I think the key words in that 'reasoning' is "informed." Since WikiPedia deals in generally widely known information, it is not difficult to correct errors. I see no similarity with WikiLeaks, which, by definition, deals with information that is explicitly difficult to see/find. That last sentence wreaks of self-importance and a desire to hurt others. "Injustice" should always be exposed, but what does a term like "embarrassing" have anything to do with that task? I'd never relate well to a person with that kind of character. Truth and respect for others will suffice, for me, for friends and "justice." YMMV.
Just not a site I'll be seeing, I guess.
But there are some I see that you might not enjoy, either!
A wiki is a collaborative effort; there's nothing about a wiki that says anyone can edit it. Many wikis are closed and can not be edited by the general public.
With Wikileaks, not anyone can publish or post to it. Instead, a person who has a document which he or she wants to post must submit the document, together with whatever evidence of its authenticity exists, to the Wikileaks panel, which will then attempt to establish whether or not the document is genuine. If it is, the panel posts the document.