View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:45 pm




Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
This is getting ridiculous.....
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChemistryKit ... 9808880641
Kit_Chapman wrote:
Well, a creepy start to the day. I did not expect the first person to quote from my book would be using my words to try and justify deleting a scientist’s Wiki page.

Or that they would quote it more than a month before the book is published... O_o
Jess Wade is of course doing exactly that, but for the opposite reason - claiming she sourced something she put in Wikipedia to this as yet unpublished book, as part of her defence that the biography should not be deleted.

You can't have your cake and eat it dude.


Thu May 02, 2019 6:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Quote:
if the jerk editors think i’m going somewhere.... they picked the wrong physicist
She certainly loves Twitter. That faux politeness is ridiculous. We know she means to say asshole, and we know the definition of asshole is anyone who disagrees with her.

I'm 50/50 on whether she's due a rude awakening once an Administrator finally plucks up the courage to treat her like any other editor, or whether she's just going to become part of the furniture, editing Wikipedia and sniping on Twitter, a monument to Wikipedia's infinite capacity to accommodate assholes of all shapes and sizes.


Thu May 02, 2019 9:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Sniping at Netoholic (not even noticing her Twitter buddy can't tell the difference between User:Netoholic and User:Natureium).....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 4864074752

Victim complex....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 7737417732

(and failure to tell an article subject that no, setting up a hashtag to recruit people to save your biography would not be a good idea)

Blaming it all on sexism, nothing to do with her actions at all.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 4671254528

All that shite on Twitter, all that provocation and sniping, and yet she has said fuck all on Wikipedia. So far, so normal.

Poor old Sarah Tuttle is wondering why her biography is being deleted from Wikipedia. Jess Wade is too much of a coward to tell her the real reason.

Wikipedia Administrators are continuing to pretend there is some sort of exception against the no harassment via Twitter rule for feminists and their good people. Only male users of Twitter can be sanctioned. What a brave new world we live in.

In WadesWorld, this is considered a good argument to make at AfD......
Quote:
Keep Jesswade88 has a high profile as a young scientist writing about other women working in science, 5 of the articles she has created have been nominated for deletion in the past week, this is a really really unhealthy pattern. John Cummings (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The claims Wade is being targeted because of her profile is obviously false - it is her profile that is protecting her from the sort of scrutiny faced by any other editor.


Fri May 03, 2019 11:11 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
The wisdom of Sarah Tuttle.....
Quote:
Like, is the WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME that everyone in the universe has a wikipage? Really? #OhNo #Catastrophe
That isn't even the dumbest thing she has said, as she has thrashed around trying to deal with her impending Wikipedia deletion.

Jess Wade, who put Tuttle in this position, she just says nothing. Nothing helpful anyway. Jess Wade, the supposed feminist liaison between all these clueless civilians who don't have the first fucking idea what Wikipedia is, and all the "techbros" who do, Jess Wade, the famous hero woman scientist who also Wikipedias, says nothing.

NOTHING.

Cat got her tongue I suppose.

It's the cowardice that gets me. Happy to open their mouths to talk shite and generally be assholes just as much as the people they are hating on for #PENIS. But use Twitter to transmit a bit of correct information to prevent misinformation? Someone else's job.

Nobody wants that job, bridging the divide, because in the Twitterverse, acivist central, the women are more arrogant and hostile than their enemies.

How ironic that in this same week, a user generated encyclopedia that would happily have an entry in every woman scientist who has ever lived, was launched. You think these dumb fucks have a clue that happened? Of course they don't. Too busy whining and wallowing in their complete and total ignorance.

Last we forget, these people claim to be SCIENTISTS. :ugeek:


Fri May 03, 2019 11:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Turns out Wade has been pretty open about what she is doing, this having appeared in Nature way back in August......
Quote:
Wikipedia allows us to write and edit history as it’s happening, highlighting the work of women and people in under-represented minority groups in the moment, rather than looking back at a dated textbook decades in the future. A Wikipedia biography can give a scientist credibility: the encyclopaedia is indexed so regularly by Google that it appears at the top of the page and is regularly used by journalists looking for sources. With a Wikipedia biography, scientists can become a lot more human than they are on a university website — complete with their public engagement, personal stories and out-of-office-hours experiences.
You read that, you can understand why she is writing articles to highlight the work of previously unknown lab assistants who happen to be minorities, based on private messages from authors researching them, instead of waiting for the author to actually publish the book that she later claims is and always was the source of the biographical details about the scientist's trailblazing efforts which she published (erroneously it seems, we may never know) on Wikipedia months earlier.

