Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers.
Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.
An important consideration is that if Wikileaks publishing criteria is as simple as the GP asserts, it's easy for them to be used by third parties to push an agenda. If, for example, Russia was behind a lot of the information leaked, then Wikileaks is the possibly unwitting mouthpiece of the Russian state, and are in fact laundering the information to present it without context. In both cases you find out about tools the U.S. intelligence apparatus uses for espionage, or about DNC emails, but if you know that comes from a foreign government, that is an important piece of context that's being lost. Normally, that government would be forced to either release it anonymously, or through a fictitious online identify, or as themselves. Having Wikileaks injected into the chain of custody changes the context it's perceived in.
Maybe they do, but it's also within their power to withhold information or publish selectively. It seems a little odd that they only seem to get information that hurts the US and its allies, but never information that would create problems for other superpowers.
Perhaps that's entirely coincidental but then again perhaps it's not. I support Wikileaks' existence but don't take their claims at face value and question whether they are really the disinterested actors they claim to be.