Government transparency is a distinct issue. What I was speaking to is the low barrier to opening a blog under a pseudonym, posting something and sharing it without any long-term disincentive to be accurate or truthful. Wikileaks is not the end-all, it is a stepping stone. Extremely damaging or valuable secrets or only known to a very limited group, so anonymous information isn't really anonymous in that sense. Wikileaks is just another gatekeeper, it isn't a distribution network. Assange and his brand have an audience, but that's all it is when you break it down critically.

Herbert Spencer: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS9.html

"Yet that societies are not artificially put together, is a truth so manifest, that it seems wonderful men should ever have overlooked it. Perhaps nothing more clearly shows the small value of historical studies, as they have been commonly pursued. You need but to look at the changes going on around, or observe social organization in its leading traits, to see that these are neither supernatural, nor are determined by the wills of individual men, as by implication the older historians teach; but are consequent on general natural causes."

Democracy is an effect, not a cause. Don't conflate the two or project values on to me to which I have not espoused.