I have added lots of bullet points to the "In popular culture", "In film", "In TV" sections on Wikipedia.
I have never once had any of them removed. Nor can I imagine why anyone would do that if it was factually correct and relevant.
I do make sure to add a single source to a major news publication review of the show/film/etc. that mentions that the work is indeed about the thing or involves it as a major plot point.
I have made a modest number of contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I would say the worst experience was going through a somewhat bureaucratic process to have a page updated to then be ghosted by the person who suggested the process. Eventually I just did a WP:BOLD and made the edits myself, which remain there to this day. The best experience is being 'thanked' (there is a button for it on a page's edit history) by a page's self-appointed 'owner'.
From my perspective, if the edits are uncontroversial, it appears as though the response will be too. Editing Wikipedia is, socially, neither an overwhelmingly positive nor an overwhelmingly negative experience for me. I do it now and then as a purely altruistic endeavour.
In my experience, it really depends on the page. Some pages will go years with no editors reviewing them, and some articles you will get reverted that same day for literally any change you make. Something like this is probably obscure enough that any change you make should be able to go under the radar.
Hyperbole. There are certainly jerks on Wikipedia, and it's really frustrating if you run into one, but the vast majority of good faith edits will never encounter this problem.
It's like when someone gets banned from a Reddit sub for a stupid reason and concludes that every one of Reddit's thousands and thousands of mods is an evil power-tripping egotist.
