EXPOSED: Encouraged by Wikipedia admins, Pro-Feminist social science course assigned Wikipedia low-quality editing task to students, many claims unsourced and one subsection STILL refers to men as "males"

This admin-sanctioned attack on Wikipedia's principle of NPOV (neutral point of view) occurred in Fall 2022 and there are countless others like it. The "Toxic masculinity" subsection under "Socialist feminism" does not have proper citations as of the date of this post, including its claim that a "97% trend" was present on TikTok or the 97% stat itself. The subsection also clearly denounces "males" sharing their "harmful ideas" which they are allegedly spreading on TikTok and other social media platforms:

Males will go on social media platforms such as TikTok, and share their harmful ideas about how women should be behaving. This has become a major issue among feminists today, and trends on TikTok have been curated to combat toxic masculinity. For example, the #97% trend was created for women to share their stores about sexual harassment. It states that 97% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime; therefore, this trend shows that women suffer immensely at the hands of men.

And yes, the "it states that" refers to the trend, as in, this brainwashed college student is genuinely citing a TikTok trend, which is a very hilarious and oddly typical feminist source. Furthermore, the mentioned 97% stat is extremely one-sided. If this were to be a wiki article written by a typical non-student editor, the article would normally say "97% of women compared to X% of men" in order to assess the relative extent of sexual harassment. But instead of saying that, the editor just takes the trend's word (if you can even call it that) as it is and somehow jumps to the conclusion that "women suffer immensely at the hands of men." Not a single administrator or senior editor has called this student-editor out for their unsatisfactory and frankly hateful edit.

The Gender and Technoculture course hosted by California State University Fullerton has been taught 12 times by the same professor, training 463 students since fall 2019 to become feminist apparatchiks and reaching millions of article readers across all course offerings. The National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) that this prof/course is under, reaches 2 billion article views over a 30-day average across all edited/created articles. The NWSA has numerous caucuses and interest groups, 13/35 of which are explicitly related to feminism, one example being the "Feminist Masculinities Interest Group" (menslibbers?).

When we say feminism has all of the academic clout, this is exactly what we are talking about. Wikipedia's admin would NEVER collaborate with MRAs to edit its articles unobstructed and without in-depth review. Meanwhile, feminists get to casually sprinkle unsourced inflammatory and misandrist rhetoric and they also get to tear up Wikipedia's manual of style (MoS) into shreds. Then, the press cites feminist Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cites the feminist press. Disaster predictably ensues.

What do you think?