WikiLeaks is a wiki in that it provides a fast and easy way to do what WikiLeaks is meant for; the submitting of confidential or secret material. When you consider the might of those opposing WikiLeaks, it is obvious that allowing everyone to edit will be extremely counter productive. This is not where Wikipedia's NPOV rules the roost. It is much more like WikiSource where it is also extremely relevant to keep the original source pristine.
WikiLeaks is not a Wikimedia project and, it does not suffer from a lack of credibility. The credibility of its material is such that new material published makes for new scandals. The one thing WikiLeaks is good at is proofing the veracity of what it publishes.
The notion that it somehow infringes on the Wikimedia by using the "wiki" moniker is silly. There are so many websites that have "wiki" in their name; wikiHow, OmegaWiki, Wikia to name a few that it is far more interesting to learn about exceptions like Citizendium that does not have wiki in its name.
|Julian Assange the "Jimbo" of WikiLeaks|
All in all, it is to be expected that negative editorials are written about WikiLeaks. When you profess to write about "Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia in the News", writing about WikiLeaks is seriously off topic. Calling WikiLeaks "contraband" demonstrates a bias. It is easy to forget that laws differ from country to country and that someone's hero is another man's villain.