Key fingerprint 9EF0 C41A FBA5 64AA 650A 0259 9C6D CD17 283E 454C

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=5a6T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

		

Contact

If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk

If you can use Tor, but need to contact WikiLeaks for other reasons use our secured webchat available at http://wlchatc3pjwpli5r.onion

We recommend contacting us over Tor if you can.

Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

http://rpzgejae7cxxst5vysqsjiblti4duzn3kjsmn43ddi2l3jblhk4a44id.onion (Verify)

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.


Media/The shifting ethics of journalism in a digital landscape

From WikiLeaks

Jump to: navigation, search

twiztedambienc: The False Spotlight: The shifting ethics of journalism in a digital landscape

Link
http://twiztedambience.blogspot.com/2007/05/shifting-ethics-of-journalism-in.html
Country
United States
Date
May 5, 2007


… look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.
— Time Magazine’s Person of the Year Article of 2006


Journalism has grown up in an era where there were reporters, there were editors, and a continual checking of facts before the type was set and words were permanent. Today, Time Magazine’s editorial gatekeepers are facing massive layoffs[1], and a new concept of news is starting up through the internet. Perhaps Time Magazine is most in touch with reality by considering layoffs, and dubbing the person of the year in 2006 to be: “you.”

But what happens when the editors disappear, to be replaced by superstar columnists? According to some, like a writer for Market Watch of Dow Jones, “in order to compete, the monolithic traditional magazine, newspaper and television networks appear to be relying on reporters to move up the value chain and become brands themselves to attract the audience.[2]”

When this happens, the issue of ethics comes directly into play. This paper looks into the consequences of online news and the new trends in media ethics. Some new media bloggers are actually rediscovering the value of ethics, while other bloggers are simply left ranting on their own webpage. Nonetheless, things are beginning to change online. This is an untraditional paper, since many of the sources for the paper are actually bloggers, internet columnists, and webpages. Though official scholarly work is included in this paper, a study of internet journalism is barely as prevalent as the flood of information online, as evidenced by only 99 results from a Proquest internet search[3]. In order to understand this shift away from traditional media study, and regular media gatekeepers – one must first understand the new media landscape.

The People Web

Nielsen Net Ratings provide context to the rise in blogging. According to an early 2007 press release, Nielsen’s Net Ratings showed online newspaper blog traffic grew 210 percent from last year[4].


A chart is on personal Weblog[5] of the founder of Technorati, the web’s largest blog tracker. The data shows that since March of 2003, roughly 55 million blogs have been created in the world. David Sifry, the founder, further explains that the doubling rate is getting larger, but is currently set at around every seven months. This could mean roughly 100 million blogs by 2008. Of these blogs, roughly 50 percent are continually active.

Sifry, breaks the data down further, and looks at the media landscape. Surprisingly, mainstream media is still in the lead in terms of page views – but blogs tend to take over the media landscape once one looks beyond the top 5,000 media outlets. As an example, Think Progress, a popular Weblog, beats out jsonline.com as a source of information according to Technorati research. Sifry explains it as, “This is partially because of the nature of the medium - that is, the traffic of sites further down the curve make significant staffing and revenue difficult. However, lower cost structures make individual or small group blogs operating at little cost quite efficient at these revenue levels.” As a side note, it should be said that Technorati ranks pages based on their “authority” or, the number of distinct blogs that link to it over the past six months.

That ranking used is significant. In comparison, sites like Alexa.com, the biggest webpage indexer on the web, simply search based on the number of hits a site receives. From there, it ranks sites in order. By browsing the top sites in the United States on Alexa.com, five of the top ten websites are founded on some kind of social networking or net participation idea. For example, Wikipedia is ranked eighth and Myspace and The Facebook are ranked third and seventh respectively. Blogger.com, the site allowing the free automated posting of Weblogs, is ranked as the twelfth most popular site in the United States. In other words, it seems that the top sites in America are those which essentially combine thousands of blogs into one main webpage. In comparison, CNN.com comes in as number 16 by itself – meaning its content alone competes against millions of tinier webpages that are banded together through one major website unifier. It is reasonable to expect then, that CNN also, may cave to the demands of Weblogs as a way to compete. And being the media giant it is – CNN has responded. One example can be the I-Report function on CNN, and the Exchange program, found at www.cnn.com/exchange. In these programs, citizens can create a blog, share a story, or submit pictures.

All of this is dubbed part of the “Web 2.0.” According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0 refers to “a perceived second generation of Web-based services—such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies—that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users.”

