4 ms·

I know there are people who consider it important to raise the profile of prominent women because of perceptions of bias like this. This could be a self-perpetu

I know there are people who consider it important to raise the profile of prominent women because of perceptions of bias like this. This could be a self-perpetuating cycle if that initiative results in creating more profiles of women of borderline notability, you would expect people following a uniform standard to be more likely to nominate women's articles for deletion. She is notable now for having won a Nobel Prize. Good on the Nobel committee for ensuring she gets the recognition she deserves. It doesn't follow from that that she was notable before that happened. Wikipedia's notability standard is not "doing important work that will be recognized someday".

pastage 5y ago
The point being that using a uniform standard when you compare women and men will always have a systematic bias.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  If thats true then isn't equality of any sort impossible?
MichaelGroves 5y ago
> She is notable now for having won a Nobel Prize That's not right. The Nobel Prize didn't bequeath notability to her, it recognized the notability she already earned for herself.
- nsajko 5y ago
  How so? And how is this relevant?
- bloqs 5y ago
  From an Encyclopedic perspective, this is wrong
- prvc 5y ago
  That's not the definition of notability used by Wikipedia.
  - MichaelGroves 5y ago
    That's the point of all of this isn't it? Wikipedia's standard/definition of notability, or their method for determining it, is broken.
    - ethelward 5y ago
      At the same time, you can't expect Wiki editors to be expert in all cutting-edge domain of knowledge to be able to determine which academics are or aren't notable.
- DerpyBaby123 5y ago
  I think it is right, as a result of winning the Nobel Prize, she received significant coverage in multiple published sources. At least, I don't see any current wikipedia sources from before the time she was recognized as a Nobel winner. From wikipedia[1]: >People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. From this definition, it seems you can't 'earn yourself notibility' directly, except as to earn it indirectly by having independent reliable sources publish about you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...
908B64B197 5y ago
> I know there are people who consider it important to raise the profile of prominent women because of perceptions of bias like this. This could be a self-perpetuating cycle if that initiative results in creating more profiles of women of borderline notability, you would expect people following a uniform standard to be more likely to nominate women's articles for deletion. It's also demoralizing for women/minorities. When you lower the bar for achievements for some groups it paints them as less capable than others.

pastage 5y ago

The point being that using a uniform standard when you compare women and men will always have a systematic bias.

LatteLazy 5y ago
If thats true then isn't equality of any sort impossible?

MichaelGroves 5y ago

> She is notable now for having won a Nobel Prize That's not right. The Nobel Prize didn't bequeath notability to her, it recognized the notability she already earned for herself.

nsajko 5y ago
How so? And how is this relevant?
bloqs 5y ago
From an Encyclopedic perspective, this is wrong
prvc 5y ago
That's not the definition of notability used by Wikipedia.
- MichaelGroves 5y ago
  That's the point of all of this isn't it? Wikipedia's standard/definition of notability, or their method for determining it, is broken.
  - ethelward 5y ago
    At the same time, you can't expect Wiki editors to be expert in all cutting-edge domain of knowledge to be able to determine which academics are or aren't notable.
DerpyBaby123 5y ago
I think it is right, as a result of winning the Nobel Prize, she received significant coverage in multiple published sources. At least, I don't see any current wikipedia sources from before the time she was recognized as a Nobel winner. From wikipedia[1]: >People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. From this definition, it seems you can't 'earn yourself notibility' directly, except as to earn it indirectly by having independent reliable sources publish about you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...

908B64B197 5y ago

> I know there are people who consider it important to raise the profile of prominent women because of perceptions of bias like this. This could be a self-perpetuating cycle if that initiative results in creating more profiles of women of borderline notability, you would expect people following a uniform standard to be more likely to nominate women's articles for deletion. It's also demoralizing for women/minorities. When you lower the bar for achievements for some groups it paints them as less capable than others.