View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:14 am




Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
More WadesWorld bullshit. Tuttle is now apparently notable because she is the head of her university's Space & Ground Instrumentation Laboratory. Since this is not a named chair or distinguished professorship, this still doesn't qualify her under any of the criteria Wikipedia uses to measure academic prestige. They are so blatant. If they want to address the gender gap by lowering the bar for women in this way, then propose it. Make it part of the policy, be explicit you are doing so for reasons of countering systemic bias (because we can assume they will not stand for Wikipedia having a biography for every man who is merely head of a lab).

She's also apparently notable for being quoted as an expert in the media. Wade is going with that. Even though, curiously, she never included the only two mentions (Seattle TimesDieto San Diego Mercury) that have been found before Wade gave her the publicity boost of a Wikipedia entry (which doesn't seem to have had the intended effect, ironically). Why would she not mention those when she created the biography (the actual time you are meant to demonstrate notability)? Perhaps because the context is unimpressive. Both were examples of the rather laughable practice of the media just grabbing an astronomer to talk about an eclipse. The same eclipse for each, btw. Just run of the mill don't look at the sun stuff, quite beneath someone who is head of a Space & Ground Instrumentation Laboratory, imho. So, why was she chosen anyway? Rather embarrassingly, the reason seems to be just as much for local interest as it was for her expertise, Seattle of course being Tuttle's place of work, and San Diego being her home town. They keep complaining that Wikipedia focuses too much on celebrity when it assesses people's worth. Well, this is an example of D-list churnalism if ever there was one.

As is becoming the pattern, it is always the context that exposes the stupidity of the inhabitants of WadesWorld. They manifestly aren't working for the interests of Wikipedia, and are arguably only doing harm to the cause of women in science, as they continue their desperate grab for publicity/credibility for people like Tuttle by any means necessary, even if doing so shows the opposite to a careful reader. Sadly Wikipedia isn't consumed by careful readers. They'll believe any old shite. WadesWorld is banking on it.

It's going to be cold comfort if the outcome of Wade trying to abuse Wikipedia to boost the credibility of women in science in this fashion, actually destroys the credibility of Wikipedia. Sadly that looks like the only winning outcome for the HTD camp.


Sat May 04, 2019 5:55 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
The Women In Red brigade has arrived in force, after some subtle canvassing by Fae, and are doing what they do. It is embarrassing.
Quote:
Keep per David Eppstein and others. It is pretty clear to me that this is a WP:POINTy AfD that has specifically targeted this article because the subject is a woman. Not only do I concur in Eppstein's rationale, I must note the application of our notability criteria: As always, the SNGs supplement GNG. The two sets of criteria are to be read together, not one as a "gotcha" to negate the other. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Just casual accusation of harassment and sexism there. Not backed by any evidence, and pretty laughable without it. Seems to be par for the course for these people, their accusations are always that the behaviour is just obvious, they never need to be proven, it suffices they are just the sincerely held belief of the accuser. Just so much hashtag bullshit. I have no idea why she says the two sets of criteria must be read together, but if she actually followed any of this bullshit, she would see the main argument of WadesWorld is that PROF is entirely independent of GNG, so if you don't pass one you can pass the other. I suppose she might be referring to the mess they've got themselves into here, where it seems some are prepared to make the ridiculous argument that Tuttle is notable because she half passes PROF and half passes GNG. Makes a change from some of them claiming she passes by virtue of GNG but not PROF, and others saying the exact opposite. And of course, quite a few are making the incredibly tedious argument that neither matters, because both are just guidelines. Sure. When are you authorised to ignore the guidelines? When there is an obvious benefit to Wikipedia. If half the people present vehemently disagree there would be any benefit, then you are just being a clueless idiot, clutching at straws.
Quote:
Keep: I have read carefully all the arguments for and against and must agree that this person is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. If we were assessing the notability of a man with similar achievements, I would also support keeping the article. I hope we don't have to go through such lengthy discussions in future.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia debates, it is assumed you have read all the arguments before you vote (because Wikipedia is not a vote). It is considered both common courtesy and a basic competence. So whenever you see someone saying I have read all the arguments, and crucially then doesn't say anything which refer to said arguments, it can be assumed they didn't read the arguments and they fear if they don't over-compensate with this meaningless clarification, their registered opinion will be so vacuous it will be dismissed as a mere vote. You can probably say the same about this bizarre comment where she feels the need to say she would vote the same way if it were a man. All it does is raise the suspicion she is altering her view because the subject here is a woman, or her opinion is so vacuous people will assume that is what she is doing. Hoping not to be bothered with lengthy discussions in future really gives the game away - she doesn't like the thought of Ward's articles being scrutinised.


