Wikipedia might have been like that in the past but it's long been corrupted. E.g. see the Philip Cross affair.
For a while on the Ukraine war I tried to find unbiased commentary and news but I think it was basically impossible.
The best I could find after looking all over was stitching together stories from sources who were biased to one side but still at least somewhat committed to the truth.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philip_Cross#Blocked...
There's no hope of finding unbiased commentary on a war that's happening NOW. Even the history of wars that happened 1,000 years ago are hopelessly muddied by contemporary political agendas.
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, history is one of the areas that's least trustworthy; lots of history articles have teams of gatekeepers. It can help to read the talk pages (and the archives of the talk pages) to find out what's been disputed.
The fact that you can do that, and also inspect the entire edit history, really does make Wikipedia head and shoulders better than any other information resource, provided you read it with due scepticism.