Wikipedia Sucks!
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/

Jess Wade (Jesswade88)
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1198
Page 6 of 10

Author:  CrowsNest [ Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Unsurprisingly, she is sloppy even when claiming to be fixing her own articles....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =887208949

That's her changing the year Yewande Akinola was born from 1985 to 1984, claiming it was in error. She hasn't removed the reference she included when she first published the biography on Wikipedia on 4 February 2018, even though it seems to be where she got the year 1985 from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =823970369
https://zodml.org/discover-nigeria/peop ... ncdQ5OFi_I
http://archive.is/PomoR

There are no other notes or evidence of complaints or communications of any kind. She just changed it, claiming it was in error. How is any future reader or indeed editor supposed to know what the fuck has happened here?

The likelihood of this date simply being changed back to match the source at a later date, is pretty high, since it is rare that anyone bothers to figure out how they came to be mismatched. It will just be assumed, as Wade herself has done often enough, that whoever added it just didn't copy it correctly from the source in the first place. Lots of other assumptions may be made too, but what nobody can ever know for sure without following up with Wade, is how she came to believe it was in error.

My best guess is she has been sent a private message over Twitter, presumably from the subject, and has simply changed it. She may have been provided good reasons or even proof that the original source as in error, but if she was, nobody else can know that. You can't discount the possibility that she only took it on faith.

Needless to say, this is not now things are meant to be done, and this exact issue of 'correcting' birth dates has caused many a controversy before, up to an including the great Wales himself. Whether it is ignorance or arrogance, her sloppiness in how she has supposedly corrected this error is yet another example of her making work for other people at a later date. It might even stay in this quasi-right/wrong state for so long it may never get definitively cleared up (the passage of time has already ensured it is hard to get a clear picture of where the original source might have got 1985 from).

Author:  CrowsNest [ Mon May 20, 2019 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

I should have checked her Twitter, because OF COURSE this error correction was most likely the result of a request made in person.......

https://mobile.twitter.com/RogerHighfie ... 1551564801

.....and so it becomes even harder to assume this was not just a verbal request to 'fix' Wikipedia, something that Wade happily agreed to do for no other reason than she was asked.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Wed May 22, 2019 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Bleugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898162464

What stood out here immediately, was the paragraph on his time with the Rockefeller Foundation. Classic Wade style awful prose, repeating "Rockefeller Foundation" four times, and of course wikilinking it each time, contrary to guidance. This is basic stuff. People have corrected her overlinking issues before, she has either never noticed, or just doesn't care.

Turning to the content of that paragraph, it is bizarre to see how she constructs it. There's lots of little annoying contradictions between the sources she's used, but it is by no means clear Wade has made any attempt to resolve them, or even if she noticed them. This is more evidence the repetition problem happens because of the rushed and piecemeal way she puts these paragraphs together.

Wikipedia has guidance on how to resolve such conflicts for writers taking the time to do it properly, but they have nothing to really offer here, because one approach is to pick the best and most authoritative sources and assume all others are mistaken, which is a tough task given they are all much of a muchness, in which case the approach is to lay it all out and let the reader decide, which is pointless at such a level of relative triviality. Who seriously cares for example, if he was appointed their representative for all Africa in 1999, or just Eastern Africa?

What Wade didn't spot here, because she has absolutely no concept of what she is doing or why, is there was a better way. Just avoid job titles and instead explain what he was responsible for. Stripped of the non-neutral langauge, if we're assuming source 5 is reliable, she could have took her cue from it......
Quote:
He was to devote the next decade of his life to nurturing the growth of a network of African population research institutes and researchers through a carefully designed program of grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, through the Nairobi office. In addition to supporting a vast array of population studies and training programs in Africa, when he became Director of the Nairobi office he took on responsibility for leading all of the Rockefeller Foundation’s African grants, adding education, food security and health equity to the portfolio of population grants. Recognizing his gifts for management, he was promoted to Vice-President at Rockefeller Foundation with authority for managing all their regional programs and staff.
Notice how it doesn't avoid job titles completely, but only mentions the really important ones, namely Director and then VP. We can assume the capitalisation here is correct, whereas Wade has an alarming habit of choosing for herself what is an actual job title, totally ignoring the source's choices. To Wade, there is no difference between "Representative for Africa" and "representative for Africa". Another marker as to her general cluelessness.

