Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#91

Post by rob_c »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #53
rob_c wrote: post #13

Typical Wrote up a long description about how the equipment I used for my master's worked (fleshing out a stub article). Only to have some moderator (being extremely polite here) revert the whole thing because it was "uncited". When challenged I ended up getting temp banned for telling them "I know how it works I just built one". Haven't trusted or contributed since it's moving closer to a collective "what we want to…

The point is, that they don't know if you're telling the truth when you say "I just built one", there's no real way to ensure that they are knowledgeable enough in every single topic to be able to figure it out. So they adopted the sensible rule of requiring citations. This annoys people like you, who know stuff that isn't in Wikipedia, because it raises the effort required to get it in. But at the same time it stops…

Like the main article. Increasing the barrier to entry here didn't help.

This isn't about a celebrities haircut.

This is an admin who doesn't understand a topic sitting as gatekeeper on said topic. It doesn't scale and causes problems.

Reducing the barrier to entry is better to encourage engagement. Higher barriers of entry should be needed for evolving topics as is appropriate but the fact Wikipedia has gone this way from my last attempt at a contribution (2004) is sad.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#92

Post by pastage »

kevinpet wrote: post #81

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 Priz…

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

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#93

Post by BeetleB »

rob_c wrote: post #64
BeetleB wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are assuming quite a bit. If an article about a professor is written and has virtually no references, then it's not the admin's job to do research to see if she is notable or not. It should be tagged as "needs references" and if they are not provided, eventually deleted. In her particular case, the article didn't even exist - only a draft did - which was not approved because it had no references. The rejection…

Frankly when did Wikipedia admins start getting praised for not doing a thorough job and acting as gatekeepers? This is likely the source of most biases. Again. Leaving an article and requesting additions from the public is drastically different to deleting it because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard. This case proves that something in that process is making Wikipedia all the poorer for this being the case.

> Again. Leaving an article and requesting additions from the public is drastically different to deleting it because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard.

Correct, but irrelevant. There was no article. Only a draft specifically created and submitted to be reviewed. It was reviewed and fair feedback was provided. This is different from the process where an article already exists and is marked for deletion.

Edit: See here for more details:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237054

Edit 2: There apparently was another article in 2014 which was deleted. The information above is about the more recent AFC that was deleted.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#94

Post by rob_c »

renewiltord wrote: post #88
rob_c wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. I'd argue having an unpolished article in need of work is better than a stub as it encourages interaction. Not to mention being told to stop using a paywall for citing a journal (which is now out of print) as a source.

The danger of the unpolished article thing is that if there is a falsehood on it people will publish the equivalent of this article but with the title: How a Wikipedia Lie Ruined This Man’s Life. Or some such thing.

So nothing should go on the internet unless it's fact checked?

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#95

Post by zozbot234 »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #27

Some critics say it was gender bias, while others say it was a problem with notability, a gauge editors use to determine if a topic deserves a Wiki page. Wikipedia editors must be able to verify facts about any Wiki entry against published reliable sources, from publications to the press. Actual crux of the issue. Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a gender war.

The actual problem with the Donna Strickland page is that she was clearly notable by Wikipedia's standard for scientists and researchers, but the initial stub article did a very poor job of clarifying her notability. Wikipedia does get lots of bio articles about researchers, most of them are not really notable, so the area gets a lot of attention that often involves shooting first and asking questions later.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#96

Post by rob_c »

jhgb wrote: post #83
rob_c wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. (Apparently) Again I provided diagrams explaining how a piece of scientific equipment work in detail and this was disregarded because I didn't attach a link from some news outlet. This is just brain damagingly stupid.

> And citing out of print inaccessible paper journals is not regarded as evidence. [citation needed] I've seen plenty of references to "out of print inaccessible paper journals" in Wikipedia articles. They haven't been deleted.

Yes they're up there. But having it held as a reason to have a page of scientific descriptions and drawings deleted is just madness.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#97

Post by jhgb »

MichaelGroves wrote: post #79
crazygringo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted because everyone knows Wikipedia is built on citations. There's no way for any reader or editor to know whether you know how it works or not. So Wikipedia is built primarily around not even primary sources but secondary sources for a good reason. Yes it may lose out in some valuable knowledge such as yours in the process -- but it achieves a greater good of minimizing Wikipedia being flooded by…

> You're being downvoted because everyone knows Wikipedia is built on citations. Got a citation for that supposed common knowledge? I couldn't resist myself, but seriously, wikipedia purports to be built on citations but how often have you tried checking citations to see if they contain the information a wikipedia article claims? Many times I have found that information in a wikipedia article is nowhere to be found i…

The existence of bad citations does not get away with the need for good citations, though. Why haven't you fixed the tungsten thing, though? This seems like an obvious mistake.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#98

Post by mcguire »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #27

Some critics say it was gender bias, while others say it was a problem with notability, a gauge editors use to determine if a topic deserves a Wiki page. Wikipedia editors must be able to verify facts about any Wiki entry against published reliable sources, from publications to the press. Actual crux of the issue. Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a gender war.

Please stop cherry picking minor quotes and consider the entire argument.

"Strickland's case wasn't an anomaly, said Tripodi. "What I discovered is even women who are meeting these notoriously difficult hurdles of notability are still twice as likely to be considered non-notable and nominated for deletion.""

"The Wikimedia Foundation, which funds Wikipedia, acknowledges that articles on the online encyclopedia are not representative of the impact that women have had throughout history, saying that mirrors the world's gender biases."

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#99

Post by bobthechef »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #27

Some critics say it was gender bias, while others say it was a problem with notability, a gauge editors use to determine if a topic deserves a Wiki page. Wikipedia editors must be able to verify facts about any Wiki entry against published reliable sources, from publications to the press. Actual crux of the issue. Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a gender war.

> Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a gender war.

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" (Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"). All manufactured social conflicts take something that can happen, exaggerate it, and harp on it.

Remember: we must extirpate every last vestige of "bias" from this earth so that the universe shall be made pure! We are just an inch away from utopia! All that stands in our way is that bias. If only it could be weeded out, exterminated from every dark crevice and corner of the land, from every brain cell of every man, woman, and child, all of our problems would be solved, for all would be clean and kosher. Until then, no stone shall remain unturned, no word of phrase left interrogated, until we are sure that every heart and every mind is one with the Party line.

Re: Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias

#100

Post by mcguire »

youeseh wrote: post #10
fsckboy wrote: post #4

misleading title, the scientist Donna Strickland had had her page deleted before she won the Nobel prize and therefore did not have a page at the time she won the prize.

Easy enough to fix: "Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia before rise to prominence points to wider bias" I wish news outlets would stick to reporting the news.

"Strickland's case wasn't an anomaly, said Tripodi. "What I discovered is even women who are meeting these notoriously difficult hurdles of notability are still twice as likely to be considered non-notable and nominated for deletion.""
Post reply on HN