Therefore, weblogs by themselves, combined inside larger parent groups like Myspace, make up a fairly large presence on the internet today. As a result, there is not nearly one week that goes by without a major story bubbling up from the internet. Recently, an anonymous poster shocked the political world with a posting of a political ad connected to Barak Obama. Ironically, it was not a newspaper that eventually tracked down the source of the video, but it was the Huffington Post – an internet blog of massive popularity with connections in the tech community[6].

As the Barak Obama example shows, new grounds are being tried constantly with the internet and the various forms of action individual citizens can take through it in relation to journalism. Http://wikileaks.org/ is a new citizens website started up to build on the strength of the web – allowing users to post anonymous “leaks” exposing corruption, or hidden problems similar to what Enron was involved in. A similar site, http://www.liveleak.com/, already exists, and has been responsible for posting a number of major videos to break nationally – including a recent video of Haliburton trucks being ambushed in Iraq, due to lack of defenses and a U.S. Military escort driving away when shooting started. Wikipedia, the starter of the “anybody can edit” policy of information, is currently the third most popular information source, beating out CNN, and Yahoo News according to Nielsen Net Ratings[7]. However, that statistic only counts if you consider Wikipedia a trustworthy source – much like the other websites I have mentioned. In the world of rising and falling media moguls and ideas of media in general, this is where the discussion of ethics comes in handy.

Ethics

What happens when a public relations firm, posing as a journalist online, “leaks” false information via wikileaks.com, for example? Or when a political party edits the Wikipedia entries for opposing political clients? These are real world questions, and the websites mentioned previously, push the ethical limit because these new innovations provide vast possibilities for misuse. In addition, blogs and other Web 2.0 technologies, have already pushed the limits of ethical theory.

To look at Web 2.0 first with traditional Teleological theories and Deontological ethical theories in mind, one can see that there is no right or wrong answer.

John Suart Mill first came up with the principal of utility, to basically seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Along with this theory, he believed certain values possess worth, like friendship, knowledge, and health. To many who believe in Mill’s principal of ethics, they would argue that blogs and websites such as the ones above provide opportunities for the greater good since blogs spread knowledge – though probably not every blog.

Deontologically, theororists like Immanuel Kant, contend that one must look at the action first and decide whether or not one would will the same action for everyone else as well. If not, the action should not be taken. In other words, Kant would likely say that since not everyone will always provide accurate and true information, there is a dangerous risk to society by allowing everyone to post blogs. Though not absolute on ruling against blogs, deontological theory would likely be stricter towards sites like Wikileaks.org since there is a greater chance that people will abuse the system. In effect, Wikileaks, for example, poses the same ethical question to a deontologist as saying one willed everyone in society to wear a mask and talk about each other behind their backs.

What then, is the real world reaction to Web 2.0 technology, ethically? It is best to look at some case studies, starting with the most untested and more extreme examples first.

Case Study: Wikileaks, the web’s wild west, and the need for an ethical defense.

All current staff, developers, or employees of Wikileaks are thought to be secret and unidentified as of January 2007 according to the New Scientist[8]. Their advisory board includes Russian and Tibetan refugees, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst, and cryptographers. According to their website, they have already gathered over one million documents to release when the website officially starts. An anonymous worker for the website has stated to CBC News[9], that the site will be, "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis," adding that there will be checks in place to keep the "completely anonymous" system from being flooded with false documents, spam and unrelated things.

However, as the BBC News reports, “There is, of course, [a] problem. Everyone who leaks a document to the site will have their own agenda, and it may not be the obvious one.[10]” According to the same reporter, John Young, a Cryptographer and webmaster of a public disclosure website, even backed out of the project after being approached by Wikileaks. He was suspicious of the real motives of the organizers, as well as their ability to truly protect leaks.

“Historically the most resilient form of open government is one where leaking and publication is easy,” the wikileaks website says. “Public leaking, being an act of ethical defection to the majority, is by nature a democratizing force. Hence a system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of promoting good government.”

However, Steven Aftergood, head of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy wrote in his online blog that, “there’s a difference in unauthorized disclosure from an authoritarian state versus disclosure from a democracy,” he said. “In a democratic system, people have the opportunity to define their own disclosure standards. If you violate those standards or encourage others to do so then you are in effect undermining the democratic process.[11]” In effect then, Aftergood could also turn his point around into arguing that through a lack of ethical codes, Wikileaks is bringing down the moral standards of developed countries in order to supposedly “bring up” the ethical standards of other countries by establishing the concept of leaking freely.

