It's generally people with an agenda to downplay something they've published, often by insinuating without evidence that the documents have been faked.
Wikileaks has problems, but they have a surprisingly good record for a small, amateur operation.
They used to have a very good position as an independent source of data but they have started editorialising with their releases and they certainly seem to take some political positions regarding their releases, which calls into question their impartiality. I am still a fan but not as much as I used to be.
You could say that but when it's impartiality to Russia or North Korea (not so much by Wikileaks, the MSM already covered that market) nobody gives a bleep, but when it's towards the USA it's suddenly questionable? Most of the world (including Wikileaks) is not the USA, and for them it's three external parties to look at from outside (and yes, hold a mirror to their own, if they're honest).
Yes RU/NK are doing worse things. But the USA just elected Trump. And unlike RU or NK, who sort of keep it to themselves, the USA's election spectacle has been broadcast on worldwide media, there was no escaping seeing the USA dig its way further down through rock-bottom every week, for over half a year. Everybody has been made to look and the USA's gov doesn't really look good or even sane at all right now, from any outside point of view.
Just a question, are they going to let Trump rule for these whole four years? Or will someone say "ok enough's enough, this guy is crazy as fuck, let's get rid of him"? Surely, before it's too late? How does this process work? AFAIR Clinton got impeached for way less than what Trump has already done on public record (not literally the same, but it's not far either, and frankly the other offenses--ignorance and stupidity in the light of global politics, not just a little, also not political-discourse "fake ignorance", he honestly doesn't seem to be aware of basic 20th century history facts--way worse from a political POV)
Sorry that's a bit off topic cause what you refer to is not really about Trump--much (it was about the elections a little, though). The point is, one of the largest powers in the world just put a crazy person in charge. Trump's probably not really dumb, no he's very savvy, but the people should expect more from their political leaders. It's not supposed to be an easy job.
I get the feeling that complaints about Wikileaks' editorialising also just contains a lot of saying what it is, and people don't like to hear that when it's about them. Because they love America. Thing is, it's not really about them, so don't worry. It's not like the people got a lot of democratic choice in the matter. Could they have done more? Maybe but the system's big and complex and controlled by other parties than the people. Even before, when it was between Hillary or Trump, you gotta wonder, out of all the population, were these the two best candidates in the country?
I guess I expect editorialising from MSM and it was refreshing to have a source of info that was neutral and justs published the information, inevitably the MSM reported on it and add their bias but that was easier to identify when you had access to the original information.
Wikileaks has problems, but they have a surprisingly good record for a small, amateur operation.