View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:31 am




Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Wikipedia is just such a con-trick, in so many ways.

This editor they call Duncan.Hull (his real name) who until I just checked I had assumed was just adding templates and missing infobox fields to Wade's creations shortly after she dumps them onto Wikipedia, has in fact also been making substantial other fixes at the same time, none of which he mentions in his edit summaries.

He was the guy who corrected her fuck up about Foreign Associates a few posts back, deceitfully marking it as "add Template:Authority control".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898345242

Now, before any wikishit pipes up, yes, I am well aware edit summaries are not mandatory, but if you are using them, they have to adequately explain all the changes being made in that edit. Because of this, I was writing up an error in Wade's submission that had already been fixed (but hilariously he didn't fix the broken url of the reference, so we can assume he thinks nothing of changing text that is referenced without consulting the reference to see if it, not Wade herself, was the source of the error - or perhaps he is only too aware that she is usually the origin, because she is so rubbish at transferring source material).

I wonder, after all this cleaning up after her, is he still such a glowing fan of Dr. Wade? Still think she is "Knocking it out the park!" by making basic and obvious mistakes like that?

https://mobile.twitter.com/dullhunk/sta ... 9834861568

I certainly hope this deceptive practice of hiding from the edit history that what they're doing is routinely cleaning up her flawed submissions is itself just an oversight, a case of Wade like sloppy disregard for procedure and your fellow editors, but the general environment of protectionism around Wade, as seen in the recent dramas, does make you more inclined to assume it is a deliberate act. Wade wouldn't need to be in on it, indeed she's probably too much of an idiot to realize it is even happening.

I am certainly also wondering why, after 600+ biographies, he's still making these template/infobox additions for her. Is she too dumb, too hostile, or too lazy, to do them herself? Seems very inefficient, assuming these are critical basic components of any scientist biography, as I believe they are. Her whole approach to adding biographies to Wikipedia is mindlessly formulaic, editing by the numbers, so what possible harm would a couple more steps in her algorithm do her? Has she declined or perhaps even refused to do it because it would affect her ability to meet quota?


Sun May 26, 2019 12:49 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Quote:
Emily M. Klein is a Professor of Geology and Geochemistry at Duke University.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =898930776

Quote:
Early life and education
Klein was interested in medicine as a child. Her father was a doctor, and she spent a lot of her childhood in his office.[1] Klein studied English at Barnard College. She completed her undergraduate degree in 1979, and became a science writer. She was appointed a technician at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, where she was involved with a research project studying Puerto Rican monkey colonies.[1] She became interested in geology, and earned tuition credits to study courses at Columbia University.[1]
That is how Wade tells the story of this woman's life up the the point she earns a degree in the discipline she eventually becomes notable for.

It is all based on a single interview source.....

http://www.womenoceanographers.org/Defa ... EmilyKlein

....and so it is easy, really easy, to see what a terrifically bad job Wade does of it. As seen before, it is just baffling what she chooses to mention, and what she chooses to leave out. Why is it relevant that she spent a lot of time in his office, but not all the other things she did as a child that clearly sparked and fueled her interests?

I was going to break this down line by line, but it's easier if you just read her paragraph, then read the source. She cheats the reader out of so much necessary context and detail to understand even these small snippets, such as why the jump from an interest in medicine to a writing degree to a science writer job to a medical lab technician before finally landing at geology. You can see how Wade has tried to fool the reader into thinking there is a common thread, science writing, but as becomes clear in the source, these jumps are defined more by their differences than their commonalities. She was making clear choices based on things Wade doesn't mention at all.

I mean, ugh. Who even bothers to read the rest of a "biography", when the foundational elements are so poorly researched?

You have to suspect it is this bad only because Wade is not writing a Wikipedia biography at all (a summary of available summaries of a life), not in any meaningful sense. Constructing these first sentences is just a box ticking exercise for her. The set up. A bit of speed reading and writing, and you can splurge stuff like that out in ten minutes, quite easily, and your ability to keep up with your self set quota is in tact.


Mon May 27, 2019 9:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
I will say one thing, reading Jess's new article feed is a never ending source of amusement......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899089254
Quote:
Najat Aoun Saliba is a Professor of Analytical Chemistry ..... at the American University of Beirut.
Quote:
She established international protocols for the chemical studies of water pipes.[15]
When you stop laughing at the realization of where she has wikilinked "water pipe" to (having read the source, which is unambiguous in showing it is meant to be going to the smoking type of water pipe article), you realize the cause of this mistake was no minor formatting error (linking to the wrong article is easily done after all). No, this error came about because for whatever reason, as shown by where she placed it in the article, she genuinely thought this sentence was meant to be about plumbing pipes, not tobacco pipes.

The only plausible reason for this fuck up, has to be the reason that keeps cropping up time after time in this thread. She is just too hasty and too sloppy. I mean, whatever her specific process is, this should not be the sort of error where you would only have one chance to realize you have made a mistake, before hitting 'publish'. That one chance obviously being the proof read stage. I think this thread is pretty good proof she doesn't give herself even that one chance.