Sat May 04, 2019 10:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
K.e.coffman posted the EXACT SAME keep rationale in the Afd debates about Wade's biographies of Sarah Tuttle and Nia Imara. That is cast iron proof he did not read the debates or consider each article on their individual merits (one having been a quick keep, one mired in debate).

It was easy to see why he did it, since all his reasoning consisted of was the two classic arguments to avoid - a pernicious form of special pleading to just ignore the rules (immediately loses its weight of you are so careless as to say it twice in two different cases, copy and paste style), and a pointless exercise in pointing at all the articles Wikipedia has which this fuckwit deems to be less worthy (but funnily enough, isn't taking his own advice and beginning the work required to remove them).

This wouldn't be half as hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that Coffman is the same editor who expended millions of words and also recruited off-site help in an argument about the editorial standards applied over World War II articles. Funny how he cared so much about that, but denies people the right to care about the erosion of standards giving Wade and her allies a free pass represents. Just ignore it, he says, there is no benefit to Wikipedia in it. The fucker would have had a breakdown if opponents had said that about his actions.


Sat May 04, 2019 10:53 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
This is the mark of Wade and her use of Twitter....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 1435290624

Quote:
since this whole thing, every page i’ve made has been tagged for deletion
That was the 1st of May. It was of course a lie. You can't even be generous and say it was mere exxaggeration. If we assume "this whole thing" refers to Clarice Phelps first being tagged on 4 February, then she has had eight of her articles tagged for deletion, in the same time period in which she created 98 she's articles. Even if restricted to just the previous two weeks, she has had six articles tagged, in a time period in which she has created 16 new articles.

It says it all that this so called scientist can be so careless with expressing a simple ratio, creations to taggings, and just pulls a figure of 100% out of her ass for one purpose, and one purpose only, to wallow in her victimhood as energise her moronic Twitter followers to come to her aid.


Sat May 04, 2019 11:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Classic WadesWorld.

Welcome to the mind of XOR'easter .....
Quote:
And now there's this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle. I was honestly thinking that was more of a "draftify per WP:TOOSOON" situation, but then I started looking for sources, and now I'm wondering if anyone bothered to do that before complaining. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering why XOR'easter didn't notice Wade didn't include these sources in her newly created article? At least two of them existed before Wade created the article, and she is resting on them now to resist deletion. So she either didn't know about them, which suggests she is incompetent, or she did but didn't use them, until she realised how weak the article she did create was, in which case she's just playing a game and saying whatever she thinks will save it, which in a roundabout way is also simply incompetence. We may never know, because Wade is practically a Wikipedia mute, insofar as explaining her reasoning to her supposed peers. Y'know, like scientists are trained to do......
Quote:
I've just read the past several days of Sarah Tuttle's Twitter feed (feed? stream? timeline? timestream? whatever the kids call it). Try as I might, I can't see any untoward "canvassing". Her comments about Wikipedia are a mix of dry humor, thoughtful reflection ... and getting mansplained by a guy who manages to fit two mistakes into 140 characters. If I had a Twitter account, I'd put on my best "well, actually" voice and say that (1) notability is a guideline, not a policy and (2) we do in fact consider the notability of science as well as of scientists. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
So, they crawled the timeline and the only error she found was by a man. Didn't spot the part where Tuttle confused User:Naturium for User:Netholic, because all penises look alike right? Except of course, neither user even identified as a male, it is just assumed, because believing Tuttle to be non-notable is sexist.

