https://slate.com/technology/2023/10/wi ... raphs.html
by Annie Rauwerda, fangirl extraordinare. Another example of why Slate's coverage on Wikipedia isn't trustable anymore.
arrrgh.Wikipedia gets a lot of flak for its abysmal photos, especially its mid-sneeze celebrities. But I’ve always found the unvarnished images both endearing and inviting. Wikipedia’s volunteers, usually sequestered in the mothy recesses of talk pages and admin noticeboards, remain invisible to most readers. Their occasional appearances in prosaic photos are the most visual hint that Wikipedia was not handed down from the heavens or generated by an all-knowing machine, but handmade with care by real, fleshy humans. The photos are like a whisper to Wikipedia’s hundreds of millions of daily viewers: “Wikipedia editors—they’re just like us!”
And the Guardian ran ANOTHER happy-smiley item about Jess Wade....ooohhhh, she's a "national treasure"!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... scientists
Gag puke fetch me a bucket.
And finally the LA Review Of Books ran a not-very-positive review of one of Rauwerda's stupid "live shows". I don't give a shit how "personable" Rauwerda is, it's impossible to base a live "comedy show" around the yammerings of terminally-online assholes. Only when they start fighting will you get any lulz. And Rauwerda is too stupid/cowardly/conflicted/whatever to talk about WP's endless ruinous editwars and internal shitshows.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/short-takes ... -rauwerda/