Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:01 pm

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/fem ... 64.article

Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia – what’s going on?
Katrina Kramer
3 July 2019

Classic Jess Wade.......
Jessica Wade, a physical chemist at Imperial College London, UK, who created both Phelps’ and Tuttle’s page, says out of the 600 articles she has written so far about female, black, minority ethnic or LGBTQ+ scientists, six have been deleted as they weren’t deemed notable. But almost every single one is being scrutinised – particularly those on ethnic minority women, Wade says.
She claimed it, the press repeated it. Even though it is obvious a lie. As I have shown, most of her shitty output isn't even being spell-checked and obvious failures in matching text to source are not being spotted.
When you make a page and it is disputed for deletion, it is not only annoying because your work is being deleted,’ she says. ‘It’s also incredibly intrusive and degrading to have someone discuss whether someone’s notable enough to be on Wikipedia – a website that has pages about almost every pop song, people who are extras in films no one has ever heard of and people who were in sports teams that never scored.
This is Wade. She's created 600+ Wikipedia biographies, and she still thinks the existence of other shite is an acceptable defence against her creating shite. Doesn't know Wikipedia policy, and doesn't fucking want to know it. She is only interested in what makes her feel good, or what makes her feel sad.

Wade's entire existence is one where fact is subservient to feeling. As her Twitter feed shows, facts only exist to make her happy or sad, but obviously only facts that feed into her biases. Well, it's a fact that having a whole 1% of your article creations deleted when you are manifestly incapable of doing even the basics in writing them, is not a reason to feel sad, it's a reason to thank your lucky stars that you are CLEARLY not being subjected to the sort of scrutiny that other editors with your limited abilities usually are, resulting in most, sometimes even all of their creations being wiped out on the sound policy basis that people who habitually make basic mistakes when writing biographies, are a high level threat to real people and Wikipedia's reputation.

To my best knowledge, Wade has never even been formally warned for her repeated failures to ensure source-text integrity, even though a cursory look shows it is a persistent problem with an obvious cause - haste. She cares more about nudging the % needle, still working at a furious pace of one new page a day, than whether her articles are correct. She rarely even goes back to remedy errors that are actually discovered. Lack of time, or just doesn't give a shit?

After a great many scandals, biographies are exempt from the usual Wikipedia ethos of waiting for others to come along and fix up content that can reasonably be assumed to be faulty. Another basic of Wikipedia policy that Wade either doesn't know, or does but has just disregarded, in spectacular fashion wrt Phelps.

At least this press article hasn't been polluted with Wade's Wikipedia generated false facts.....
Phelps .... is quite possibly the first female African–American scientist to be part of a team that discovered a superheavy element
......Wade of course having originally published in Wikipedia that Phelps.....
is the first African-American woman to identify an element
....based on nothing but a private Tweet from Kit Chapman trying to promote his as-yet unpublished book. The book is now out, and it appears it does not even support this claim. Hence why Phelps still hasn't got her article, because for an encyclopedia, "possibly" having been part of a pretty small achievement in the grand scheme of scientific discovery, just doesn't cut it. First African-American women to discover an element would pass the bar, quite easily, even before people realized Wikipedia was biased against women and minorities.

If Wade's editting didn't need scrutiny, especially for any claims she makes about the achievements of women and minorities, then her Wikipedia editing would be truth. And you do not want that. You are probably already getting it.

Wade is a scientist. Science has a lot to answer for these days. And science journalism.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedi

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:53 am

CrowsNest wrote:She claimed it, the press repeated it. Even though it is obvious a lie. As I have shown, most of her shitty output isn't even being spell-checked and obvious failures in matching text to source are not being spotted.

If she had sucked up to the "right people" back in 2005 she would be "untouchable" now. And free to write garbage all day every day. Content quality did not actually matter until patrollers started to dominate around 2008. This is why Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of useless biographies of utterly obscure football players--they were created long ago by OCD mutants, and are thus "grandfathered" by the insane non-rules of WP.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedi

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:27 pm

I guess being murdered is one way to get a women scientist noticed by Wikipedia.......
Suzanne Eaton
New article on murdered scientist, which has been nominated at ITN for inclusion in recent deaths. If anyone could help out with expanding and making her notability more clear it would be great. On a quick glance the citation record looks strong to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is fine and her citation record is superlative[6]. How sad to learn of the untimely death of a person, particularly one of such great achivement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC).
No credit is due to the Wades or any of the other quota monkeys, the biography was created by two red-shirts working on 9 July, not seen before or since.

Luckily for them, their draft got bumped to the head of the AfC queue, and moved to mainspace in the same day, without any comment from the reviewer.

As a recent death, they get a link from the front page of Wikipedia if the article is good enough, which led to this commentary.....
Comment. This is a posthumous article, but the subject clearly appears to meet WP:PROF in my opinion. Not yet checked in detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Now checked; not found any major problems though most of the research/career (and one of the two awards) is cited to her institute. Unfortunately the news reports are focusing on her personal aspects not her scientific career. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How dare the news focus on personal details, and not her science career!

The obvious difference between the news coverage and the Wikipedia article, is the former are at least being up front and honest about the fact they only got what details they have about her career, from primary sources, given how she wasn't evidently notable before her death. Wikipedia, well, you have to basically understand how to read the Matrix before you realize that is all they have done too.

Naturally, her husband has had a Wikipedia biography since 2010. And it didn't even mention his wife until she was dead (added by one of the redshirts).

She is not on the front page yet, despite her discovery already having exited the news cycle, Wikipedia's Administrators are apparently having a day off or something. Or are maybe still protesting about FRAMBAN. I guess a nobody wants to hear about the fact venues like ITN/C are routinely understaffed due to the presence of toxic actors like The Rambling Man.

Post Reply