Sure. I don't think anyone, myself or the OP, has suggested reading Wikileaks as a sole source. A good example is understanding the role that Benghazi State

Sure. I don't think anyone, myself or the OP, has suggested reading Wikileaks as a sole source. A good example is understanding the role that Benghazi State Department officials (Ambassador Stevens) played in illegally internationally shipping weapons between war zones: from Qaddafi's weapons caches into Syria under the direction of then State Department Secretary Clinton. If you just read the emails you'll understand that Benghazi was important, that it was dangerous, that there was a secret CIA annex there. But when there's a big-to-do about Clinton emails and Benghazi, including her use of private email servers in violation of FOIA statutes that prevented journalists from investigating the breach of international law - if you just read Wikileaks you'd probably think that there wasn't really that much to the Benghazi thing. I agree with you completely: read a ton of Wikileaked documents. But understand that they are communications between people; and that to understand what they mean you need to understand who those people are, when they were sent, and what objectives and constraints those people were under.