Ok. I went and read some of the tweets this article is based on.
I think what Wikileaks wants to build is a social graph of influential and powerful people (big enough names to have a blue check mark) using their tweets. Then weight and couple that with information on family relations, job, living place and so on - available from other public sources (i.e. Wikipedia biographies, LinkedIn or official websites).
Sounds like an interesting idea.
But man; Wikileaks is sure getting a lot of negative press. I guess if you want to play the game of politics you better start weighting your words like a politician.
The @verified badge does not really signify a "big enough" name. Back when it was a manual process, unless you were a huge celebrity, you got on the list if you were a member of a media organization and if Twitter happened to contact your comms/social media person to submit a list of employees and Twitter names. People with just a hundred or so followers could be verified this way.
Now that you can apply to be verified, just about anyone can get the blue checkmark. You just have to provide proof of identity and fill out a form. I didn't get verified through the manual process even though I worked at a fairly prominent media org. But working in non-media, I got accepted within a couple days by filling out the form.
Usually, such a process is done by starting with lists of those who are actually powerful. These lists are plentiful, especially in democracies. Starting with the presumption that the world's influencers are all on Twitter is a strange view of how the world works.
You have to work with the data that is available. Lists of most influential or most powerful people are also based on data available and possibly some subjective assessment. Some times when I scroll thru them I get the feeling they are far from the truth. Not that I know exactly what the truth is.
Not really, I think people are more riled up about a perceived about-face regarding it's founding principles, and to seemingly target certain orgs rather than stick to what many feel it was founded to do which is impartially publicly disclose confidential government & NGO information which is in the public interest.
If you purport to be holier than thou, you'd better make damn sure you at least stick to your story.
I dunno, it seems like the it's the news narrative about wikileaks doing the about-face.
I'm not some defender of wikileaks or Assagne, I just don't think who they are is all that important.
When I first heard of wikileaks a decade ago on slashdot, Assange was a tosser with some unpopular opinions and perspective. He also believed in the utility of releasing the entirety of source material to the public instead of a regular news outlet that limits it to the topics they have the time and interest to investigate and write. The broad strokes have remained constant even if the details haven't.
Ever since then, the press has been trying to find meaning in the Wikileaks dog-and-pony show. A circus that they themselves were complicit in creating. They've been trying, and failing, to understand this guy since 2010. The muddled mass of hot takes but no real insight is what they've been dumping onto us in the meantime.
I think what Wikileaks wants to build is a social graph of influential and powerful people (big enough names to have a blue check mark) using their tweets. Then weight and couple that with information on family relations, job, living place and so on - available from other public sources (i.e. Wikipedia biographies, LinkedIn or official websites).
Sounds like an interesting idea.
But man; Wikileaks is sure getting a lot of negative press. I guess if you want to play the game of politics you better start weighting your words like a politician.