Then why use it? You're saying it's more likely they hadn't heard of it, but used it anyway? You've never heard of it, have you ever surrounded a reference to people you don't like and are accusing of nefarious deeds with triple parentheses? What about the additional part about a shadowy cabal that you ignored?
>Offering a reward is not the same as "[posting] wild conspiracy theories," which is what you claimed they did.
If I offer a reward for proof that aliens abducted Elvis, you don't consider that lending credence to a conspiracy theory?
>I would call this "wanting to fact check a conspiracy theory," which I view as a good thing generally, and especially good in the case of wikileaks.
Why is Wikileaks in the business of "fact checking a conspiracy theory"? I thought they were about, you know, leaks.
>They could, but this would require them to assume no one would figure out the actual cause
No it doesn't. It just requires that if someone else figures out the actual cause they deny it. Zero cost.