All that matters is whether the facts published are accurate. Maligning the source (particularly on speculation) is a pre-emptive ad hominem non-sequitor.
So, if WikiLeaks starting dumping private emails for random people, that would be acceptable because none of the information is actually false?
Given what turkish-speaking people say about the so called erdogan leaks, wikileaks already has started indiscriminately advertising leaks of peoples private data, putting them at risk. see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdog...
The "blind faith" (I'm not suggesting it exists [nor that it doesn't], as the author does) is a result of previously publishing many things that appear to be true with no examples (at least that anyone here has revealed) of published falsehoods.
>The danger here is that were the government to effectively coop wikileaks itself, which you think is anti-government, it would become a brutal and effective trojan horse.
The malignment is that "the government" would somehow use wikileaks to some negative ends [sneak into our minds?!].
>The entirety of his comment
You'll note that the original article doesn't even contain the word "trojan", and only mentions Wikileaks twice -- never in the context of it being co-opt'd by a government.