Tue May 28, 2019 10:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
As a follow up to the Katie Bouman debacle, seeing Wade continue to make this sort of mistake is particularly damaging to both science and the women who work in it.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899415672

Quote:
Pecl studied how the distribution of fresh water and land species that results from climate change, has an affect on human wellbeing.[11] She showed how changes in these changes in distribution impact health and culture.[11] The human impact includes tourism and recreational fishing, as well as health threats such as malaria.[11]
Source:
Quote:
The study, by an international team led by Associate Professor Gretta Pecl of the University of Tasmania, and including UNSW marine ecologist Dr Adriana Vergés, is published today in the journal Science.
There's a world of difference between simply studying something, and leading an international team effort.

And just so we're clear on the difference, this is the actual author list from the paper.....
Quote:
Gretta T. Pecl1,2,*, Miguel B. Araújo3,4,5,†, Johann D. Bell6,7, Julia Blanchard1,2, Timothy C. Bonebrake8, I-Ching Chen9, Timothy D. Clark1,10, Robert K. Colwell5,11,12,13, Finn Danielsen14, Birgitta Evengård15, Lorena Falconi16, Simon Ferrier17, Stewart Frusher1,2, Raquel A. Garcia18,19, Roger B. Griffis20, Alistair J. Hobday2,21, Charlene Janion-Scheepers22, Marta A. Jarzyna23, Sarah Jennings2,24, Jonathan Lenoir25, Hlif I. Linnetved26, Victoria Y. Martin27, Phillipa C. McCormack28, Jan McDonald2,28, Nicola J. Mitchell29, Tero Mustonen30, John M. Pandolfi31, Nathalie Pettorelli32, Ekaterina Popova33, Sharon A. Robinson34, Brett R. Scheffers35, Justine D. Shaw36, Cascade J. B. Sorte37, Jan M. Strugnell38,39, Jennifer M. Sunday40, Mao-Ning Tuanmu41, Adriana Vergés42, Cecilia Villanueva1,2, Thomas Wernberg29,43, Erik Wapstra44, Stephen E. Williams16
.....and they are from institutions literally all over the world.


Wed May 29, 2019 8:32 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
A day in the life of a Wikipedia editor.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899416003
Quote:
copyedit including fix typos and WP:OVERLINK undo
....cleaning up what are frankly novice mistakes in the stuff Jess Wade dumps on Wikipedia.

There are only three realistic explanations for this still being a thing....

1. Wade has a medical condition.

2. Wade is a moron.

3. Wade is an asshole.

I cannot come up with any other reasons why she would either not be noticing that she keeps making these newbie mistake others have to keep cleaning up, or she is noticing but not taking the necessary corrective action.


Thu May 30, 2019 10:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Can we make this a sticky thread? If Wade is to be the poster girl of Wikipedia wokeness, she deserves to be the poster girl for how bad Wikipedia editors can be at their nominated task, and now little anyone else inside Wikipedia (or the media she relies on) notices.

I don't propose to keep adding to thread unless or until Jess actually says something to another Wikipedian, which is a rarity. I've compiled enough evidence to show who she is and what she does, a r at this time there is nothing else to report, she just continues to grind on mindlessly.

It is a testament to the threat Wikipedia poses to the world, that it is actually physically impossible for one person to be able to properly check each article creation of someone as clearly intent on filling it up with as much garbage as she can as fast as she can. I've only been spot checking, and even that takes a very long time. But I've at least proven that nobody is checking the things I did, and nobody has fixed the problems I have identified, least of all Wade herself. She gives no fucks.


Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:25 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1505
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Can we make this a sticky thread?

Done, now it's up to you to get someone in here. (I'd like to see HER show up, but that won't happen.)


Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
A tip of me Crow, make a one time posting with the points in brief where you blame her for. Because your posting are often in detail and hard to follow for a outsider who is not familiar with the English WP. (Don't see this as criticism but as a practical tip.)

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
A tip of me Crow, make a one time posting with the points in brief where you blame her for. Because your posting are often in detail and hard to follow for a outsider who is not familiar with the English WP. (Don't see this as criticism but as a practical tip.)
Sure, it's been said before, but to be honest, people not familiar with English Wikipedia can't really do anything useful to the world with this information anyway. Anyone who wants to write Wade up as the self-serving fraud slash incompetent nuisance she really is, can't be making any mistakes in how they tell her story, so they need to be able to understand the significance of the things I've found. The Wikipedians, they take one tiny mistake in negative coverage of their cult, and use it to discredit the entire piece. And then they sleep soundly in their beds. Just like Jess probably sleeps soundly in hers after a long hard hour screwing the pooch each and every night.


Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
On the flip side, it doesn't need any expertise to understand this sort of dumb ass shit....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =900472562
Quote:
Elsa Marion Redmond is an American Archaeologist at the American Museum of Natural History. She specialises in Latin American archaeology. She is an elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
She in the who in the what now?

Hot off the Wikipedia presses. Coming to a 'hey fans take a look at this new Wikipedia page I totally didn't even bother to proof read' tweet near you shortly.

Just another of Wade's daily screwups, attributable to only one thing, her more haste less everything else attitude to life.

Who would even give this fool a Bunsen burner?


Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:40 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  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.