I'm not sure what the article is trying to convey. The example is absurd. Maybe the decline of the article was part of the global conspiracy of the patriarchy. Or maybe the person who declined it just had a bad day. Or maybe the website where the sources needed were published just had horrible UX and the two editors who cared just gave up. Same with the "breastfeeding" example. No causality proven.
The rest of the article is just incoherent numbers and elevator talks of Wikipedia. What is the point of all this? Of course the Wiki mirrors the real world, that's its very purpose, right? I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. Over-represent the achievements of minorities to generate a pseudo-equality is a really bad "solution". I'm pretty sure a big player like Wikipedia can contribute to equality but I don't see any meaningful example for that in the article...
The rest of the article is just incoherent numbers and elevator talks of Wikipedia. What is the point of all this? Of course the Wiki mirrors the real world, that's its very purpose, right? I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. Over-represent the achievements of minorities to generate a pseudo-equality is a really bad "solution". I'm pretty sure a big player like Wikipedia can contribute to equality but I don't see any meaningful example for that in the article...