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 notice specifically suggests resubmitting with references.
The story/study about bias is interesting, but they picked a poor example to showcase.
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.
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.
> "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.
> 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.
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...
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.