It explains why she is writing biographies of scientists who have literally just done something, sourced to the websites of the institutions where they did it, and the papers where they published it, and then blasting it out on Twitter, whether it is factually correct or not.

It shows why she is writing biographies of scientists who have not received recognition in secondary sources, and why she is so desperate they be kept around until such time as journalists have noticed them, and as a result have actually produced the required secondary coverage by using them as Wikipedia recognised experts, so as to remove all doubt as to their Wikipedia notability. An ass-backwards view of Wikipedia notability if ever there was one.

None of those things, of course, are aligned with the basic purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a newspaper, it is not an outlet for academic press releases or a gazeteer of primary research. It is not a promotional vehicle for getting scientists noticed by the media, no matter how worthy the cause. It is most certainly not a directory of recognised experts, a substitute roladex for the lazy ass punks on the Science Desk of the Tribune. The very notion is laughable given the Wikipedia disclaimer and all of its well known accuracy and reliability issues, of which gender bias is just one tiny part.

All of those things have been invented by Wade and her army of Twitter griefers as her warped interpretation of Wikipedia's mission, to deliver her activist agenda. Anything that goes against it, has to he decried as sexism or harassment, because she really hasn't got a leg to stand on if she were asked to justify any of this in terms of what Wikipedia actually is and how it is supposed to work.

This screwball idea that it is Wikipedia's job to offer up to the media a platter of suitable female experts, via Google, and anyone who pushes back on that interpretation of what it is, is a sexist, has of course become deeply entrenched in the minds of the very same ignorant journalists who never knew all these women scientists existed in the first place......

https://qz.com/1412718/wikipedia-has-a- ... the-media/

It all comes back to Wade I suspect. I'm quite sure that before she embarked on her ass-backwards Wikipedia/Twitter as a Live Journal mission, the rational for adding more biographies of woman on Wikipedia was never to actually alter the way journalists look at women. It was to alter the way regular people do, and the means of achieving that was the already well understood mechanism of getting the damn journalists to notice them first, so they would write about them, so that Wikipedia could then recognise them.

There was a suggestion (from the WMF) that the Wikipedia ideas of how much coverage is enough could be altered to help the process along a bit, but nobody in the hallowed community, activist or otherwise, ever came up with an objective way to do that, so they were stuck with their original model. Wade of course attempts to alter it by applying the standard of her own damn subjectivity and expecting others to just to along with it, as if she's never done a scientific thing in her life.

It is still frankly up for debate whether this has all been one grand master-plan, a techno-civil disobedience campaign for the 21st Century, or whether it has all come about because she really is just that stupid, a fact which goes unnoticed on Twitter, where she is the one eyed woman in a land of the congenitally blind.


Fri May 03, 2019 3:44 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Wade has finally given her opinion on the Sarah Tuttle Afd.
Quote:
Keep disclaimer, I made this page (which, incidentally, is why it is being nominated for deletion). Passes WP:GNG. Additionally, Tuttle created the first screen-printed PLED, which is notable in its own right. ...... I am still voting keep as I think that Tuttle is notable - very few scientists maintain an academic and public engagement record like this - and even fewer succeeded in both solid-state and astrophysics. Jesswade88 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, it is the same usual mix of classic arguments to avoid - a blind assertion of notability (when there is detailed discussion of the sources and coverage going on all around that she could have expanded upon), and a bunch of personal opinion about why Wade thinks she is notable, which is of course not backed up by any sources.

She had the cheek to also claim people who are biased should not be allowed to nominate articles for deletion. How can she be so blind, so ignorant, not to realise that given she is the one who created the article, and her general reason for editing, people don't really have any other choice but to assume her personal opinions on Tuttle's standing are going to be riven with bias.

This is why Wikipedia uses secondary sources. If a secondary source exists that backs up this idea Tuttle is remarkable for the things Wade claims she is, then it removes all doubt. Wikipedia is not her blog, if she wants to write about people she admires, she can go elsewhere. If she wants the media or the science establishment to recognise Tuttle for these things, Wikipedia is not the appropriate vehicle for that.


Fri May 03, 2019 4:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
This Markus Possel guy is very typical of the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' sort of idiot who is riding to the rescue of Wade.

He's posted an 84! Tweet long guide on his you can help poor old Jess fight the good fight.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mpoessel/sta ... 5219349504

It of course starts with the clearly false assertion that "The articles by Jess follow the usual Wikipedia conventions and are well-sourced with inline references." Much of the controversy has centred around her apparent inability to judge what "well sourced" means, and indeed her rather alarming habit of including facts which are not in the online citations given. Lying about it is just the icing on the cake.

