A woman on Wikipediocracy describes what frustrates her about Jess Wade's editing

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

A woman on Wikipediocracy describes what frustrates her about Jess Wade's editing

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:42 am

The only (semi) regular female poster on Wikipedicoracy, BrilleLyle, has popped up to comment on the thread that Wikipediocracy would rather nobody touches (because to do so threatens their desire to be part of the Wikimedia movement). The one that exposes the truth about Jess Wade.

She doesn't sign up to the central thesis that Wikipedia has a Jess Wade problem, she dismisses it as "misogyny", but she has registered some concerns. This will no doubt please Wade very much, since in Wade's mind, she is a brilliant editor and any and all criticism of her work must be the product of sexism.

At the risk of being further accused of misogyny, it also shows that BrilleLyle is paying about as much attention to the body of work of people like me (serious Wikipedia critics) as she usually does, since my critical output, Wade excepted, has been consistently against the misogyny of Wikipedia.

AndyTheGrump is free to try and contradict that last statement, but he can't, because he's a fucking moron, emblematic of the sort of know nothing brain dead bastard you have to be to be a regular poster on Wikipediocracy these days.

Maybe if Wikipediocracy didn't ban people who call out their own misogyny, posters like BrilleLyle would know that the author of that post (me) has said things like....
Even in 2021, I am pretty sure you're still allowed to criticise a woman for being below a minimum standard expected of everybody, man, woman or dog.
...and other things which make it clear (and has never been refuted by Wikipediocracy, because they can't) that my hatred for Wade does not exist solely because she is a woman. It is because she is getting away with shit that men wouldn't, because she is a woman, while purportedly being a feminist. Last I checked, feminists are for equal rights, not special treatment. Last I checked, the way you correct an imbalance, is by creating balance.

In reality, her very existence on Wikipedia sets back feminism, because it actually normalises the idea that being a woman is somehow a disability. Something that is used to explain your deficiencies when compared to the majority male community. Something that the male majority, if they want to be seen as feminist allies, needs to protect the likes of Wade from, should a big bad wolf like me try and blow their house down.

BrillLyle's comments were all the more hilarious, when you consider the context in which they were made. She is describing her experiences cleaning up after Jess Wade as a sock, because she was long since banned by Wikipedia for being too much of an uppity woman fighting for equal rights.

Comments made while being surrounded by male posters on Wikipediocracy, at least one of whom (Beeblebrox) currently sits on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee as a direct result of the anti-feminist community backlash post-Framgate.

Here are some hilarious excerpts from her comments......
Personally I wish she would improve her citation style and be more consistent.
The whole entire point of speaking about the "Jess Wade problem" is that it doesn't matter what anyone wishes Wade would do, she alone has complete and total immunity. If you actually asked her to be more consistent in her citation style, which is a perfectly reasonable policy based request, not only would you be ignored, it's likely you would be warned against harassing her.

To remind people, Wade is experienced enough to know that citation styles have to be consistent, in large part because Wikipedia is allegedly an encyclopedia, and so this is what experienced editors should be doing. She is inconsistent not because she doesn't know how to be consistent, she is inconsistent because to be consistent takes time. Time she does not have, because of her self set target of one biography a day. Because that's feminism, apparently.

She is inconsistent with her citation styles for the same reason that she will often simply choose not to provide an inline source for basic but important (read: likely to be challenged) biographical claims. I was of course banned by Wikipediocracy before their snowflake commentariat would have been forced to address this gaping hole in their LEAVE WADE ALONE SHE'S DOING NOTHING WRONG argument.

BrilleLyle was reluctant to admit it, but there is only one word that describes her editing. Sloppy. Or perhaps two words. Deliberately sloppy. Is that the cause of feminism? Is BrillleLyle down with that? Using the mere fact that Wade is a woman, to justify allowing her to be sloppy? In a manner that actually sees other women feel compelled to clean up after her?

Maybe in a more enlightened future, Wikipediocracy will be a place where BrilleLyle can be posed these questions, so that she might become a better Wikipedia critic. As of right now, I suspect BrilleLyle is to Wikipediocracy, what Wade is to Wikipedia. A token woman. Someone whose presence is tolerated, faults and all, because of what she represents, rather than what she is.

As the male Wikipedia posters of Wikipediocracy have explained in apparent reply to her comments, in a moment of remarkably uncharacteristic servility, and without of course spotting how stupid or ridiculous or against policy it actually is, the current reality of Wikipedia is that Wade is allowed to be inconsistent in her citation styles, because she is Jess Wade, and if anyone doesn't like it, there isn't anything the governance system will or would do about it, because she is Jess Wade.

Herein lies the problem as described. When it comes to Wade, and only Wade, if you have a problem with her inconsistency, or her sourcing, or indeed any other issue that requires fixing if one of her articles were to ever be considered Wikipedia's best work, if not simply a basically minimally acceptable article. If the existence of the problem offends your idea of what it means to be a good Wikipedia editor, well, your only recourse is to follow in Wade's wake, and clean up her articles.

