

With World Watching, Wikileaks Falls Into Disrepair - jackfoxy
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-submission?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

======
JakeSc
"Wikileaks’ head Julian Assange declined to comment."

I find this interesting considering Wikileaks was so quick to comment via
their Twitter feed.

<http://twitter.com/wikileaks>

------
petewarden
I'm still frustrated that WikiLeaks sent out a call for programming help
months ago, lots of HN folks emailed offering to volunteer, and nobody even
received an email reply:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/x?fnid=xEWMLiUYxu>

~~~
mukyu
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1023663> this is presumably the story you
wanted to mention

Sadly, the link was just to the main page and none of the several ways I tried
(mediawiki's history, api, Special:Export, archive.org, or any of the
wikileaks mirrors I tried) allowed me to figure out what their request
actually was.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Dup from 6 hours ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1477410>

No, that submission has no comments and no upvotes either, but it just offends
my OCD (which I don't actually have) to see a duplicate submission.

~~~
jackfoxy
Usually the system catches when I submit a dup and counts my submission as an
upvote. Didn't happen this time.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
The difference is that the article I mention is the bare URL, whereas the one
you've submitted here has a load of crap on the end, namely:

    
    
       ...?
       utm_source=feedburner & 
       utm_medium=feed &
       utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))
    

Without all that crap the duplicate detector would've worked as intended.

Again, the suggestion I made some time ago would've caught it:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012215>

~~~
jokermatt999
That junk is automatically generated, and is frequently not noticed. It seems
like it causes a large number of dupes both here and on reddit, but I think
it's almost always an error. It's easy to forget or not realize that it will
result in a repost because the system doesn't check for that. The trick of
adding ?repost, etc is sometimes used to make a repost on reddit, but I don't
think I've seen it here.

Also, I wouldn't argue that all reposts are bad. If it received 0 comments and
votes, despite being an interesting article, perhaps a single, better timed
repost is in order. I wouldn't suggest resubmitting it repeatedly, but I don't
think that single resubmissions are more harmful for HN than good content
being missed.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
It's the OCD in me - I just get annoyed that duplicates keep getting posted
without people checking. I know I'm in a minority, I know most people don't
care, and I know some articles deserve a repost because they really were
valuable, even if no one saw it first time round.

But I'll keep marking duplicates so people are at least aware that the item
isn't new, and so that, with any luck, discussion doesn't get split
unnecessarily.

------
gasull
WikiLeaks answer (<https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/17461648435>):

 _Wired says we are in disrepair.Untrue-upgrading infrastructure to deal with
growth.You can help:<http://bit.ly/cpxJWC> _

