emptywheel

I'll write up why it's important in the larger scheme of things later. But given that you're harping on accuracy, it'd pay to be really rigorous here.

Yes, I agree accuracy is important. That's why I'm trying to understand what specific claim or sentence in the story you're referring to that is inaccurate. The article is referring to what everyone referred to: WL's publication on Twitter of the link:https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/939214967210987520 …

The email is inaccurate. Wikileaks didn't, as far as is known, "upload" that information. Guccifer 2.0 is understood to have. It's like the time when Wikileaks got held accountable for doxing a bunch of Turks when @NatSecGeek had uploaded data instead.

Or when Wikileaks posted a link to Macron leaks emails even while saying it didn't know if they were accurate, and they got blamed rather than the 4Channers who uploaded them.

Why was that attribution curious? G2 dropped the files and WL asked me to put them into a torrent, which they then tweeted.

Any idea why G2 never linked to them directly from the WP site?

One reason I'm so interested is bc the file is at the core of the skeptics' rebuttals but they've never thought through how it got posted or why it wasn't posted to the WP site.

"G2" used a variety of drop sites and a couple of fronts for variety. The WP site had previously had stuff removed because of content that was dropped there.

Yes. I'm aware of that. But there's no evidence that happened with this particular file/link.

It didn't, but it still provides a reason: a larger dump would be vulnerable at the WP site and could endanger the rest of the content, plus the publicity of dropping it there and the mystery surrounding it. Plus IIRC the content and provenance of it was questionable. /1

So putting it on the WP site would have carried several risks with it, including tainting the rest of the contents there (some of which was modified). 2/2

Is this your speculation or was that explained to you, if you're willing to say?

Nothing inconsistent with Glenn's article. He wrote: "because it (Erickson's email) was dated September 4 – ten days before WikiLeaks began *promoting access* to those emails online" which is not saying "WL published the data."

He revised it.

Glen is a little too impressed with himself. Good job!

Glenn’s eager to correct the record in a good faith, public discussion with a credible source (@emptywheel) — to both their credit. You’re a little too eager to hurl mud at the messenger when the message doesn’t please you.

Not true. Just a little tired of Glen. I am allowed my own opinion.