You talked about incentives to do shady things, but only provided examples of theoretical abuse (there is no indication any of which ever happened). Of course t

You talked about incentives to do shady things, but only provided examples of theoretical abuse (there is no indication any of which ever happened). Of course there is a danger of abuse, but I fail to see how shadiness is being incentivized by the structure of wikileaks and the work they do. All your examples apply to traditional journalists as well, by the way. Wikileaks has their own code of conduct and ethics. I fail to see how their self-imposed code is any less valid than the self-imposed code of traditional journalists. wikileaks claims it evaluates and scrutinizes their sources. So far it seems they actually did that, and did not fall for any hoax. Traditional journalists also claim they evaluate their sources, and most of them did not fall for any hoax. Both don't do so transparently, in fact journalists went to jail for not being transparent and disclosing their sources, so I fail to see how traditional journalists are any better or worse than wikileaks. The lack of transparency when it comes to sources is a feature and not a failure, protecting said sources, for both wikileaks and traditional journalism. It's a bold claim to state that traditional journalists are more open and trustworthy simply because they have been around longer (the organizations, not the individuals of course). Regular news organizations reported the Iraq had WMDs because the government sources said so, without any actual evidence. Or published fake Hitler Diaries. Meaning it's not all that rosy and checked and ethical as you make it out to be. I don't see the "contrast" you claim exists. If anything, wikileaks has a better track record than a lot of traditional media organizations when it comes to publishing verified information, so far. PS: The likes of Murdoch and Bezos prove outside influence in journalism is a real thing to worry about.