Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will adv

Nice talking points, to bad they are verifiable nonsense: > One piece of evidence for that is that they have moved to focusing on publishing only what will advance the goals of Russian inteigence. https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org//spyfiles/russia/ You think Russian intel is happy about this? > Another is that when journalists receive a leak they work to authenticate it, ensure it's in the public interest, redact unnecessary personal information, work with whoever is being leaked from (eg the US government) to provide advance notice to minimize harms to ongoing operations, and then release commentery on the leak. WikiLeaks doesn't. Wikileaks goes through rigorous protocols to guarantee the authenticity of its material, as far as I know there has been zero claims against the correctness of the materials published. Show me one other journalistic organisation with such a track record. Wikipedia has also made several attempts to coordinate with stakeholders towards responsible disclosure, including with the US government. They were simply stonewalled and would not take "don't publish any of it" as an answer.