What is really grinding my gears, and it keeps taking me back to the Nature piece where Wade claims to be writing these people's personal stories......
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.
...she has yet again ommitted crucial context from that very source.......
Quote:
As Vice-President he lived in New York for two years, but the pull back to Africa – his home and the base of his research community- remained strong and in 2005 he retired from the foundation in order to pursue his commitment to African population research. Upon his return to Dakar in 2005 he was very quickly approached by African population research institutes to join their advisory boards, as well as by major international foundations seeking to strengthen their population and health program funding in Africa.
Wade's biography, rather alarmingly, doesn't even make clear that he left the Rockefeller Foundation, much less explaining why.

This is just one paragraph in one biography. One of thousands.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu May 23, 2019 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

:?

Another day, another error solely attributable to Wade being an editor who is too hasty and too sloppy....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898336418

Quote:
Within Arslantepe, Frangipane led the team who discovered the word's oldest royal palace.[12] She was also involved with excavations of

She was the first Italian woman to be elected as a Foreign Member to the National Academy of Sciences in 2013.[13]
Builds the tension though. I absolutely have to know now, what other excavations was she involved with!

What makes me laugh is, no less than four editors have edited this page since Wade dumped it on Wikipedia, and not one of them has spotted her fuck up.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu May 23, 2019 11:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Seriously, wtf?
Quote:
She has been involved with several excavations, in Europe, Mexico, Turkey and Egypt.[2] She was involved the the excavation of Cunalan village in the Teotihuacan valley.[3] She has been involved with the excavation team of the Arslantepe since 1976.[4]

Author:  CrowsNest [ Thu May 23, 2019 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

:roll:
Quote:
She was the first Italian woman to be elected as a Foreign Member to the National Academy of Sciences in 2013.[13
No such thing as a "Foreign Member" of the NAS, you can either be a Member or a Foreign Associate.

http://www.nasonline.org/membership/
Quote:
Members must be U.S. citizens; non-citizens are elected as foreign associates
Again, she is just so sloppy, and causes even more confusion with her annoying habit of deciding what to capitalise all on her own. I mean, FFS, given the is clearly using the NAS profile as the base for these pages, how does she miss it? It's RIGHT THERE......
Quote:
Marcella Frangipane
University of Rome

Election Year: 2013
Primary Section: 51, Anthropology
Membership Type: Foreign Associate
Indeed, Jesus, it is Wade's ridiculous invention of a thing called a "Foreign Member" here that downgrades what the source is saying, namely she is the first Italian woman to become a member (no capitalization) of the NAS. You don't even need a translator to see the (Italian) source at least knows that when they say "member", they mean "Foreign Associate".

Oh and OF COURSE the reference wouldn't even load until I had figured out Wade had put a double "// " in the url, because SLOPPY.

Fuck me. It will take an ARMY to properly scrutinise every word of every biography this idiot is publishing on Wikipedia.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Fri May 24, 2019 7:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

:lol: :shock: :? :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898531061
Quote:
She started working on light-regulated gene expression.[2] Unfortunately, four months into her postdoctoral fellowship there was a fire in the laboratory.[2] During this time she began to read in the library, investigating role of metals in the regulation of photosynthetic electron transport in chlamydomonas.[2] She studied how cells detect the levels of copper and developed antibodies.[2]
It is an unfortunate consequence of Wade's horrific writing style and general sloppiness, that I came to this passage and was genuinely confused as to whether the mention of the fire was just a random detail, or whether there is meant to be a link between it and this move into the library and the subsequent study of copper detection etc.

Any reader's eventual level of understanding in just now poorly this paragraph presents the events in question, both on a basic factual level as well as their significance to her career, depends on how much time you take to read the single source upon which it is based, and go backwards forwards between it and Wikipedia until a clear picture has emerged as to where Wade has perhaps either got confused or made assumptions or otherwise done things she shouldn't be doing.

I won't bore you with detailing everything that came to mind, but suffice to say that yes, the fire was the reason she ended up going to the library, and by the end of the paragraph she has indeed recovered her ability to perform experiments. It was interesting to ponder how, in such a context, the words investigate and study can be so ambiguous.

Far better for the reader though, surely, would be if it was Wade taking that time? And if the problem here is that it doesn't matter how long she takes she would still be presenting readers with poorly thought out passages like this, surely it suffices to leave readers with the underlying source as the higher Google result for "Sabeeha Merchant" until such time as a competent Wikipedia editor can be found to make sure the Wikipedia entry that now eclipses it, and has done from the very second Wade pooped it out, will serve them better.

