Wikileak activists are well known and are not hiding behind anonymity. They don't need it. It is not illegal to fund or support Wikileaks.
I know that it is not illegal. Now, go to
https://wikileaks.org/ and take a look at the page begging for donations. One can pay through credit card, Paypal, etc. ... but for payment by bitcoin there is a "special note":
Bitcoin is a secure and anonymous digital currency. Bitcoins cannot be easily tracked back to you.
https://shop.wikileaks.org/donateCertainly looks like somebody there thinks there is something to anonymity. That's why I too think there is something to it.
This is why the US has to resort to trumped up rape charges against Mr Assange. They cannot charge him with treason because he will plead the 1st - he is a journalist - and would get asylum in half the world. The independence of crypto is all Wikileaks needs and it works perfectly.
Not everyone is as confident about that as you are. As an example, here is a different view from a couple of people who ought to know:
http://www.newsweek.com/could-assange-claim-first-amendment-defense-590773Anyways ... the Swedes dropped the rape charges against the fellow. So, where is he now? Freely roaming half the world?
Oh, I found this one amusing: Looking at old stuff in places like
bitcointalk, it looks like the initial heroes (supposedly including Satoshi himself) weren't too keen to be associated with Wikileaks.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999Criminality is abuse of crypto and is not the essence. It is about the state. If you are a Russian in the west and wish to fund anti-Putin activists in Moscow, you are better off anonymous. It's literally a life and death issue yet you are not a criminal. You may find polonium in your tea 
The same can be said of the Chinese, the Saudis and many other draconian regimes. Even in Kenya you may want to support NASA anonymously - without getting into someones' bad books 
Decentralization and anonymity are a very strong combination. The state cannot shut down crypto - unlike Visa or Paypal - and with some caution you can maintain your anonymity.
I have given opinions on the "anonymity". I am now at the stage where I simply find it amusing, for the following reason.
There seems to be some hope that bitcoin etc. will get to the point of being something like "normal currency"---used routinely to pay for goods and services etc.
Once the speculators leave, things will stabilize, and it will be back to "normal currency" stuff. Etc. Etc. Etc. But most people, in almost all their monetary transactions, are never concerned with fighting draconian governments or the military-industrial complex or whatever and so have little use for the "anonymity". As a general rule, when most people part with their money, they want the recipient to know exactly where it is coming from.
Anecdotal evidence is not proof, but I did a little experiment on my dinner companions this evening. The experiment consisted of asking three questions and then "evaluating" the answers: (a) "
in the last 5 years, have you been involved in any financial transactions in which you wished to remain anonymous?", (b) "
for the next 5 years, do you think you will be involved in any financial transactions in which anonymity will be important"?, and (c) "
for what reason would ever you get into cryptocurrencies?"
Yes, it was a small sample and whatever. But I would be happy to bet on the extension of the results to a much larger group. And what were the results? Try the same small experiment on the next 10 people that you run into.
The number of businesses that take cryptocurrencies and number of people who actually use cryptocurrencies for anything other than speculation are pathetically small. Why is that? I don't know, but in the case of bitcoin I suspect that part of it has to do with the fact that quite a few bitcoin groupies keep harping on things---"decentralized", "anonymous", ...---that have nothing to do with how most people actually use money. Of course, there is now a great deal of interest in cryptocurrency, but it is all about people dreaming of making free, easy money ... when they eventually convert to real money. Quite understandable; who among would have any problems with free and easy money. But we are now in the region of foolishness and scams and ... To my mind, it makes little sense to continue insisting on some fuzzy, "noble" goals that have little to do with current reality.
We are now in Great-Scams territory. And I don't mean just the obvious pyramid schemes or the "pay-to-learn" talks by clueless "experts". Just take a look at the staggering number of cryptocurrencies that keep popping up and at increasing rates. Here is the 2017 list so far:
https://bitinfocharts.com/new-cryptocurrencies-2017.htmlAnd what exactly are they offering? Take a look at the eye-watering numbers from "The JP Morgan of Cryptobanks" (last day for 6% discount):
https://crypterium.io/?ref=d2930094a937088043c8db62&gclid=CjwKCAiApdPRBRAdEiwA84bo3wOaF4Wr7MUGhyIAd_8qkjmFCa_X_h0aosZA8XvQkoDUoV-akLT-3BoC22EQAvD_BwE When the dust finally settles, most or all of these private cryptocurrencies will probably be good for just one thing. Real estate. This kind:
http://www.lunarland.com/