There's no particular reason to believe any of the documents published by Wikileaks.
They guarantee protection of their sources so we'll never know who the document came from. If they have a vetting process or journalistic standards, they refuse to divulge it.
For all we know, these documents could be typed up as a joke by stoned seventeen-year-olds in-between games of Team Fortress, and yet many people accept their veracity without question.
When Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks found himself accused of raping a sleeping person (he must suck as a rapist) people all over the world assumed it was "the man" retaliation for all the stuff published on Wikileaks.
There are some important differences between Assange and the people damaged by Wikileaks though.
Unlike the people on his website, Assange has the right to face his accuser. He has the right to cross-examine her evidence and testimony to verify or refute it. He also has the right to appear before a judge and a jury of his peers, who will probably (based on what I've read of the charges) exonerate him.
It's often very hard to find the truth of any given situation. That's why we have things like courts, trials and journalistic standards. I have a hell of a lot more confidence in the ability of the Swedish judicial system in determining the legitimacy of these charges against Assange than I have in the ability of Wikileaks to verify the legitimacy of any of the documents on their site.
December 2017 Sponsors - The Arcade Gacha Events proudly introduces our December 2017 event sponsors, whose contributions help make the event possible: Click through each link to l...