Ethically, in this case then, a good regulator would be a clearly defined ethical code is needed as well as someone to at least hold accountable for fact checking. This helps establish Wikileaks as a trusted brand. In the case of journalism, editors are there to take the fall if a leak is not correct. Editors also have a code of ethics they must be responsible to.

So far Wikileaks has failed to provide this code, or a person to take the fall for inaccurate information. True, authoritarian governments may deny everything happened – but the point of a leak is to provide enough information so that a claim can be verified by a reasonable person. Therefore, without providing accountability and employing enough people to confirm these leaks, this Web 2.0 technology is at danger of inciting violence for the wrong reasons, or publishing a government’s damaging attempt to ruin another country’s reputation. Governments or other parties, will likely see this lack of ethics, and immediately attempt to flood Wikileaks with false information – immediately showing a lack of verification procedures by Wikileaks, and inherently destroying this model.

Wikipedia has already dealt with issues like this, and in the end, Wikipedia has caved a bit on it’s entirely free model of “anybody can post.” However, Wikipedia is also one of the most visited websites in the world. In actuality on Wikipedia, anybody cannot post. In some instances Wikipedia has banned internet addresses from modifying posts, and on controversial topics, like “Israel,” Wikipedia has sought to limit postings only to accounts posting accurately on other subjects for at least four days. Wikipedia also has an advanced editing policy, which has, “wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.[12]” They also have a staff actively tracking posts on the website, and they are ready to respond if needed, to potential abuses. This staff is far larger than the 30 devoted to Wikileaks.

Nonetheless, even though Wikileaks may fail ethically, the website also serves to show that the concept of ethics online is essentially in the form of what the wild west was decades ago – with a lack of order and real regulations. The burden is up to the individual citizen to execute his or her own wild form of justice at will. This shows that the concept of ethics online is just developing and is a very new issue – especially among new web ideas. Therefore, looking at blogging, an already established online concept, should be the next focus this paper takes. As this paper has concluded earlier, blogs are not going to disappear soon – and even the strongest news website is looking to integrate their content into their webpages. Perhaps weblogs can offer us a better ethical example.

Case Study: Blogging, the web’s newest settlements, and the establishment of order.

One ethical issue established news groups may face when integrating with blogs – is how one may best integrate a blog credibly. One answer may be employment of print journalists. However, if a community connection is desired, the only other option is if willing bloggers are forced into agreement to the media outlet’s code of ethics in order to post. Otherwise, the media outlet is limited in control, since unlike an editorial, editors are typically not allowed to edit content of postings or engage in fact checking with blogs[13]. In an interview with the Sacramento Bee’s Editor, David Holwerk explains (about his paper’s blog section) that the paper has, “not tried to force [bloggers] into our idea of more ‘responsible’ commentary.” He added, “that is what we’ve forced the letter writers into … [but] we’re not trying to change the blog tradition.” Part of this idea is that blogs are entirely a form of expression in themselves.

So how does one address credibility and ethical standards in the blog world?

“Let me propose a radical notion,” said Rebecca Blood, on her personal blog[14]. “The weblog's greatest strength — its uncensored, unmediated, uncontrolled voice — is also its greatest weakness.” Blood is an average person with a BA in English, who decided one day to write a book on blogging and propose a code of ethics for blogging. This code has caught on with many. Since she sees weblogs as having minor costs, she thinks they should not be subject to as many ethics codes as journalists working for major publications. Her ethical points are as follows:

  1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true.
  2. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
  3. Publicly correct any misinformation
  4. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
  5. Disclose any conflict of interest
  6. Note questionable and biased sources

But fellow blogger Martin, at blogethics2004.blogspot.com, feels these ethics are too grounded in function of blogs rather than in their form. Martin believes there are an “endless variety of bloggers with an endless variety of purposes for blogging or functions for blogs[15].” Martin is a winner of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication’s 2005 Professional Relevance Award. His main points are as follows (each point comes with sub-points that would make this summary too large to copy here):

  1. Promote Interactivity
  2. Promote Free Expression
  3. Strive for Factual Truth
  4. Be as Transparent as Possible
  5. Promote the Human Element in Blogging

Despite the more lax language used in this code of ethics, even posters to Martins page, such as Jessamyn West from Librarian.net, argued that there should be no code since blogging is simply a medium and not an “avocation or even a type of writing.[16]” Others, outright disagree and suggest a high level of accountability.

Cyberjournalist.net has posted their own stricter form of blogging ethics, which by admittance on their site, is essentially the same as a journalist’s code of ethics, changed slightly for the sake of the web[17]. Their explanation for the code is as follows: “Since not all bloggers are journalists and the Weblog form is more casual, [bloggers] argue they shouldn't be expected to follow the same ethics codes journalists are. But responsible bloggers should recognize that they are publishing words publicly, and therefore have certain ethical obligations to their readers, the people they write about, and society in general.”

