Yes, as others have said, names of private individuals being released would be a bad thing. Voyeurs don't need to know the persons and there are those who would very much like to bring harm to anyone involved in espionage at any level.
"All" dealings between any two parties needn't be conducted in the open, but that's an easy answer. Of course there are some things which must be handled delicately (why am I reminded of the wicked witch of the west?), but there are many dealings that we're about to hear about, perhaps, that I'm thinking might not be so awful to have out in the open.
I grew up in the black and white world of the Cold War, Finn, and I'm guessing you did too. I'm realizing more and more just how gray our past and present have been. JTT paints us as the evil black sword of the past 100 years, or so. My brush isn't black, but it's not white either.
Knowledge is a good thing. Knowledge with an understanding of history and perspective is even better.
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have no intention of applying anything like historical understanding or perspective to the current release of classified information which was obtained through illegal means. Assange has acknowledged that the information he has released and intends to yet release may place individuals in serious danger, and while he regrets
this he doesn't believe it is his responsibility to apply a filtering perspective to the information's release. Any individual harmed by the information's release either amounts to unfortunate collateral damage in the war for The Truth, or the result of justice delivered (which I imagine is a position our friend JTT advances).
While Assange may contend that he and Wikileaks are simply objective agents of The Truth and thus not responsible for any incidental consequences of its release, this is simply an argument of current convenience.
WikiLeaks states that its
"primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."
Whatever one thinks of this mission statement, it is clearly not devoid of a point of view. It is not the mission statement of the unbiased, natural agents of the forces of Truth.
Since it exercises a bias in determining what truth it chooses to release, it should accept responsibility for, at least, the reasonably foreseebale consequences of the release of that truth: The murder of personally identified informants and their families...for example.
I don't know that I would be more comfortable with Assange and WikiLeaks if they employed a more active china marker to the information they released, but that they can so easily dismiss the consequences of not employing it at all; in the most obvious of ways is something I find very objectionable.