If I had a Twitter account, I'd ask this ignorant piece of shit why they were even mentioning that notability is just a guideline, and then watch them struggle to make anything like a convincing argument that there is anything about the Sarah Tuttle case that justifies ignoring the guidelines. If the guidelines are wrong and there is no case specific reason to ignore it, then you don't, you change the guidelines instead. That is what is known as a Wikipedia POLICY, and a pretty central one at that, you patronising fucknut.

All this is being said on the Wikipedia Project Women In Red, which is looking less like a tool for editor communication and coordination (the good kind), and more like a staging post for the bad kind.


Sat May 04, 2019 12:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Lolwut?
Quote:
I had no idea you could just delete pages without a vote, or even tagging them for improvement? Is that fair? Jesswade88 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Even I didn't think she was this clueless about the basics of Wikipedia. Yes, Jess, editors can unilaterally redirect articles, essentially deleting them without losing the history. Like everything on Wikipedia, fairness has got fuck all to do with it, only the practical benefits to the encyclopedia. It is a fast but easily reversible means of avoiding a pointless seven day discussion where idiots like you turn up and say stupid shit because you never RTFM.

Oh, and it's real cute how, once she learns editors have this power over whether her creations can stay up and publicise their subjects to Uncle Google, now she suddenly buys into the idea of maintenance tagging as a means of flagging issues for resolution. Also note her calling AfD a vote. Rookie mistake. An easy one to make though, when basically that is all most of your friends and enablers do, turn up and vote. Ironically some even do so on the basis she has the first clue what she is doing and they look up to her as some kind of inspiration.


Sat May 04, 2019 5:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Quote:
I contribute in my own free time and am doing the best I can. Jesswade88 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No doubt. And rather obvious too.

To what end though, is the real question.

More to the point, given Jess clearly didn't go into Wikipedia under any illusion that it is filled with button pushing dicks, why is she being so dumb as to simply climb right into the sewer and fling shit with them?

It's a fun new game we can all play, "Did she Tweet this or post it on Wikipedia?" YOU DECIDE.
Quote:
I hadn't realised that if I didn't respond to every page of mine that you are criticising it gave you permission to do what you wanted.
Quote:
I still don't think that this is your encyclopaedia to "afford" me anything
Quote:
I hadn't realised that if I didn't respond to every page of mine that you are criticising it gave you permission to do what you wanted.
She is ill-equipped to battle the wiki ogres on their terms, but by God is she up for the fight. Someone really should tell her how this story usually ends though, even for people who are starting from a position of being so well defended and protected as she is. She probably doesn't realise that all that will do is prolong her agony and increase her levels of stress, until it inevitably finds release in some spectacularly dramatic fashion.

It's never a winning strategy, two men in, one man out. Not for the weaker party anyway. Neither is all out warfare. There was me thinking the woman would bring a more enlightened view of how to settle differences in a collaborative environment where nobody is begin paid to do shit, much less be treated like shit. This one is not much different to the men, just a little quicker to feel offended and make accusations in an environment where both are plentiful, if it were even possible.

I feel so cheated.

I think this is all going to aother gender/sexism based ArbCom Case, and sooner rather than later. Ironically because the lessons, and discretionary sanctions, that flowed from the previous one, have not been used.


Sun May 05, 2019 1:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Quote:
Overciting
@Jesswade88: regarding this edit, could you please review the information at WP:OVERCITE. For example, there is no need for a multitude of citations to support the statement that she obtained a PhD in XYZ from UNSW. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but two are interviews which are relevant, and contain short biographical info in the introduction, but i knew someone would say wasn't appropriate for a reference.Jesswade88 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
:?:

English please.

