IPFS isn’t uncensorable. The only thing it changes is that there isn’t a single DNS name which can be revoked or blocked. Otherwise, a government can follow the same process: resolve an IP, get it taken down or block it nationally, repeat.
That's much harder to do though, they need to continuously monitor new nodes and make sure blocking the IP does not have too much side effects unless I misunderstand how it works.
Getting the nodes is easy: IPFS is designed to let you discover that.
Blocking them is generally low impact but there is one exception: I believe Cloudflare’s gateway (cloudflare-ipfs.com) uses their regular CDN IP ranges so it’s the same level of difficulty as blocking any content on their service.
To be clear, IPFS is a neat idea. I would just be very hesitant to recommend its use to anyone who has to worry about government restrictions.
According to that link, Wikileaks said they thought those documents were (1) published elsewhere, (2) not noteworthy and (3) unverifiable. When they were published elsewhere, no one cared, even though they related to Russia during a time when the US media was running all sorts of stories related to Russian corruption. I don’t see the problem with Wikileak’s behavior on that one.
I have never understood why it's called "wiki" leaks... what is wiki about it?