WikiLeaks: Domain name matters if you want to be taken seriously

WikiLeaks - a controversial domain to go with controversial content.

We had an interesting conversation earlier today with New York domain investor and real estate broker, Nick Spanos.

Nick supports freedom of speech in the Libertarian sense, just like politician Ron Paul does; the latter recently defended the right of WikiLeaks to release the classified information.

Nick’s position is related to the domain name itself. As a domain name, WikiLeaks consists of a first part that reeks of computer geekiness and a second part that refers to leaking; something that does not deliver any positive connotations.

But what if the controversial web site that has been publishing all this information, embarrassing governments around the world used a different domain?

For example, when the Washington Post broke the news about the Watergate scandal, there was no Internet; it was the duty of the Press and the newspaper and its reporters to unveil a conspiracy and deliver the news.

But what if or or even were the deliverers of the WikiLeaks content? Would there be the same amount of outrage and the same attempt to “shoot” the proverbial “messenger”?

Quite often, documents are classified in order to protect ongoing situations and those involved; in the case of the WikiLeaks web site and its operator, Julian Assange, the freshness of information can create plenty of instability in the governments involved. Perhaps, if a less controversial domain name were chosen, less controversy would be generated.

And that’s why choosing a domain carefully really matters.

Copyright © 2023 · All Rights Reserved.


8 Responses to “WikiLeaks: Domain name matters if you want to be taken seriously”
  1. Nick says:

    If the domain name was the it would imply conventional freedom of the press, and he would be protected by the first amendment.

  2. Dean Solo says:

    This blog post is completely irrelevant and makes no sense as far as I am concerned. Is Google, Nike or Bing any more or less relevant or representative of the product they are selling, do those names have bad connotations? Wiki as in Wikipedia (information), Leaks as in leaking information, what is there not to understand!? I think it’s pretty straightforward. Maybe some make the ‘Leaks” association with taking a piss. Some may find that gross or “something that does not deliver any positive connotations”, but for the most part all of us do it several times a day (piss). I hope and pray Assange and WikiLeaks continues to piss in the face of every corrupt government and official in the world. And that ill informed brainwashed people can start writing intelligent relevant information about the facts and not idiotic quibble.

  3. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Nick – Exactly my point.

    Dean – If WikiLeaks were “” it would be even less relevant. 😀

    The point I’m making is that mainstream Press, that unlike “WikiLeaks dot.whatever” does not get automatically tagged as revolting, underground or anti-something maintains rights that are given a solid layer of protection by the Constitution, something that cannot be granted to fringe web sites or domains that operate on the edge of the law.

    Furthermore, WikiLeaks as an organization is not clear whether it has pure or ulterior motives, or whether the information they leak is provided freely or in a paid manner or even whether certain organizations or even governments are financing this particular focus. While it is refreshing to read about the bribes received by the Turkish Prime Minister – which he denies – it’s also questionable when none of this information can be validated.

  4. Dean Solo says:

    Mainstream press being given “a solid layer of protection by the Constitution”

    I don’t know what planet you are living on, but the “press” is pressured,cajoled and constantly threatened about what they should write or publish. Maybe not in a public way, but granted the White House can deny access to events, information, funding, threaten legal action etc,. That can border on exclusion to the point of censorship. They have ways of using strong arm techniques to get what they want.

    You need to better inform yourself before making an asinine statement like the one above. Yes, the Constitution may say one thing, but what actually takes place is a complete different secretive matter. The Constitution is to the government what the Bible is to the church, both great historical documents designed to educate and give man guidance, but both twisted, corrupted and interpreted to benefit those in power.

    Your site weather by accident or design reaches out to an audience and as such you should be well informed. Do me, your audience and yourself a favor an start by reading this article:

    As for “ulterior motives” I would trust Assange before I would the CIA.

  5. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Dean – Feel free to step down for a second from your high horse – aka digital pony – in order to partake in some non-recreational fungus (in other words, have some mushrooms of the edible kind.).

    Not everyone on this planet – which I also reside with several other billion souls – is eager to support anarchy, conspiracy or a state of constant war, all in the name of an alleged freedom that you cannot fully describe, but yet swear in its name.

    While my site has an audience with ample intelligence to form their own opinion, I ensure that no fly-by comet with plastic eloquence gets to misquote, misrepresent or hijack the intentions of my posts.

    Whether you trust Assange more than the CIA is not my concern, and neither are your arguments over WikiLeaks. The purpose of this post describes the relationship of domain names and web sites that want to be used as a source of information.

  6. Dean Solo says:

    *Ha, Hah* good one…
    At least now you are starting to sound somewhat intelligent,

    Again your right, I am reminded this site was conceived for mindless entertainment and tepid attempts at humor, not serious discussion topics.

  7. Lucius "Guns" Fabrice says:

    Dean – Once again, voicing your opinion over the conception and purpose of “this site” equals to stating you like lasagna or that you dislike soccer. Nobody forces you to eat beef or watch soccer.

  8. Dean Solo says:

    Ok, point well taken. Soccer I can take or leave, but Lasagna I will defend to the end.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available