Wikileaks represents an externaliy of sorts. Sure, some nation-states provide essential freedoms with which it operates, but none of them are both willing and able to support it financially to correct for this externality, for the same reason that other nation-states are not able to use legal frameworks to control its spreading of information without severe repercussions for others unrelated to this matter. Therefore, Wikileaks have two strategies from which to choose to fund themselves:
1. Monetize the leaks, and
2. Solicit donations.
The first is probably too distasteful to them. I'm not sure I would support that either, though it would depend on how they implemented it. However, donations at their pre-Collateral Murder levels apparently could not support the site, as evidenced by the January shutdown of its archive of documents. They had no choice but to up the bet and make Really Big Deals out of something that no one could possibly ignore, and I think that they've found that right now, the big media players act according to rules not unlike the various versions of the Rules of the Internet: "All of your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Anything you say can be turned into something else [...]." Furthermore, any mistake made will be amplified far out of proportion to its real significance.
As the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. But that's exactly what they're doing. The arguments being made against them for which there can be a factual disproof (not being able to individually check each document may have just endangered informants and their families) requires resources Wikileaks does not have. The US government may not have to resort to black ops (as so many blood-lusting authoritarians seem to seek) to impair Wikileaks significantly, if not permanently: they could simply wait for it to starve.
Help for them will not come from any nation-state. It will not come from moneyed corporations or their wealthy officers and investors. Help will not come from existing large media outlets, unless they are somehow compelled to do so (see option #1 above). Help may not come from those who supported the organization before the press offensive but were offended by it. Help will only come from those of us who continue to support Wikileaks.
I should disclose that I myself have not (yet) donated to them. They've jumped to the head of the list, as I have either already donated to the other organizations, or the other organizations are not of the same significance as this. As with "public" radio in the US, every time I listen, I note to myself that I ought to donate to my local station, and yet I do not. I apparently choose to freeload. It's reinforced by the fact that others manage to give enough to cover the bills. Hopefully, I won't do the same thing with Wikileaks.
As for Amnesty International, an organization whose mission is also well worth supporting, I guess I can only say that the suffering of people living in Afghanistan is pretty much assured at this point, and it had nothing to do with Wikileaks up until this point, and it may yet have nothing to do with it, now or in the future, since AFAIK, no one's come forward with the evidence. If armed forces stay, more innocent bystanders will probably die, and this will cause more insurgency, and so on in that deadly cycle; if the armed forces leave, the Taliban may return with a vengeance, and they might just harbor terrorists again, but who knows?
(So, did I sound astroturf-y enough? I sure think I do. I also lost steam at the end.)