WikiLeaks is not neutral

Perhaps less controversially, the whole non-editorial editorial policy is super-vulnerable to manipulation. The source can stick anything they want into the stream since WikiLeaks' stated editorial policy is "that's not our job." Garbage in, garbage out.

If you've got bullshit that you want to look real, stick it in the middle of real shit and get WikiLeaks to leak it. Proof!

[minor edit for grammar]

Can you point to this happening in any of their recent leaks? The DNC didn't dispute any of the emails, so which did you have in mind?

The parent comment is cherrypicking tweets from WikiLeaks. Take a look at [their actual feed][1]. They have since [discounted several conspiracy theories against Macron][2] and [brought into question the legitimacy of some of the files][3].

[1]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/with_replies

[2]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/860846823229059072

[3]: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/860855087165571073

WikiLeaks also a 100% track record of being correct. Biases accounted for, they are accurate.

They routinely make claims not supported by the evidence they have. They retweeted the pizza child trafficking garbage, made up facts about redirecting responsibility for attacks.

This, exactly. They defend their claims by saying, "we're just asking the questions." There are tons (thousands, I would argue) of innocent victims who are put in the crosshairs because of WikiLeaks' agenda.

> They retweeted the pizza child trafficking garbage,

Please, dear god, tell me you're kidding and no sane person is taking that theory seriously.

>Please, dear god, tell me you're kidding and no sane person is taking that theory seriously.

I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you...

Do you have a source for that? My friend's company was the target of a huge smear campaign orchestrated by WikiLeaks, purely because they shared an address with a different company and had the word "Data" in their name.

The only people I know who would think WikiLeaks is infallible and an asset to society are frequenters of The_Donald and the conspiracy subreddits.

Or supporters of Al-Gore

There is absolutely no way someone can be familiar with the last couple years of Wikileaks and say that. Wikileaks has been flagrantly incorrect. The only way to say something like this is to badly want it to be true.

A good starting search here would be "Wikileaks Turkey".

In years past I would agree with you, then they started pushing pizzagate. Wikileaks is venturing into Alex Jones territory.

WikiLeaks may have a 100% track record of releasing accurate leaks, but they definitely have a poor track record of representing the leaked information accurately, and they know that the media reports on their analysis and not the raw leaks.

See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-t...

We’ve seen WikiLeaks do this before. Last July, right after the attempted coup in Turkey, WikiLeaks promised, with much fanfare, to release emails belonging to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party. What WikiLeaks ultimately released, however, was nothing but mundane mailing lists of tens of thousands of ordinary people who discussed politics online. Back then, too, the ruse worked: Many Western journalists had hyped these non-leaks.

No one and nothing has a track record of being 100% correct except Kim Jong Un if you're North Korean.

But they are neutral! It's like running into an Elemental Ice Golem. It's not good or evil, it's not left or right. It is just made of ice. WikiLeaks is an Elemental Truth & Leaks Golem. It doesn't give a shit whose agenda it helps, it just wants to expose more.

I would rather have a WikiLeaks that release everything that it can receives, rather than one that curates it's leaks for an agenda.

You honestly believe that? There's a pattern in the past year of Wikileaks only exposing one side.

Funny how people seem to care more about who was targeted or how they got the leaks, rather than the content of the leaks themselves.

You'd think evidence of corruption would be relevant and worthy of mass coverage, no matter who committed it or how it was obtained.

I have no doubt that Clinton was corrupt, but I think Trump is outright dangerous and a huge step backwards for the US. I'll take Clinton's status quo corruption, thank you very much.

Besides, your entire point rests upon the incorrect assumption that the other side isn't corrupt.

>your entire point rests upon the incorrect assumption that the other side isn't corrupt.

no it doesn't. Anyone's corruption should be exposed for the betterment of society.

Rather, it is your argument that solely depends on the belief that others ("the other side") MUST be guilty. I understand emotions run high to match the stakes since it was the presidential election after all, but you'll note I didn't make any value judgments either way. Just because we are convinced one party is guilty doesn't mean we should ignore evidence of another's corruption out of fairness.

>>You'd think evidence of corruption would be relevant and worthy of mass coverage, no matter who committed it or how it was obtained.

Our justice system cares a lot about how evidence used in a trial was obtained. If it was obtained illegally, it is often thrown out.

There is a good reason for this. I'm sure you can figure it out if you think about it. Here is a good start for some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Thanks for the condescension, but really we weren't talking about the justice system.

[WikiLeaks has stated repeatedly that they publish everything they receive.][1] Blaming them for failing to release information from the other side assumes that they have that information to release.

[1]: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19/intercepted-podcast-juli...

Everything? "We do have some information about the republican campaign". http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/29345...

Parent said they publish everything they receive. They didn't receive Republican emails.

And, if some bad actor, say the Russians, are giving them all their info, and they are publishing "everything they receive", does that make them neutral? Or a willing pawn?

If they withheld the information that they received in the interest of neutrality, would that be better?

and Fox News says they're "fair and balanced."

Infowars says they are, "just asking the questions."

Breitbart says they are, "the last bastion of free speech."

None of the above 3 statements are true, and neither is Wikileaks statement.

Yes, and usually when I run into an elemental ice golem in a dungeon, it's because the bad guy has put it there as a trap for the good guys and walked away.

There is a sense in which you can call Wikileaks neutral, sure. But that doesn't mean that they actively ensure that they are politically neutral. Quite the opposite! They are uncaring. If one side feeds Wikileaks and not the other, Wikileaks will be 100% neutral in not shifting that balance. If anti-globalist forces consistently hack globalists and not vice versa and give that info to Wikileaks, sure, Wikileaks is going to say "We just want to expose more," but the set of information being exposed is extremely non-neutral!

I would rather not have an elemental ice golem at all, I think. And if I'm going to have an elemental ice golem, I would definitely prefer one that only attacks the bad guys than one that attacks "everyone" who happens to be in the secret entrance to the bad guys' lair.

"assessment update: several Office files have Cyrillic meta data." https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/860855087165571073

WikiLeaks is not journalism.