Wikipedia certainly makes it sound like he is. Maybe you should update the article with your superior information?
On 23 May, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges relating to the Espionage Act of 1917 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[41] The Espionage Act charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.[42] The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional. The new charges relate to obtaining and publishing the secret documents. Most of these charges relate to obtaining the secret documents. The three charges related to publication concern documents which revealed the names of sources in dangerous places putting them "at a grave and imminent risk" of harm or detention. The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as Wikileaks also without government authorisation. It also said it is not clear how Wikileaks's publications are legally different from other publications of classified information.
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2019)
Any editor is able to edit any article on Wikipedia.
For all it matters, it might have been you who tagged the article as non-neutral.
Additionally, non-neutral does not mean "full of shit". It just means someone feels that the facts listed in the article, albeit undisputed, might have been presented with a tone that they personally feel is not the right one (i.e., doesn't match their personal opinion or how they personally feel about the ordeal).
Comments
Wikipedia certainly makes it sound like he is. Maybe you should update the article with your superior information?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
Why cite a page that admits its full of shit?
Any editor is able to edit any article on Wikipedia.
For all it matters, it might have been you who tagged the article as non-neutral.
Additionally, non-neutral does not mean "full of shit". It just means someone feels that the facts listed in the article, albeit undisputed, might have been presented with a tone that they personally feel is not the right one (i.e., doesn't match their personal opinion or how they personally feel about the ordeal).
I was only citing it so that you would be aware of where people are getting their misinformation so you could fix it with your superior information.