I feel like this is an uncharitable interpretation that dives into intent. Humans in my experience are generally not prone to such nuanced planning regardless of their influence. A more reasonable assumption is that the writers of the article genuinely believe that Wikipedia is biased against women, which is evidence towards a world belief that systemic bias against women exists in the writer's society, which is a position increasingly associated with the Democratic party of the united states. In other words, correlated but not causative events are occuring.
The media, and the NYT in particular doesn't deserve too much charity here. They are almost all members of the Democratic Party, and heavily invested in the outcome of the primaries. They're in a unique position to shape the national conversation in a way that favors their favored candidate (e.g. by deciding what is or is not newsworthy), and they frequently use that power. Do you remember how Howard Dean's "yee-haw" was a sign that he was dangerously unstable? Do you remember the moral panic about misogynistic 'Bernie Bros'? Why after all these years did the media suddenly notice Joe Biden is kind of handsy? I don't think it's too cynical to believe that the media is trying to play kingmaker (or queenmaker) in the Democratic primaries. That's more or less their favorite hobby.
