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

[BigChocFrenzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/03/donna-strickland-nobel-physics-prize-wikipedia-denied

When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm announced the Nobel prize for physics this week, anyone wanting to find out more about one of the three winners would have drawn a blank on Wikipedia.
....
Until around an hour and a half after the award was announced on Tuesday, the Canadian physicist Donna Strickland was not deemed significant enough to merit her own page on the user-edited encyclopedia.

The oversight has once again highlighted the marginalization of women in science and gender bias at Wikipedia.

Strickland is an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo and former president of the Optical Society,
but when a Wikipedia user attempted to create a profile for her in March, the page was denied by a moderator.

“This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article,” said the moderator.

Soon after Tuesday’s announcement, however, the Wikipedia community scrambled to build up a profile, completing sections on her research, biography and – most critically – her awards.

But the belated recognition contrasted with that afforded to Strickland’s colleague Gérard Mourou – with whom she shared the award – who had a Wikipedia page in 2005.
....
She is the first woman to win the award since it went to Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963.

Bloody hell. I'd seen the headlines about there not being a wiki page, but I had naively assumed it was because no one had attempted to make one. That someone did and it was denied by a moderator as not suitable is terrible.

Gaahhhh

Fucking arse-ing, shitty bastarding misogynists. The fact that someone wrote a page and they turned it down.

I mean we've known for a long time that Wikipedia is like the political wing of the gamergate arseholes, but that's still shocking.

Woman know your place
... which is not to be on Wiki with the real physicists, who have penises

Isn't the worse thing that she is only an associate professor? Most male nobel laureates have been full professors for years before their award. What is going on there?

Thanks, red
I hope you are tucked up in a warm bed, sleeping, to zap that lurgie

oops, wrong thread
Well, anyone on FWR suffering a lurgie

Yes, I wondered about that, Hop
also this:

One Wikipedia Page Is a Metaphor for the Nobel Prize’s Record With Women

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland-gerard-mourou-arthur-ashkin/571909/

"Donna Strickland is only the third woman in history to win the award in physics—and her research probably deserved attention a lot sooner.__"

Bad that so many other female notable people are left out, due to decisions like this. Dikipedia is a fairly hostile place for females.

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.

It is also a shame that the Nobel Committee don't acknowledge work posthumously, at least some posthumous 'note' or recognition would be something. Then Vera Rubin and Rosalind Franklin could have been elevated in memory for their work. But women keep getting "overlooked" in their fields.

and it's not fucking gender bias Guardian

those women didn't identify into being discriminated against

they couldn't identify out of it if only they wanted to be treated equally more than they want to wear skirts and be accommodating

it's bias on the basis of their sex

to imply anything else is just fucking offensive

Just hsd a message from the stemettes saying they are dedicating a day for a group to go in and sort out wikipedia and its gender imbalance.

Well that answers the question I’d been wanting to ask about if she was an actual woman (the article I read didn’t have a photo and these days it’s so hard to tell without one)

repeal The way to tell she's a woman, not a transwoman:

Her brilliant achievement was not trumpeted as the most important ever

Sex (not gender) bias is one of the reasons I won't donate to Wikipedia.

The way to tell she's a woman, not a transwoman

...is to see if she has written about being transgender and working in physics.

The Guardian article is shit, so here's some more detail:

An article was created about her in 2014, however it was a copy+paste from here www.osa.org/en-us/history/biographies/donna-t-strickland/

So it was speedily deleted
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donna_Strickland&offset=&limit=500&action=history

A new article was created as a draft: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=832784757

This was reviewed by someone calling himself Bradv

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&diff=842614385&oldid=832784757

on the grounds that there were insufficient secondary sources.

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'.

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

Bummer.

She went on there two minutes ago

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.

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

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!

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.

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/

"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.