Still, despite cyberjournalist.net’s authority and post on the matter, some commenting on their ethics post were not satisfied. Patricia Abbatoy, for example, said, “At most I see your list as 'Blogger's Etiquette'. Most readers can decide for themselves whether a blogger is reliable or not, and whether it matters. Many blogs are intentionally biased or slanted in one way or another; it's the constituency of a blog that decides whether the writer passes a reliability test.”

Some, like the “Portland Communique,” use both Blood’s ethical guide, as well as cyberjournalist.org’s code of ethics. In differentiating between which to use, the site’s “about” page says that a purposive difference must be made between writing intended to be journalistic and writing intended to be less than journalistic. In the journalistic case, the more involved cyberjournalist.org ethical code is required to be used. Portland Communique is a print and web publication intended to empower the citizen of Portland, Oregon by allowing them to publish their views online. Oddly enough however, the Portland Communique is actually hosted online by the City of Portland. Are ethics in place for that media outlet by choice? Or by necessity to hold participants accountable on a government site then? The reason this is called into question is that there are still very few blogs to have ethical coded posted.

Unlike Paypal’s verification system, a system where online bidders are able to check and see if their auction sellers are verified by the giant money transferring company – bloggers do not seem to be adapting a universal code of verification. There are no stamps on the blogs, like with paypal, to show willing cooperation with an ethical standard. There are no buttons either, linking to an ethical code for the most part. As a result, even despite blogs existing for quite some time and some progress occurring in terms of the discussion about them – there appears to be no major move forward in the ethical region. Blood herself even admits in an AP article, that she only knew of about 10 other blogs in 2005 which adhered to an ethical standard[18].

Perhaps blogging then is developing, though are still only in the same position print journalism was in the 20th Century. Jay Rosen, a blogger and professor of journalism at New York University thinks so. He took his thoughts a step farther by saying creating a new medium in today’s culture requires even more: “in some sense, bloggers already have informally adopted norms that go beyond what traditional journalists do,” Rosen said. “For instance, bloggers who don't link to source materials aren't taken seriously, while traditional news organizations have no such policies.[19]”

The Ethical Solution

Though blogging and Web 2.0 technologies offer the ability to participate in a discussion, rather than performing a monologue with readers – this paper has contended that some ethical code is needed in blogs. An example of why can be provided in a conversation with close friends. In the conversation, friends may poke fun of another group of friends. Their justification for this? It could be something as simple as parts of a conversation heard, or even a guess made by someone, causing the words to be said. Either way, friends may be comfortable doing this because their words will not go far from their circle. However, when that conversation is transported to an auditorium, on a stage in front of hundreds of people – suddenly an insulter may bite their tongue. Suddenly, the burden of proof has jumped. Hundreds of people are demanding evidence, and now, the talker realizes that they could even damage the reputation of someone with hundreds of people, or establish themselves as a liar. All blogs are technically seen by millions if a searcher typed in the correct specifics in a webpage – and because of this, it is a blogger’s duty to subject every statement to a careful process of determining fairness. This is the very beginning of ethics.

An ethical wrench can be thrown in here however – since one can say the nature of blogging is simply to be a conversation. The contention though, is that the conversation is taking place on a stage to begin with – meaning not only should bloggers be aware of ethics, but commentors should be aware of a lesser form of ethics as well.

This borders on etiquette, but it is only the first step. Establishing some kind of loose ethic on both sides of participation spectrum however, should only be the bare minimum. Unfortunately this is currently the step many blogs are at now – starting to develop commenting editing processes, and content policies in the blog. It remains to be seen when and if blogs will advance further, ethically, as this paper has demonstrated.

There are incentives though to practicing better ethics, and posting a list of ethics, and alerting readers to your attempt to follow the ethics. As journalists have found out – credibility is the key issue. Credibility becomes more necessary as blogs rise in popularity and attract more traffic. Credibility also comes in handy when delineating an honest blog from a promotional blog like Engadget, and the Weblogs Inc. group[20]. Weblogs Inc. actually pays people to blog on topics of their choice, like cars, games, and other consumer goods. Basically, in a blog world that is just starting to be tapped by commercial interests -- credibility is key.

