[John] Young suggested that WikiLeaks was effectively a commercial organisation competing in an open market, alongside others who sell sensitive information, such as former spies and the media. He claimed it glamorised the significance of the information it had to generate cash from donations. "The transparency market has been monetised," he said. "And it has caught on." WikiLeaks's financial ambitions have been strong. On an internal mailing list in January 2007 for the founders of WikiLeaks.org, the group stated: "It is our goal to raise pledges of $5m by July."
And each "brand" would differ from its competitors by offering a competing "ethical protocol" for the release of whistle-blowers' documents. For example, a number of potential rivals have criticized wikileaks for
...concentrating on publishing material about the US while other information was neglected.
Assuming that this is the case (although even if it is, t'was not always so), other outlets might specialise in uncovering secrets from other regimes. And thus the free market for secrets will be served.
PS. John Young's website Cryptome is here. His issues with Julian Assange appear to be many and varied, I must say.
PPS. "Ethical Protocol" turns out to be a real word. Weird: I thought I'd just made it up.