They routinely make claims not supported by the evidence they have. They retweeted the pizza child trafficking garbage, made up facts about redirecting responsibility for attacks.
This, exactly. They defend their claims by saying, "we're just asking the questions." There are tons (thousands, I would argue) of innocent victims who are put in the crosshairs because of WikiLeaks' agenda.
Do you have a source for that? My friend's company was the target of a huge smear campaign orchestrated by WikiLeaks, purely because they shared an address with a different company and had the word "Data" in their name.
The only people I know who would think WikiLeaks is infallible and an asset to society are frequenters of The_Donald and the conspiracy subreddits.
There is absolutely no way someone can be familiar with the last couple years of Wikileaks and say that. Wikileaks has been flagrantly incorrect. The only way to say something like this is to badly want it to be true.
A good starting search here would be "Wikileaks Turkey".
WikiLeaks may have a 100% track record of releasing accurate leaks, but they definitely have a poor track record of representing the leaked information accurately, and they know that the media reports on their analysis and not the raw leaks.
We’ve seen WikiLeaks do this before. Last July, right after the attempted coup in Turkey, WikiLeaks promised, with much fanfare, to release emails belonging to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party. What WikiLeaks ultimately released, however, was nothing but mundane mailing lists of tens of thousands of ordinary people who discussed politics online. Back then, too, the ruse worked: Many Western journalists had hyped these non-leaks.