It amazes me that these people think Jess is being given a rough ride. I could give them plenty of examples of editors who, after someone stumbles on one tiny issue with their edits, it leads the target down a nightmarish rabbit hole and they have had to face traumas a hundred times worse than having a handful of hundreds of articles put up for deletion. She has got off lightly, by any measure, and there is a definite all round reluctance in the Administrators to react to examples of her failures to follow basic policy, both content and behaviour, the way they normally would. It is undoubtedly out of fear of bad publicity, they don't want to shoot Bambi, even though that is basically standard practice for their Quality Control and Used Behaviour death squads.

They need to understand, as they whine about Pokemon and other bullshit which is totally irrelevant, her failures are serious, given she doesn't seem to write about anything other than biographies of living persons. This is an area where the very highest standards are meant to apply.

There is an overall lack of awareness among these people of just how bad it can be on Wikipedia for people who don't come correct. Can you imagine the shitstorm she would have been in, if she had been doing the things she has done, but in the medical topic area? Does she even know about WP:MEDRS? If she thinks the notability standards are tough for scientists, why doesn't she have a crack at writing about companies? Then she might realise how pathetic any sort of 'well, you have this so why are you deleting this' kind of argument really is.

Needless to say, if she is finding this tough, imagine how bad it would be if she were expected to comply with then sourcing standards of writing a Featured Article? It is conveniently forgotten by all these idiots that in Wikipedia's misguided belief that it is aiming to be an encyclopedia, not Jess Ward's roladex for lazy journalists, then not one of her creations can be considered to have passed any kind of appropriate quality check until it has at least been passed as a Good Article.

Of her 600+ article creations, only one has made it to GA. One! That is a clear sign that she is choosing poor topics to write about, and/or basically leaving nothing anyone can really turn into a good article without serious work (the Wikipedians of course being always on the alert for an easy win by just polishing a nearly good enough article into a good one). If the quality issues identified in these recent debates are prevalent, that explains why no established editor wants any part of attempting to get her articles passed as good.


Fri May 03, 2019 5:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
David Eppstein talking about his own Wikipedia article....
Quote:
I've long since passed the point in my career where the level of publicity it provides is in any way useful.
.....which is another example of Wade's apologists really having not the first clue what Wikipedia is for.

You want publicity, hire a publicist.

Perhaps his concern that women are not getting the same service despite Wade's best efforts, is simply guilt.


Fri May 03, 2019 5:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
These are the games being played by inhabitants of WadesWorld.....
Quote:
Keep. When the National Academy of Sciences says you're notable, then you're notable. There are plenty of independent sources in the article, besides, so deleting this article is ludicrous. jps (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, you can obviously ignore the second sentence as being entirely irrelevant, it doesn't speak to the reason for deletion, and in a matter of fact is a basic requirement of any Wikipedia article (since those that do not have this would probably just be spam).

The first sentence however is certainly almost looking like a valid argument in an AfD (are you taking notes Jess?), since this could be interpreted as a claim the subject meets the criteria of a notable scientist for a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". So, let's investigate what he meant by this.....

The subject is a "Kavli Fellow". Whassat? Well, it is not as you might have assumed, a grand office of academia, or even an office at all. It is what the NAS calls people who they invite to their "Kavli Frontiers of Science Symposia". Reading the bumph, this is an invitation extended to "scientists who are 45 or younger and engaged in exceptional research in a variety of disciplines."....."who have already made recognized contributions to science". Impressive.

Well, maybe not. First, it has to be kept in mind that the above is the organisation itself describing what this thing is, so naturally they are going to want to big it up. They do provide a bit of factual information alongside a little more bumphery.......
Quote:
Beginning in 1989, the Frontiers of Science symposium series has provided a forum for the future leaders in U.S. science to share ideas across disciplines and to build contacts and networks that will prove useful as they advance in their careers. More than 5,000 young scientists have attended to date, 179 of whom have been elected to the NAS and ten of whom have been awarded the Nobel Prize.
....so we can say that being a "Kavli Fellow" means you have a 3.58% chance of becoming a member of the NAS. Bearing in mind that being a member of the NAS is where Wikipedia currently sets the bar for someone being automatically granted the honour of a Wikipedia biography, already it seems preposterous to imply there is an equivalence.

Winding back a bit to focus on the broadly construed criteria, even the NAS description of what this is, which could be biased, subtly falls below what Wikipedia is looking for. Neither "Recognised contributions" or even "exceptional research" really map to "significant impact", it is easily the case that many scientists who have done great things in science, will never rise to the level of what Wikipedia considers significant.

