It is a perfect irony that the man calling for more openness and transparency can't handle it when his own private issues are aired publicly.
Some security breaches at wikileaks could lead to informants or employees/volunteers being harassed or harmed, but this breach could only harm Assange's public image. He needs to get over himself and blow this off, or step down if he can't ignore trivial rumors.
A service like wikileaks is valuable to society precisely because (in theory, though apparently not in implementation) it doesn't make the value judgement whether something is of interest or not. Instead, it gives us all the information, and lets people make the decision for themselves.
When I make that value judgement, Assange's private life is absolutely relevant to the public interest. What he says and does in public gives us what little insight we can get into the mind of the person who controls what goes on the servers of wikileaks. He could be a tool of the US government, for all we know, leaking information that is damning but not nearly as damning as the information that won't be dug for nearly as hard now that what we have is public. Or, he could be selectively publishing things in a wildly unbalanced way, trying to stick it to the US government for his own purposes (a popular view, it would seem). Though we can't know for sure, every bit of his private life we can analyze allows us to be more confident in our decision to trust him or not.
We do not decide what is in the eye of the public, which is not the same as in the public interest, the media does.
And when your main goal is to spit the worlds governments and corporations in the eye you can be 100% sure that your private life will sooner or later be subject to scrutiny, and it would be advisable to lead as boring a private life as you can manage under those circumstances because the more 'colour' a character has the easier character assassination becomes.
Ideally an organization like wikileaks is just known for the quality of its output, not because of the name of the 'leader' or the antics of its members, just to make sure the attention does not get diverted from the message and to give any opposition as few points of potential leverage as possible.
Some security breaches at wikileaks could lead to informants or employees/volunteers being harassed or harmed, but this breach could only harm Assange's public image. He needs to get over himself and blow this off, or step down if he can't ignore trivial rumors.