Turning to Wade's previously stated goals in becoming a plague on Wikipedia's formatters and fact checkers, details of this paragraph's ultimate career significance, are indeed left absent. Aside from the rather easily deduced fact that for a scientist, having your lab burning down is a real pain in the ass. This "unfortunate" event had an upside however. It is perhaps evident to someone wanting to Wade (get it) through the rest of what she has put in that section and do the necessary summation using your own powers of deduction, but certainly for the complete layman (and most journalists I would think), that is an impossible task. She has yet again it seems, written a science biography to be read by other scientists, and even then, hardly for reasons of inspiration of the youth, since that element of what the source has to give, has all been left out.

I won't have time today to look into any other part of this biography other than this one paragraph, which took me long enough to figure out. But that rather is the point, is it not? 'Ain't nobody got time for this shit.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat May 25, 2019 5:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

This is pretty funny. Latest creation is for programmer Ellen Fetter, and it is absolutely in the 'uncovering hidden women' wheelhouse. So Wade should be the absolutely perfect person to write her Wikipedia biography, right? Um, no.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898614416

Quote:
Fetter married John Gille in 1963.
Why is this in the career section? The very first line no less. Mentioning marital status and husbands as it if is important to a woman's career, is meant to be depreciated as a classic example of systemic bias. John was a physicist, but there is no evidence he was influential in his wife's career, and while he had an effect on her career, it was perhaps not a positive one (more on that in a minute).
Quote:
She moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1963.
Basic factual error, she joined in 1961. There are not one but two places in the single source Wade has used to write the Career section (except ironically the source for the 1963 wedding date) where it is made clear she joined in 1961.
Quote:
She was interviewed by a member of the team who used a LGP-30 in the Department of Engineering.
Very strange. I mean, it's accurate after a fashion, but if the point of these articles is to highlight the contribution of women, why not make it clear this interviewer was a woman, and she was a little more than what Wade has described here, she was in fact the person who "ran the LGP-30 in the nuclear engineering department", later explicitly identified as a coder. As the source makes clear, this was typically a one (wo)man job for any given work group (researcher, programmer, students), critical to any science being done using the computer.
Quote:
She worked alongside Margaret Hamilton in Building 24.
Like the previous sentence, this is both factually incorrect, and bizarrely downplays the role of women. Fetter did not work with Hamilton, she trained her (having taught herself) to be her replacement, Fetter having been recommended to her by the women who interviewed her, Hamilton then moving on to other projects in the summer of 1961 (Fetter presumably having joined, on graduation, in Spring 1961), leaving Fetter to perform the work she did all by herself, until she in turn was also replaced by another woman.
Quote:
That year, she performed the computational work for Edward Norton Lorenz's work on chaos.
As previously established, this must be another error resulting from Wade's mistaken belief she joined in 1963. In reality, she must have been doing this work from Summer 1961 until at least 1963 (we are not told when she actually leaves, but it was not before her marriage, announced in July 1963).
Quote:
Fetter plotted the motion of a particle experiencing fast convection in an idealised beaker.
Hmmm. While it verges on original research, it is pretty clear that Wade is wrong to imply that all Fetter did was work on this one thing, there would have been overlap with the stages that came before and after. Again perhaps another error from her mistake over when Fetter was at MIT. Not only that, even in describing this one thing, Wade seems to have got confused between the computational work simulating the motion in the system, and the plotting of resulting variables (properties, not spacial coordinates) to visualise the concept of an attractor in chaotic systems. Fetter gets credit for both.
Quote:
The work was the foundation of chaos theory.
This rather ambiguous sentence is pretty useless. Which "work"? It would have been better if Wade had stuck to the source, which says all of the work Fetter did at MIT "played a pivotal role in the birth of chaos theory."
Quote:
Fetter joined Florida State University where she worked on programming.
This is just bizaree. Having already mentioned her marriage as it if were relevant, by the time we get to here, Wade mysteriously fails to mention it when it arguably was relevant. As the source makes clear, Fetter moved to Florida University because her husband had got a job there. As such, while we cannot say if Fetter only moved out of loyalty to her husband or she genuinely made this as an independent decision to benefit her career, but given the era and the fact the source seems to think her work at MIT was her high point, it is likely the reader would be able to make their own conclusions if Wade had given them all the facts.
Quote:
She started to study computer science at the University of Colorado Boulder, but soon left to work in tax preparation.
Again, if we consider why Wade is writing these articles, it is incredible that she leaves out the reasons for all these later career developments......
Quote:
Fetter, for her part, continued to program at Florida State after leaving Lorenz’s group at MIT. After a few years, she left her job to raise her children. In the 1970s, she took computer science classes at the University of Colorado, toying with the idea of returning to programming, but she eventually took a tax preparation job instead. By the 1980s, the demographics of programming had shifted. “After I sort of got put off by a couple of job interviews, I said forget it,” she said. “They went with young, techy guys.”
The Career section ends bizarrely with this nugget.....
Quote:
Fetter had a daughter, Sarah, who studied engineering at Yale University. She works in physical oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.
Again, totally bizarre how this ends up in Career and not a section for Personal Life. But of course, Wade possibly had in her mind (but completely omitted to mention in the resulting text) that there arguably is something worth saying with regard to Fetter's career and that of her daughter. As the source explained......
Quote:
As an undergraduate at Yale in the 1980s, Sarah Gille sat in on a class about scientific programming. The case they studied? Lorenz’s discoveries on the LGP-30. Later, Sarah studied physical oceanography as a graduate student at MIT, joining the same overarching department as both Lorenz and Rothman, who had arrived a few years earlier. “One of my office mates in the general exam, the qualifying exam for doing research at MIT, was asked: How would you explain chaos theory to your mother?” she said. “I was like, whew, glad I didn’t get that question.”

