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.