BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk.[1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”.[2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.”[3] He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it." Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff[4]. Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site. It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher. It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it. Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11930488 [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/29/131664547/wikileaks-is-a-terror-outfit-rep-peter-king [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010, http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/joe-biden-calls-julian-assange-a-hitech-terrorist-20101220-1923y.html [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/07/the_wikileaks_paradox.html
Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda.

News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified. That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved. Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information[1].” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published. In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name. [1] The link to the page is here.
The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.

Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill.
Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt.

A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries.  Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result.[1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy. [1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302853.html
There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them.

Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble.
Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist.

It is worth noting the people who are happy to say that he is a journalist – in addition to many other journalists around the world. He has received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression award, the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, La Monde Person of the Year (2010)[1] and the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011.[2] Wikipedia’s media partners include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El Pais. If we accept the idea that ‘by his works shall you know a man’ then the fact that Wikileaks has produced game changing information – and stories that have changed policy - on extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the Church of Scientology, procedures at Guantanamo bay[3] and the financial dealings at Kaupthing and Julius Baer[4] – all before the revelations about the State Department imbroglio that is suddenly of interest to … well, to the State Department. There are few other journalists in the word that could make such claims. [1] AFP, 'Assange named Le Monde Man of the Year', ABC News, 24 December 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-24/assange-named-le-monde-man-of-the-year/1884984 [2] Deans, Jason, 'Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prise', guardian.co.uk, 2 June 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize [3] Chivers, Tom, 'Wikileaks' 10 greateststories', The Telegraph, 18 October 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8070253/Wikileaks-10-greatest-stories.html [4] The Economist, 'Be afraid' 9th December 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/17680643
History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school

Even if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as "correct" or "incorrect" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising "facts". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1. 1 Resmovits, Joy. "U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'." Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011). improve this
History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum

History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011).
History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past

History taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent "War on Terror". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). improve this
Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned

"Organized forgetting" of the past does not lead to harmony: those who allege historic wrongs are unlikely to forget them and will be aggrieved at attempts to deny the significance of the events concerned. This is seen in the Chinese outcry at Japanese attempts to forget the Rape of Nanking; the international attention drawn to the issue led to attempts within Japan itself to re-introduce the event into history textbooks1. By 1997, all Japanese textbooks included the event, signalling a shift towards a closer relationship with China, their long-term rivals1. Friendship often results from shared recognition of past wrongs, and a resolve not to repeat past injustices and mistakes; studying the past is essential for this. History teaching in schools is especially important when tensions are present: those who set and teach the curriculum can and should strive to be impartial, to counter one-sided historical narratives to which pupils may be exposed by their families and the media. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011).
Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren

For most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such "facts" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be "intellectually dangerous": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). improve this
History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation

Historical events, no matter how tragic, gruesome or embarrassing, should be taught in schools in order to provide a basis for the youth to explore their own identity and that of their nation. Children should therefore not be shielded from reality, but be taught, in an appropriate manner, about all manner of relevant historical events. In so doing, they will not leave school with a false image of reality, or of whom they are and where they live. Only then will they be prepared for the very worst life will throw at them. For example, Australian school children are unlikely to fully appreciate the plight of their Aboriginal compatriots without a thorough understanding of the British discovery of the island and subsequent governmental policy that oppressed the native population. As the future leaders of tomorrow, it is essential that the youth are given the broadest, most accurate platform on which to build their own perceptions of life. improve this
History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life

History teaches many useful skills, which are of great value to both individuals and the economy. These include the ability to think critically and construct reasoned arguments, an awareness of differing points of view and understanding of cultures (both one's own and those of others). Essays on historical events or figures require an original, structured argument and an evaluation of sources, skills that have relevance in other areas of education. Furthermore, the humility necessary to accept the limitations of historical research are instrumental in encouraging multi-culturalism in society and respect for views one might not initially understand. improve this
History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school

Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled. improve this
History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum

What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth.
History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past

Isolated instances in which history has been used for propaganda purposes do not reflect a dangerous subject, merely dangerous regimes. The vast majority of History teaching does not seek to promote such agendas. It is common sense to tailor the national history curriculum to the nation in which it is being taught, and very easily achieved without constituting propaganda. Recent studies have shown it is common for states to focus heavily on their national history, 'setting out key events that shaped the national story as compulsory knowledge'1. Furthermore, all subjects can be distorted if the State and its teachers are prepared to try hard enough - for example, under the Nazis German children were taught Mathematics with a heavy emphasis upon military applications (e.g. calculating angles and ranges for artillery). Instead of banning the subject, what is needed is proper inspection of schools and monitoring of the curriculum, under the control of a democratic government. 1 Baker, Mike. "History study needs fact first, analysis later." The Guardian. February 18, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011). improve this
Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned

The teaching of history does not either to the maintenance of memory or the learning of lessons. Examples have shown that states can use history lessons to in fact erase certain memories, denying any lessons to future generations. Furthermore, teaching history encourages people to become obsessed with past conflicts and alleged wrongs inflicted upon them; it is more productive to forget the past and to seek friendship in the present. For example, modern tensions would be reduced if pupils in Ireland were no longer taught about the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and pupils in South Asia stopped learning about conflicts following the Partition between India and Pakistan (1947). improve this
Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren

Historical facts cannot be established to a sufficient degree to justify history being taught as a subject in school. Though there are certain facts that are beyond question, history is about more than the accumulation of facts but the creation of a narrative. Narratives in history are constantly subject to changes as further evidence comes to hand. Young students should not be forced to learn a narrative that may become redundant in the week between history lessons. Furthermore, though Eisenhower meant well, he could only ever control events in the United States, if Germany had decided to censor their textbooks, as the Japanese did, in the wake of World War II, his protests would have fallen on deaf ears and done little to ensure the German youth knew of the horrors of the Holocaust. As such, it is necessary to restrict history lessons to the youth; once mature and reasoned, they will be much better placed to evaluate and study history in depth. improve this
History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation

History does offer a source for understanding oneself and one's nation, but that no reason to teach it at school. In fact, the centrality of history to identity is an argument in favour of leaving history lessons until students are old enough to weigh sources and evaluate arguments themselves. Australian school children don't need to be taught specifics about the history of their nation at school in order to develop into well rounded, reasoned adults. In fact, they are more likely to better understand the plight of the native aboriginals if they are only introduced to the historical specifics of the case at a later, more mature age. improve this