Wikia Owned Wikileaks.com Domain; Assange Ignored Attempts To Hand It Over

from the domain-oddities dept

Fri, Jan 21st 2011 6:18am — Mike Masnick

I had seen the BBC article from a week or so ago about Jimmy Wales talking about the complexity of Wikipedia and how it needs to improve, but hadn't read all the way to the end where there was a rather interesting tidbit. Copycense however alerted us to this little bit of trivia at the end about how Wikipedia's sorta sister company Wikia owns some Wikileaks domain names... including Wikileaks.com:

Technically, the Wikia company has until this week legally owned domain names including wikileaks.net, wikileaks.com and wikileaks.us.

"We transferred the domains to them but they never completed the technical part," said Mr Wales. "All they needed to do was sign in and complete the transfer but they have never done it."

He said the domains had been registered "defensively" when Wikileaks launched in 2006.

"When they first launched they put out a press release that said the 'Wikipedia of secrets', which would have been a trademark violation.

"So someone in the office registered two or three domains."

He said that he regularly tries to prompt Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange to complete the transaction, to no avail.

"I saw someone else say that he's prone to saying 'I'm busy fighting superpowers' and that's exactly what he said to me."

Mr Wales said the domains would expire "this week".

"I'm not renewing them," said Mr Wales.

"We may ping them and say they are loose."

Of course, I just checked the whois on the .com and the .net, and both say they're registered until 2012... so someone renewed the domains, but it's not clear who.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: domains
Companies: wikia, wikileaks, wikipedia

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 6:21am

For all their intelligence, the Wikileaks people have never been very good with domains. The whole "DNS" issue with wikileaks.org could have been resolved in minutes, but they chose not to. That is sort of the moment I realized that they were playing it for publicity, and nothing else. Failure to pick up domain names that are being handed to them is just silly.

They don't seem to be very good at the basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:12am
  
  Re:
  I'm not that concerned that Wikileaks are no good at the basics. Soon enough many more Wikileaks clones will pop up and they will learn from all the previous mistakes
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    The more clones there are, the less valuable each one becomes. The dilution of the idea, the concept, and the rising noise floor on these sort of releases will make them less and less meaningful over time. When everyone is blowing a whistle, it is pretty much impossible to hear any one of them.
    
    Send in the clones. It's the best way to hide the truth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hogwash! Your statement may have been true prior to aggregation and social media, but nowadays once something is out, there are plenty of people motivated enough with tools to propogate it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        yes but if you want to know the truth of the truth, rather than lies passed of as truth, you have to check all sources to vet whether the information is correct. Right now there is 1 wikileaks, if there were 200 to check would you be so interested to check?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FarSide (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 11:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's just silly. That's like saying we never needed more than 1 newspaper, because you can't keep track of all the news coming out of more than 1.
      
      Clones will come out, sure, but as has been repeated on TD over and over, COPYing doesn't matter, it's the execution. That counts for whistleblowers, too.
      
      Wikileaks actually attempts to do the journalistic thing and verify the leaks before just dumping them out to the world. If their leaks were repeatedly discredited, people would stop listening to them.
      
      Further, a clone only works if people are trusting enough to leak to it. If a few leakers were given up by the site, no one would give them anything new.
      
      So the idea that thousands of clones would just "pop up" is wrong, in my opinion. And when the inevitable few DO appear, I think they'll be verified as trustworthy or not in fairly short order.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but think: If they aren't trusting enough to leak to, will they make up their own leaks? Will someone start faking documents to get traffic? Will someone make a "leak" virus that is installed when you download a special document?
        
        As soon as there are a few and a bunch of traffic, the scammers will be all over it and then that's all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        CommonSense (profile), 14 Feb 2011 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh yeah, just like with Search Engines right? There was a good one way back, Lycos, but then all kinds of copycats entered the game like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft with many offerings... And then the scammers saw that there was a lot of traffic and now no one uses search engines because they're all junk????
        
        Dude, you're not even using logic for this argument...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael (profile), 22 Jan 2011 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: Bad at Basics
  There is some strategic advantage to leaving domain registration info outdated when you want to protect the current registration from takedowns and interruptions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:05am

busy
'I'm busy fighting superpowers'
Oh yes, I shall have to remember that one for future use...

; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:16am

Wazoooooooo!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elohssa (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:20am

Legal maneuver?
Could this be an attempt to keep things murky, as a legal strategy? U.S. Federal agencies will seize domains without much of an excuse, though I'm not clear on how this would prevent that from happening.

Perhaps accepting this offer creates some potential liability, or places them in an unfriendly jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Jaynes, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:58am
  
  Re: Legal maneuver?
  I thought the same thing about Assange wanting to "keep things murky" but less from a legal perspective, and more from a general, "good luck trying to find us and shut us down" sort of angle.
  