-----------------
Overall, it is strange to think that with this effort Wade is making a passable impression of how, as we are told by the likes of Wade and her activist friends, a SEXIST WOMEN HATING MANPIG would write this women's Wikipedia biography, assuming they would even do so, because PENIS means they do not do so, right? We can perhaps even attribute all the stupid errors and general disregard for faithfully following the source and properly telling this woman's story, as the sort of thing someone with PENIS disease would commit, according to Wade et al.

I don't think you will find a clearer case that all Wade is due credit for, if she is due any credit, is for being the first person to create a Wikipedia biography for Ellen Fetter, regardless of the numerous issues with its actual content, which arguably do more harm than good for the causes of feminism, female inspiration and the efforts to persuade people Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia.

But you know what, when it is clear such a biography could only have been written after 20 May 2019 when the piece on which it rests almost in its entirety, was published, and when it is clear Wade is motivated solely by the need to be the first to write them, in a desperate drive to meet her self-serving quota of one crappy article per day, then really, she should not even get credit for that. But somehow, she does.

As has been seen before, Wikipedia and Wade is a recipe for citogenisis. She has OF COURSE already blasted this crappy creation out on Twitter.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 5943126018

.....and she has of course, learning nothing from the Phelps debacle, made a request for her Twitterati to help her expand it.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 1289491457
Quote:
As you can see, this wikipedia page is very short. Ellen Fetter fans, please contribute if you can.
Firstly, isn't rather the point of the piece that there are no Fetter fans, that she was unknown and lost to history before this week?

I just love how Wade asks for help to expand it. No acknowledgement that she might need people to fix it. And we already know that even after being broadcast on Twitter, people don't notice the mistakes. Because Wikipedia DOES NOT WORK. Not in theory, nor in practice.

As is typical of her Twitterati, they are only interested in praising Wade.....
Quote:
Great work Jess! So important to be bringing these hidden stories out into the forefront! [star emoji]!
SHE GOT A GOLD STAR.

As such, any and all instances of people claiming Fetter joined MIT in 1963, will be the result of Wade's ongoing campaign to make sure journalists get their facts straight from Wikipedia.

I think the basic problem is, as always, Wade is just a complete idiot, who never had and never will understand the important distinctions between historians, journalists and encylopedists, much less the importance of professional standards (as distinct from remuneration) distinguishing them from rank amateurs......
Quote:
Fetter’s contributions to science were discovered by @josh_sokol
No, this is fake news from Doctor Wade, as HIS ARTICLE MAKES CLEAR. It was an MIT scientist (geophysicist Daniel Rothman, co-director of MIT’s Lorenz Center) who discovered the story and this journalist wrote it up. Indeed, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the independence and motivation of MIT in all this, and just how much of their research of their own history is being independently verified by the journalist before it is immediately turned into historical fact by Doctor Wade, Professor of Wikipedia, but we are well past the point anyone in Wikipedia is capable of that level of examination of either their source material or indeed their role in the world.

They are all Wade's people now.

