If you feel that Assange and Wikileaks are limited then set up a better one, don&#x27;t claim that the current one should be run by committee.<p>Wikileaks is quite possibly flawed but whatever flaws it and Assange have should easily be fixed by creating a similar institution that is not somehow tied to a person.<p>Wikileaks &#x27;the brand&#x27; should not be required for that.<p>But until someone somewhere decides to take on the establishment on a similar scale as what Wikileaks has dared to do we&#x27;ll have to continue to rely on that particular flawed individual who spent the better part of the last decade in pretty tight spot. Not many people would be prepared to give up their comfy lives to spend the rest of it in the cross hairs of just about every intelligence service.<p>My personal guess is that all these &#x27;wikileaks should be run by us&#x27; people would fold at a very small percentage of the pressure that Assange has withstood to date and that is <i>the</i> primary reason why he&#x27;s still running Wikileaks. If not for that we&#x27;d have long ago seen an alternative.<p>If any group is set up to be that alternative it is Poitras&#x2F;Greenwald and a couple of other brave souls, but none of them so far seem to think they can do a better job of it than Assange.<p>As for Russia, Assange has set his sights on &#x27;the five eyes&#x27; and the machinations of diplomacy at large. You can agree with that or not, that&#x27;s fine. But if you want an organization that focuses on let&#x27;s say Russia or China then by all means <i>create one</i>, don&#x27;t bitch that Wikileaks is ignoring them or must be in bed with them.