WikiLeaks, the Internet whistle-blower that posted secret U.S. military documents on the Afghanistan war, isn't as transparent as it demands governments to be.
WikiLeaks, which started leaking information online just three years ago, describes itself on its Web site as "a multi-jurisdictional public service" that is a project of something called "The Sunshine Press."
"We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies," WikiLeaks says. "All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information."
At this point, WikiLeaks, based in Sweden, doesn't extend its standards of transparency to itself, appearing to choose to stand on its growing record of reliability rather than reveal much about who its backers and staff are. For now, its public face and primary contact with traditional media is Julian Assange, a late-20s Australian with a hacker background. It lists e-mail addresses in the United States, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Iceland and Kenya.
Brant Houston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said he thinks that may change over time.
"I think the longer they're active ... in the natural course of things, more will come out about the people who are participating and what their points of view are," he said in a recent telephone interview with United Press International. "More will be reviewable as a natural course of things."
If the powers behind WikiLeaks choose to remain strictly a repository for leaked information, it could be they "could care less" what anyone knows about them, Houston said.
"It depends on what they're going to aspire to be," he said.
WikiLeaks is said to be funded by donations, governed by a small board, and supported by lawyers and other experts who volunteer their time to the organization to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the information posted to the world.
Houston said WikiLeaks earned credibility for its "Afghan War Diary" by having traditional news powerhouses The New York Times, Britain's The Guardian and Germany's Der Spiegel vet the more than 90,000 documents before posting most of them, and by holding back several thousand with the potential to imperil coalition troops and their supporters.
Houston said bringing in traditional news-gathering resources shows WikiLeaks was prudent in posting the Afghan war materials and showed concern for the safety of those in harm's way because the documents were not just thrown up on the Web without review.
"I think that gives the documents more credibility because people are not as familiar with WikiLeaks' standards and how they approach this kind of data and documents," Houston said, "whereas people are more familiar with the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel."
The trio of traditional news gatherers clearly spent "a significant amount of time" checking out the veracity of the materials, he said.
"They erred on the side of caution," he said.
"I think it probably does build up some of their (WikiLeaks') credibility. I think it helps them be taken seriously as a source of information.
"Quite frankly by working with three news organizations … it's sort of like getting super editors, copy editors and journalists and reporters checking things out."
That means when people are hunting on the Internet for reliable information, they may now take WikiLeaks more seriously than before.
Despite the news organizations' review, the total impact of the posting of so much information all at once determined, he said.
"What may seem insignificant to you may be very significant to others."
There has been criticism release of the "Afghan Diary" put people's lives in danger in the war zone. But the question of what information to release and when, and whether to name sources or not, he said, has always been a part of journalism.
Houston doesn't see WikiLeaks as a news organization "in the traditional sense," noting the Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel "made it pretty clear" they consider WikiLeaks more a source than a partner.
"They may be headed that way," he said. "I think right now they come across more as a news source than as a newsroom, and it may develop from there."
For now, he places WikiLeaks more in the category of environmental groups, antiwar groups and others who obtain materials they may want to see distributed to a wider audience. The difference now, of course, is the Internet has made the dissemination so much easier.
"It used to be a source had to go around and shop, so to speak, the story," Houston said. They might run into newsrooms unable, unwilling or just too slow to react, he said.
Now, he said, they can just say, "I'm not waiting around. I'm just going to put it out there for the world."
The Internet is a double-edged sword that can provide "an amazing amount of anonymity" but also allows a lack of transparency "that will concern people and can affect the credibility" of those who use that anonymity, Houston said.
If an Internet uber-source, as WikiLeaks appears to have become, releases valid information unilaterally, that has "the potential to embarrass slow-moving and stodgy newsrooms," Houston said. But if the information turns out to be inaccurate or otherwise flawed, that will make traditional newsrooms look "incredibly responsible and help them," he said.
The bottom line is sources no longer have to wait around.
"That's been going on for years," Houston said. "This is just a grand example of how the rules have changed."
Traditional journalists benefit from the current debate about whether WikiLeaks should have released the documents or not, he says.
"One good thing is the public can see how seriously journalists take this," he said. "The perception over the years has been that whatever we get we throw up on the Web site or into the newspapers without forethought or debate," he said.
In fact, while the Internet has changed the rules of the game, these are serious ethical decisions journalists dwell on every day, he says.
"I think it shows the need for standards of good journalism that have been built up over the years," he said.
