I'm surprised this is an issue - as ResidentAnthropologist (talk·contribs) points out, they're primary sources, and we already have a policy for primary sources. (Mind you, the application of the policy is pretty sketchy - I often come across references to a particular study, which I find problematic since any single study has a very significant likelihood of being wrong.) --Chriswaterguytalk 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised. I routinely encounter Wikipedians who don't understand or don't agree with core policies like WP:Original or WP:Verify. In those situations, pointing to a policy is often not enough; you have to rehearse the rationale behind the policy and make the case that the policy be applied. That appears to be what's happening here. —KevinMyers 09:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of those documents are works of the U.S. government, therefore PD-US-Gov applies, so where is the problem to use them? --Matthiasb (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is a work of the United States government, does not mean that it is automatically in the public domain. Classified documents are obviously not intended for public distribution, so just because they have been stolen, does not mean that they are free to use. And, as pointed out above, classified documents are still classified, even if stolen. They have not been declassified and approved for distribution. It's also worth pointing out that because they are classified in the United States, U.S. law applies regarding their distribution. Since Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, it is indeed U.S. law which must be considered. --Elonka 19:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. Everything created by the US Government is automatically in the Public domain. However, "public domain" merely means "not covered by copyright"; it does not mean "anyone can redistribute this for free". In this case I feel that New York Times Co. v. United States is adequate precedent to establish the legality of redistributing the cables at this time (I'm not a lawyer, and in particular I'm not the WMF's lawyer (or anyone else's)). --NYKevin @339, i.e. 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is created by the government, does not automatically mean that it is in the public domain. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. You do raise a good point about redistribution though, that just because something was created by the government, does not mean it is okay to redistribute it. As a simple example: Social security numbers are produced by the government, but absolutely should not be redistributed. As for the NYT case you cite, it's an interesting precedent, but not a definitive one. We still have a situation where it is illegal to do something in the United States, and Wikipedia, since it is in the United States, should abide by U.S. law. This means that Wikipedia should not be used to distribute classified material. If such material is covered in reliable secondary sources, we can of course use those sources for our articles, but we shouldn't be simply using the primary sources to do our own distribution. --Elonka 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Are you trying to say the cables are "works produced by contractors"? I see no other exception there which might apply here, and calling diplomats "contractors" seems iffy. Furthermore, you are assuming "it is illegal to [reproduce the cables] in the United States". While I agree that this is not totally certain, the NYT case casts a lot of doubt on that, and we should assume it's legal until WMF contradicts us, sort of like WP:PERFORMANCE. --NYKevin @958, i.e. 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the stance, "Unless WMF says it's illegal, we should assume it's legal." That is very poor logic. Further, we should be able, as reasonable adults, to interpret laws to some degree ourselves. To me, it is clear that there are laws against the distribution of classified information in the United States. Wikipedia runs on servers in the United States. Therefore we should not be distributing classified information. Now, I will allow that there is a difference between distributing information that is sourced only to a stolen classified cable (a primary source), vs. distributing information that is sourced to a reliable secondary source such as The New York Times. Wikipedia runs on secondary sources. See WP:BURDEN. Contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. It is the burden of those who wish to include disputed information to include reliable secondary sources. Without secondary sources, as soon as anything sourced to Wikileaks is challenged, it should be removed. Then if someone can come up with secondary sources, the information can be re-added, but the default position is to keep challenged information out of our articles until it can be reliably sourced. If our only source for something is a stolen classified document on a Wikileaks mirror somewhere, that is not a solid source. --Elonka 08:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless otherwise falsified the cables are good as source for the individual writers opinions. They will be questionable sources for any described fact, but they will be signed documents from the individual authors. Wetter they are a good source for official US policy is another question, but as those writing the cables are in official roles it would be very interesting if they do not conform to official policy, so interesting in fact that the discrepancy alone would make it necessary to make a note and a reference to the cables. Jeblad (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
