Regardless of your standing with regards to the Israel-Palestine war, this is an unexpected development as now legacy networks are finally paying serious attention to criticisms of Wikipedia after years of neglect.
Any observers who’ve been following Wikipedia-related rabbit holes long enough would know that criticism of Wikipedia is for a long time dominated by the political fringes (i.e. far-right) and many Wikipedia critics normally gets ridiculed out of the room as they’re been characterized as “fascists” and “anti-knowledge”. Now it’s like a dream come true for those critics as they seemingly get vindicated on television networks.
The only anti-Jewish bias I’ve noticed on Wikipedia is that if someone is a Jew, it’ll always be mentioned in the first paragraph of their “Early Life” section.
This is also partially true for any non-Christian, it seems that Christianity is assumed as a default, but that isn’t applied universally (e.g. this applies to articles about Muslim or Hindi people often, but not always).
Conflating anti-Zionist (or, more often, factual reporting on Israel) material with antisemitic material is a very dangerous mistake not only for the people horribly affected by the Zionist ideology, but Jews as a whole too.
Re: the “Early Life” section, we actually have a guideline about that. Discussion of the subject’s religion is allowed only under specific circumstances, namely when “the subject’s beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” Unlike Christianity, which is far and away the prevailing religion in the US, religious minorities like Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are more likely to receive coverage of said religion because it stands out more (for example, Eight Crazy Nights by Adam Sandler is way more noteworthy than some Christian director making a by-the-books Christmas film; religious minorities are more likely to talk at length about how their difference in religion impacts their work and identity; etc.) This is also why you’re more likely to see a mention that an individual is gay, trans, etc. than “Jimmy Carter was cis and straight.”
For example, Natalie Portman is frequently interviewed about subjects like her Jewish heritage, and her ‘Early life’ section brings up her Jewish heritage. Penn Jillette frequently advocates for atheism, and his ‘Early life’ page talks about how he became an atheist in his early teens. Mehmet Oz (“Dr. Oz”) has talked about his Muslim faith in the past and was the first Muslim ever nominated by the GOP for the US Senate, so his ‘Early life’ section brings up Islam.
TL;DR: This happens on articles about famous people who are Jewish at a far higher rate than it happens with Christians (at least ones in the US and other areas where Christianity is the dominant religion), but 1) it happens for a reason within guidelines, 2) for that reason, you’re always welcome to challenge that it falls within those guidelines, and 3) as you note, the same thing happens with other religious minorities.