It's curious that the general opinion around Assange and Wikileaks has shifted so wildly from when their first major international leaks were published to now. I remember that when they started publishing the majority of people, especially non-US and on reddit, were totally in favour of what was being done.

If anything, Assange has demonstrated at various junctions that he has very little integrity. Sadly, more often than not this is the case with whisteblowers. Don't minsinterpret me: I firmly believe in addressing wrong-doing in government institutions, but leaking gigantic data files with little regard for the content to the press and general public is unacceptable. In all famous cases so far (wikileaks, manning, snowden etc), the whistleblowers didn't filter their leaks and divulged damaging sensitive information far beyond what reached newspaper headlines. Among others military and intelligence capabilities, designations of important infrastructure etc.

And while opinion on Assange has changed, someone like Snowden is often still protected in the media and on this forum and is kept in high regard. He was right in exposing mass surveillance but his leaks went so far beyond simply that. It has also been denied by most involved that he ever really tried to raise his concerns prior to the leaks.

People ought to understand that those who demonstrate a serious lack of integrity of these kinds should not be celebrated. It provides a positive forum to dodgy individuals. Like in the case of Wikileaks, now years later it's finally become clear that they're not at all saintly watchdogs but simply an organisation with a very specific political agenda.