I'm with you on rejecting AI being sane, but the idea that gaming wikis should be integrated into wikipedia is kinda nuts. If I search "Iron" on wikipedia I'm looking for facts, not a thousand item long disambiguation cluttered with every game that has iron as a resource. Conversely, on a game wiki my search for "Iron" has an entirely different context and I'm looking for different info.
Not to mention game wikis have way lower editorial standards, their own tone (e.g. making jokes), versioning concerns, their own new user friendly homepages etc.
Wikipedia could tuck this all into a separate namespace, sure, but that's effectively a separate wiki anyway and then it raises questions like "why is wikipedia hosting a mechanical guide for this porn game?" or "How long do we need to host the content for this game that peaked in 2012 and is now abandonware?" that are conveniently sidestepped by those communities supporting themselves.
I really don't have any problem with any of these types of achievements in general. Even the super basic ones that you get by starting a game are useful to determine what percentage of people who own the game have actually played it beyond the menu screen.
The best achievements are ones you get for being clever, skilled, or dedicated. Or when it's an unhidden achievement for something you didn't even know was possible. Like the BG3 achievement for saving the goblin Sazza - just seeing it was possible made my next play through more interesting.
I do appreciate long ending achievements, but only if they indicate a significantly different playthrough. Good ending vs. bad ending works when that's the result of many decisions and not just an option you chose ten minutes from the end.