WikiLeaks: Unconditional Transparency?

Ihsan Alnaneesh
ia955915@ohio.edu

Transparency 

Transparency comprises of responsibility, clarity, and communication. Transparency assesses the extent to which an organization shares its information with its stakeholders when it comes to making decisions. A transparent organization would chose to do the right thing, this would include providing complete access of information to members of the organization, addressing hard facts, building trust among employees, delegating appropriate and approachable leaders and managers, and above all: maintaining an unbiased, open-minded way of thinking.

Transparency & the Internet

Seeing that the Internet creates an ideal medium for transparency due its convenience and ease of access, it is understandable as to why numerous associations would perceive the Internet as a medium for giving wrong data a chance to get into the wrong hands, making delicate information they've held onto a liability for them. This risk of exposure may be too much for an organization to handle, resulting in the restrictions applied to the level of transparency. But then again, who dictates what information is concealed and which are released for public scrutiny? More importantly, why?

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder

“We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies,” the WikiLeaks website states. “All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information.”

Transparency & the WikiLeaks 

WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organization and library founded by Julian Assange in 2006. The website primarily focuses on publications and documents alongside greater databases that are deemed censored and unauthorized by governments and officials. These publications consist of war, spy and corruption files and more than 10 million of these files have been published since. 

However, WikiLeaks' part is not the same as the press' since it doesn't generally attempt to alter data before production. Nevertheless, it works inside what one may call the media 'ecosystem', compiling productions with unique records that are discovered no place else and protecting them against governments insisting to repress information.

WikiLeaks does not consequently bring profound transparency to the table. Websites like WikiLeaks work since sources, usually pricked by inner voice, offer clues in people in general interest. WikiLeaks is a wholesaler of this information, a remarkably productive one. It helps ensure the information won't be covered up by editors and publishers who fear potential lawsuits or being tracked down by the government.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If WikiLeaks published files exposing war crimes, corrupt politicians, bankers and other controversial information that has long been buried deep, wouldn't the public have the right to be informed of the truth by a third party if their own government fails to inform the masses themselves?

In this world of treachery, only pure information has the ability to move and captivate the minds of individuals and spur them toward betterment and prosperity. Through WikiLeaks, many eyes have been opened and and even more dark truths were shined upon. At the end of the day, it is always better to know than to not, regardless of the story or its magnitude.