Plus, if you're citing Wikipedia verbatim instead of using it as an aggregator for secondary sources, you're using it wrong.
There's bureaucracy that makes this nearly impossible.
Wikipedia sources include liberal news media (e.g. CNN) but blacklist others (Fox News). So it is highly biased by the rules they set up.
To challenge the sources you need to become an admin, of which there are only 82. And they are anonymous, so you cannot call them out for misinformation or bias.
The edit history is present and you can see "tampering" or bias on many articles, in the form of reverted clarifications citing blacklisted sources or other reasons. There are many examples, one that I was following last year was about "Yasuke", which turned out to be based on very debatable source at best, or likely complete fabrication since it was propagated by one historian who was proven to be fraudulent.
It's been called out many times. Most recently by the 1 and half hour long interview of Wikipedia employee by Tucker Carlson.
But just because the history is there, it doesn't really matter. Some random person looking something up will not see the history.