Bonjour, en ce moment, je rédige beaucoup de texte en anglais, pour pouvoir m'améliorer, le voici :

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write you this letter to share you my opinion about the following problem : Should Wikileaks be banned ?

This not-for-profit media organisation allows the citizens of the world to see the truth on controversial happenings. Firstly, To better understand the importance of Wikileaks in the world, we can take a example : French lawmakers have spent the past four days debating a anti-terrorism bill. This week's debate comes more than three months after gunmen killed 17 people in a string of attacks that began at the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Now, France wants to fight terrorism by spying on everyone. How can we trust a government that did not trust his citizens ? Actually, Wikileaks makes secret government information easily accessible for the public can show bad things that might happen in the future (where most likely terrorist locations are). Indeed, a lot of information are not in the newspaper or TV because unlike wikileaks, newspapers or tv may be working with the government. The access to information helps citizens to hold their "governments accountable, generates new ideas. and encourages creativity." (quote from Obama). In conclusion, for me, Wikileaks should be authorized and it is an obvious.

"What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's Man of the Year."

Merci d'avance

Ah oui, en effet ^^ S'il vous plait

Salut !

I write you this letter to share you my opinion about the following problem : Should Wikileaks be banned ?

"Je vous écrit pour partager avec vous..." : c'est un peu lourd, nan ?

Actually, Wikileaks makes secret government information easily accessible for the public can show bad things that might happen in the future (where most likely terrorist locations are).

Si tu veux traduire "pour qu'ils puissent", mets plutôt "so (that) the public can".

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write you this letter to share you my opinion about the following problem : Should Wikileaks be banned ?

This not-for-profit media organisation allows the citizens of the world to see the truth on controversial happenings. Firstly, to better understand the importance of Wikileaks in the world, we can take a example : French lawmakers have spent the past four days debating on an anti-terrorism bill. This week's debate comes more than three months after gunmen killed 17 people in a string of attacks that began at the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Now, France wants to fight terrorism by spying on everyone. How can we trust a government that do not trust its citizens ? Actually, Wikileaks making secret government information easily accessible for the public can show bad things that might happen in the future (where most likely terrorist locations are). Indeed, a lot of information is not in the newspapers or on TV because unlike Wikileaks, newspapers and TV may be working with the government. The Access to information helps citizens to hold their "governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity" (quote from Obama). In conclusion, for me, Wikileaks should be authorized and it is an obvious.

Super ! Merci beaucoup, si d'autres personnes voient d'autres fautes faites moi signe

Dear Sir or Madam,
I write you this letter to share you my opinion about the following problem : Should Wikileaks be banned ?
This not-for-profit media organisation organization allows the citizens of the world to see the truth on controversial happenings. Firstly, To better understand the importance of Wikileaks in the world, we can take a an example : French lawmakers have spent the past four days debating a anti-terrorism bill. This week's debate comes more than three months after gunmen killed 17 people in a string of attacks that began at the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Now, France wants to fight terrorism by spying on everyone. How can we trust a government that did not trust his citizens ? Actually, Wikileaks makes secret government information easily accessible for the public can show bad things that might happen in the future (where most likely terrorist locations are). Indeed, a lot of information are not in the newspaper or TV because unlike wikileaks, newspapers or tv may be working with the government. The access to information helps citizens to hold their "governments accountable, generates new ideas. and encourages creativity." (quote from Obama). In conclusion, for me, Wikileaks should be authorized and it is an obvious.
"What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's Man of the Year."

Merci LostSword

Non-profit organization est plus naturel je trouve.

1/ C'est "Wikileaks making secret government information easily accessible for the public" ou "Wikileaks IS making secret government information easily accessible for the public" ?

2/ J'ai très légèrement modifier mon texte, pouvez vous me dire si vous voyez encore des fautes, et si j'utilise les bon temps à chaque fois ?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write you this letter to share my opinion about the following problem : Should Wikileaks be banned ?

This not-for-profit media organization allows the citizens of the world to see the truth on controversial happenings. Firstly, to better understand the importance of Wikileaks in the world, we can take an example : french lawmakers have spent the past four days debating on an anti-terrorism bill. This week's debate comes more than three months after gunmen killed 17 people in a string of attacks that began at the Paris office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Now, France wants to fight terrorism by spying on everyone. How can we trust a government that do not trust its citizens ?

Actually, Wikileaks is making secret government information easily accessible so that the public can show bad things that might happen in the future (where most likely terrorist locations are) provided it have internet access . Indeed, a lot of information is not in the newspaper or on TV given that unlike wikileaks, newspapers and tv may be working with the government. The access to information helps citizens to hold their "governments accountable, generates new ideas. and encourages creativity." (Obama). To sum up, for me Wikileaks should be authorized even though Wikileaks causes a major controversey throughout the world between officials and citizens.

Here is a beautiful citation of Julian Assange :

"What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's Man of the Year."

Kindest regards.