This isn't "anything remotely political" is it, it's a highly contentious culture war issue among the chronically online. I was disputing the claim actually made, not a different claim you appear to have understood I was making.
For what it's worth, I agree with that KYM's opening paragraph is better and less-biased than Wikipedia's.
But... It was a misogynistic harassment campaign. Some maybe well-meaning useful idiots also hitched their horse to it (and most have not even been tarnished by it), but that was the main thrust of that adventure.
Is Wikipedia supposed to describe World War II as a 'small disagreement over national borders and ethnic purity', lest it be accused of partiality? A spade's a spade, a war's a war, a harassment campaign is... A harassment campaign.
The KYM article mentions the harassment but is less editorialized.
"The term has also since been used to describe the group of internet users, based mainly on Twitter, who claim that there is a lack of transparency within the video game journalism industry. These same people have also been criticized of practicing misogyny and sexism by many, through harassment and trolling, referring to their opposition as social justice warriors."
Compare that to the indignation dripping from the wiki paragraph.
For me Wikipedia is consistently amongst the least biased sources on the internet.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party