[OsrsNeedsf2P]

Iirc WikiLeaks took the position of any information that would directly lead to the bodily harm of an individual (or something to that effect). The rational being, "Yes, group A did something horrible that warrants investigation, but if we publish their GPS coordinates they will be blown to smitherines"

[vlovich123]

Unless those people impacted were friendly to US interests? if I recall correctly they published the names of collaborators and informants in Iraq. They also published military tactics that would help those trying to kill US soldiers. GPS coordinates by comparison generally go stale very quickly.

[PoignardAzur]

No, that was the 2010 "diplomatic cables" release. Basically, they disseminated an encrypted version of the data cache, and gave the decryption key to a few key people, including Guardian journalist David Leigh, with the expectation he'd report on the info without sharing sensitive intel.

David Leigh then published the decryption key in his 2011 book about Wikileaks (for some reason) and the info became publicly available. Everyone pinned the blame on Assange.

Moral of the story: journalists can and will disclose ridiculously sensitive info you give them for a bit of fame and you should be extremely careful about covering your tracks.

[vlovich123]

So no, they don’t redact things even when it can put people in harm’s way.

[dragonwriter]

There was, to say the least, not a specific law mandating release of the material held by WikiLeaks and specify what was to be, and what was not to be, redacted, so I don't see that as much of a guide here.