Wikileaks has an impeccable record. They’ve never had to retract a story. They’re also doing a duty to the public in uncovering government and corporate secrets, exactly what a journalist should be doing.

Wikileaks never published stories. They've focused on some elements of the data they had in order to spread the message about the entire dataset they had.

What's wrong with that approach is that everyone else got his/her private communications released publicly even if they didn't do anything wrong in particular. They were in a now-public database that exposed dirt on someone else, as a collateral damage. Wikileaks hoped that people would find more dirt from looking at the entire datasets, but what we got instead was conspiracy theories (like Pizzagate).

This is the opposite of the Panama/Paradise Papers approach, that only publishes the incriminating parts of the dataset, while guarding everyone else who happened to be a part of the same database.

I agree with the goal of Wikileaks, but not their approach.

I don't think their record is exactly perfect. They release plenty of information that is damaging to individuals. From Wikipedia:

> WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts.

I can't imagine most of this information is necessary in "uncovering government and corporate secrets" and quite irresponsible of Wikileaks.

Pants are shirts! Assange participated in the Seth Rich conspiracy, intimating that Rich had possibly been one of the DNC sources. There’s an obvious difference between never issuing a retraction and never needing to.

Topologically, assless chaps are shirts ∴ ∎

> They’ve never had to retract a story.

That is actually not a good sign. Anyone with a sufficiently long track record is going to make some mistakes because no one is perfect. If you refuse to issue any retractions or updates, what that really means is that you refuse to admit that you make mistakes.

If by impeccable you mean they have released a ton of forged documents without any attempt to verify their veracity, you would be correct.

Journalists don't simply parrot their sources, they use discretion in determining what is appropriate to release.

Which documents have been refuted? As far as I know, none...

Out of the DNC document dump? At least a quarter were confirmed to be outright forgeries (with fingerprints implicating Russia), and of the remainder almost all had at least some changes from the originals.

There was also the documents related to the DNC aide who was murdered, all of which were demonstrated to be forgeries.

And that's just the US political stuff...

Some people 'believe' that they were forged. a few lacked signatures. A couple were dated after the hackers were apparently 'kicked out' of the servers. But nothing had been proven.

Have you read the special counsel’s GRU indictment?

But they failed to bring one story: the emails of the GOP. What they did with the hacked emails from the Democrats is disgusting. Even if they are still not under the influence of Russia, they let the GOP/Russia use them as a vehicle to influence that election. And now it bites them in the ass, as if nobody could foresee that Trump would go after Assange after all.

Stealing documents is still a crime. That is the crime he's being accused of. (Being an accessory to it, to be precise.)

Publishing a bunch of documents does you get does not make you accessory to theft. Helping steal them does.

Hopefully in the 21st century, we can be a bit more nuanced than just "stealing is bad, mkay". The intent must be factored in, and maybe the result.

Also, not necessarily saying he's a journalist, but there's a reason journalist have special protections in many countries. Exposing corruption or the failings of powerful people is always risky, and I'm glad some people decide to do it.

There's a difference in publishing classified content (which is what journalists do) and actually stealing that content (which is what whistleblowers usually do). AFAIK Assange did not steal anything but only published what he got.

He supposedly gave Manning technical help to steal data, which is not the same as merely publishing it.

Manning was one of the best IT people in the whole military sector where he was based at. Wikileaks giving Manning technical help how to steal data is ludicrous... Manning first approached a hacker friend of his regarding the data that he already had, and that hacker friend of his told him to go to Wikileaks. After Wikileaks published the stuff, the hacker friend (diagnosed as Autist with loads of mental health problems) told the police that Manning stole the data

Adrian Lamo [1]. Not sure why its relevant to mention that he has an autism diagnosis.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo

How to burn a DVD/CD?

or, use the Lady Gaga CD case?

Allegedly how to get access to another user's creds, to avoid having to download further data Uber Manning's account.

Except he did not steal them.