Woman ( Donna Strickland) who won Nobel Physics prize not important enough for Wiki

I posted this on the other 'women in physics' thread - leader from this week's New Scientist

www.newscientist.com/article/2181377-it-has-been-a-goodbad-week-for-women-in-physics/

Gamergate was the tip of a very very large iceberg.

It's a fact, JurgenKloppsCat.

Is that an opinion or fact, Choc? I’m sure you aren’t one to stereotype.

Wiki doesn't ask your sex.

You can use any psuedonym you like.

Their data on sex comes from surveys of their own user base.

None of this changes the fact that the tone of debate on the site is male in tenor.

How do Wiki know what sex you are? Let's say I wanted to create a page about my child's fencing club coach, is it not possible to submit work under a pseudonym? I don't know what identity verification they require, hence the question, and it says here that submissions can remain anonymous;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Contributing_to_Wikipedia

What are people's personal experiences?

I agree with you Ghouls. It's toxic. Hostile to women.

"How are volunteers chosen? Do you apply and are approved? If so, wikipedia should sort out this gender bias.
Or maybe there's no approval process and less women volunteer than men? In which case, how can wikipedia improve that?"

It's dominated by men, as are most spaces on the internet, simply by virtue of being on the internet and not taking steps to deter men from contributing. The same reason that spaces such as the Actual Lesbians forum on Reddit is run by a man in a nappy, the Feminism forum on Reddit is run by a man, the Ask Feminists forum is also run by a man, and so on and on and on until you puke at the endless gaslighting bullshit.

Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus, however the 'consensus' is only formed among the sort of cranks and weirdos who have time to make 500,000 Wikiepdia posts, not actual experts in their field with qualification.

It is irreparably toxic.

(And don't forget by the way that the man who set it up is a pornographer. That's how the site was created. (But because Jimbo doesn't like people to know that, he censors that out of his own biography. Male privilege don't you know. www.wired.com/2005/12/wikipedia-founder-edits-own-bio/))

Hmm, I read all about early feminists and suffragettes on wikipedia
It's a rabbit hole I can spend hours on, and I don't find any toxicity.
The article on Anne Lister refers to her as a lesbian, not "gender non-conforming" for example.

For a quick illustration of what I mean, this is James Cantor, who is a clinical psychologist with an interest in transgender issues.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_Cantor

He is essentially banned from editing Wikipedia in topics that he has expertise in, because he edits in good faith under his own identity, so it is deemed he has a 'conflict of interest'.

For this he is called a child molester by fellow Wikipedians.

So a man, one of the few researching paraphalias such as 'furrydom', paedophilia, and others, from a dispassionate academic background is driven out by men in nappies

It's absolutely a toxic place, and you can be sure that articles on fields infested with (male, duh) paedophiles are being edited by said paedophiles under their anonymous handles, while actual experts are required to 'edit war' against said paedophiles, often in cohort.

Sick place. Absolutely sick.

For those who are asking, I did post an article about a woman who is a content creator. Here it is again;

contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/11/how-to-develop-a-wikipedia-page/

And perhaps getting involved and increasing women's involvement will lessen the toxicity. I've never taken part, so I don't know how good or bad it is. However, when I googled how to create content, that article came out top.

just 16% of the site’s volunteer editors are female

How are volunteers chosen? Do you apply and are approved? If so, wikipedia should sort out this gender bias.
Or maybe there's no approval process and less women volunteer than men? In which case, how can wikipedia improve that?

I agree with Hont1986 that most academics aren't notable enough for a wikipedia page.
I can only think of one I have worked with who has, and he has a CBE, and a veru short wiki page.

But Wikipedia is a toxic male culture infested with incels and cranks. It's not somewhere you'd want to get involved with

this

some people really love Wiki though

I see some of them are here

"Perhaps more women need to be involved in content creation."

But Wikipedia is a toxic male culture infested with incels and cranks. It's not somewhere you'd want to get involved with. Even if you focus on non-controversial topics you will at some point run across some toxic asshole.

But anyone coming to FWR would be hard pressed to find any posts/articles about this woman, or women in similar roles, or the wider subject of women in STEM academia or research.

As an occasional poster and long-time lurker on here, I don't think it would have been the case a couple of years ago. If feminists aren't really interested in this stuff because you have bigger fish to fry, why do you expect the rest of the world to be any different? Hats off to her though. Obviously a brilliant scientist.

At the bottom of the OP's article;

The episode also cast light on Wikipedia’s own gender bias: just 16% of the site’s volunteer editors are female and only 17% of entries dedicated to notable people are for women.

Perhaps this is part of the problem? Perhaps more women need to be involved in content creation. There's a good article here for anyone interested in providing content;

contentmarketinginstitute.com/2011/11/how-to-develop-a-wikipedia-page/

Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every academic in the world. She wasn't particularly notable before her Nobel prize; now she is. Not a feminist issue imho.

Dr Strickland, the words you are looking for are 'as much'

they deserved it as much as you

full stop

crikey woman, you just won a nobel prize

People are going to think you're pretty amazing from here on in (if they didn't already)

deal with it!

Here;

*Speaking to the BBC, Dr Strickland said it was "surprising" it had been such a long time since a woman had won the award.

However, she stressed that she had "always been treated as an equal", and that "two men also won it with me, and they deserve this prize as much if not more than me"*

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-45655151

The thing that really pissed me off was an interview she gave (bbc?)

She said really honoured etc. She knows her co-winners well and they deserve it so much, probably more so than her.

For fucks sake woman. Accept the award and recognition and don’t write yourself into a footnote after the men.

She went on there two minutes ago

That someone did and it was denied by a moderator as not suitable is terrible.

Bummer.

sorry reviewed and rejected by Bradv.

Obviously there are a lot of issues going on here, and they aren't all directly to do with Wikipedia - this research took placed in the 1980s, but she doesn't seem to have received significant credit for it in the intervening years in terms of media coverage, lucrative employment, etc. And there are reasons for THAT.

Especially as people are saying that it's a token, or that her co-author did all the work, etc.

But it's far from as simple as saying she wasn't important enough for Wikipedia - she quite possibly wasn't, by the measure of importance set down by Wikipedia, which simply reflects the sexual politics of the wider world. I guess 'bradv' did his job in saying 'sorry nobody we deem important cares about this woman, so she doesn't get an article'.