Wikis are unsuitable for anything contentious. Wikis are the solution to the problem of crowdsourcing objective facts, what makes them great is that anyone can add a few (even very obscure) ones; on anything contentious there are way too many, not too few, people wanting to write about them, making the wiki a solution to a nonexistent problem. This news story is yet another example of this.

… and hardly anything is more contentious than Israel/Palestine, which is why wikis work least well for articles on that.

But it’s less unsuitable than any alternative avenue for contentious information (traditional news media, youtube/podcasts, social media, etc) - for the simple reason that wikipedia encourages citing sources, while every other platform discourages it.