You could try checking out their own page. They actually had a big request for donations thing going on until shortly after they started posting the Afghan files. Wikipedia and other independent websites can probably confirm it.
Circumstantial evidence at best.
The fact that wikileaks was after donations is undeniable. In fact I was aware that they needed donations well before this story actually happened. I was asking for proof of the fact that the website deliberately included the names in order to generate more hits rather than it simply being a cock up. You haven't proved it did.
Corporations will, on ocassion, release flawed products, but the death toll for Assange's mistake is already higher than the one for Toyota's much-touted and rather nebulous fiasco. I think it's time to get a wee bit excited over this.
Again, you're quoting facts that aren't relevant to the actual point I was making. This issue of whether or not Wikileaks are guilty of a dirty trick is solely dependent on whether or not they published the document in full knowledge that they were publishing something that could get people killed. Even if they acted with criminal negligence over the issue it still wouldn't be a dirty trick.
So on one hand we have something that definitely looks malicious to me compared to something that might not have been. So yeah, in absence of evidence proving malice I'm going to go ahead and state that the fake rape accusations definitely look more like a dirty trick than anything Wikileaks did.
