Is Wikipedia.org and WikiLeaks related? They both have wiki in them? Does Wiki mean something bad?
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
They are not related. Think of it this way: both New York City and Ho Chi Minh City have the word "city" in their names, but they aren't the same place and they don't share a municipal government.
The term "wiki" refers to a style of Web site designed for quick, collaborative editing. It comes from the Hawaiian language.Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
- Anonymous4 years ago
This Site Might Help You.
Is Wikipedia.org and WikiLeaks related? They both have wiki in them? Does Wiki mean something bad?Source(s): wikipedia org wikileaks related wiki wiki bad: https://shortly.im/E7KzN
- Joe FinkleLv 79 years ago
You've gotten some definitions of "wiki", but to put it more simply:
A "wiki" is a freely available and simple method of creating a website that contains lots of user generated pages. Many different versions of the software that generates the wiki are available, usually for free, from a number of different sources. Most of them, by default, look a lot like wikipedia, since it is the biggest and most famous wiki, but that doesn't mean they are related and you can change the look and feel as much as you want when you create a wiki site.
There are lots of wikis and generally they have nothing to do with each other. Not all of them have "wiki" in the name and many of them don't look like they are created using wiki software. Wikileaks looks a lot like wikipedia because the web designer didn't change most of the defaults in the software used to create the website, which apparently looks a lot like wikipedia by default. But the two have nothing at all to do with each other except that the software used to generate the websites are similar and the look is similar.
Millennium@moses: I'm not sure, but wikipedia transfering the domains to wikileaks may be a result of the requirements of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Perhaps they purchased the domains to prevent other companies from creating fake versions of their site and siphoning off their users, but when wikileaks, which is really fundamentally different in purpose and effect, came along, they were forced to avoid illegally siphoning off their users. Again, this is just an educated guess.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MosesLv 69 years ago
Actually, yes... sort of.
The business relationship between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks is extremely tenuous and indirect - one of Wikipedia's co-founders, Jimbo Wales, owns a company called Wikia, Inc. that employs several other people who have been closely involved with Wikipedia over the years. Wikia owns the domain names wikileaks.com, wikileaks.net, wikileaks.info, and wikileaks.mobi, and until just recently they were all redirects to the main WikiLeaks site at wikileaks.org. Wales now claims that these domains were purchased "defensively," and that they've been "trying" to transfer the domains to the WikiLeaks organization for several months, but that WikiLeaks hasn't filed the necessary forms to complete the transfer. (But then, why would they, when there's a company willing to redirect the non-.org domains for free? Some hosting sites charge up to $5 per month for domain redirects. And why would Wikia even do that if they'd bought the domains "defensively"? If I owned an internet company called "Yawoo, Inc." or "Yahu, Inc.," would Yahoo.com redirect yawoo.net or yahu.info to my website for any reason at all, and for free? I don't think so!)
All that aside, the real relationship between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks is philosophical. In the past, Wikipedia was a popular place for people to go who wanted to obtain cheap and easy revenge on people they disliked, but in recent years they've started to take themselves a bit more seriously and have made that more difficult. People still looking for that kind of revenge have had to find other, similar outlets, and that's where WikiLeaks comes in.
However, it should be noted that WikiLeaks is actually more responsible and ethical than Wikipedia or similar sites, generally speaking - they seem to be willing to apply some form of loose pre-publication editorial control and review to everything they "leak," whereas Wikipedia didn't do that at all until recently, and now only does it for a handful of articles, currently on a "trial" basis. Specifically, WikiLeaks responded to concerns about physically endangering diplomatic and intelligence informants by promising to redact names *before* publication. Wikipedia will sometimes redact names *after* publication, but by that time, it's usually too late, the cat's out of the bag.
Secrecy is usually bad, but divulging and publishing secrets irresponsibly is usually worse. Nobody should have to die or be forced to flee his country just because some low-level functionary or enlistee thinks he knows how to determine "right and wrong" better than anyone else.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Wiki: A collaborative Web site set up to allow user editing and adding of content.
- Deepak MLv 59 years ago
Don't know if there's any connection but heres the definition of Wiki:
A wiki ( ) is a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor. ...
- RachelLv 44 years ago
Wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian.
- 9 years ago
Wikipedia n wikileaks both are powered by wikimedia.
wiki means simple.Source(s): Vatsal solanki
- 9 years ago
wiki pedia is not related to wiki leaks .i dont no abt wikileaks but wikipedia ia not a bad thing .i am thinking so.