The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want more information.
Basically everyone (even the janitors) will make 70k
I know this is pedantic but... do any companies actually employ janitors rather than contracting it to a cleaning company?
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
Except the law at the heart of the controversy is the opposite of social progress. A huge portion of the country has taken a step forward while Indiana is taking a step backward. It leaves a much larger moral divide than if Indiana was just trying to keep the status quo.
But for people who only can get to wikipedia through their basic cell phone plans
While I agree that there is genuine concern about wikipedia becoming a gatekeeper in general, I don't think it's valid to claim this was the sole source for people to be making college decisions on. Wikipedia Zero has only been around in India for about 2 years. What did they use prior to that to look up information on colleges? Did those other sources of information disappear in those two years? Just because a new, convenient source of information becomes available doesn't mean people should suddenly treat that as the only authority on the subject.
I would also question the article's claim that possibly 15,000 people were affected, since they don't seem to back up that calculation. I bet that is just the college's estimated yearly enrollment multiplied by the number of years the banned account was active.
The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.