3 ms·

don't you see? her work was of little to no value, worthy of no less than total obscurity, for many, many years, and then one day, spontaneously, became worthy

don't you see? her work was of little to no value, worthy of no less than total obscurity, for many, many years, and then one day, spontaneously, became worthy of mention in the esteemed... wikis... of Wikipedia-- the day she was awarded a Nobel Prize completely out of the blue, apropos of nothing. story checks out; nothing to see here! :^) edit re downvotes: (not to speak for parent and OP, but) i don't think the claim here is that the kibosh-putting-on of her wikipedia page was done with malicious intent, but simply that bias may have played a role in that decision. and since it was demonstrated pretty damn unambiguously to have been mistaken in this case-- the bar for Nobel Prizes is just a teensy bit above the bar for having a Wikipedia page-- perhaps, as with all mistakes, it is something to learn from and bear in mind in the future. methinks he* doth protest too much? * about as apt an application of the phrase as you're ever likely to see heh

gumby 8y ago
I wish I could sneer at your post for sarcasm but sadly, the opposite is true: your comment is right on point.
edflsafoiewq 8y ago
Generally, that is what happens. A topic spontaneously becomes available for a Wikipedia article when a third-party source of sufficient notability comes into existence. This is a discontinuous process. You say that the decision was "mistaken" as though Wikipedia and the Nobel committee pass judgements of the same nature. But the function of Wikipedia's editors is not to judge whether her scientific work constitutes an "outstanding contribution for humanity" (for which they are evidently ill-equipped), nor is it to judge whether there exist sources which would confer some level of notability on her. It is only to judge whether the particular sources presented confer some level of notability. Looking at the rejected article, the only references are to a paper she published and two biographies on the websites of organizations she belongs to. There is no evidence that "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (from "Notability (academics)"). Anyway, I don't see why an encyclopedia should presage notability in the first place. It works the other way around. Now that she has been awarded the Nobel and her impact is beyond all contention "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", she gets a Wikipedia article. That's how it's supposed to work isn't it?

gumby 8y ago

I wish I could sneer at your post for sarcasm but sadly, the opposite is true: your comment is right on point.

edflsafoiewq 8y ago

Generally, that is what happens. A topic spontaneously becomes available for a Wikipedia article when a third-party source of sufficient notability comes into existence. This is a discontinuous process. You say that the decision was "mistaken" as though Wikipedia and the Nobel committee pass judgements of the same nature. But the function of Wikipedia's editors is not to judge whether her scientific work constitutes an "outstanding contribution for humanity" (for which they are evidently ill-equipped), nor is it to judge whether there exist sources which would confer some level of notability on her. It is only to judge whether the particular sources presented confer some level of notability. Looking at the rejected article, the only references are to a paper she published and two biographies on the websites of organizations she belongs to. There is no evidence that "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (from "Notability (academics)"). Anyway, I don't see why an encyclopedia should presage notability in the first place. It works the other way around. Now that she has been awarded the Nobel and her impact is beyond all contention "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", she gets a Wikipedia article. That's how it's supposed to work isn't it?