EDIT: IN THIS POST I INCORRECTLY REFERRED TO WIKI LEAKS WHEN ACTUALLY I MEANT TO REFER TO WIKIPEDIA. A CORRECTED VERSION OF THIS POST CAN BE FOUND A COUPLE OF POSTS DOWN.She has been cut considerable slack by the media about past controversies. There are so many that there is a Wikipedia category about them (not page but category with 14 different controversies linking to it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... troversies
I have not read any of the wiki stuff referenced here and I am not commenting on its content.....I am just wanting to point out that the existence of a bunch of wiki article is not an indication that their subject(s) are important, noteworthy, complete, or credible. It only takes one deluded person to create a wiki leak subject or even a bunch of wiki leak subjects.
Bottom line, don't take the existence of a wiki leak subject or even group of subjects to be a sign of importance, noteworthiness, completeness, or credibility. Someday you might find a wiki article about how wonderful chownah is.....it could happen....easily....