Giraffe Stapler, counter terrorist extraordinaire.

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Giraffe Stapler, counter terrorist extraordinaire.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:15 pm

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 56#p293924
I'm interested in harm reduction. I want to make Wikipedia less bad.
Uh huh. :roll:

And this is why you don't give a damn that Jess Wade seems to have wide immunity to ignore the BLP policy, right?
So you're complaining that the biography of Katarina Svanberg, oncologist, doesn't have a source for the statement "Svanberg completed her specialist training in oncology"? The source for the awards claim is the same one used for two of the preceding awards. Jess Wade should be careful to meticulously over-cite everything in case nutters like you try to find fault with their articles. No one else has to do that, but she apparently does because she makes incels upset
So, tell me, where can I find this peculiar definition of "over-citing"? Where does the BLP policy say, well, you know, if it's in there somewhere, that's OK. And why do you want to deliberately ignore the evidence that shows that sometimes the issue is that the reference is elsewhere in the article, but sometimes she just forgot to add it at all?

It is a proven pattern of behaviour. Virtually every single article. She is a sloppy shithouse of an editor.

Every single day. Her latest effort.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1039284664
Schwartz is from Switzerland.
An unreferenced claim of nationality.

Kind of important, no? The sort of claim that BLP policy requires an inline citation at the end of the sentence supporting the claim, and for it to be there at time of publication. So where the fuck is it?

She just dropped it down the sofa did she? With the approximately 5,000 other missing citations she must have racked up by now, in her illustrious career.

And if you can be bothered to take the ten or fifteen minutes to read every single citation provided elsewhere to see if it is in one of them (and you really are the sort of wanker who would be down with the idea that's other people's job, nothing to do with Wade at all), and it is, is putting it in the right place what you call, over-citing? Answer, for the record, if you mean to be a professional Wikipedia apologist.

Have you any comment on the fact this claim perhaps didn't even come from a reference, and it is probably merely Wade's own supposition? A particularly bad editorial habit of hers, that would become pretty clear pretty quickly, if she were ever actually investigated.

Perhaps you think that's not a problem in an editor with nearly 2,000 biographies to her name. Perhaps that I am being too harsh? By all means, let us know where you think the standard should be set.

Because if this is apparently too much to ask of an experienced editor, much less an "Ambassador", to know that you have to be able to cite nationality claims of obscure living figures, and, y'know, actually cite them, then I am dying to know how bad a rank and file editor is allowed to be, in your eyes.

And why, most of all, are you ignoring the very obvious fact that these things are happening PRECISELY BECAUSE she is exhibiting a lack of care? She knows how to do it, she knows she is supposed to do it, and for the most past she does it.

So given it really is just simple laziness, a lack of due care and attention, why should she get a free pass for something that unless you are an absolute raving gimp (and your really fucking are), you should know fine well that most relatively new editors don't get a free ride on, and highly experienced editors without her media profile, get absolutely slated for.

Careless is as careless does. Her BLP violations occur because she is just that shit.

Another day, another biography with some random wierd half sentence.....
Schwartz served on the scientific council of the European Sleep
......dumb obvious errors that she doesn't even notice, even though she surely, if she is doing it right, has three opportunities to notice (draft, preview, post submit).

Am I being harsh? Is expecting basic competence too high a bar for a person with her day job?

Or is it JUST TOO FUCKING FUNNY that she has actually admitted in the media that she edits Wikipedia while in the lab, waiting for results?

Bit distracted is she? All that beeping and whirring and sexual harassment?

Aye, that'll be right. :roll:

Not her fault. Nothing to do with the obvious fact she bit off more than she can chew with her self set one page a day target. Overestimated her meagre abilities. Believed her own hype, and the Wikipedia hype that she could do what quite rightly outside of Wikipedia is still considered a job worthy of professional level remuneration.

Any useless fucking monkey can write a Wikipedia page, it takes skill and dedication to do it properly. If Wade is their "Ambassador", then she is the proof of who really writes Wikipedia, and why. More monkey than skill. More arrogance and ego than selfless duty of care.

People like you, no doubt. Worthless, talentless, idle and stupid.
If I'm here, it's often because I'm procrastinating about something else I should be doing. And, if it needs to be said, Wikipediocracy definitely has a social aspect.
Ain't that the fucking truth. Used to be a serious place for serious people.

Everyone knows the rules. You do stupid shit like what Wade does, basic BLP sourcing failures, repeatedly, even after warnings, and you both refuse to acknowledge your mistakes and even double down on them while insulting the intelligence of the reporters, all of which she has done, then you should get banned.

Wade cannot be banned. She has immunity. Thanks to people like you. People who think they're preventing harm. :lol:

Listen up, dickhead.

It's the fucking BLP policy. Allegedly important. Extremely important.

Not optional, not advisory, not some nebulous higher standard.

The. Minimum. Standard.

That used to mean something to Wikipediocracy. A core value.

Then people like you came along, cossetted and protected by Mother Jake, and creepy Uncle Tarantino. That you have the cheek to even mention who was there before you, seeking to actually prevent harm, is astonishing.

But I am sure FUCKING LOVING the fact that apparently now I'm a TERRORIST in the eyes of Wikipediocracy, for pointing out these things. Poor old Jess.

Bring it on, you useless sacks of shit.

Way to sell out Jake. Got yourself a properly woke forum there. Put a whole new meaning on the phrase, TRIGGER WARNING.

Feel the panic. :twisted: :oops: :roll:

Post Reply