yes i can,
if by successful you mean a site thats fairly and truthfully disseminates leaked information, then they failed, and are a failure at such. this fact doesn't come from me but from wiki leaks own workers who say leaks were not redacted, who say assange was autocratic and biased in his actions.
on the other hand if you by successful you mean badly run, untruthful to it's own meme set within it's own paradigm, then yes i gues they were successful. if you measure success of such a site not by integrity but by the quantity of of what it spews out then yes, it was a success.
personally i think a site that could be brought to its knees by one man something of a failure.
the idea may be a success but he set up failure that was destined to fail. if it was as open and honest a site as they were forcing everyone else to be, now that would have been a real success. so yes i'm biased against him. not so biased against the leaks apart from the fact he and his untruthful persona ran it. at least they too saw him for what he was, i just wish they'd have done something sooner. as i've said if the new leaks sticks to it's principles it's a site i could 100 percent support. but please. don't expect me to follow a site like some demented sheep, that is untruthful in it actions and business plan and is ran by some anti establishment piece of shit who calls himself a journalistic refugee that can't hack it in the real world of journalism. so no i don't think wiki was successful at what it did, the only thing it was successful at was hopefully showing how not to do a leaks site. the next generation will hopefully get it right.
btw did you know they're are lots of leak sites out there. all showing or telling of injustices. some of them do it properly some don't, for me wiki didn't.
so again i say...it failed
if by successful you mean a site thats fairly and truthfully disseminates leaked information, then they failed, and are a failure at such. this fact doesn't come from me but from wiki leaks own workers who say leaks were not redacted, who say assange was autocratic and biased in his actions.
on the other hand if you by successful you mean badly run, untruthful to it's own meme set within it's own paradigm, then yes i gues they were successful. if you measure success of such a site not by integrity but by the quantity of of what it spews out then yes, it was a success.
personally i think a site that could be brought to its knees by one man something of a failure.
the idea may be a success but he set up failure that was destined to fail. if it was as open and honest a site as they were forcing everyone else to be, now that would have been a real success. so yes i'm biased against him. not so biased against the leaks apart from the fact he and his untruthful persona ran it. at least they too saw him for what he was, i just wish they'd have done something sooner. as i've said if the new leaks sticks to it's principles it's a site i could 100 percent support. but please. don't expect me to follow a site like some demented sheep, that is untruthful in it actions and business plan and is ran by some anti establishment piece of shit who calls himself a journalistic refugee that can't hack it in the real world of journalism. so no i don't think wiki was successful at what it did, the only thing it was successful at was hopefully showing how not to do a leaks site. the next generation will hopefully get it right.
btw did you know they're are lots of leak sites out there. all showing or telling of injustices. some of them do it properly some don't, for me wiki didn't.
so again i say...it failed