View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:54 pm




Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
This makes me wince too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =895689460

WadesWorld wrote:
Early life and education
Johnson grew up in a farm in Virginia.[1]
source_1 wrote:
My interests in biology stem back to my early encounters with nature on my childhood farm in Virginia, USA. This upbringing encouraged an insatiable curiosity with how life is created and developed. As a young scientist-to-be, I was mystified by the ability of the farm animals to reproduce themselves, and accompanying my father to assist in the births of litters of pigs and single calves only furthered this fascination. At university, I chose to focus my studies on biology and biochemistry, and became fascinated with the molecular and sub-cellular biology of the simplest unit of life: the cell.
Is Wade telling these women's inspirational stories, or is she just mechanically (and rather mindlessly) churning out bland, boring, shite? Factual shite in this case, she did indeed grow up on a farm, but it is scary to think this brand new Wikipedia biography would lose none of its value if Wade's distillation of that source was simply removed. She took the time to seek it out and read it, yet in reality, she saw nothing.

Again, this is something that only happens out of haste. Someone who really cared, cared about this individual person, someone who was taking their time to add value to Wikipedia, someone who wasn't just mindlessly plugging a list of women into the Wikipedia database because too many penises, would not have been able to resist including the essence of that passage in the very first draft. Not in so many words and with a different tone obviously, obviously, but it is an encyclopedic fact that a curiosity about how the animals on her childhood farm were able to continue their species, is what inspired this woman to study biology.

Wade left it at "grew up on a farm", even though this had a direct causal relationship to the very next sentence she wrote, "Johnson studied biology at Murray State University, where she specialised in molecular biology." It directly influenced her choice of field. Solid biographical detail, that.

People who don't really care and are just rushing to meet a quota, not only miss valuable stuff like this, they also don't give the work the proper care and attention to avoid more serious issues. And before anyone says this could be added later by someone else, just consider how pointless that is. How much of a complete waste of time it is for someone else to have to open all these references and add whatever Wade was in too much of a rush to add.

And consider how long it might be before that even happens. You can even argue the fact that because Wade bagged this one to be her victory for a day, it lessened the likelihood of someone who really cared, creating an even better first draft.

You know what also explains this approach? The fact that, as she has admitted, Wade is not creating these biographies to help Wikipedia. She is doing so to promote the people, to make them visible in Google, so that journalists find them. And what would a journalist have to write about this person, if Wikipedia already gave them answers to the standard interview questions.......

Not an error, this, just another data point building the picture that Wade isn't what she is made out to be (or sells herself as), and the people telling us what she is are either as bad at this encyclopedia writing business as she is, or they just don't care, they see a willing soldier for the cause, and they will say and do anything to give her encouragement.

Churn baby churn.


Tue May 07, 2019 11:14 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
It's so obvious Jess isn't even bothering to proof read her stuff.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896002755

I haven't even got time to check if the text matches the sources (which gives you some idea of the problems being created by this sort of churnalism), although I did notice in the very first thing I looked at, that while Wade noted the start of the subject's term as Dean of Chemistry (2001), she didn't note that this only ran until 2004. It's right there in the source she gives, so omitting it is really lazy.

But even a simple proof read would have revealed how tediously repetitive the text is, with no less than 16 sentences beginning "She........(factoid)." And even when she wasn't using "she", Wade begins two sentences in succession with the subject's surname.

A step back before you hit publish and move immediately to writing a tweet to broadcast your crap to the world, would have also revealed the Awards section had an entry without a source, because it sticks out like a sore thumb when every other one has a source.

There is also a missing "Department" in the first sentence of the career section. There could even be more examples of such sloppiness, but I'm stopping now because this is surely enough to prove the point.


Wed May 08, 2019 9:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Holy fuck. How is she even making mistakes like this.....
Quote:
Patricia Jean Johnson ..... was elected a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019.
......given her current churn drive is to create bios for people elected to the NAS? It is surely literally the first thing she puts on the page, no?

Johnson is a Member, not a Fellow. Pretty big difference.

Realistic explanation? Copy and paste error (in her own draft spaces). Sloppy.


