As an analogy when the US/UK/other western gov criticises Assad or Kim Jong Un over human rights abuses we don't generally complain that it's unfair because the US/UK also have plenty of human rights abuses under their belt. Yes that's a problem but it doesn't take away from the original complaint which is still valid.
But I'd wonder who wants me to know that, and why.
Wikileaks is a spotlight. It shines brightly, and exposes much, but only where it shines.
And if I notice that it's shining only in specific places ... well, that's a curious fact in itself.
And I absolutely disagree with you that bias doesn't matter. Ultimately it's the only thing that matters. Much as, say, US print and broadcast news was conspicuously silent on matters concerning advertiser interests, or government interests in contexts in which the government had leverage over the press.
Wikileaks themselves are no different in that regard, though the business model and relationships are slighly rearranged.
A current example would be STEM outreach to underrepresented groups: disadvantaged minorities and women in particular. Housing, employment, and educational opportunity efforts would be other examples that come to mind.
Can you point to any active solicitation Wikileaks have made, say, for materials specifically addressing political oppression within Russia or concerning its foreign policy?
Sincere question. I'm not, though I've not particularly looked.