Best I can make out, she means she has two interviews which she knew wouldn't be accepted as references for biographical content, so she decided to pointlessly add them to a fact that was already sufficiently cited.

Stupid. Can't do Wikipedia for shit. But has created 600+ biographies. :roll:


Sun May 05, 2019 10:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Elephant in the room is the perfect phrase....
Quote:
I'm concerned there's an elephant in the room here. [speculation], but Jess really hasn't helped herself by saving articles which have serious sourcing deficiencies. The Clarice Phelps draft when first saved says "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014." sourced to [5]. This source makes no mention of Phelps having a PhD, she isn't introduced as Dr Clarice Phelps, and on further analysis, it doesn't even confirm Phelps is a University of Tennessee graduate. The hot topic at the moment, Sarah Tuttle has a smaller but similar issue. The first line says "Sarah Tuttle is a Professor of Astrophysics and Science Communicator" but when looking at sources, we only have [6] discussing Tuttle's current title (assistant professor) and we have a second source [7] linking through to Tuttle's page at the University of Washington [8] where their title of assistant professor is confirmed, unfortunately this source wasn't used in the initial revision of the article as saved by Jess.

I know it's frustrating sometimes to have an article running away through your fingers because it's missing a couple of sources to confirm what you know or think you know, but the combination of original research and synthesis we see in some of Jess's articles is a large part of why so much of her work is being heavily scrutinised. - Nick (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


The comment sadly included some speculative commentary which contained no evidence, as is required......
Quote:
Jess's contributions are being scrutinised in some cases for sexist and misogynistic reasons, of that I have no doubt, and I'm well aware of the often toxic atmosphere which exists for anything other than white male geeks editing Wikipedia
.....but I don't think that should detract from the basic facts being uncovered here. Jess is a really rubbish Wikipedia editor. And being rubbish in the field of BLP, is meant to be a SERIOUS issue.


Sun May 05, 2019 2:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4126
Reply with quote
Jess just keeps making those mistakes......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =895858229

(not an exhaustive check, just what I found in five minutes)

WadesWorld wrote:
Mason earned her doctorate in invertebrate zoology and endocrinology at University of California, Berkeley
source wrote:
Mason received her PhD in Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, with a focus on invertebrate neurobiology.


WadesWorld wrote:
She worked with Ray Guillery on the cellular anatomy of the visual systems of cats.
Not in source given.

WadesWorld wrote:
Mason studies the role of transcriptional regulators and guidance mechanisms in the mammalian visual system.
source wrote:
Dr. Mason is investigating the role of transcriptional regulators and guidance mechanisms [of the mammalian visual system and cerebellum] that determine how these connections are formed.


WadesWorld wrote:
She is studying how gene activity can transform stem cells into retinal ganglion cells which could be used for restoring vision.
No source given.

That's four basic errors of matching sources to Wikipedia text, in her latest article creation. She has said she doesn't need help, and has said she doesn't just make shit up, and while I don't doubt the two cases of a missing source is because she has simply mislaid it, it is symptomatic of the sort of sloppiness that probably explains the other two mistakes (and again, could well be just a case of misplacing sources), where the subtle differences does rather change the meaning of what is being said.

This sort of thing is going to be inevitable if she is setting herself the ridiculous target of churning out one of these biographies every day. Time pressure like that makes you cut corners, makes you skip vital steps like double-checking you haven't mislaid sources.

She is creating poor quality articles (which contrasts with all those slack-jawed morons who claim she is churning out high quality work), and it appears there is no time in her relentless schedule to go back and review what she has posted, since a day later she is just posting another poor article.

This may look minor, but it isn't stuff that can just be ignored. Wikipedia already has like a BILLION examples of where a source doesn't exist, or doesn't support the text, or the text and source are subtly out of alignment. It doesn't need any more. Even one more, is just making Wikipedia worse, putting back the day it can ever call itself an encyclopedia.


Tue May 07, 2019 10:20 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] 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.