This maps well to the idea they set the bar at Member of NAS. It all ties in with the idea Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, they are in the business of documenting the history of science, not science itself. It also maps to the idea Wikipedia is not in the business of helping young scientists get noticed by the media (whose job, if they care, is to report on the press releases from NAS and universities as to who is a Kavli Fellow in any given year), since by extension Wikipedia is not in the business of publicity, period. We have already established this is Wade's motive.

Wikipedia of course does sometimes creates biographies for people who have received recognition for their potential (a favourite interest of one Jimmy Wales no less), if the means of recognition is a notable thing in of itself, even if the person then doesn't go on to make a significant impact.

What really destroys this claim in that respect, is when you look at how Wikipedia itself sees this "Kavli Fellow" distinction. There is no Wikipedia article for it, it doesn't even redirect to the article for the NAS, with that article not even featuring the word Kavli. The subject's article itself isn't categorised as a "Kavli Fellow" in Wikipedia's internal indexing, because of course no such category for recipients of that designation exists (in contrast to "Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences"). This is all a sign this is not a notable distinction, in Wikipedia parlance, no matter how the NAS views it (and it is bizarre to see them referring to conference attendees as alumni).

Maybe this lack of recognition of the Kavli Fellowship itself by Wikipedia is an oversight, an example of Wikipedia not being finished. Well, perhaps. But until such time as someone does the sort of research that would be equivalent to creating the article for "Kavli Fellow" (so why not just create it there and then?), or even just a section in the NAS article, or someone attempts to make the policy case that "Kavli Fellow" is exclusive and significant enough to be considered qualifying as either evidence of "significant impact" or perhaps even a "highly prestigious academic honour", then the reality is, we cannot know.

Until such time, what this looks like is the usual opportunistic, nay desperate, attempt, to find any reason at all, no matter how thin, to keep an article created by Wade, with absolutely no regard to the absurd implications for Wikipedia as a whole (which in this case ironically looks like opening the door to having Wikipedia biographies for thousands more male scientists whose careers probably went nowhere).

The only reason Wikipedia has these rules is because it is obviously necessary to know where to draw the line, in an objective and repeatable manner. We know Wade doesn't really care about that, because sexism/penis/techbros. The AfD process is the only means Wikipedia has to prevent Wade getting what she wants by talking shite and actively or passively recruiting people like jps to stack the voting to benefit her shite talking (jps of course being a member of the Guerilla Skeptics, a group well known for their love of undermining Wikipedia's rules for their own ends).

Now, if Wikipedia wants to take the position that the invisibility of female scientists is such that it would be a wholly reasonable approach to countering systemic bias to alter Wikipedia policy to say that for women scientists, being a Kavli Fellow (and indeed any reasonable equivalent) is sufficient evidence that they are a notable woman in science for Wikipedia's purposes, I'd be fine with that. It is a sensible and reasonable measure, not remotely corruptible by the forces of subjectivity of worse, except of course by the NAS itself.

This is the problem with Wikipedia and the WadesWorld feminists trying to shame/game/whine it into submission, using Twitter and tears as their tools. Wade isn't interested in making that change. Not remotely interested. It would require her to be willing to talk to other editors for a start, which is clearly a problem for her.

I doubt she is even smart enough to be trying to do that by simply creating a biography for each women Kavli Fellow until such time as so many exist, it is the de facto policy position, so by definition it is policy, and so she wins by Fait Accompli. She could of course be doing it by complete accident, aided by the fact many of her allies apparently consider her articles to be unquestionably compliant with all applicable rules, if we generously assume these people are not simply lying because they are all in with the goals of Wade. The fact so many of them keep trying to deflect attention to other articles, suggest they are.

The Wikipedia Supreme court has deemed Fait Accompli to be an example of the highest form of disruption. But I think she would get off, if she just cried a little bit. Just as she also seems to be escaping the Court's established consequences for using Twitter to provoke or harass her opponents.


Sat May 04, 2019 4:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
The cheeky fuckers have now linked "Kavli Fellow" to the Wikipedia article on the Kavli Foundation....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Tuttle&diff=next&oldid=895418944

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kavli_Foundation_(United_States)&oldid=859401350

That link of course doesn't help readers understand what "The National Academy of Sciences selected her as a Kavli Fellow in 2014." actually means in this context, largely because that article doesn't mention it at all. What it does mention of course is that the Foundation awards various prizes and professorships and funds various institutes.

I can only assume this is an attempt to fool voters in the AfD into thinking Kavli Fellow is indeed some kind of prize or academic post, boosting the case she is notable as an academic in Wikipedia terms.

This is basically fraud. The idea Wade's articles can only be kept on Wikipedia through fraud, is hardly surprising, given how often her claims don't match up to the sources, either partly or at all. But to be this blatant?


Sat May 04, 2019 5:26 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.