Do not complain, do not bother her at all. Just be meek and quiet and travel in her wake, feeding your addiction to silly things like policy compliance if you must, like those sea creatures who survive by eating whatever falls out the mouth or indeed arse of a whale. The implication being of course, that Wade is doing the real work, you are just some stupid easily replaceable grunt.

The problem for Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, is of course, that policy compliance in fields like sourcing and citation consistency is typically not what the mindless gnome grunt class of Wikipedia concerns itself with. There are no automated tools or quick fixes for this sort of sort of shitty editing. It takes brains, effort, hard work, and the sort of dedication only seen in the people who, if you are the sort of person who likes to divide editors into who is doing the skilled labour and who is doing light work, is commensurate with years of doing the heavy lifting.

This is the reality of Wade. It actually takes no real skill to do what she does. Only time. And boy, is she making maximum use of that scarce resource to meet her target, to the detriment of Wikipedia. The skill, if it exists all, is identifying missing subjects. She's good at that, sort of, but so are lots of other people. That's not where the plaudits lie, alas. No PR points for that.

The rest of what she does to earn her misplaced credit as a gap closer, is actually relatively mindless grunt work. Copy paste stuff. There is a reason why her articles look like she is working from a template, because she is. There is a reason why she makes so many typos, why her prose is choppy, and why she often leaves odd sentences dangling, or sources misplaced.

And it is why, despite being a scientist, she often doesn't apparently even understand the topic (a scientist's education, career and research) that she is writing about. There is a reason why, in one hilarious instance, she never even spotted that she had hastily crafted one biography for two different people, simply because they had the same name and worked in similar fields. You can't get more sexist than the inherent assumption there, right?

She is sloppy. She is a shit editor. When measured not against a n00b, as the Wikipediocracy wankers would wish, but when measured against a capable and collegiate editor with the same amount of time and experience at the central task of article writing.

This is the basic reality of Wade as a Wikipedia editor, that she could very well be harming Wikipedia more than she is helping it, IF we are to measure her product and her labour costs agasint the policies that were written to ensure Wikipedia actually is a volunteer created encyclopedia rather than a running joke of an MMPORG or a cash cow for Foundation employees and partners.

Merely posing that as a potential problem apparently SCARES THE SHIT out of both the Wikipedia community and Wikipediocracy. The truth that must not be spoken. Which is really odd, because it's a truth that would harm the thing they apparently hate most of all, a common enemy, the evil Foundation.

For as you should probably have realised from the outline of the "Jess Wade problem", just being a Wade groupie, a grunt eating her shit, is a pretty time consuming task, one that might not leave you enough time in a day to do anything else. Even if you are a far more capable editor that Wade is or ever could be, and there's a potential Featured Article sitting on a shelf somewhere. Perhaps something that fills a much needed gap in Wikipedia's coverage of women's struggles for equality, not getting finished, because Wade is such a lazy sloppy editor.

Wade is an editor whose single solitary existence, if you LOOKED, is already consuming the time of at least three other editors on a daily basis, who in their stupidity, seem content to perform daily fixes of her articles, all for the same usual dumb reasons. And they are just the easy, quick fixes, like the never ending stream of typos, grammar fixes, etc. The actual grunt work. The hard stuff, that's being left.

Put simply, Wade is clearly not a retard, but it is quite surprising to realise just how much of her existence on Wikipedia, does look like the sort of thing society does for those with special needs. Things done because it is accepted that some individuals will simply never learn how to wipe their own asses or functionally communicate as an independent being. It is simply that Wade's apparent disability, as defined by the Wikipedia community, is "woman".

It's remarkable to think how little Wade actually even talks to anyone on Wikipedia. She doesn't need to, of course. Talking is what polite, responsive, thoughtful, considerate members of a community just do, as a matter of course. She's never had to face the consequences of her actions on Wikipedia, due to her chosen manner of sloppy and inconsiderate editing. And anyone who complains that they're having to clean up her shit is swiftly banned.

Hence why, a few trivial fixes aside, cosmetic matters really, most editors don't bother to even look anymore. As with much of the flaws of Wikipedia, the Jess Wade problem is just being deferred, for future generations to fix.

Which brings us back to the uselessness of Wikipediocracy, their crime of selling out, since even allegedly content focused Wikipedia Administrators like Ritchie333 and wbm1033 who post there these days, in the absence of serious critics, have made the conscious decision to not bother to even look closely at a Jess Wade article. Much less ten in a row, lest they spot a problematic pattern that their role as a Wikipedia Administrator would compel them to act on.

Don't let any of the current crop of apologists at Wikipediocracy lie to you. It is a basic reality of Wikipedia's idea of the difference between being part of a collective effort and just being a selfish prick, that if you are an editor with Jess Wade's experience and rate of productivity, you don't get a free pass on basic stuff like this.

If, like Wade, you still hadn't mastered a basic requirement like consistency of citation styles or full and proper inline sourcing of a biography (both being linked issues of course), and if it became obvious this was a conscious choice due to lack of time, then someone is most definitely going to get on your case and try to modify your behaviour. Ironically, someone like Fram.

