[authed]

> woodruffw - ...all of which appear to be benign diplomatic cables or press releases. Can you state more explicitly what you're trying to imply?

Not implying anything? Can you explain why you think that? Do you think that about every fact that you are presented?

[woodruffw]

Perhaps it's overly cynical, but "X name has Y hits on Wikileaks" reads to me as an oblique claim of wrongdoing by X. Famously, that particular tactic was used during the last American presidential election, with the "Y hits" including silly things like birthday emails and recipes.

If you just meant "here are some potentially interesting documents that have Desmond Tutu's name in them," then it's not clear what linking to Wikileaks offers that linking to WaPo's, WSJ's, NYT's, or even just Google's search results does not. But normally linking to the results of a search with no other context would be considered a frivolous thing to post, which is again why I assumed that you had some other implied statement in mind.

[lovecg]

It would make for a better discussion if you stated plainly why you think your link is interesting. Wikileaks is a hot button issue in some circles and just giving a link like this without context will raise some eyebrows.

[DFHippie]

You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory

[authed]

Doesn't sound relevant from the title.