So what you are saying is that unless it’s a “major” leak then it shouldn’t be leaked because that will cause the government to close up rather than become more transparent? So how do you define a “major” leak before it has been made public? How can you know how the public will react? If the expenses scandal had happened during good economic times, it might not have gathered more than a shrug from the public who expect politicians to be corrupt. Should they not have leaked that information in fear that it might not be a “major” leak?
Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. In order for the public to be moved to act, they need to know what they should be upset about. If no leaks happen, we can’t judge whether we should be upset about them or not. You can’t move people to protest about transparency when there is no evidence that lack of transparency is causing a problem. You have to leak the information that is hidden from them so that they can judge whether it is something worth protesting about.
I think the only thing wrong with the method used by Assange and wikileaks is that it has caused polarisation of people’s views based not on what they did, but how they did it. So people end up arguing nonsense like “leaks are bad for promoting transparency” just because they hate Assange or wikileaks. But I think Assange had to act in the way that he did in order to raise the profile of the issue. He’s basically screwed now, though, because I don’t think he can ever be taken seriously. But it hopefully should create an opportunity for another an organisation to move into the space created, one that isn’t tainted by controversy.