Well here is a question for you to ponder. If you were to vote for something yes, or no, or even propose an alternative, how could you realistically know you are making the correct decision without access to all of the information?

It is very easy to provide only partial information to people and by doing so paint the picture you want them to see, even if that picture you have painted is false.

The truth is more important than the hopped up "authority" of the state (aka governments).

Ultimately sometime in the distant future the ideal world would be one where if you wanted to know something and it was written, video, of photographed somewhere you would have access to it.

The world as it is now that'd be a dangerous step. Yet we can work towards it.

About the only negative I could see from wikileaks is putting people's lives at risk. Some truths are too important not to reveal, yet they do try to take the time to protect such people. That is partially what takes so long.

Other people are criminals and caught out doing things they shouldn't and if their lives are at risk from their own actions, so be it.

I prefer a different word than either villain, or vigilante. In this case I kind of see them as heroes.