I believe you are incorrect. Wikileaks does indeed selectively not release all information. It redacts to protect sources and also to protect people who they deem would be harmed unjustly by releasing covert, classified information. Assange has stated such.
This determination is not transparent.
Also someone is controlling what information Wikileaks receives via their control over those who have access to that information. Again go listen to that YouTube where the insider of the intelligence community says, "the emails we gave to Wikileaks".
Rothschilds wants you to believe that the information is mostly coming from rogue independent whistleblowers and that is the reason to champion Assange, Snowden, and Bradley in his MSM, but the real juicy stuff for this election came from the NSA and/or FBI.
Apologies, yes Wikileaks have seemingly offered to do some selective redaction, especially after the furore surround the Iraq War logs which I dont believe were redacted. There was some controversy over whether there was an offer to redact to protect sources etc but unsure if my memory is correct here. It is however the main point of contention between Snowden, Greenwald etc & Assange. The former both prefer curation and slow release while wikileaks prefers to dump and let the public decide what is newsworthy.
The second point may well be true but is another inception level down. Controlling what can be leaked to Wikileaks is one step removed but as long as the content is true then the source is secondary. I would guess much of the leaking is for revenge purposes / agenda control as much as public good. I imagine the powerplays between fbi nsa etc are intruiging, however many of wikileaks releases deal with corporations / foreign countries and are not US specific.