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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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.
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......
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.....
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......
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
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.....
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......
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.....
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.