What would the process for that even look like? We wouldn't want to change the meaning of the code points as it could render scientific documents using them incorrect.
 Think things like Creative Commons or public domain. The license has to allow derivatives and commercial use for anyone, not just Wikipedia.
 So exceptions would be for dead people or things that we are very unlikely to get new pictures of. Doesn't apply when you could try getting a license or if there is an existing free image.
If I wanted to challenge the claims made on that wiki page with a lot of "how did you come to that conclusion?" and drill all the way down, is it possible? Is it all founded on solid ground in referenced materials? Does it ever get challenged deeply by those whose academic careers don't depend on buying in to it all?
Maybe I'm being way too paranoid.
My experience with archaeology is that it's more self critical than you probably expect.
All high level animals respond to reinforcement learning. They learn by correlation, not causation. It’s ridiculously difficult to confirm causation, period. It’s not limited to academics, WikiPedia, etc.
It’s not math, so it’s not a clean procession of verifiable work, but their scientific method seems to be alive and well.
The public image maybe suffers from earlier (~1900) work, which really does read like “here are some evidence-light ideas that strike me, a philosopher gentleman, as quite plausible”.