This article's main purpose is about noticing the gap between women and technology. The Matilda effect article remains neutral throughout the whole thing. While there is not much information, from what is stated it is noted that it is not biased. As stated in the article the Matilda effect is a result of women’s success and achievements being credited to men, whether it may be someone who helped discover or a male who simply discovered it later. The Matilda effect has been happening since as early as the 1800’s. However, one thing that was noticed some of the examples presented where a tad out of date. The article lacks recent women achievers who were also victims of the Matilda effect. While I appreciated that the lists of women affected were those with major achievements there are still many who are affected today. Along with the article being a little on the small side, the talk page was also lacking discussions. There was a major point brought up, which noted that the one who might have come up with the Matilda effect was not credited in the article Margaret W. Rossiter was first noted to use the term “Matilda Effect” but not first to come up with the idea. The references in this article were valid and useful but I also do believe it could a lot more information. The lists that were provided with links to their own pages helped gain an understanding. As rated by Wikipedia this article is a start class which in some words means it needs work. After reading this article I agree with this rating. The article has the main points but lacks depth research. Some of which I can add. Before this assignment I was not aware of the “Matilda effect” myself. I was aware of the notion that women were not always given the credit they deserved but was not aware of there being an actual name. Some other things that the article could benefit from are from more examples that most would not considering science. Adding a content that referenced other circumstances where women were discrete could help those understand the problem more. A glance at this article showed how women were victims of this but adding other contents could further argue that those who fell into the Matilda effect deserve the credit for what they did. However, I also did notice that it referenced another term as the Matthew effect which is when any scientist is discredited not just females. While women fall to this there are other scientists who also suffer from this. As discussed in class day after day, women are being viewed different in many aspects of the world whether that may be through science, technology, academics or any other life value. Women have been put in another subcategory simply because of their gender. The Matilda Effect is not something that can be diminished overnight. But from early times like the 1800’s women have been overshadowed by men.
article points out that while many suffer from matilda effect, some women do get credited for their work like Madame Marie Curie, maria Goeppart Mayer(co award winner of nobel prize, even though for a couple of years she did not work due to an anti-nepotism rule and was ruled "unpaid volunteer" she was still credited for her contirbutions,
one case of a women not given enough credit. Margaret Alic ( trotula) was responsible for finding cures of women diseases. was credited and mentioned by husband and son but as time went on a monk figured her name must be a male name, gave it a masculine form thus discrediting a womens contributions to these findings. time after time people did not think a women was capable of such findings therefore is not mentioned in " dictionary of scientific biography.
in many cases of partners co-finding any phenomenon whether done on purpose or not, the female contributor does not get the credit that is deserved. Frieda Robscheit- Robbins who aided geroge hoyt in many of their findings did not share the nobel prize with him, while two other men did.
author describes most notorious case of a women not getting the proper credit for the nobel prize was lise Meitner who worked alongside otto Hahn who together cofounded nuclear fission. he received his nobel prize alone
copied Rossiter, Margaret W. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 23, no. 2, 1993, pp. 325–341. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/285482.