>impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons? If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complex

>impassioned / balanced list of pros and cons? If I recall correctly, the thesis of wikileaks from their beginning was that leaks increase the cost and complexity to governments keeping their actions secret therefore providing a sort of forcing function to reduce both the number and scope of dishonorable actions carried out in secret. Wikileaks is best understood as a force vector in a system. It's possible to have an opinion on the idea of leaking as a force for good. And that opinion could be conditional or even strong disagreement. The strength and direction of someone's opinion on that will determine how their opinion of Assange is further influenced. Influenced by the ancillary topics like sources of leaks, sources of funding, topics leaked about and editorial control exercised over what is released. People's opinion on wikileaks in general can change after seeing who takes the "W"s and who takes the "L"s, and it's worthwhile to cultivate a feedback loop where your opinion of wikileaks is downstream from your opinion of leaking in general. Frankly, I don't care whether he is a good guy or a bad guy. I'm not having him around for Christmas, he's a force vector in a system. I have an opinion on that force vector. It's worth also remembering that good/bad is different than legal/illegal, and that our standards for government includes the expectation of just due process even for those that are obviously monstrous criminals.