I don't really feel like you engaged with what I wrote above. I didn't say I supported his extradition or that nothing should be done about it. I do object to the characterisation of the Sweden allegations as "irrelevant". Anyone who's ever organised politically knows this sort of toxic shit goes hand in hand with personality cult dynamics that are hugely detrimental to long term success.
If you don't care about WikiLeaks' self-appointed spokesperson becoming the subject of a globe-spanning smear campaign because of his own private misconduct, you don't care about the success of WikiLeaks as an organisation either.
… firstly, since WikiLeaks first emerged to prominence, most of the decisions Assange has made as an organiser have been destructive to his organisation's ostensible mission.
Re-quoting myself here because I think this is an important point. WikiLeaks having a rock star leader was detrimental. Based on my understanding, the other key people within WikiLeaks agreed with me on that. Assange insisted on taking the limelight because, by all accounts and by my own observation of his writings about ideology, politics and sex, he's an eccentric and a narcissist.
Aside from the issue of the labour and expertise associated with redacting documents, which might need to be solved some other way (for example through volunteer labour) we shouldn't really need a high profile WikiLeaks with a figurehead to leak data anonymously online. Its method is about decentralisation, anonymity, and redundancy.
The other question that doesn't get asked enough is this: how effective are leaks at producing an impact?
