WikiLeaks and The New York Times are perhaps offically no longer BFFs.

WikiLeaks and The New York Times are perhaps offically no longer BFFs.

In the past week, WikiLeaks has released more than 125,000 leaked diplomatic cables. Unlike earlier releases, however, WikiLeaks did not partner with any traditional media this time around.

Moreover, two of its one-time mainstream media partners, The New York Times and Der Spiegel, are reporting WikiLeaks didn't bother to redact the identities of sources who had spoken confidentially to diplomats — and who may be in danger if their names are revealed.  

The NYT also reports that WikiLeaks suggested, in a statement, that the organization's decision was intended to counter the “misperception” that the organization “has been less active in recent months.”

The article, penned by Scott Shane with files from Ravi Somaiya, adds that Der Spiegel also reported the entire cache of that WikiLeak documents obtained last year had been leaked months ago, along with the encryption password.  

But WikiLeaks isn't buying that version of events, or the accusation that it's been printing the names of those who may be at risk — and has tweeted its outrage.

First, 23 hours ago:

"WikiLeaks 'insurance' files have not been decrypted. All press are currently misreporting. There is an issue, but not that issue."

Twenty hours ago:

"Totally false that any WikiLeaks sources have been exposed or will be exposed. NYT drooling, senile, and evil."

Eighteen hours ago:

"Sorry, NYT, It doesn't matter how many sleazy hack jobs like Ravi Somaiya you hire, we've out published your Pentagon tabloid already."

No matter who's right, the latest WikiLeak's installment is sure to reignite the WikiLeaks debate — and provide insight into whether partnership with mainstream news organizations made any significant difference.

As The Atlantic puts it
: "What's most evident in WikiLeaks recent finger-pointing is a noticeable rift between the organization and its former partners. In the past, it was organizations like The Times and Der Spiegel who could prop up WikiLeaks's model on top of their decades of journalistic credibility. Now it appears that the organization appears to want to make an enemy out of them instead."

What do you think? Was WikiLeaks wise to go it alone — and should certain names be blacked out?