The rest of the article is just incoherent numbers and elevator talks of Wikipedia. What is the point of all this? Of course the Wiki mirrors the real world, that's its very purpose, right? I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. Over-represent the achievements of minorities to generate a pseudo-equality is a really bad "solution". I'm pretty sure a big player like Wikipedia can contribute to equality but I don't see any meaningful example for that in the article...
Men on average are almost twice as likely to have never married. Men on average has an older age when entering the first marriage and has also lower divorce rates then women. Seem what the author is calling prejudice by the biography writers is a misrepresentation.
It is interesting there is a brief mention of a concrete measurable problem (Wikipedia articles for women talk about their divorces more), but there is no deeper introspection about the problem. The paper referenced is worth reading, it has many more details which deserve more attention from this article than picking out one specific data point.
Amuse me for a while, towards whom is that sexist?
I really doubt Dr. Donna Strickland will be the only match or that none of the others will be men.
Wonderful journalism we have come to.