answer:I think it becomes irresponsible when it actually endangers human life by (for example) revealing the identities of undercover agents or anonymous sources. As far as I understand, Wikileaks has actually redacted such information in the material they posted. I also think Wikileaks acted responsibly in letting legitimate and professional news organizations (the NYT and two European papers) have access to the material for a month before releasing it. The NYT parsed the material and provided context and filtering as they revealed it to the public. If Wikileaks had simply just dumped it on the internet, it would just be a flood of data with everyone—from objective news professionals to insane ideologues—scrambling to provide the first context and narrative to the story. I’ve read pretty much everything the NYT has covered about it; I obviously haven’t read all (or any, really) of the actual material on Wikileaks. But while the amount of the material is huge, there aren’t really any revelations that significantly change what we already know about the war. I think this “story” is more significant in that we’ve reached a point of technological development where such a leak is possible.