There are some math and physics articles that can go 10 paragraphs without a single citation. They'd be great blog posts or chapters in a book. But they're poor quality Wikipedia articles.
I understand anon IP blocks, of course. But not logged-in ones. Especially when (afaict) all of Mullvad's (London at least) IPs are blocked.
Not to mention, I very very much doubt that those articles prove every property they present (since I've never seen a math text of any kind do that, essentially).
If you allow that, proofs made using proof assistants prove every property they present.
And of course, Principia Mathematica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica) is a non-computer example.
Both get tedious fast if you try to understand a proof from the axioms up. That’s why you’ll rarely find a publication starting from almost zero.
And yes, sometimes there are conflicts. In France, we have two competing definition of a limit (relating to wether you include the point in its neighbourhood), one being the traditional one, taught in schools, and one being the one that's become the world standard and used from university onwards.
How do you arbiter that on wikipedia without sources ?