March 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm

  8. update re court case: July 13th, 2011 – Entscheidung verschoben (SZ-Link)


    July 13, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  9. (re the updated sentence in the article text above that is linking directly to this update field here.)

    well, yes, still. at least, in case you don’t call young guys bragging around “facts”. or “proven facts”.
    sentences like this are causing assumptions, usually. chats can be true, can be typed afterwards, can be original tone, can have been made up for bragging, can be hinting at just one side of a truth (in case proven) – do you personally always know for sure who you are talking with when you chat? the person that is in contact in order to send something in that – in his eyes – belongs to the public. does the person tell that this is the reason why the person gets in contact? are you sure? you can offer someone a “position”, but do you know that when offering? sure?

    for us here, the sentence in the article above still is valid.

    but complete landscapes of alleged “facts” need such links too – links like the following:

    “bradass87: assange offered me a position at wl… but im not interested right now… too much excess baggage…”

    well, and in order to underline an other sentence we have read coincidentally on another place o this wild web world: YES, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. (and not only we.) – in case such a sentence was realy spoken once by JA to a person he didn’t know and all and whose plans for submitting must not necessarily have been known to him – in case such a sentence was spoken [typed] once by that guy JA: then YES, THAT’S WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. clear simple asshole to people who have been competent and whose work WL would have needed. then throwing “positions” around to holocaust deniers. heavens. — in case, however, there were some hints by this “brad” nick, hints about the submitting possibility, then – well – then the extradition case is now gettng a bit more interesting from day to day.

    as mentioned above: we are happy that we at least do not have to care since (quotation from article above) since that WL platform anyway lost its status as a potential raw material provider (via “exclusive”), seriously: JA can gratulate himself now.

    we definitely stick to bradley as the topic.

    but for this update field here, all we can say is: “Well, JA. This is indeed a very interesting sentence.” – not only hinting at the so far still missing public upfront link, but hinting at the first sentences JA has spoken – after Bradley was arrested. I am sure some of the readers still remember those.
    yes, with this chatlog sentence as background, those quotations of JA are indeed very, very interesting.

    We as wn030 can only hint at the fact that you need a bit more than JAs skills to run a platform like WL. Just like it were other and more skills than JAs that made the platform and its growing possible. JA – in our eyes – does not have the skills for the position he pushed himself in. The position authorized to offer positions can be – in cases of platforms like WL – only a shared one, shared between a larger group of people involved. Involved for a longer time and contributing their skills to it.
    Editor and spokesperson as JAs roles are and were absolutely enough, and neither editors nor spokespersons throw with “positions” around them, thereby leaving their role, leaving the official role of the platform and jeopardizing its existence.

    re comments to that in general – JA’s HR skills – see that here, a feedback sample from people, regarding an older case, the holocaust denier. what some of those think about JA as self-proclaimed ‘boss’ of the platform, you will find easily when you search our page here. you will find the links you need, since the voices of people who contributed to the platform were reported by many newspapers paying attention to those voices. we linked these articles in our content updates field. from what we see, we only can say: yes. that person does not have our trust. in our eyes, he is not skilled for what he is playing with, he does neither have the history basic knowledge needed for that job, nor a thimble full of political sense. nor do we see HR skills of any kind (and now he asks for being called a “journalist”. with a ghostwriter. heavens, give us patience, we need it.). nor does he realize that even if he had them – the skills needed for that – if all what happend wouldn’t have happened – that eager addiction to his self-proclaimed “boss” role – “boss” of a platform made by people – would be not less repellent.

    There is a voice online that sees those things differently.
    The voice sais:
    “”Firstly, and most importantly, it’s now clear that Julian Assange did NOT know if Bradley Manning was the source who leaked the US cables to WikiLeaks. Manning tells Lamo that Assange “knows little about me” and “he takes source-protections uber-seriously.” Furthermore, he says, Assange “won’t work with you if you reveal too much about yourself.” Assange even instructs Manning to lie about his identity!” (source)

    While for us, it’s irrelevant how much JA knew about Bradley’s n.a.m.e.
    Not the identity, the funcion is the question.
    (Hamlet, shut up.)

