Many of the rumoured picks were released as distractions, so it’s certainly possible you are correct.
Wikipedia has its special uses, despite being a liberal dominated site.
With biographies and companies, the insiders do clean articles up when something breaking is about to happen.
Critics also like to dump negative information into articles. Of course these edits are reversed quickly. User tip: go to the history of the article and look at the larger versions (byte size) to get the dirt (unverified dirt of course, user beware)
I also use it for detailed plots of shows or movies, expanded details about real life events and anything else that I have an interest in. Again the watchers quickly reverse the over-detailed plots or exposition of whatever the article topic is, but I find what was written by looking into the history of the article.
Seeing what random interested people wrote before the self-appointed editors erase it, has been very informative to me in many cases in the past. At a minimum it can give you key subtopics to do a good web search on.