We Love

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The Wiki Wild West: Freedom of information: what’s the future like?

The Wiki Wild West: 
Freedom of information: what’s the future like?

By Anna Kosmanovski





How does information become free?


Does it need to be emancipated: like chickens on their way to chook death row only to have the pen swung, with open and ample, endless space for lucky creatures to muck around it given, the squark of a chicken version of “Cry Freedom” resounding for miles?

Is Freedom of Information reading Noam Chomsky books and watching hour long conspiracy theory internet documentaries, recommended to you by people who are openly suspicious that the government is trying to “kill you?”, being up to date with the latest conspiracy theories and – in your spare time – building bomb shelters?

Or is freedom of information the delicious desire – 


and clever ability – to hack away like you’ve never hacked before on government websites? Proudly able to secretly access the ASIO, the FBI, Centrelink sites?

Or, is freedom of information found in ordinary people researching things themselves – be it the argument against fluoride, what that number 621 found in tiny font on lots of supermarket junk food items actually means, or even looking through old newspapers in the public library.

Or, perhaps freedom of information involves paying a lot or little money each month for satellite TV. Perhaps it’s googling your own name on the internet. Or, it’s stumbling through local council reports posted online trying to find something interesting.

All these things, and the notion of freedom of information lead us to a prominent, contentious issue. 

Or a website, really. 

The lead guru of the website is in hot water with the US government 


and his disciples are scattered around the world; some still faithful to the original cause and others choosing to break away into spin offs.

Wikileaks. Wikileaks. (Name second time for sheer emphasis, wasn’t a typo.) 
Let’s talk about Wikileaks!

Remember, back in school, there would always be that rebel kid. Or group. Everyone could laugh at their precocious jokes: water bombs, cutting ties in half, wagging school or – for no apparent reason – wearing a monkey costume on casual dress day.

And then, sometimes this kid – or posse- who went, as the teachers grimly told you, “too far.” 
“Joe Bloggs (or other generic name) has gone too far! Don’t you kids copy him.”
Or, you might see a letter in the school bulletin: “Jane Doe has been officially expelled for carrying alcohol on school grounds.”

And you feel funny; if you’re honest, there’s a side of you befuddled by the blatant disregard to authority and procedure but then there’s also an overwhelming siding with the teachers: yes, it did feel like they went “too far” actually and, as the teachers reminded you in solemn assemblies warning children to not copy that behaviour: “There’s always consequences.”

If the worldwide media was a playground 


and all the journos and reporters and bloggers, kids, the Wikileaks dudes would definitely be the rebellious kids, hated by teachers and blamed of causing dissent among peers: admired by some, feared by others and intensely disliked by most.

The way I’ve worded that, the way I’ve introduced them – don’t think I’m trying to glorify them. Trying to do a Question Tarantio, Pulp Fiction “glorifying violence- or Wikileaks” by painting them in a way which makes you feel some sympathy for them.

Nor am I trying to completely chastise them either, and make you feel like they’re the kids in school we shouldn’t be hanging out with because (hang in there with me while we do this “rebel at school” analogy, I’m enjoying it) they’ll corrupt us and carry us along on their wayward way. (Way, way way! There I said that word again!)

Because, you see – there is a fine line. A fine, delicate, petite, tight-rope walker’s line, 


that we should consider when we’re working out whether to put Wikileaks in the good or bad box when we’re thinking about freedom of information.

So then, in seemingly random order, come with me while we discuss some pros and cons of the Wiki wiki wild west boys.

Pro: They make journalists work harder for stories. When the Wiki boys get a story, no longer can one media outlet sit leisurely back, and smugly print off an “exclusive” on an important government issue. They have a “secret document” obtained by “private sources” which only their printerly eyes are privy too. 

Meanwhile, are they even printing the “truth?” How can we tell? There’s no other corresponding reports from other media outlet to compete with this ‘scoop.’ It might be ratings apple pie for the media outlet, but is the information presented to the public being served in the best possible way?

Con: Apart from the obvious fact that much of the Wikileaks information is obtained unethically and through subterfuge, here’s another con…

Deliverers of Wikileaks’ sources of information are not always guaranteed protection. 


See accused Wiki whistle blower, American soldier, Bradley Manning for example, who – currently – is residing in a solitary confinement prison cell. 

But, for you and me – when we talk about freedom of information, and the future of that – what can we say? 

I believe we can say that, with respect to freedom of information, with the rise of accessibility of information online and the inevitable but slow choking deaths of newspapers; with Wiki-anything (Wikipedia, Wikicommons, Wikimedia, the list continues) and its buddies Google (and for the sake of diplomacy, Yahoo) 
becoming the modern portal of information, we can safely say that the future of freedom of information will become more ‘free.’

Yet, as for freedom of privacy, and freedom of decent and original reporting, and investigative journalism, and the freedom of integrity and the freedom of the value of ‘quality over quantity,’ can we be still be optimistic?



anna.kosmanovski.wordpress.com

No comments:

Post a Comment