This isn't really the best question in the world. A major point against it is that it opens up based on a false premise that wong can be used as a legitimate alternative to wrong. However, it would probably be more appropriate to fix this through a comment recommending the removal of extraneous information, or pontificating upon the point in an answer explaining the discrepancy between the intended meaning and the actual signification.
However, I see no reason why it should be closed. It is not a general reference question for reasons user067531 explained in what seems to be a now deleted post regarding politeness. Granted, the question did not originally provide research, but that defect is fixable with an edit which had been appplied.
Normally, I would be against a third party adding research for similar reasons to CuriousDanni, since I would presume it would prejudice the answers by foreclosing upon possible answers, and because of the risk of a problematic answer being accepted. Indeed, I think the problematic answer has been accepted and it is an answer that is readily available in a Google search. However, there are reasons why I find this case to be exceptional:
One is that this is one of those cases where I suspect that even if the appropriate proceedure had been followed, that it would not have changed the result. The few readily accessible and reliable dictionaries which accept wong as a word, which is mostly just restricted to the Merriam-Webster series, refer to a presently unused definition.
As of this writing, The Free Dictionary only cites an older public domain Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is something The Free Dictionary only does when its usual sources like Random House, Collins, or the American Heritage Dictionary are lacking information. Lexico, which I presume to be the most likely dictionary to be used, has no results for the word at all.
The only readily avaiable reference work which attempts to give it an offensive meaning is Urban Dictionary, and it is anybody's guess as to whether the information on Urban Dictionary is actually accurate or not in the first place, so I do not count that as a general reference resource. Indeed, if I had to guess I would suppose that this is one of those Urban Dictionary listings, which is deliberately inaccurate. Even if The Urban Dictionary had been consulted, asking here may have been merely a method of seeking reaffirmation.
Now Green's dictionary is certainly reliable enough to be general reference when it can be readily consulted, but it is not readily found enough, so it fits into Stack Exchange's goal of proliferating obscure information through the use of Google as a search engine. Indeed, when I check google now, this is the last result on the first page is now this question.
The other, and much more important, reason is that because out of the General Reference dictionaries, not one of them actually gives an answer regarding why the word would be offensive. Fields are not inherently offensive, and the word is not marked as derogetory within that meaning, but rather just simply obsolete. Referencing Merriam-Webster should not influence which answer is considered most acceptable to anybody. Although "changing the meaning of a question" is prohibited by editing guidelines, I fail to see how this edit can be construed to do that, and "adding related links and resources" is an otherwise acceptable reason to edit a post.
It also should be noted that although I believe the wrong answer is accepted, that an accepted answer is not necessarily the right answer, and even if the advised proceedures had been followed by the questioner, it is very much possible that the question would be in the same state it is now.
Now personally, I have a slight disagreement with MariLou A. Despite the lack of attestation, I think the reasons wong is considered offensive would generally be considered common knowledge. It is basically one of many euphemisms for penis, and something of a combination of schlong and wang, and despite its euphemistic status, the intended playerbase for roblox is just so young that even euphemistic language and minced oaths may be objectionable to some people. We are talking about "Ha, you said underwear" levels of maturity here. I think this may be the main resistance to reopening the question.
Nevertheless, there is a lack of readily documentation regarding this subject matter, and considering the purposes of the Stack Exchange Network, I believe Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky would have wanted an answer to exist on the Stack Exchange network, because answering this question makes the internet a better place, which is very much the main goal of the network, as mentioned by Joel and Jay Hanlon. At the very best, keeping this question closed seems to be letting one bad apple spoil the whole bunch, and even though I think that is a very bad reason to keep a question closed in and of itself, it even lacks a correctional effect on user behavior, since the questioner's acceptance of an answer suggests personal satisfaction even if things stay as they are.
Now perhaps this is not an expert level question on the level of what linguists and etymologists would find interesting, but even if not, that is very much supposed to be why we have English Language Learners. Everybody has to learn something a first time, and with the provided research, I do believe that this question should at least meet their minimum requirements with the edit in place.
In any case, I already voted to reopen the question when I read user067531's other post. We can sort out which site it's better suited for later, if it's reopened.