ABSTRACT

WikiLeaks has often been criticized for being an organization seeking transparency without being transparent and accountable itself. The paper aims to shed light on how whistleblowing platforms understand transparency and accountability with regard to their own activities and how and whether they implement online-based practices of accountability and transparency. Drawing on the conceptual model of online media accountability developed by Domingo and Heikkilä, the paper analyzes four whistleblowing platforms: the Hungarian MagyarLeaks, the Dutch PubLeaks, the Italian IrpiLeaks and the German Briefkasten of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit. This study is based on a two-step methodological approach, applying first a document analysis of publicly accessible information on online practices of accountability and transparency; second, we present findings from in-depth interviews with selected editors from each whistleblowing platform. The study critically discusses the evidence of specific challenges with regard to actor and process transparency relating to the platform’s rationale. In addition, responsiveness does not appear to be a core practice, given that interaction with the audience is generally left to the news media partners, where the leaked material is published. The findings show that whistleblowing platforms have developed unevenly in terms of accountability and transparency.

摘要

WikiLeaks经常被批评为寻求透明而不负责透明和负责的组织。本文旨在阐明举报平台如何了解自身活动的透明度和问责制，以及如何以及是否实施基于在线的问责制和透明度实践。本文利用Domingo和Heikkilä开发的在线媒体问责制的概念模型，分析了四个举报平台：匈牙利MagyarLeaks，荷兰PubLeaks，意大利IrpiLeaks和德国报纸Die Zeit的德国Briefkasten。这项研究基于两步方法论方法，首先是对有关问责制和透明度在线实践的公众可访问信息进行文件分析；第二，我们提供了对来自每个举报平台的精选编辑进行的深入采访的结果。该研究批判性地讨论了与平台原理有关的参与者和流程透明性方面特定挑战的证据。此外，考虑到与观众的互动通常留给新闻媒体合作伙伴来进行，泄漏的材料将在那儿发布，因此响应性似乎并不是核心做法。调查结果表明，举报平台在问责制和透明度方面发展不平衡。考虑到与听众的互动通常留给新闻媒体合作伙伴来进行，泄漏的材料将在那儿发布，因此响应性似乎并不是核心做法。调查结果表明，举报平台在问责制和透明度方面发展不平衡。考虑到与听众的互动通常留给新闻媒体合作伙伴来进行，泄漏的材料将在那儿发布，因此响应性似乎并不是核心做法。调查结果表明，举报平台在问责制和透明度方面发展不平衡。