    Offering a “position” to a source – this is quite a bit opposite to the public announcements. Since we are observing that case – at the beginning from the position of an interested page, interested in a platform and its development as a potential raw material provider – up to today, long after giving up WL as a provider platform [due to JA’s turn to “exclusive”, we do not work with providers working against their own public statements like the proclaimed fight against “black markets” in the media landscape that a short moment later turned out to be just some hot air, some platform marketing PR lingo with nothing behind] – since we are observing the case, we have seen, step by step, just an ongoing revealing of facts that were in direct contradiction of the platfoerm’s published PR. Listen: WL is the spokesperson, it’s his role to speak that PR, but the platform is a platform, made by and connected with many people. When JA lets the mic behind and turns to his own private -dealings- he takes decisions that reveal how much JA himself is in contrary to the platform’s idea.

    july 18th, 2011. SPIEGEL. spiegel follows the interesting interpretation on jaraparilla:,1518,druck-775053,00.htmlwell. as an “exclusive” contract partner, I would also speed up stressing the few “hard evidences”. However, …

    So, in this case – all we can comment re SPIEGEL is that they at least show a bit more streategically-logical behaviour than the guardian, see article text

    and all we can say re the “position proposal” itself is that the discussions will go on (link posted in sept 2011, discussion on gulli)

    …where a hint arrived to check out THIS HERE regarding that entire topic above.
    quotation: “… Firstly, and most importantly, it’s now clear that Julian Assange did NOT know if Bradley Manning was the source who leaked the US cables to WikiLeaks. Manning tells Lamo that Assange “knows little about me” and “he takes source-protections uber-seriously.” Furthermore, he says, Assange “won’t work with you if you reveal too much about yourself.” Assange even (allegedly) instructs Manning to lie about his identity!

    This blows apart the US government’s protracted efforts to suggest that Assange actively enticed Manning to hand over the cables, and thereby charge the Australian with criminal activity. …”


    July 14, 2011 at 11:09 pm

  10. (following text lines belong to the sentence in the article above, it’s an update to the linking article sentence. Should not be read as a complementation of the update field above but as an update to the corresponding text paragraph).


    yeah, almost. with the small detail still missing above that Daniel “puterexpert” is having the same prob. “Journalist”, aha. You can have a press accreditation, as an editor, too. As an editor and engineer of a journalistic related platform you can have a normal press accreditation but t.h.i.s. d.o.e.s. n.o.t. g.i.v.e. y.o.u. t.h.e. r.i.g.h.t. t.o. p.r.e.s.e.n.t y.o.ur.s.e.l.f. with “j.o.ur.n.a.l.i.s.t.” as your role, dear both. Pips. Press accreditations are issued not only to journalist, so that should be a different topic. the page above is discussing the self-presentation of you two there. you two –

    – “journalists”.

    with ghostwriters.





    fresh rock bottom feeders on the text and media market, anyone interested? “journalists”! with ghostwriters! anyone needs that?





    July 15, 2011 at 4:21 pm

  11. books, book, books…

    short update sept 2011:

    Canongate: ‘#Assange told us he wanted to cancel contract, but had signed advance over to lawyers to settle legal bills & has not repaid…’

    @estheraddley so what’s the plan now. repay with help of coffee drinking ebay users? #wlquest

    Waterstones spokesman: #Assange book will be in stores nationwide from tomo, RRP £20. They’re expecting a big sale!

    @estheraddley not updated about waterstones, they have a lot about the topic. which one exactly, WHAT, THE GHOSTWRITTEN, AFTER ALL? #wlquest

    @wikinews030 yes, exactly. Canongate are publishing the first draft of Julian’s memoir, despite him pulling out of deal

    so, here we have some news. despite JA pulling finally back from the book plan, real life proves to be RL and pacta sunt servanda.
    and since coffee did not manage yet to bring the prepayment Euros back, we have JAs confirmation of pulling back from the desire to be called a “journalist” in the book shelves tomorrow. (<- regarding this sentence, please read the article above, last part of the article explains it in detail)


    September 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

  12. ps, regarding the tweets above: you prefer when tweets look like tweets, so you can follow some of the mentioned people with an easier click? – alright, then. here you are. (a storify link)

    and look, now there’s even an “Autobiography life reactions” thread on guardian.


    September 21, 2011 at 7:11 pm

  13. well, let’s see. this is still an ongoing question now the book is in the shelves.

    so far, at least this morning still a lot of hurry-up-media use the misleading word “author”. let’s see.

