They never edit anything out. If they release a summarized or abridged version of something with a political spin to it, you can always find the full, unaltered sources if you bother to look on wikileaks.org.
Names of public figures (generals, prominent police officials, governors, warlords and senior afghan officials) have not been not redacted, though on a case-by-case basis, the names of lower-level employees have been removed. Similarly, well-known insurgent commanders or terrorists are not redacted, but the names of lower-level figures are.
The types of information that have been removed from the documents include:
Names or precise identifying information of sources.
Names of buildings under surveillance.
Names of prisoners.
Names of kidnap victims.
Times required for various tactical military reactions.
Radio frequencies or phone numbers used in insurgent communications.If you don't trust Wikileaks to not have tampered with the video they released, then why would you trust them if they provide something which they claim is the original encrypted version?
If releasing what was leaked to them would endanger the source, they should say so. They have not released what was actually released to them if indeed what was released to them was an encrypted file.
I think there is a good case for the existence of an organization that disseminates and preserves these historical artifacts. It is becoming less clear that WikiLeaks is that organization.