Wikipedia is not that innocent as people use to think.
Got a strong political bias in the last couple decades.
First, I've bumped into a research paper 10 years ago, or so, where the researchers made bots to automatically create Wikipedia pages for whatever they thought it didn't have enough representation on Wikipedia. It was mostly feminism, and the pages were very brief (I think the term is a Wikipedia stab article/page, but I'm not very sure). Whatever that is called, it was SJW vandalism.
Then, there were some complains about the references that can only be from mainstream media, which already has a strong bias, and some other internal complaints from the editors.
Not to say last year the politicization went so far that an article about "The Alley of Angels" was deleted from Wikipedia. That page was about a shrine and in the memory of killed children in Donbass/Ukraine, allegedly by the Ukraine gov/army, but I'm not familiar with that story so I might have misunderstood the events. My understanding was that that shrine was about events before the Russian invasion in Donbass, and was (or could have been) used as a justification by Russia. Again, I don't know for sure, that is what I remember from when I've seen on a asocial media post (for the first time) about the deletion of Wikipedia pages.
What I know for sure (because I've personally checked the page back then), is that the page was nowhere to be found in the online (latest) version of Wikipedia, while the deleted page was still present in the archived versions of Wikipedia.
(By the way, Wikipedia can be legally downloaded and accessed offline, if you have the space and the will to store a local copy. There are many versions at different timestamps, some only a few hundreds of MB, some up to many TB if you want the newest with included editing history).
For science/engineering articles, the political bias might not be that obvious. For science articles I'm bothered mostly by the fact that Wikipedia became too detailed. Wikipedia pages these days look more like a reference book, with included graduate math, than like an encyclopedia.
I would prefer Wikipedia to emphasize on the bird eye view and on the understanding of the principles and ideas in science and technology. Some pages looks like a formula cheat-sheet. I've even seen pages with math proofs, or with code examples in specific languages (for algorithms).
About age restrictions, either online or AFK, I think they are necessary.
About individual digital ID's and online surveillance, I'm totally against.