In general, I think most people would agree with a blanket statement like that. But we don't actually know that wikileaks is providing context at all, because you don't know what isn't released. For example, sure, they've got 30k emails pilfered from Clinton. That paints a terribly unappealing picture of the Clinton campaign. But what about emails taken from a GOP-controlled server? What kind of context would those provide? Do they exist? What would they tell us about the other side of that question if they do? And crucially, what would it tell us about Wikileaks themselves if we knew they existed and weren't released?
Because that last scenario is the one I find extraordinarily likely.
Even if the scenario you describe is true (and there is no proof of that so this is purely a thought excersise), would you rather the Clinton emails weren’t released at all? Was there nothing to gain by learning that Clinton and the DNC worked against Sanders? That they had direct access to a very supportive media? At least we know that now.
There's not a good answer for that. Given hindsight and the knowledge that releasing them contributed directly to the election of Trump, yes, I'd say that I'd rather that they had not been released. If the opposing candidate had been a sane Republican the calculus might be a little different.
However, I think its self-deception of the highest order if you think either Wikileaks or the supplier of the Clinton emails is not also sitting on a great deal of incriminating evidence from the Trump campaign and/or the RNC.
My values are consistent regardless of who is involved. More information is always better. I also don’t think it’s worth speculating on what information WL may have. That they exist at all is a huge service, that they’re not releasing the kind of information you imagine exists (and happens to help your political goals) doesn’t make the info they do release any less valuable.
Because that last scenario is the one I find extraordinarily likely.