Some pull-outs that show thought over partisanship :
'Assange is routinely either so lionised by supporters or demonised by detractors that his real character is lost entirely. 'Far from the laptop-obsessed autist he’s often seen as, he’s a charismatic speaker with an easy ability to dominate a room or a conversation.'
'Assange often trusts strangers more than those he knows well: He dislikes taking advice, he dislikes anyone else having a power base, and he dislikes being challenged – especially by women. He runs his own show his own way, and won’t delegate. He’s happy to play on the conspiratorial urges of others, with little sign as to whether or not he believes them himself.'
'once you have fallen foul of Assange — challenged him too openly, criticised him in public, not toed the line loyally enough — you are done. There is no such thing as honest disagreement, no such thing as a loyal opposition differing on a policy or political stance.'
' Assange would not, in my view, ever knowingly be a willing tool of the Russian state: If Putin came and gave him a set of orders, they’d be ignored. But if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions: He’s set up almost perfectly to post them and push for them to have the biggest impact they can.'
Why would he? That's the whole point of WikiLeaks, to publish information about those who have the power in so called democratic systems.
Someone could even choose to send WikiLeaks only the parts of the data they gathered that support their goals.
Absolute positions such as WikiLeaks against careful decision making on what to leak and when can have unintended effects. Even if entirely well-meaning, they've opened themselves up to being exploited.
And what I'm saying is that publishing everything as long as it's true, is not abuse, it's the actual goal.
By giving up that editorial control, they cede it to whomever provides them with documents. It's entirely possible they'll receive leaks that leave out compromising information about the leaker, or fake documents to impune an opponent.
If the problem with the mainstream media is that they just toe the line given to them by the US government, then wikileaks risks toe'ing a line they aren't aware of.
If WikilLeaks doesn't care about the authenticity of what it publishes, then what is its goal?
Even if the documents are misinformation, publishing them damages the ability of the organization to carry on its conspiratorial activities, eg, make and carry out secret plans. Internal, private communications (eg, emails), a powerful tool, also have a PR liability. Secrecy tax.
It didn't start out as a site for unfounded gossip about politicians. It started out to call out and address censorship. Then the Manning leak turned it into addressing government crimes, and only now is it suddenly about dirt on specific people.