No, that's not the ideal. Wikileaks has been successful because it takes some pains to verify that what it is publishing isn't fraudulent or forged, and thus has some independent credibility. Newspapers have entered a partnership with wikileaks for the provision of real material. Information uploaded anonymously to the web would quickly vanish into the conspiracy-theory-sphere, and have no impact. Leakers also depend on wikileaks to be able to break news with impact, and make the risk they are taking worthwhile. So there's a confluence of influence between newspapers, leakers and wikileaks, but it does depend on wikileaks having an organisation and credibility. This is why wikileaks is feeling the heat and not the Guardian, NYT and Spiegel, because wikileaks is much less risk averse than the papers (but more risk averse than the leakers), and its credibility is more vulnerable.

To turn it into a perpetual acceleration machine!

Madness. Take a point-source of CO2 which could be relatively easily sequestered, and turn it into a liquid fuel which will doubtless be dispersed and burnt in thousands of impossible-to-sequester locations. That's no way to reduce emissions, it's a way of perpetuating the status quo. It perhaps may get more energy per unit of CO2, but won't help cut it.