They don't, though. Their reporting and editorializing of leaks has been inaccurate quite a few times.

That said, there is no evidence indicating the content of their leaks isn't genuine, so it is probably best to look at the leaked content itself rather than the analysis WL writes alongside the leaks.

It’s easy to create a false impression with selective releases of information.

I’ll note that Wikileaks has published absolutely nothing from the fsb.

Russia doesn't pretend to be a bastion of freedom and liberty though, so what would be the point?

Maybe FSB has less technologies to leak or less people willing to do so.

Or as Assange himself has said, they have no Russian speaking staff.

Maybe it has to do with the death threats from the FSB, then the TV deal Assange signed with Putin?

These weren’t ‘leaked’ by some whistleblower, come on.

There seems to be evidence that the Clinton emails released by Wikileaks were edited before release. This would conflict with their stated goals and I think is what's hurting their credibility the most right now.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that (outside of the Clinton camp and Podesta) and given Wikileaks track record, it's highly unlikely.

I think some wires are being crossed here, as there has been recent evidence of modifications to earlier leaks from Guccifer 2.0 of DNC documents. These were not published by WL but they are often grouped with WL due to Guccifer 2.0 claiming to be a WL source