In short, Wikipedia tries to discourage writing about yourself, which also applies to doing so through a representative.
1: Intent matters and advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia. A lot of people don't like this rule or think it can be ignored if they don't demand payment for it.
2: You can't editing Wikipedia to bring awareness of something while at the same time fulfill the notability requirements. The top 50 academics are important for their fields, and can also be completely unknown for the rest of the world. As an example, people in sport, music and cinema are much more common to have an Wikipedia article about them then academics. This does not mean academics are less important to society, but it does reflect notability.
3: As others has marked, writing a article about yourself or by a representative is heavily discouraged. This runs in the same vein as advocacy.
In this specific case I tried to search for the article/event, but neither of the search engine gave me any results, to the point where I now would like a source from gscott about that story.
I can update pages about some topics (e.g. backup, tape drives, backup products) and nothing gets deleted or changed. But there are others where everything I update gets reverted with a comment like "reverted good faith edit from ____"
I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate study. If it is, what is the control group? 50 men doing the same?
The actually data, as given in the study, is that the first 1 edit has a 2% higher rate of reverting than males, with each further edit a decreased revert rate to the point where female users are less likely to be reverted than male users once they hit their 16th edit.
The statement that "Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men" and the actually research result is quite far from each other.