I don't mean to sound misogynist or anything, but it's difficult to take these people seriously when they can't even correctly spell the word "empower."
As for the blog posting itself, I know I'm stating the obvious, but the story doesn't logically follow the headline. Essentially she's saying that children will try to do a better job of writing about someone or something when they're told that their work will be (or must be, by them) posted to Wikipedia. Putting aside the issue of selection bias and (in this case) BLP issues, is there really something about Wikipedia specifically that makes it a more effective motivator for something like this, as opposed to, say, the school's own website or some other site where the material posted isn't subject to change by other users? Is it simply because Wikipedia has such a large search-engine footprint? What's the justification for saying Wikipedia is motivating these children, as opposed to some other publishing platform? Wouldn't the same (or better) effect be achieved if the students were told their submissions were going to be printed in a book that would be sold in stores, for example? Of course, then they might demand royalties, but still, I'm not seeing the big draw here.