  For a guy who keeps himself in hiding all the time, this is just another small, free way to keep the details unclear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:41am

"Of course, I just checked the whois on the .com and the .net, and both say they're registered until 2012... so someone renewed the domains, but it's not clear who."

...

Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.COM
Created on: 03-Jan-07
Expires on: 03-Jan-11
Last Updated on: 04-Oct-10

Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET
Created on: 03-Jan-07
Expires on: 03-Jan-11
Last Updated on: 04-Oct-10

Both are expired Mike. Makes me wonder how you "checked" and if all your "checks" are made that way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  I think you're the one missing something. I wonder if all your "checks" are made that way... ha!
  
  Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.COM
  Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
  Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
  Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
  Name Server: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
  Name Server: NS52.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
  Status: clientDeleteProhibited
  Status: clientRenewProhibited
  Status: clientTransferProhibited
  Status: clientUpdateProhibited
  Updated Date: 04-jan-2011
  Creation Date: 03-jan-2007
  Expiration Date: 03-jan-2012
  
  Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET
  Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
  Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
  Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
  Name Server: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
  Name Server: NS52.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
  Status: clientDeleteProhibited
  Status: clientRenewProhibited
  Status: clientTransferProhibited
  Status: clientUpdateProhibited
  Updated Date: 04-jan-2011
  Creation Date: 03-jan-2007
  Expiration Date: 03-jan-2012
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, registrars like Godaddy have been known to "extend" a domain that hasn't been renewed, at least at an internal level. In part, it would be because they are hoping to resell it through their internal auctions.
    
    whois through ARIN shows the domains as expired.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  Both are expired Mike. Makes me wonder how you "checked" and if all your "checks" are made that way...
  
  I checked whois.net, and it said 2012. I did not know that Arin would report different expiration dates. That's interesting to know, thanks for adding to the conversation (though, not sure why you felt the need to make a snide remark as you did).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Considering that many of the posts on TD are built on people you oppose "getting it all wrong", the snide remark is probably bang on.
    
    What you said is that you single sourced your contradictory information, and then didn't check it again with another source. Perhaps when looking to contradict someone (especially someone with no reason to lie) you might want to try a second source.
    
    This post makes it clear where you stand on Wikileaks and Julian Assange, apparently they can do no wrong. (so why didn't you run the silly "losing half a million a week" story?)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 7:42am

TL;DR :

"We domainsquatted but Assange is the douche, not us. Amirite?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:03am

Check and recheck
No, the article was correct. I too "checked" (via dnsstuf.com):
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Dates: Created 03-jan-2007 Updated 04-jan-2011 Expires 03-jan-2012
DNS Servers: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS52.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Info for both .net and .com ere the same. However, if you follow the whois information and look it up on GoDaddy, it does show it expired ... until you grab the underlying whois info from them, which shows the 2012 date. So, GoDaddy's data is a mess, but the whois seems consistent from multiple sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:12am
  
  Re: Check and recheck
  That's because GoDaddy "registers" the domain temporarily... to point them to THEIR DNS servers (domaincontrol) to make publicity while the domain is in renewal/redemption period.
  
  @Anon: hah! fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re: Check and recheck
    Which is why you don't buy a domain at GoDaddy... seems lots of people don't read their fine print!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Domain Name Wire, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:40am

Domain expiration
The domain name IS expired. It expired on Jan 3.

What the author and some others are looking at is the 'registry' expiration date. When a domain name expires the registry automatically extends it for one year. The registrar then gets a chance to renew it if the customer wants it.

You need to view the registrar's data, not the registry (VeriSign)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Domain expiration
  What the author and some others are looking at is the 'registry' expiration date. When a domain name expires the registry automatically extends it for one year. The registrar then gets a chance to renew it if the customer wants it.
  
  You need to view the registrar's data, not the registry (VeriSign)
  
  Thanks for explaining that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:42am

x
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2011 @ 8:48am

WikileaksBook.com and WikileaksMovie.com are mine.

Looking to do something that might help the cause, with these 2 names, but not sure what. (Of course, if the price gets too stupidly high - doubtful - i'll be sorely tempted to 'sell out'"

Ideas?

Wikileaks1776@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seth Finkelstein, 21 Jan 2011 @ 10:51am

wikileaks.US - no renewal
Check the data for wikileaks.US

The .US registry doesn't do that autorenew-on-expiration date (though they do auto-renew 45 days later)

Domain Expiration Date: Mon Jan 03 23:59:59 GMT 2011

So Wikia hasn't done a renew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 24 Jan 2011 @ 8:47am

Doesn't matter
I don't think collecting registries is all that important these days; what with the Customs Department climbing in your windows, snatching your domains up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]