[barnaby]

While I agree that we should be skeptical towards the noise Wikileaks is making, we should always be skeptical towards the noise any government is making. Since Wikileaks is one of the best tools with which to take a skeptical look at the hype generated by a government's PR machine(s) I think it's great that news sources are rebroadcasting the noise being made by Wikileaks.

[pavs]

I think our level of skepticism shouldn't vary from one entity to other. If Wikileaks is intentionally lying about this incidents to drum of noise should it not have any effect in their credibility? My problem is not Wikileaks or Government, my problem is with treating entities and individual as if they are above all scrutiny and skepticism. They have previously lied about their board members (named Chomsky as a member, Chomsky says he doesn't know anything about it. Including few other high-profile board members). Refuses to release documents using cheap means like bit-torrent, but claims they need 600k/year to keep running; when they have lawyers working pro-bono for them or non-profit organization paying for some (if not all) legal costs. They removed the list of non-profit organization that is paying for legal costs after they came back online earlier last month, it might be still there, I couldn't find it.

Does the nature of their leaks makes them immune to criticism and valid skepticism of their intentions and motives?