The Wikileaks revelations about the conduct of the war in Afghanistan have been rightly hailed as a triumph of "data journalism."

There was, of course, a source of sorts, because someone leaked the 92,000 classified military documents. But the importance of placing the information in the public domain is that it enables us to obtain a clearer picture of what has been happening in Afghanistan.

The detractors have attacked the leak from two contradictory positions. So we have the Pentagon/White House line that the material threatens national security and puts soldiers' lives at risk. And then there's the view that the material isn't up to much (example: The Spectator blog posting, Few smoking guns in these leaks).

They can't both be right. But they can both be wrong. Dealing with the former, both The Guardian (here) and the New York Times (here) state separately that they have been careful to remove anything that could threaten the safety of troops.

As for the latter claim that the material is without much value, the readers can decide. But let's give a broad hint...

Do we believe factual reports by US soldiers about the killing of civilians is worthless? Do we really think that hard information about the increasing strength of the Taliban should be covered up? Is it of no consequence that there is new and more obvious evidence about Pakistani and Iranian aid for the Taliban?

Sure, we could say we knew all that or, at least, suspected it. But the material provides unequivocal support for those suspicions. And that is valuable.

Wikileaks performed a public service by posting the documents on the web, as have the newspapers that spent weeks analysing that material.

It was just weeks ago that the Wikileaks editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, called for news organisations to make more raw data available to the public.

His call, made at City University London during the Centre for Investigative Journalism summer school, was all about the need to increase journalistic transparency.

Assange believes that "journalism should be more like science." He told The Guardian's Stephen Moss: "As far as possible, facts should be verifiable. If journalists want long-term credibility for their profession, they have to go in that direction. Have more respect for readers."

I admit that I've long preached that sources are the lifeblood of journalism. But I have come round to the view that data is more valuable (as I suggested in a posting 14 days ago, Memo to journalists: analyse the data and the sources will follow).

More valuable? Well, data still requires analysis. And that means a set of subjective decisions immediately come into play. That's OK too because the resulting analysis is based on factual information and, in this open media world of ours, competing analyses can be judged by the readers.

Wikileaks, in both ethical and practical terms, is a result of the new media landscape, which allows for greater transparency and accountability than ever before.

We journalists should be delighted because our central task has always been one of disclosure, of revealing public interest material that others believe wish to be kept secret.

The emerging form of disclosure through the internet, pioneered so successfully in the past couple of years by Wikileaks, deserves our praise and needs to be defended against the reactionary forces that seek to avoid exposure.