Edit: Why the downvotes? I didn't indicate my position, I pointed out that some people don't trust WikiLeaks any more, which is obvious - go and look at the responses they get on twitter.
If not Wikileaks, whom do we trust for this sort of info?
I believe what people don't trust is their motivation. I've seen people argue that motivation doesn't matter; facts are facts. That's incorrect, as anyone who has listened to a skilled dissembler state facts leading to a conclusion at odds with reality knows.
There are other problems, including suspicion that it may be true that WL may be leaking exactly what they're given (modulo redaction and strategic withholding), what they're given may be tailored to the goals of those leaking. Assange's statements don't help dissipate that suspicion.
So in looking at their releases, you have to fact in not only their (Assange's) motivation, but that of the unknown people leaking documents.
Ain't intelligence analysis grand?
I've personally become convinced that the best way to release "leaks" of this nature is via the Panama Papers approach -- anonymously.
I'm not sure if he's buttering up the administration to get out of Ecuador, but regardless, I trusted Wikileaks when they were [input] -> check for mostly pertinent info/responsible leaking -> [output].
The concept of wikileaks is crucial to a democracy, I'm just not sure that Assange's current Wikileaks is that thing anymore.
[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/838287615929499648
[2] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/837686443329859585
[3] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/837269295797309441
If not Wikileaks, whom do we trust for this sort of info?
Nobody. Open-source espionage means institutional reliability is a chimera. The more credibility you invest something with, the better of an attack vector it becomes.