None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.

Zeynep Tufekci had a pretty ruthless takedown of their indiscriminate data dump during the Turkish coup. They put thousands of ordinary citizens in danger for no reason whatsoever. The material wasn't even vetted by someone who spoke the language.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...

That data dump of personal details wasn't even released by Wikileaks:

https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...

I'm not sure why you (and others) are trying to hold them responsible for it.

Quoting Zeynep in that piece:

“I actually never had a conclusion on who the uploader was, since it wasn’t central to my complaint about actions of Wikileaks: that they had misrepresented what the emails were, and that they had repeatedly publicized these doxing databases as “full data for our Turkey AKP emails + more”. I’m glad to see one party step up and take responsibility, but this doesn’t absolve Wikileaks of their role in all parts of this “leak” which never should have happened since it exposed no wrongdoing by a government or a powerful actor, merely the emails of ordinary people, and sensitive personal information of 20-30 million ordinary people. I tried to explain this directly to Wikileaks, but they blocked me after I started showing them tweets from Turkey’s leading anti-censorship activists who were disgusted and horrified by these actions, especially since they will now become a strong talking point for pro-censorship forces in Turkey.”

I find the fact that they blocked her especially obnoxious.

Didn't she say that after she was confronted about being wrong in the first place?

From your prior link: https://glomardisclosure.com/2016/07/26/the-who-and-how-of-t...

If they were in danger, perhaps we should blame those who were pointing guns.

What invasion of privacy can't you excuse this way? Any harm caused by a violation of privacy will always have some more proximate cause.

> What invasion of privacy can't you excuse this way?

The ones made by the same people pointing the guns.

I'm completely at loss what to think about recent events, but godd2's argument isn't trivial.

You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end.

Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern.

At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.

No, I'm not missing the selective withholding.

And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.

There's reason to believe, based on reports from people who leaked emails to wikileaks, that they selectively withhold information that shine light on russia: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-syria-russia...

In fact, if you really want to read into it:

> US govt funded #PanamaPapers attack story on Putin via USAID. Some good journalists but no model for integrity.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717670056650530816 almost sounds like WL had knowledge but decided not to act because it was critical of Putin.

You can absolutely create a narrative by removing quotes out of context. In the same way, you can create a narrative by withholding information.

> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717670056650530816 almost sounds like WL had knowledge but decided not to act because it was critical of Putin.

The problem with OCCRP is that they don't have knowledge critical of Putin - they have knowledge about people like, say, one of his ex-colleague's kids but make the headline and lede of every Russia-related article they post about Putin and not the actual people involved. They don't seem to take this approach with any of the other countries they report on. Wikileaks are far from being the only ones to remark on this.

Indeed, personalities don't matter. To make an analogy, there are scientists whose personalities, and even political views, turn me off. But what matters is whether they do credible science.

If it's just somebody's hobby to release information, than that's as far as it goes. But in order for the information to be actionable, it requires interpretation, and then the process of choosing what information to release becomes important.

Imagine how a hypothetical scientist's results would be interpreted if it were known that they were only publishing the information that favored their own agenda -- personal, political, commercial, etc. Yet none of the data points that they publish can be discredited.