The role of an encyclopedia is to simply cite facts, and do so in a tone that is as neutral as possible. Encyclopedias should not have biases (especially not political biases) or agendas, and they should most definitely not engage in propaganda. They should simply document dry facts, with sources, and that's it. Moreover, encyclopedias are not newspapers or magazines: They shouldn't contain opinion pieces, or the opinions of the author's, or take stances.
So, what happens when an encyclopedia is editable by anybody, with no central authority or editorial staff, and it becomes immensely popular, the most read encyclopedia in the entire world? Well, quite inevitably, even with seemingly high standards of quality, many groups of people will try to use it for their own agendas, to use it for propaganda, trying to circumvent the rules of neutrality and standards by using faux-neutrality.
Now tell me if these are neutral, dry, fact-based, unbiased, non-propagandist articles with no agenda of any kind, that concentrate on relevant topics, or if they are opinion pieces that drive a certain agenda:
Misogyny and mass media.
Sexism in video games.
Exploitation of women in mass media.
Misogyny in hip hop culture.
Misogyny in horror films.
The list could actually go on and on, but I'll stop here.
Do most of these really need their own article? And if you read them, many of them really are just opinion pieces thinly masquerading as encyclopedic articles.