You're asking for which is more powerful - is that really what you care about, or do you just want an interesting character? The number one rule of multiclassing is "never lose spellcasting levels." You've already pretty depowered the character as a Rog3/WW1 even with Magical Knack. I imagine none of the heavy CharOp folks have answered this question yet because your initial build has already provoked them into running about their residences screaming like enraged howler monkeys (rogue, 1 strike; losing spellcasting levels, 2 strikes). If you're looking for superpower, the train has left the station. But if you just want an interesting character to play, read on (though you really should specify what it is you want your character to be able to do/be like...)
In isolation there's a legitimate sorcerer vs witch debate, but if you're a third level rogue who has taken one level in witch, taking anything other than more witch is a severe power compromise - the "third strike." You're getting +2 CL in one class from Magical Knack and then if you were to switch, effectively taking -1 spellcasting level - pretty much losing as much as you're getting. So in this case, "definitely Witch."
As you move on, instead of Sorcerer I'd stick with White-haired Witch (seems like it synergizes well with rogue anyway), or go into Arcane Trickster after a couple levels in Witch - it'll keep full casting progression and is designed to highly synergize with rogue. But never lose a spellcasting level again. Look at it this way, if you were to switch to Sorcerer and be like "woot I want to throw spells", at level 10 you're barely going to be throwing fireballs when normal level 10 spellcasters are really melting faces.
There was a character in my last Pathfinder game who was a Rogue 2/Shadow Oracle 9, that worked out OK (he had a limited times a day super backstab ability and had oracle-boosted stealth stats) so it synergized with rogue well, plus invisibility and major image). So you can multiclass, and even use rogue, but definitely stay away from even more multiclassing. Pathfinder made specific design choices to back away from 3.5's "combination of 6 classes for optimization syndrome" and usually staying single-class is as strong if not stronger than a combo, and the more combo you put in generally the greater a disadvantage you'll have over your comrades.
I see two broad options, one of which is a bit of a frame-change.
First, the frame change: most undead - especially low-level undead like zombies and skeletons - were mindless in previous editions of D&D and aren't terribly bright in 5E. It shouldn't be too hard for some passably persuasive denizens to convince the undead hordes to follow their commands without magic. Further, zombies and skeletons are frequently portrayed as basically milling about doing nothing in particular if there's nothing better to do; it shouldn't be too hard for the denizens to have corralled the undead into holding areas for later use (it's not like they need food or exercise, after all).
Option 1b, I guess, would be that there's no particular reason for the undead creatures to stop doing whatever it was that they were doing when they're no longer controlled, especially if what they were doing is a mindless, repetitive task ("keep turning this wheel" or "walk along this round pathway (ie., patrol)").
If that's not quite sufficient, the denizens could be keeping a handful of key undead creatures under their control, and trusting that the rest of them will just kinda follow along.
PCs could, in principle, do the same thing: control or convince (or just lure) the undead to where you need them to be, then let them hang out there 'til they're needed. If necessary, keep a small number under control for specific purposes.
The second option would be to adjust (slightly) the Hallow spell, and "Un-Hallow" the area (which may indicate that a more powerful creature is behind this, and the adventure is prelude). As written, Hallow appears designed for Good PCs to use; I don't see why its mirror shouldn't exist, which would allow for necromancers to exert some control over more undead than normal (possibly only just "some" control, though: perhaps it's just enough that the undead see the other denizens as "friendly" as opposed to "lunch").
Again, in principle a PC could do this, if they could find a deity willing to allow it.
Best Answer
There's no fictional reason why the blinding effect wouldn't be effective on zombies and skeletons: they have to visually sense you somehow, and there's nothing in their descriptions that indicates that they have the power to see through barriers and obscuring effects.
Rule-wise, glitterdust doesn't make any special exceptions for undead of any kind, and there are no abilities on zombies or skeletons that would make them immune to the blinding effect, and the undead features don't include anything that interacts with glitterdust in any relevant way.