While it could be argued that WikiLeaks has acted as a useful fool, or that it has withheld publishing information for questionable reasons, it could not be said that they have published much false information.

The veracity of the information they do publish is certainly more reliable than what you'll get from Fox.

> that it has withheld publishing information for questionable reasons

This is echoed quite a bit lately, I have not seen any evidence to support it. Is there any documented case where WikiLeaks withheld information? Is the criticism about the fact that they have a release schedule rather than always immediately publishing? They're a journalism group at the end of the day, don't they have a right to publish stories in a way that maximizes impact?

A quick Google search for 'wikileaks withheld' yields a few links [0][1][2].

[0] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/wikileaks-may-have-withhe...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42019835

[2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-wikileaks-withheld...

Those are all the same story, just repeated. The entirety of the claim comes from Daily Dot, who claims to have an anonymous source that sent them sealed court documents, and then goes further to insinuate that because Wikileaks did not publish that exact document, that it's evidence that they selectively withheld information, presumably because they must have received that document.

None of that makes any sense to me, and it lacks credibility.

1. Daily dot has not published any evidence of actually having this document. It could be entirely made up.

2. Even if such a document exists, there's no guarantee that Wikileaks' source was the same source that somehow ended up in the hands of US courts.

3. Why the hell would wikileaks publish so many other juicy files in the Syria Files, but selectively withhold this one minor document about a money transfer between two allies at a time of war? Yes, it's a large sum that's claimed to have been transferred, but in the midst of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? A few billion is peanuts.

I don't buy it.

edit: The BBC story is about Jared Kushner and is not really about Wikileaks.

edit2: 4. Considering that Daily Dot names the group that is behind the attack, why haven't the hackers who allegedly sent the documents to Wikileaks said anything about this situation? They have the power to tarnish their reputation or confirm that it wasn't sent.

Which is a good example of the problem. So the Washington Examiner is publishing false stories about Wikileaks (as has CNN, the Guardian, etc). Which one gets the ticks and the crosses? The one the US government doesn't like gets marked as fake news despite being real news, and the ones lying about them get marked as good.

I don't know who at Microsoft thought this was a good idea but they're clearly insane. I had nothing in particular against Edge and even use it sometimes, but after this there's no way I'm going to use it. The last thing I need is some delusional crazies who probably believe Assange works for Putin telling me what is and isn't real.

Well, they also withhold information in their insurance files. Maybe for a good reason. This story is crap though.

Can you link a fake news example from WL?

The problem is that "fake news" is undefined. It could be

     pure lies
     partial truth / known lies
     partial truth / unprovable assertions
     conjecture passed as news
     limited snippets biasing intended viewpoint
     commentary (Fox "news")
     Disagree with assertions
     Propaganda by state actor

And those are what I could think of in a few minutes. Worse yet, who's to be the arbiter of "truth"? What credentials do they have? And why would we believe them to be transparent with truthiness ratings? They will have bias - will we be able to discern? Doubtful.

The underlying thing, is that when things are bought to light, the truth surfaces. Yet now, the attack is on the very definition of "truth", playing the ultimate word definition game.

Of those, only the first two qualify as "fake news", i.e. false news. To claim that "real news" do not contain the rest is ludicrous.

You made my point, that the definition of "fake news" is undefined. Pretty much anything can be pointed at and yelled "Fake News". And that's what we're seeing.

Fake news is news that is fake -- aka entirely fabricated with no basis in reality. "13 Obama supporters arrested for terrorist plot"-- boom, just made that up. That's fake news. Anything with a basis in reality is not.

It's always hard to agree on a definition of fake news, but their tweets are well documented to be extremely biased these days - even the tweet linked above uses loaded language like 'neocon'.