https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/fash ... .html?_r=0
Obviously, the following analysis, you will never see in Wikipediocracy. They're undoubtedly going to claim I only wrote this because I am upset Ms. Newman won't want to sleep with me, and other deeply insightful analysis, but it needs to be said.Ultimately, crowdsourcing worked exactly as it was supposed to.
Other than the quite deliberately gratuitous use of gendered insults here, my record on the topic of Wikipedia and gender equality speaks for itself. As does Wikipediocracy's, who of course, long hosted the infamous Wikipedia woman hater Eric Corbett, and still hosts his long time enabler and drinking buddy, Wikipedia
I was taken by how similar this bitch's understanding of Wikipedia and crowdsourcing, was so remarkably similar to Jess Wade's pig ignorant views and questionable methods. Even more so, given it's not a recent piece, it's from 2014! Amazing how little has changed.
Because here is how she thinks Wikipedia "works"......
1. It's fine to use the power of a media platform to insult, denigrate and harass people who you are in conflict with on Wikipedia, especially by mocking their other edits, even when they have done nothing more egregious than correctly use a Wikipedia process, like nominate your Wikipedia biography for deletion. Indeed, that personal attacks should be a normal part of Wikipedia discourse.
2. It's normal for the outcomes on Wikipedia to be affected by press coverage, and if that harms those who don't have the privileged position of being a NY times contributor, well, fuck them. It's every bitch for themselves. Feminism, baby!
3. It's normal to see an attempt to delete your Wikipedia profile, as a personal attack. It's not a sign of vanity bordering on mental illness. It's not a sign that you have bought into the toxic and false narrative that you only matter, you are only important, if you have a Wikipedia page.
4. It's normal to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists arguments.
5. It's normal, preferred even, not to engage with Wikipedia publicly, on Wikipedia, because, of course, of all those "professional misanthropes" there. It is preferrable instead to engage with it via private correspondence with shadowy Wikipedia editors who share your goals and will happily assist you in getting your page both onto Wikipedia, and keep it on Wikipedia, even if to so so, they have to go to absurd lengths, lengths that NOT EVEN an actual biographer has gone to yet, to pad out your biography.
6. It's fine to make a false claim of copyright to Wikipedia, especially if it's for a good cause like making a woman look good on her Wikipedia bio - they're not going to take down the photo, not even after you boast in a reliable source that it's not actually yours to licence as if it were your own work (there being a clear legal difference between that and what should happen - a release predicated on parental permission).
All told, the bitch clearly got what she desperately wanted. A Wikipedia page that is most flattering, if the Wikipedia related parts are anything to go by. For while it does mention the fact she wrote articles relating to Wikipedia, it doesn't point out the sort of things I have above. Because no reliable source did. Not because they are not true, of course, but because this bitch is not notable in the true sense of the word - nobody actually gives enough of a shit about her, as a biographical subject.
Just like Wade, there were only two types of coverage of her Wikipedia editing, and that was either Wade herself, or media outlets only covering Wade on the assumption the related Wikimedia press releases and her comments about herself and her enemies were unquestionably true. Not one piece goes into the sort of depth of asking itself, does a Wikipedia editor who violates the BLP sourcing requirements in EVERY SINGLE BIOGRAPHY she posts on Wikipedia, deserve to be lauded as a model editor or even an ambassador?
Of course she doesn't, but she's no Hilary Clinton, so no journalist is going to give enough of a shit to go that far in documenting her life, and so inevitably her Wikipedia biography is only ever going to be an example of Wikipedia's least well known systemic bias - if people don't care enough about you to write in depth pieces, coverage will always be biased, and therefore so will your biography.
Dumb bitches like Newman obviously never got it, but this is EXACTLY WHY Wikipedia needs to see IN DEPTH COVERAGE from a preponderance of reliable secondary sources as proof a person is notable.
Newman didn't get a profile on Wikipedia because she warrants one, she got one simply because bitches be crazy. Especially Wikipedia bitches.....
The debate never ready elevated beyond that low start, and nobody really put any flesh on the bones of how or why this person is actually notable, as opposed to simply being well known, which are of course, not the same thing.Keep. Are you kidding me?!? Wikipedia has so many profiles of guys doing this that & the other, but you want to delete a well-known female journalist?!? People use Wikipedia as a resource so if anyone wants to know who "Judith Newman" is, they should be able to find out on Wikipedia. Full Stop. JanLisaHuttner —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
How you tell the difference, is usually the absence of deep biographical study. The exact thing that was used as the reason to delete. The page is shallow in its referencing. That remains the case today, five years later.
Here is the entirety of her "Personal Life" section:
Two of those four sources, were of course, written by Newman herself. One was an obituary of her husband, and one an interview with Newman, both of which are offline now, but which don't appear to have been all that reliable or significant.Newman lives in New York City. She has twin sons, born in 2001. Newman and her husband, John Snowdon, an opera singer, maintained separate apartments in Manhattan for the duration of their 25-year marriage. He died in June 2018.
But of course, none of that matters, she's long since cemented her wiki fame, a successful early adoption of the strategy of whattaboutism as an argument on Wikipedia. The subsequent march of morons like Wade et al has only made it even more impossible to have a fact based debate about the notability of a questionable woman biography like this.
Emotions and personal attacks are even more the norm in Wikipedia, than they were in 2014. It used to be the case that this was what women wanted to fix, as this was clearly the reason why women want no part of Wikipedia, and was therefore why the content gap exists.
That's still true, but for women like Wade, who are happy to not just look past that but give as good as she gets, it's no longer what she wants to fix about Wikipedia, if it ever was. She is happy to fix it by simply adding more poorly referenced women biographies. The flaw of that strategy, of course, is that there will always be more men to write about than women, if your standard for inclusion is shallow or indeed vanity press.