Wed May 08, 2019 9:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
God, she sucks at this so badly......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896191479

Take a look at that. For "Early life and education" she has clearly just summarised one source, this profile.....

https://www.the-scientist.com/profile/c ... ons--64818

Isn't it bizarre how she leaves out all the rich biographical details, like the culture shock of moving to the USA, encountering racism and junk food for the first time, etc, and yet she somehow thought it relevant to include the fact his trip from Africa to the US included a helicopter transfer in London. Even then, she leaves behind the biographical detail.....
Quote:
“I had never been outside of Nigeria and at the airport, suddenly leaving dawned on me, and I couldn’t hold back my tears,” he recalls. The trip wasn’t easy. “It was absolutely traumatic,” Rotimi says. He took a flight to Gatwick Airport, which is roughly 50 kilometers south of London, and then boarded a helicopter to Heathrow Airport, near the city center. “It was winter, and I had never experienced winter and didn’t even have a coat on me, nothing close to adequate,” he says. “The hostess in the chopper saw that I was freezing and gave me a blanket, which was a lifesaver.”
In WadesWorld, that paragraph is summarised thusly......
Quote:
He flew from Nigeria to Mississippi via London, including catching a helicopter from Gatwick Airport to Heathrow Airport.
Doesn't even give the basic context that this was the first time he had left Nigeria.

It is hard to even explain this sloppiness as resulting from the mere pressures of time, her relentless churnalism schedule meaning she just can't do this justice. She clearly has the time to read the article and summarise it, she just lacks the clue to do it properly, to pick out what is relevant, and contextualize it for the reader, who is surely left wondering why the fuck a helicopter transfer was considered so important to mention.

This is what is so hilarious. When Jess and her mate Maryam were gobbing off in Nature about the benefits of Wikipedia, she said this.....
Quote:
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.
.....so either she was just talking complete crap to make it look to the gullible readers of Nautre this what she is doing appear to be something more than just copying university profiles into Wikipedia (and reaping the benefits of adulation from those same morons on Twitter), or she doesn't understand what a personal story is. A third explanation is that in her drive to push the needle of increasing representation on Wikipedia, she has realised it would take far too much time to actually write decent biographies to this standards, error free and telling personal stories, so she has decided to concentrate on going for the accolade of having dumped X number of biographies of women and minorities on Wikipedia.

When you look at how the morons on Twitter and indeed in Wikipedia talk about the brave Jess, all wonderfully impressed by the largely ignorant press attention she is receiving for it, you can see why she would have gravitated to doing the latter, and merely grinding, relentlessly grinding, just for the numbers. A classic feedback loop. Fuck the basic purpose of Wikipedia (not LinkedIn or ScienceContactsRUs), fuck what you yourself said you were doing this for.

With every passing day, her claim to have no personal stake in doing that she does, looks thinner and thinner. She isn't ignoring editors who have serious and genuine concerns over her Wikipedia editing because they they are sexist trolls, that is merely her excuse, her get out of your basic responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor card, that she is being allowed to play by a Wikipedia Administration that is clearly too scared to shoot Bambi.

She's in it for the bottom line, she has probable even set herself a target date of when she wants to break the magic ONE THOUSAND, which the media will of course gobble up like crack. Stopping to address concerns of others is not something you do when you have set yourself a target, a quota, a finishing line. In a marathon, where it is every competitor for themselves, the other runners are mere obstacles.

You know what the media should be reporting? One thousand biographies ISN'T SHIT. Not even on their current notability standard and only considering the narrow topic of "scientists", never mind the ways Wade is trying to sneakily stretch it to include "honoured as a Kavli Fellow" and equivalents, for all the supposedly invisible women, without anyone noticing the con-trick. When you're playing games like this, taking people for fools, friends and enemies, you of course don't admit what you're doing, much less advertise it by proposing it as a policy change to counter systemic bias. You just GRIND, and keep on grinding.


Thu May 09, 2019 3:33 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Another day, another apparent case of a new article dumped on Wikipedia with multiple screw ups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896339755
Quote:
She also spent time at the University of California, San Diego with E. Peter Geiduschek.[3]
How do you get that, from this reference......

https://library.ucsd.edu/speccoll/findi ... s0737.html

All that seems to confirm, is that she corresponded with them between the years 1972-1999, which is bizarre in of itself since it would mean the sentence is relevant for the Research section, not the Early Career section where Wade put it.
Quote:
In 1967 Rothman-Denes was appointed to the faculty at the University of Chicago.
Source is her faculty page, which of course confirms she is faculty, but not the 1967 date. Even worse, the source used to support the next sentence, says she "first joined the University of Chicago faculty as an assistant professor in 1974." A second reference next to it is even clearer, saying "She joined the University of Chicago faculty in 1974."

Christ knows what the fuck the explanation is for any of this bullshit, but it sure as hell looks like yet more issues caused simply by a lack of due care and attention.


