so was the information provided by wikileaks true, or false?

The documents were true, the story built around them ("Hillary emails"/"Pizzagate"/"Seth Rich") was false and designed to undermine the Clinton candidacy.

I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed anything else.

Unclear, some leaks were tainted

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/26/russi...

It is interesting that in Russia people who criticise Putin and expose corruption are often called American agents who are paid by US Department of State (Department of State is an incarnation of evil for propaganda) to weaken our country.

That is the stock lie for everybody - and it is a lie even when it is the truth ironically enough - a logical fallacy to be more precise.

The KGB was trying to sponsor the Civil Rights movement to weaken the US. What I mean by it being a lie even when it is true is that the statement implies that the movement is fabricated or unworthy by their support. It is a distraction.

In reality the merit of groups exist completely independent of who sponsors it and even giving money is no guarantee of control. Even if the KGB gave millions to Martin Luther King that wouldn't make fighting segregation the wrong thing to do suddenly any more than accepting Soviet funding of a smallpox vaccination means that eradicating smallpox is suddenly wrong.

It is especially bad since it is used to discredit /the movement/ itself as opposed to any actor being questionable. Martin Luther King cheating on his wife didn't make the civil rights movement wrong.