Wikipedia is fine. Just make sure the content itself is good and appropriate for Wikipedia (such as no original research) and formatting citations is really least of your worries. When you do it wrong, some other editor will come and fix it.
Feels like government bureaucracy of the worst sort
This is one of the worst Wikipedia rules. It gives way too much power to institutions giving them free reign to publish misinformation as long as they don't care about fact checking each other, which is common for niche subjects where corrections are not going to get as many clicks as "drama" would.
Therefore scoping the claim being made with citations actually does improve the wiki's accuracy.
You can say bread is sold pre-sliced accurately in a colloquial sense, but actually making a claim - as an encyclopedia inherently does - should carry information on how general a claim it actually is.
Or are you claiming that you are completely unaware of unsliced bread and need a citation to verify its existence?
Bread is usually sold sliced in some places, and usually sold unsliced in others. For a claim about this to be useful for wikipedia it should be specific and cited.
In rigorous academic contexts things that are generally accepted or common knowledge do not need to be cited. Nobody is disputing the existence of frozen milk or sliced bread for sale. They are commonly known and accepted facts. We do not need a peer reviewed citation for those claims to be believable.
The claim is not that sliced bread is always available in every place on earth. Nor is it that bread is usually sliced. That is a different claim that you have added. The claim is that sliced bread is available for sale, nonspecifically. It is a commonly known fact that bread can be purchased sliced in some places.
If you make a specific claim, like: sliced bread is not usually available in Nordic countries, I could see that needing a citation. You have made specific claims about sliced bread availability and market preferences. I am making the general case that it exists.
The point is that there is some basic level of knowledge that we don’t need to validate with a third party source. People drink water. I’ve never seen a scientific study or source for this, but it is universally accepted as truth. Bread is sold sliced sometimes is a similar fact.
Bread is sold both sliced and unsliced, sometimes geographic location impacts which variation is predominant.
I'm arguing that this should be done, and yet a citation is still important. You didn't answer my question about milk. In what situation would it be appropriate to mention milk being sold frozen without a citation? For example, human milk banks actually do freeze the milk for transport, but if this is mentioned in a wikipedia article, it should be cited! Same goes for making a claim about whether bread is sold sliced or unsliced (even if both are encountered more commonly than frozen milk)