::Thanks for your reply; I certainly hope those supporters might take heart from your statements about WikiLeaks. If I might comment on your post, it's not only "wrongdoing" that is included in WL's leaks, but information on which individuals and organisations base their power and go to great lengths to construct as secret; and it's a rare instance in which information the chasm between what the people know of how political leaders think and what they tell us is bridged. While it must be unnerving to have one's private thoughts suddenly made public, I'm guessing that you have already accepted the benefit to the world of the release of some of the information in the second category (e.g., on US impotence in locating their gift of nuclear materials to Pakistan; and what Arab governments think about various matters).On a slightly different tack, there is consternation about the damage to the WMF and the WPs that appears to be arising from public (and journalistic) confusion about the common "wiki" prefix. You have in the past spoken with Mr Assange. I wonder whether you might consider contacting WikiLeaks to ask for their help, whenever it seems possible, to clear up this confusion? What would be in it for them? You'd tell them that Wikimedians, chapters of the Foundation, WPs, and you, are receiving a flow of "leaks" that should be going to WikiLeaks. It is therefore very much in WL's interests as well to distance the two organisational structures.