By separating oneself from commercial interests, biased reporting, and other ethical flaws – one is able to develop a stronger community of trust with the reader. A mission statement is also part of establishing an ethical form of trust with the reader, so one is able to tell what the website is about before getting involved and perhaps becoming disappointed or feeling tricked when a true bias is discovered in a blog. In the end, this trust and ethical responsibility, should drive more readers to a reputable blog. More comments will be generated, and in general a sense of community will develop on truth and factual statements. In the long run, this trust may attract credible advertisers through a larger community size, or a trustworthy platform of information sharing.

It is notable, that perhaps blogs are not really reinventing the wheel, but creating a new community which will be subject to the same developments already existing communities have gone through. For example – on many blogs, it is hard to tell advertising apart from non-biased editorial content. Today, groups like BzzAgent, which pays people to create blogs promoting products, are on the rise[21]. News journalism progressed in the same way though. Many early newspapers, like James Rivington’s famous New York paper, openly promoted obscure and blatant advertisements and editorials in the paper, which blended with news. In time though, print journalism started to separate editorial space from content. Eventually, the personal attack ads between columnists in newspapers disappeared, the libelous editorials started to disappear, and the 20th century saw a start to ethics based reporting. Time will only tell what will happen, but a start of ethical inclusion into the blog world is certainly a step in the right direction, which could help turn many blogs into reputable alternative media sources. A mission statement, and/or few sentences on commenting policies and posting policies on blogs is all it could take to gain a dozen more readers and perhaps the start of a new online community if one is truly interested in doing so.

[1] Iacono, Erica. “Time Inc. feels new media world's impact.” PR Week. New York: Jan 29, 2007. Vol.10, Iss. 4; pg. 12, 1 pgs

[2] Francisco, Bambi. “Inside out: Commentary: How consumers hijacked the media model.” Marketwatch. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-consumers-hijacked-media-model/story.aspx?guid=%7B1762D7AA-1D53-4222-B112-10AEE5E13E0E%7D

[3] Proquest Internet Search. “Weblogs and Journalism: 99 results” http://0-proquest.umi.com.libus.csd.mu.edu/pqdweb?TS=1174706825&SST=4&sid=1&moreOptState=CLOSED&SSM=C&SQ=%28LSU%28%7BWEBLOGS%7D%29+AND+LSU%28%7BJOURNALISM%7D%29%29&clientId=55898&SSI=3&RQT=305

[4] “Online Newspaper Blog Traffic Grows 210 Percent Year Over Year, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.” Nielsen-netratings.com. Jan. 16, 2007. http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_070117.pdf

[5] November 6, 2006. “State of Blogosphere, October, 2006.” Sifry’s Alerts: David Sifry’s musings. http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/2006_11.html

[6]Marinucci, Carla. “Obama supporter owns up to video.” SanFrancisco Chronicle. March 22, 2007. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNGDROPM7G1.DTL

[7] Hafner, Katie. “Growing Wikipedia Refines its ‘anyone can edit’ policy.” New York Times. June 17, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?ex=1174881600&en=2ac4911ecebcbc01&ei=5070

[8] Paul Marks. “How to leak a secret and not get caught” New Scientist, January 13, 2007. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19325865.500-how-to-leak-a-secret-and-not-get-caught.html

[9] CBC News “Website wants to take whistleblowing online” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, January 11, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/wikileaks-whistle.html

[10] Bill Thomposn “Who stands to gain from Wikileaks?” BBC News, March 13, 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6443437.stm

[11] Daniel Friedman “Web site aims to post government secrets” Federal Times, January 4, 2007. http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2460843

[12] Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines. Wikipedia.org Accessed: 3/25/2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

[13] Acuna, Armando. “Public Editor: Worlds collide – and so do journalistic standards.” Sacramento Bee. March 25, 2007. http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/143162.html

[14] Blood, Rebecca. “Weblog Ethics.” http://www.rebeccablood.net/ Accessed March 25, 2007. http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html

[15] Martin. “C.O.B.E Revised: Form-Based Duties in Blog Ethics” Blogethics2004.blogspot.com March 27, 2005.

[16]West, Jessamyn. “Jessamyn West on Revised Code of Blogging Ethics” http://blogethics2004.blogspot.com/

[17] “A Bloggers’ Code of Ethics.” Cyberjournalist.net. Accessed 3/25/2007 http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php

[18] Jesdanun, Anick. “Influence of bloggers raises ethical questions.” Associated Press, as published in: USA Today. January 22, 2005. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2005-01-22-blog-ethics_x.htm

[19] Ibid.

[20] http://www.weblogsinc.com/

[21] Lasica, J.D. “The cost of ethics: Influence peddling in the blogosphere.” Online Journalism Review. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050217lasica/

Personal tools