There is some confusion over who runs the Wikileaks.org domain, the organisation's main address that was taken offline on 3 December.

Even some of its providers admit they do not know who owns the addresses, including its new home wikileaks.ch.

The .org name was registered by a third-party organisation, which specialises in masking the identity of the owner.

The organisation owns many more addresses, whilst volunteers have also set up their own wikileaks site.

However, some names, including wikileaks.net, wikileaks.com and wikileaks.us, are owned by Wikia - a company founded by Jimmy Wales but separate from Wikipedia.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, told BBC News, this was because of a technicality.

"When Wikileaks first started they issued a press release describing themselves as 'the Wikipedia of secrets'," he said.

To protect the name, Wikia registered a series of Wikileaks addresses, which were sold to Wikileaks a few years later.

However, Wikileaks has never completed the transfer, said Mr Wales.

"We've been bugging them to do it since they hit the news," he said.

"We try to tell people we have nothing to do with Wikileaks everyday.

Tell us, Jimbo... if Wikipedia and Wikia are "completely separate" organizations, why would Wikia step in and start reserving domain names when the Wikipedia name was being infringed by another party's tagline?

Jimmy Wales lied to BBC reporter Jane Wakefield, regarding the Wikileaks domain names that his company holds.

Wales should have been asked if it is true that Wikipedia and his for-profit Wikia are "completely separate" organizations, why would Wikia step in and start reserving domain names when the Wikipedia name was being infringed by another party's tagline?

And, why were the domains "sold" to Wikileaks, rather than given over at cost? How much did Wales' for-profit company reap by charging the non-profit Wikileaks organization for names that were more appropriately their trademark to begin with?

The media, beginning with the BBC, need to stop swallowing hook, line, and sinker, all of the PR spin and lies that Wikimedia people like Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner, and David Gerard keep feeding you, and you keep printing without any filter whatsoever. You're being scammed. Please don't ask the reading public to join you in being scammed.

And, why were the domains "sold" to Wikileaks, rather than given over at cost? How much did your for-profit company make by charging the non-profit organization for names that were more appropriately their trademark to begin with? Is it the practice of your for-profit company to "commercialize the hell" out of non-profit projects?

Sometimes you need to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt, Greg, or you'll come off looking like a crank.

The use of the word sold merely means that they were not given away as gifts, it does not imply profit. Sometimes you need to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt, Greg, or you'll come off looking like a crank.

An interview with Wales (see from 7:25 for the full context)

I found that when I Googled "wikipedia of secrets". But all the results before the Wales reference are referring to Intellipedia, not Wikileaks.

Seems more likely to me that someone at Wikia registered the names for squatting purposes. But either way, there's no evidence of anything particularly nefarious.

---

On another note, anyone come up with any more information about the connection between Assange and Gerard?