An administrator for Wikipedia, refused an addition to Mary Koss' wiki-page, with the following motivation:

But more generally, in case anyone else has also forgotten what this all was even about: It's about Mary P. Koss, and the IP's efforts to make our article on her be all about one particular not-widely-held opinion she once espoused, to the exclusion of all else she did. This medium post (also not a reliable source) describes both the context for this specific effort regarding Koss and the broader rhetorical point that this is in service of: falsely pretending that Koss's opinion is both representative of feminism and widely influential as a way for men's-rights advocates to attack feminism and the people she supposedly influenced. — 04:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, no one mentioned excluding anything, in fact the entire page of that monster is filled with talk of her (purportedly) academic credentials and awards. That is what it is, and however illegitimate and anti-scientific that may be, the fallacies of social constructivism is a different issue. Even Trump has a views-section (e.g. "Racial views") that are relevant to his person.

The fact that the opinions she still holds (by evidence of a 2015 radio interview) aren't widely held is obvious - but it's not a point in defence for her. On the contrary, according to Wikipedia's own rules, if it's of interest to a "significant minority" (in this case, males, absurdly enough), then it has a place in the article.

He then goes on to discredit the addition of the various atrocities she champions (all of which can be read in the history-section) because it's a "broader rhetorical point that this is in service of: falsely pretending that Koss's opinion is both representative of feminism and widely influential as a way for men's-rights advocates to attack feminism", and he motivates that based on that feminist opinion piece from the medium-post he links to.

The medium-article he uses as a reference for his actions amongst others contains the following:

I want to begin my discussion of this topic by saying that there is one common MRA viewpoint on the sexual violence towards men that I have chosen to omit for discussion because I found it so vile and despicable that it is not worth giving any ounce of legitimacy by taking the time to debunk an outrageous and evil claim such as this one. If you would like to know what it is, you are welcome to PM me about it.

Suffice it to say, both the article he quotes and he himself has a bias for feminism (he has personally participated in women's rights-drives) and against males' rights.

Whatever his ideas regarding the males' rights-movement are, and whatever bias he holds for feminism, the Koss-article is incomplete without mentioning her utterly despicable acts and beliefs. Wikipedia is biased, and above is a quote to prove it from one of their very own mouthpieces.