If Wikileaks were most concerned about whistleblowing, it would focus on revealing corruption. If it were concerned with historical truth, it would emphasize the discovery of verifiably true facts. If it were anti-war, it would safeguard, not disrupt, the conduct of diplomatic communications.
These are the comments of veteran open government-advocate Steven Aftergood, following the latest release by Wikileaks. In some ways, he echoes my own thoughts on that misguided cult.
While the classified US diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks do contain some important news, there is far more important information already in the public domain, particularly when it comes to the arms trade and war profiteering. This public information—corporate registrations, export licenses, government contracts, etc.—hides in plain sight, waiting to be pieced together and put in context, so the average person can understand why they should care.
The shortage of information is—at least right now, in the US—less consequential than the shortage of reporters who can make sense of it all.
Fortunately, the internet can make reporting less labor-intensive; it also allows anyone to pitch in. The DIY WIB form, which I’m now working to upgrade, is an attempt to apply the tools of crowdsourcing to an ongoing investigation of the arms trade. (Posting will be somewhat light here until that upgrade is finished. Please make a donation to support WIB’s “investigations for everyone.”)
Unfortunately, public information on the arms trade can be tricky to access online. It’s often poorly formatted or just plain hard to find. That’s why UK activist Tim Davies and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade are petitioning their government to improve the quality of its online arms export database.
Sign that petition here. And if anyone in the US is working on a similar lobbying effort, please get in touch. Clearly, there’s plenty of room for both the American and British governments to improve online access to public information.
Take the US government’s open data site, introduced after President Obama took office. The site returns nothing when you search it for information on weapons export licenses. Related searches churn up two long-outdated, barely relevant lists of people who were at one time denied export privileges. (The up-to-date list of “debarred parties” is here.) The official State Department site is even worse. Navigating it practically requires a dual degree in law and computer science; it, too, is largely out of date.
Accessing public information held by these ostensibly “open” democracies may not be easy, but at least it’s possible. In most countries, that’s not the case—there is a dire shortage, rather than a glut, of public information.
So I’d like to see Wikileaks’ anti-secrecy crusade turn to those truly dark corners. Publishing an official Chinese or Russian directory of arms exporters would be a good place to start. If Julian Assange & Co. can do that, I promise to stop calling them cult members, and I’ll happily make use of the information.