Thu May 09, 2019 4:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Another data point that shows Wade is less interested in improving Wikipedia than in abusing it to create a Google powered roladex for lazy science journalists looking for women scientists to write about or interview.....

Wikipedia is meant to be written for a general audience. Granted, it is a stretch to assume a general reader should be able to follow the Research section of a scientist's Wikipedia biography (and I have my doubts that Wade, a physicist, is even capable of properly summarising highly technical sources like the ones found in the most recent article about genetic research), but a general reader should at least be able to understand the introduction, the very first sentence that explains what this particular scientist does.

Compare Wade's effort for that most recent article studied above....
Quote:
Lucia Beatriz Rothman-Denes ...... is known for her investigations in microbiology, studying the regulation of transcription and host interactions that occur during bacterial virus infection.
....to how one of the very sources used in her biography does it.......
Quote:
Rothman-Denes is best known for pioneering a novel system to study how bacterial viruses take over the molecular processes of their hosts.
I know which one grabs my attention the quickest.

This sort of issue is probably only half to do with Wade not really being a Wikipedia editor for the right reasons, it will also of course again be down to her sloppy way of editing, designed for maximum speed and minimum quality control. It is clear that you end up with this sort of wording when you are spending an hour or so merely speed reading highly technical sources, and at the last minute when writing the opening paragraph, you are just trying to summarise the technical language you have ended up slapping together in the Research/Career sections. By that time you have completely forgotten how your own sources introduce the person.

People doing it right, people who care about the subject and so are taking the time to distill the sources and genuinely think about not only what they are putting on the page but where and why, don't make this sort of goof. It is an automaton's error.


Thu May 09, 2019 5:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Wade is of course super happy Kate Bouman is on the front page of Wikipedia....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 0044272640

Does she even give a shit that this sort of thing is not what she wanted?
Quote:
Focusing on one person like this helps no one, including me.
In true Wade style, she Tweeted it before people had a chance to notice it was a lie, leading to it being removed....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896272970


Thu May 09, 2019 5:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
:lol:

Imagine having to register a Wikipedia account just to correct Wade giving you the wrong first name, and indeed mispelling your job title on a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Moore_(academic)&diff=next&oldid=890931431

Less haste, less mistakes.

--------------

Shall we overlook the fact the reference in question is pretty spammy? Could be time pressure, could be the invisibility of woman in science, or it could be that avoiding the abuse of Wikipedia as a commercial vehicle is probably another thing about the site Wade just doesn't get.

How strange though, that Wade's biographical efforts aren't apparently recording subject's private practice, only their contribution to academia. Other than relying on their private practice's website for verifying claims about their careers, or course. And where is the harm in that, I hear you ask?


Fri May 10, 2019 6:10 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
It really is bizarre how Wade interacts with other editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Moore_(academic)&oldid=896906386

I mean, is she really participating in that discussion, or is she just flailing around, offering up any old reason why she thinks her creation should not be deleted. She wrote it, so she should be able to say why she did so, without delay or equivocation. Does she think if she gives five reasons and maybe one is coreect, that reflects well on her?

Hilariously, even though she isn't sure why she wrote it, her victim complex is alive and well......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Moore_(academic)&diff=next&oldid=896649087

Quote:
Very unclear why she is tagged as not-notable with her publication record, but I guess it's because I made the page.
She included that in an edit summary for an edit which has nothing to do with her whining. Yet more proof she doesn't know or doesn't care for basic Wikipedia protocols, which state don't use edit summaries to snipe at your fellow editors, and only use edit summaries to describe the edit being made.

Given all the victimhood, it genuinely makes me laugh how uncollaborative she is, even in the face of requests to fix clear and obvious problems with her garbage......
Quote:
changed the > a (science consultant) to please other editors.
Interesting to note she was fine with Wikipedia misrepresenting a woman scientist's career to appear more significant, and correcting the record to a neutral, factual, representation, is done to please "other editors".


Last edited by CrowsNest on Mon May 13, 2019 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon May 13, 2019 10:37 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
It's a daily influx of garbage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896644295

Quote:
Karen C. Seto is........ the editor-in-chief of the Global Environmental Change.
No reference provided.

What choice does anyone have but to consider Wade a complete and total joke?

We can't even assume this was a simple oversight, because when you investigate, it turns out Seto is one of four Editors, and there is also a Managing Editor.....

http://archive.is/iBpFb


Mon May 13, 2019 10:49 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 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.