Fram of course cannot go near someone like Wade now, and you would think that would interest the people who post at Wikipediocracy, since they claim to be all about sticking up for the individual against the forces of ism and the evil Foundation that is so often trying to force them on the saintly band of volunteers. But no. Sellouts, one and all.

That's just a taster. This is the sort of bullshit that nearly had me falling off my chair...
And she does create and edit colleagues at her uni, which I wish she would avoid.
Wish? WISH?

As has been so amply demonstrated by Wikipediocracy and Beeblebrox teaming up to use back channel star chamber methods to get Tenenbrae banned, it is still the case that editing with a clear conflict of interest is considered unacceptable.

Wade's specialism don't forget, under the auspices of closing the gap, is writing about people based largely if not solely on primary or non-independent sources, and then waiting to see if them having a Wikipedia biography leads to independent secondary sources noticing them enough that they would write about them, and so actually confirm their Wikipedia notability.

Wade then, is the absolute very last person who should be writing about her colleagues at Imperial, and indeed, random Foundation executives who she meets in the course of her Wikipedia efforts.

But herein lies the Jess wade problem. Wade is obviously not a COI editor in the really bad sense, her clear and obvious violations of the COI policy are simply a byproduct of the much larger issue of her being a reay sloppy editor in general. Someone who has barely grasped simple issues, but whose value to the Foundation and the community as a PR tool, means she's never faced the sort of feedback that typically means editors of her experience would by now not only know about the importance of citation consistency, but of properly sourcing biographies and not editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest. Or be banned if they proved incapable or unwilling to meet these important minimal standards.

These things are frankly not even on Wade's radar, she doesn't need to concern herself with them at all, because she is protected. Not just by the highest levels of Wikipedia governance, but by the supposed Wikipedia critics, Wikipediocracy.

And here is where smart people might realise the damage done by the Admin of Wikipediocracy having become such a sellout that someone like Beeblebrox is now considered one of their most valued posters, and I am decried on their forum as an "incel".

Yes, I do want to fuck Wade. But not on the biblical sense. I just want to fuck her up for her repeated crimes against humanity, her crimes against what I was always taught made you a good Wikipedia editor, and which are still, to this day, basic Wikipedia policy for a reason. Because, like former targets of my wrath such as the actual misogynist Eric Corbett, after careful research, I have concluded Wade's faults are consciously committed crimes, not mere mistakes or the product of an actual bona fide disability. She knows what she is doing wrong, she knows how to be a better editor and why that would be a good thing for Wikipedia, but for purely selfish reasons, she chooses not to.

We are well past the days when she genuinely, and quite incorrectly, thought that the "community" element of Wikipedia, is that if she doesn't do something that she's supposed to do, that's OK, because it falls to others to fix it. She knows better now, but because she is protected and enabled, in the same way that piece of shit Eric Corbett was for so many years, she still happily exploits the fact that many are happy to live this lie, for her own selfish reasons, and those who are not, cannot get to her.

Now, you might say, hey, wait a minute. Shouldn't your real targets be those who are protecting and enabling her, since without them, she could have never ever got to the level of sheer arrogance that she has?

Well, yeah. But have you ever tried taking down people like Beeblebrox, without the help of Wikipediocracy? People like Ritchie333 are the ones applauding her efforts, for fuck's sake. Not that him being a dumbass is a surprise.

Wade is the symbol of how Wikipedia has defeated Wikipediocracy as any kind of threat to the bad actors on Wikipedia, reduced to merely being a useful idiot capturing low hanging readily ignorable fruit like Tenenbrae, rather than an eye catching big fish like Jess Wade. Tenebrae was a symbol of a long standing problem that Wikipedia is never really going to address beyond the occasional corrections like Tenebrae, even though it claims it wants to and it wound be in its interest to do so.

Wade however, is a symbol of a brand new problem on Wikipedia, who, for existential reasons, both the community and the Foundation wants and needs to deny even exists. Old school corruption and self-preservation.

Wade and her protectors and enablers are the exact sort of people Wikipediocracy used to go after, the sort of people Wikipedia wants to keep, but for very sound moral reasons, Wikipedia critics would have identified as deserving no part of a project with Wikipedia's stated aims and ideals.

Wikipediocracy is instead now happily fighting the last war, and is probably being directed to do so by the people who want and need Wikipedia to continue to be able to claim it is an encyclopedia and a work of public good, both manifest lies which any serious critic realises very quickly, if they are to do anything worthwhile in the criticism arena.

The Jess Wade problem is not just an indictment of Wikipedia, it is a symbol of how Wikipediocracy long ago ceased to be about challenging the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia, and is now all about enabling it.

This shoud matter to people like BrilleLyle, if we are to assume she's that very rare thing, a woman and a knowledgeable Wikipedia editor and critic. If not, well, in the time honoured tradition of my alleged incel brothers, fuck her, and the boat she came in on.

User avatar
Sucks Noob
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:17 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A woman on Wikipediocracy describes what frustrates her about Jess Wade's editing

Post by Cruizir2021 » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:34 pm

there's literally no women on this website

Post Reply