4 ms·

We're not "assuming" anything. The article has the following quote: > "But then [they] realized, 'Oh dear, it's even worse than we thought.' Because she did h

We're not "assuming" anything. The article has the following quote: > "But then [they] realized, 'Oh dear, it's even worse than we thought.' Because she did have a Wikipedia page. But it was nominated for deletion and then deleted." If the article is misleading that's on them, not on us for believing the CBC did their homework.

BeetleB 5y ago
Sorry, but the onus is on you as well. > Because she did have a Wikipedia page. But it was nominated for deletion and then deleted." The assumption people are making is that the Wikipedia page was appropriately written. If the page was just one line: "Blah blah is a tenured professor at a university", it changes the perspective completely.[2] Additionally, as a reader, you should read a bit critically: Did you not think to ask yourself "Why was it deleted?" and then evaluate how well the article is written? Other commenters clearly did. As another commenter pointed out, they didn't interview any admins - all they did was get a statement from the Wikimedia foundation. It took less than an hour for me to find the article that was deleted, and trace through the Wikipedia process to see why it was deleted and what Wikipedia's policies are.[1] This is all absent from the article. It's a pity, because the actual study probably is good and interesting, but that got buried because of shoddy journalism. [1] In that the policy would recommend deletion even if this was a man. [2] And oh boy I've found pages like that of professors I've known. And many of them really didn't do work warranting a Wikipedia entry.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I see. The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entry on a prominent scientist whose work eventually earns her a Nobel prize without any research at all...
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. I did not say that. At all. The onus is on you to understand what the article does and does not contain. The criticism of the article is about possibly vital pieces of information that are excluded. It's pretty obvious on a single read of the article that there is information missing. The "extra work" is to uncover that missing piece, which is not your responsibility. However, being aware that then article is excluding relevant information is. You and only you are responsible for what you believe, and how you evaluate information coming to you. Sorry, I do not want to engage with you if you don't read my comments properly. > But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entry on a prominent scientist whose work eventually earns her a Nobel prize without any research at all... Yes, because that Wikipedia editor is not getting paid to do the research. Nor is it the editor's defined role. The journalist, however, is, and it is their role to do so.

BeetleB 5y ago

Sorry, but the onus is on you as well. > Because she did have a Wikipedia page. But it was nominated for deletion and then deleted." The assumption people are making is that the Wikipedia page was appropriately written. If the page was just one line: "Blah blah is a tenured professor at a university", it changes the perspective completely.[2] Additionally, as a reader, you should read a bit critically: Did you not think to ask yourself "Why was it deleted?" and then evaluate how well the article is written? Other commenters clearly did. As another commenter pointed out, they didn't interview any admins - all they did was get a statement from the Wikimedia foundation. It took less than an hour for me to find the article that was deleted, and trace through the Wikipedia process to see why it was deleted and what Wikipedia's policies are.[1] This is all absent from the article. It's a pity, because the actual study probably is good and interesting, but that got buried because of shoddy journalism. [1] In that the policy would recommend deletion even if this was a man. [2] And oh boy I've found pages like that of professors I've known. And many of them really didn't do work warranting a Wikipedia entry.

Ensorceled 5y ago
I see. The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entry on a prominent scientist whose work eventually earns her a Nobel prize without any research at all...
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > The onus is on me to personally verify the details of a large, well respected news source. I did not say that. At all. The onus is on you to understand what the article does and does not contain. The criticism of the article is about possibly vital pieces of information that are excluded. It's pretty obvious on a single read of the article that there is information missing. The "extra work" is to uncover that missing piece, which is not your responsibility. However, being aware that then article is excluding relevant information is. You and only you are responsible for what you believe, and how you evaluate information coming to you. Sorry, I do not want to engage with you if you don't read my comments properly. > But you are defending a Wikipedia editor for deleting a entry on a prominent scientist whose work eventually earns her a Nobel prize without any research at all... Yes, because that Wikipedia editor is not getting paid to do the research. Nor is it the editor's defined role. The journalist, however, is, and it is their role to do so.