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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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/))

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

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?

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.

Women feel grateful when their achievements are rewarded;
men feel entitled to all they receive and more

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

It's a fact, JurgenKloppsCat.

Gamergate was the tip of a very very large iceberg.

It's an observation after a long career spent in science, no career breaks (I'm 62, STEM Phd)

I got exasperated with this a long time ago and that aspect just hasn't changed

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/