On its website, Buzzfeed states the document containing the claims against United States President-elect Donald Trump include specific, but "unverified and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact" between Mr Trump's aides and what it calls Russian operatives, as well as "graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians."
It says its reporters in the US and Europe had been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier, but have not verified or falsified them.
Buzzfeed adds that the news organisation CNN reported that a two-page synopsis of the information has been given to President Barack Obama and to Mr Trump.
And it says its news section is publishing the full document so that "Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government."
The BBC, meanwhile, is reporting that US intelligence authorities are treating the allegations as credible, and they could involve more than one source.
Dr Matthew Beard is from the The Ethics Centre, a non-for-profit organisation promoting discussion of ethics-related issues.
He questions whether the public can draw solid conclusions based only on what was released by Buzzfeed.
"It's divorced from all context and it's without us being able to understand who these sources are. Could a reasonable person acting in good faith actually make up their minds or is it going to skew their thinking in some way?"
Julian Disney, a law professor from the University of New South Wales, argues that publishing part of the material is justified.
He says Buzzfeed was clear in stating the information dealt with allegations only.
"I think some of the criticism is misguided. These were clearly published as allegations. That doesn't mean you're home free and you can publish whatever you like, but it doesn't mean you have to fully verify them, especially when in the very nature of many of these allegations, they were not going to be verifiable."
But journalist Peter Greste disagrees, saying the news media must filter out anything known not to be true, or that can't be verified.
He suggests such actions could have an impact on people's trust in journalists.
And that, he believes, was critical in helping him and two other Al Jazeera colleagues secure release after they were imprisoned in Egypt in 2014 for their reporting.
"It was that fundamental confidence in our integrity that meant we were able to get so much public and political support. If we keep chipping away at the integrity of the industry in general, then it will be hard for us to call on the public when we need them."
