It's possible to support the work of Wikileaks while still acknowledging:
- The work and results of Wikileaks is not solely the result of Julian Assange.
- Julian Assange might be an egotistical narcissist.
- The work and results of Wikileaks may have contributed to harm as well as good.
"might be"? Anyone "might" be! Do you have substantial reasons for suspecting that Assange is one?
> - The work and results of Wikileaks may have contributed to harm as well as good.
No one denies that Wikileaks has done harm. Not even Assange himself. Wikileaks has harmed the US image quite badly. For example, before Wikileaks, I had no idea the US military is run by the kind of people who would gun down innocents from a helicopter, so casually.
Some people have asserted as much, including people who have known him personally. Others have said that those assertions are false.
Since I don't have evidence either way, it "might" be true. Might. Might! I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying I can't prove it's not true.
I'm also saying, if that upsets you, think about why that might be. Is it because you know Mr. Assange personally and know it to be a false allegation? Or is it because you like Wikileaks and interpret any attack on Assange as an attack on Wikileaks?
"L'etat, c'est moi"? I don't believe that's true. I think we should be wary of cults of personality. Even if we don't think the "personality" is themselves creating it.
And no, it's not because I'm fond of Assange. I welcome information from everywhere.
¹ I hear many people in India say something to that effect these days.
FTFY. You have to be careful with such subjective characterizations of people you've only seen in the media and never actually met in real life, they're almost always inaccurate. Modern media is full of bias and fallacies.