First, it is interesting that Wikipedia lists 2010 as the formation date of Project Veritas, but then goes back two years ("Planned Parenthood recordings (2008)") to start the list of "Content" produced by that organization -- would you consider that misleading?

To avoid a claim of cherry picking examples, I'll look at each "Content" claim listed in Wikipedia from 2010 onward since we're discussing Project Veritas...

* Senator Mary Landrieu (2010). Claim: "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony." Outcome: Those involved plead to a misdemeanor. Addressed by PV: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misde...

* Abbie Boudreau (2010). Claim: "planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau." Outcome: PV settled with a former employee, according to Politico.

* New Jersey Teachers' Union video (2010). Claim: "a calculated attack on [the New Jersey Education Association] and its members." Outcome: No legal action taken by NJEA to assert misleading or falsely edited video.

* Medicaid videos (2011). Claim: "released videos of his colleagues' staged encounters purportedly showing Medicaid fraud in offices in six states." Outcome: No legal action taken by any state against PV for misleading or falsely edited video.

* NPR video (2011). Claim: "Schiller's remarks were presented out of sequence and that he said that he would speak personally, and not for NPR." Outcome: No legal action taken by NPR. Addressed by Veritas: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided...

* New Hampshire primary video (2012). Claim: "associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire primary by using the names of recently deceased voters." Outcome: The New Hampshire Attorney General's office later dropped its investigation of O'Keefe for potential voter fraud in 2013. (Again, no claims of improperly edited or misleading videos in this event.)

* Patrick Moran (2012). Claim: "video was released showing Patrick Moran, son of then-U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and a field director with his father's campaign, discussing a plan to cast fraudulent ballots" Outcome: Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney, had concluded and that no charges would be brought [against Patrick Moran or Project Veritas].

* Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014). Claim: "attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud" Outcome: Push back from staffers that the claimed actions were illegal.

* Attempted sting of Open Society Foundations (2016). Claim: "attempted to call Open Society Foundations under the assumed name of "Victor Kesh", describing himself as attached to "a, uh, foundation"[sic] seeking to "get involved with you and aid what you do in fighting for, um, European values."[sic]" Outcome: Poor opsec by Project Veritas resulted in the undercover nature of the call.

* U.S. presidential elections (2016). Claim: " alleging a connection between the videos and the Trump campaign" [note: the "videos" are not identified in the Wikipedia article] Outcome: no clear claim of fraud in this section.

* Americans United for Change videos (2016). Claim: "that apparently showed former national field director Scott Foval of Americans United for Change discussing planting agitators" Outcome: On June 1, 2017, Creamer's firm, Democracy Partners, filed a $1 million lawsuit against Project Veritas, claiming Project Veritas had lied to gain access to the firm and violating anti-wiretapping laws. PV won this lawsuit in a Directed Verdict ("JUDGMENT: The Plaintiff shall recover nothing from the Defendants in the form of damages. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCE in its entirety, and the Defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/7/2019. (maf) (Entered: 06/07/2019)" [1])

* New York City elections official video (2016). Claim: "video taken at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party on December 16, 2015" Outcome: No legal action pursued by targets of video.

* CNN undercover videos (2017). Claim: "Jones said that O'Keefe had deceptively edited the video to take his remarks out of context" Outcome: lots of public protestations by targets of videos, but no legal action taken by CNN or individuals to force a retraction or demonstrate claims of deceptions were true.

* Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017). Claim: "released a video which he claimed exposed the newspaper's liberal bias." Outcome: Videos were seen as being the opposite of what PV claimed, and earning PV criticism from more conservative outlets. (Perhaps you could consider this to be "misleading" but if both conservatives and liberals criticized the product, it is not so successful at doing so.)

* New Jersey Teachers Unions Officials (2018). Claim: "video allegedly showing a New Jersey teachers union administrator discussing a teacher alleged to have struck a student" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading videos.

* Internal Google documents (2019). Claim: "released internal Google documents to Project Veritas regarding the 2016 presidential election" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading claims about the documents.

* Minnesota videos (2020). Claim: "alleged that Project Veritas had edited and combined the videos to take them out of context." Outcome: The Minneapolis Police is "looking into the validity" of the allegations. There has been no legal action taken by anyone targeted by PV to force a retraction or defend against the allegations.

* Pennsylvania postal worker video (2020). Claim: "a Pennsylvania postal worker in Erie claimed [mail fraud had occurred]". Outcome: the worker has not recanted his claim, despite reporting to the contrary. No legal action by the Post Office has been taken against PV.

I've reviewed the 18 cases listed in the source you provided. Despite protestations of the targets claiming "misleading", "out of context", or otherwise fraudulent editing of material by PV, only one listed attempted to sue PV to force a retraction and their claim was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. So the "evidence" presented does not support a fact of "misleading" editing by PV, but only an assertion by those targeted by PV, which is why you generally want a third-party (I'll take the courts in a he-said-they-said case) rather than relying on someone (like a target of PV) to tell you whether to trust them.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project...