There are two reasons Fetter has been immortalised in Wikipedia. One is obviously because she played a pivotal role in the development of chaos theory. But the other is undoubtedly because she is a woman. Is that wrong? Well, when the source her article is almost entirely based on makes it pretty clear there are likely to be several other unidentified women who were likely doing similarly pivotal work at MIT at that time, it does seem unfair. And if the answer to that is, well, Wikipedia just needs to get access to MIT's archive (perhaps with a Wikipedian In Residence?) and compile a list of all the women programmers who worked on projects that later proved to be significant and create a biography for each one of them, you are quite obviously not using Wikipedia to document history in a fair and neutral manner, you are using Wikipedia to disproportionately recognise the historical achievements of women at the expense of men, who must remain unknown to history despite doing the same jobs with the same impact in the same era with the same lack of contemporary recognition (since the source is not claiming that it was only women programmers who were not credited on the papers at the time).

It is remarkable then, to note that piece has a picture of Hamilton next to an "unidentifed" man. Who was he? A professor? A janitor? A contemporary or Fetter or Hamilton? Who knows.

You know who probably doesn't care? The dude neither being a woman nor a minority. Wade.

As the source noted, but for very different reasons, that for every Fetter and Hamilton, there could be four "unidentified" men.....
Quote:
In addition to Hamilton and the woman who coded in MIT’s nuclear engineering department, Ellen Gille recalls a woman on an LGP-30 doing meteorology next door to Lorenz’s group. Another woman followed Gille in the job of programming for Lorenz. An analysis of official U.S. labor statistics shows that in 1960, women held 27 percent of computing and math-related jobs.
It cannot be the case that the patriarchy ensured all of them went on to do things that made sure they all now have Wikipedia immorality. Some, yes. Maybe even most. But all of them? No.

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat May 25, 2019 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Guillén&oldid=898771406[/url]
Quote:
Sonia Elizabeth Guillén is a Peruvian anthropologist and the President of the Centro Mallqui.
In an article consisting of only 36 sentences, Wade begins 19 of them with "She" and 8 with her surname. It is almost painful to read. Even worse when you have to suffer stuff like.....
Quote:
She was concerned about the mummy being on show at the
.....that mysterious cliff hanger of course being the second time she used "She was concerned".

Fuck knows who or what the President of the Centro Mallqui is, frankly anyone who can read that article from start to finish in the vain hope it is explained in the rest of the text, will surely be wishing for the sweet release of death (and then mummification) themselves.

Quote:
She is the Director of The Bioanthropology Foundation Peru, Centro Mallqui.[6] She has investigated Ilo in Southern Peru, where she established the Centro Mallqui.[7]
SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE CENTRO MALLQUI?

Author:  CrowsNest [ Sat May 25, 2019 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Nothing says "I am a Wikipedia editor" more than being the sort of cheap skate who searches Google Books for mentions of their topic in the free preview portions. Except perhaps, a total inability to even use what you found in an efficient or even comprehensible fashion.

Take this section.....
Quote:
She moved to the United States and studied anthropology at the University of Michigan.[3] Guillén earned her doctorate at the University of Michigan in 1992.[2] During her time in Michigan, Guillén attended a course in osteology delivered by Jane E. Buikstra at Northwestern University.[4] She worked alongside Lawrence Angel, Douglas H. Ubelaker and Thomas Dale Stewart at the Smithsonian Institution.[4]
......and you might be surprised to learn the whole thing can be sourced using just Reference 4, the aforementioned Google Book preview.

For some unknowable reason, Wade instead chooses to throw into the mix two sources of questionable utility, since both are in Spanish. Even more hilarious, source 3 is a video, and for this sentence at least, Wade has not used any of the voice work, she has just used the initial in-video text introduction. Even more hilarious, that caption at least gave the year she earned her MA, 1976, something that was not in the book. Not used by Wade.

Since the book does give us two other important years, namely she did that osteology course in 1977, and spent time with the three Smithsonian dudes in 1983, now your surprise has turned into disbelief at how Wade could have possibly got the chronological order of those sentences so mixed up (or worse, why she assumes a reader would not assume they are ordered chronologically).

As is becoming depressingly familiar, checking the book reveals that not only has Wade left out relevant context from what she has transferred, she's left behind details that look just as relevant and worthy of mention. Poor old Cabieses and Allison getting no love from the Wadester. Any assumption that she is making these editorial choices either because she has a deep understanding of or duty of care to the subject, is of course laughable.

Page 6 of 10 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/