    In contrary to these hurry-up media, the source itself sticks to the point in his today’s statement:

    “I am not “the writer” of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O’Hagan”

    gulli translates the “writer” as “author” in the quotation translation for Annikas article:

    “In seiner Stellungnahme erklärt Assange, er sei “nicht ‘der Autor’ dieses Buchs”. Er habe lediglich das Copyright für das Manuskript, das aber von seinem Ghostwriter Andrew O’Hagan geschrieben worden sei.” (source)

    but, surprise, due to this whole topic we at least now see a normally signed text online there. so – at least the person seems to be able to articluate himself in writing, larger than 140 chars, even some paragraphs and obviously the proofreader there does good work. (congrats to the proofreader.)

    “Tomorrow, I will have to buy ‘my autobiography’ in order to learn the extent of the errors and inaccuracies of the content of the book,” – poor one. but you’ll survive it. we’re sure the message will reach us if you find something missing but in general: they owe you (at least one, usually it’s a few more) normal so-called “Autorenexemplare”. some exemplars for free for the author’s own use. don’t tell us your lawyers have forgotten it when musing around about the contract. some publishers claim they “can’t afford” these autorenexemplare (which in this case would anyway go to the real author of “your” “auto”-biography, but if you ask kindly, maybe he hands one over). so – some publishers claim they can’t afford them, but to be honest, I somehow doubt it was the case here so simply take another look at the contract. you probably won’t have to buy it. (update: on the other hand, who knows… the publisher also seems to have forgotten to save enough free copies for the reviers…)

    alright, and now after the clarification next ones also slowly begin to get that point straight: “… In the book — written by a ghostwriter who conducted 50 hours of interviews with …” (source)


    September 22, 2011 at 12:39 pm

  14. next update re book topic. today’s question is:

    ‘how do you call a page with closed comments, a “newspaper”?’ (a smalltalk about guardian with some guardian ppl on storify)

    and the topic goes on. switch to gulli: “medien und ihre mythen” (tell us about that one-person-whistleblower-platform. Further including: IKEA-“feminism”, UFOs, all you need.)

    btw no, we won’t link to any of the pages now being very busy with detailing the small writing under those contracts – neither pages of guardian, nor other gulli articles nor the wl page itself nor any other media – for us, it was only important to see what will happen to the ghostwriting fact (there were indeed reasons to take care about the question whether this fact will be dealt with correctly, as we initially just assumed in January – see article above – and as as a reason to be cautious that finally turns out proven afterwards). the rest is, to be honest, not really interesting for us, we still keep an eye on the demand to be called a “journalist” and how to value that demand. see last paragraph of the article above for details about that point.

    wl now busy with further fundraising with the claim that since JA “never will receive any cent of this book deal” now the supporters are expected to pay on… – that argumentation does not reach us. of course he received the money. it was his own choice to couple with “celebrity” lawyers, it was clear from the beginning that this will be an expensive adventure. of course he received the money – it was used to pay his (his own, self made) dept, period.

    and we’ll for sure not buy the story of the “overcharged” baby – you clarify such crucial things like costs of legal service eagerly and regularly, when you order and use it, especially when you prefer such “top” and “celebrity” attorneys. the surprised babe suddenly realizing that this service was not for free – oh, c’mon, sure.

    zur buchveröffentlichung verlinkbar und gelungen dagegen erscheint uns der folgende beitrag: heise, 23.9.2011: “Der Wahrheit eine Sackgasse” – “… Sein Inhalt entpuppt sich als eine Art hastig zusammengeschraubter Notdruck: Um auf den gewünschten Buchumfang zu kommen, gibt es rund 100 Seiten Anhang mit bekannten US-Botschaftsdepeschen. Er soll offenbar dafür entschädigen, dass die von Assange ins Unreine erzählte Lebensgeschichte im Herbst 2010 abrupt endet. Anstelle von Reflexionen über die Depeschen endet die Erzählung mit einer Hasstirade auf Journalisten, die umso seltsamer anmutet, als Assange sich offiziell Journalist und Aktivist nennt. Auch sonst ist die Erzählung voller Lücken. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, den Assange im Jahre 2008 auf der Jahrestagung des netzwerk recherche als seinen wichtigsten Mitarbeiter und alter Ego bezeichnete, kommt nicht vor. Ein Ausblick, wie es mit Wikileaks weitergehen kann, fehlt.” (source)


    September 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm

  15. some tiny additional information…. there seem not only to have been some problems with that “Autorenexemplarething, the publisher seems to also have forgotten to save enough copies for reviewers…


    September 27, 2011 at 4:22 pm

  16. oh, but look, regarding authorships and coming to grips with what -might- be relevant to the world out there, at least to SOME parts of it, there is indeed an UPDATE in november 2012.


    November 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: