2) I don't know what the rules are for broadcasts at different times of day, but I do know they exist
3) I have always been perplexed as to why violence is considered so much more acceptable than, for example, sexuality. Outright murder? Apparently a suitable topic for children's shows. Nipples, which are the defining characteristic of the class Mammalia to which we belong? Hide them all! Unless it's a famous statue (then it's Classical Art), or a man's vestigial ones (then it's so unremarkable nobody even says anything).
Whereas with wikipedia, unless a dedicated team of editors who are contracted or liable to vet _every_ change. Possibly only for the UK, who get a special 'only with vetted edits' version or some such, I don't think wikipedia would be interested in making such a thing.
Separate from that, wikipedia has various pages on (conditions related to) our sexual organs, as well as lots of articles about politically contentious things. I don't think they are particularly interested in filtering that either.
In contrast to news channels, most of which would have no particular complaints about a bunch of rules about content. As a rule your 9'o clock news isn't going to just casually show frontal nudity (except e.g. Germany because they're fine with it).
One obvious problem is all those words in single quotes: Who gets to decide? Evidently you aren't happy with whomever decided how far you can go with the content shown on the news, and I concur that it goes quite far. But the point isn't about the current standards being applied. The point is whether _any_ standard can be applied at all.
To news: Yes. To wikipedia: Not in a way wiki foundation would accept.
A few other Wikipedias including the Turkish one work in that exact manner.
Oh but when it's news at dinner time showing dead children and weapons firing on and on it's all fine, I guess?