Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:48 am

These are frankly not the comments of someone who knows what she is doing (indeed they are textbook examples of how not to argue against a proposed deletion).....

(Kate Bouman, kept)
Keep (I made the article). She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here. In the past 48 hours Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world. The bio has been translated into almost 20 languages and was viewed over 30,000 times yesterday alone. Her TED talk has received almost 3 million views. Her story *should* be on Wikipedia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(Clarice Phelps, deleted)
Keep - She was part of a small team that helped discover an element - this is not trivial and I believe her contributions deserve a space on Wikipedia........Jesswade88 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I therefore find it remarkable that of the 600+ biographies Wade has written so far, in her efforts to close the infamous gender gap, only 13 have been deleted.

Ironically it seems like something that needs further study to determine if the causes are systemic (widespread lack of clue among the Wikipedia community, meaning Wade is just a user of average level of intelligence), or there are specific reasons that explain why Wade is succeeding with such poor reasoning where other editors writing about other things probably do not. It could of course be a bit of both. Dumb luck certainly doesn't account for it, not even remotely. Other Wikipedians brigading around a user seen to have a worthy cause, even if her methods are dubious, certainly would explain it.

I initially wondered if Wade was deliberately using these sort of arguments as part of some elaborate scheme to game the system (a strategy of avoidance and misdirection), but I honestly don't see any reason to think she is that smart. I think she genuinely believes these arguments are how you are meant to do it, and/or they should be persuasive, contrary to the wisdom of the people who wrote the guides that explain what not to say and why.

One thing is for sure. Wade will never be blocked for lacking the competence to edit Wikipedia, even though WP:COMPETENCE is increasingly being interpreted that way by Administrators. That only leaves trying to educate her, but I've seen no sign that she really gets it when people try. And after this long and this many edits, and certainly when she is not seeing her reasoning being defeated by people doing it the right way, there is no impetus for her to learn.

In the face of what criticism she does receive for Doing It Wrong, Wade has often claimed she has no other motive but to make Wikipedia better. And sure, I can believe that. Why not? Nobody this bad at Wikipedia editing would get paid. Nobody this clueless at their task is realistically part of an organised covert group. We know the media will write about anyone the WMF tell them is doing good things, the journalists know even less about Wikipedia than Wade, so they're not going to do anything to challenge the idea she is doing the wrong thing. But someone doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, is still doing the wrong thing.

I guess that is the ultimate failure of the Wikipedia system of self governance. Wade is hardly the first, and will certainly not be the last, to be doing it wrong, and not be persuaded, or compelled, by the system (i.e. other Wikipedians) to stop doing it wrong and either get better or leave. For the good of Wikipedia.

A big reason why Wade is probably not learning, is that she seems to be deliberately employing a strategy of a lack of communication with other editors. I was actually shocked to learn that she has made a grand total of only 26 posts to article talk pages, and just 50 to other user's talk pages.

Rather disturbingly, she has begun to adopt the same arrogant and combative tone as many of the men of Wikipedia, recently dismissing three notices of impending deletion from her talk page as "removed rubbish". Two of the three have been deleted, one being an attempt to recreate Phelps, and one where she tried to create a biography for Fanya Ismail, and her only argument against deletion being "she's the only Kurdish woman to ever win the Women in Innovation award, which very few women win per year", which is of course another textbook example of what not to say. The third article was kept, but the reasons why rather illustrate the weaknesses of the reasons for that outcome.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llis_Bolds

....and it was interesting to see in that debate that yet again, Wade made a pretty poor case, and baled pretty fast when it was challenged, leaving others to duke it out on policy grounds (solid or otherwise), showing quite conclusively that when it comes to Wikipedia policy, Wade is either totally out of her depth, or just isn't remotely interested in the discussion aspect of Wikipedia.

She is a member of the Wikipedia Project dedicated to increasing the number of biographies of women, the horrifically named Women In Red, although her lack of communication extends to not interacting with that project in any way, except passively (such as receiving their newsletter). Since they have some kind of widget controlling the registration process, I can't even tell you whether she even actually joined by her own hand, or someone else added her to the membership roll. She didn't join until four months after she was formally invited, so that suggests the latter.

Being generous, I suppose you could say Wade took the advice of the WMF and just dived right in, editing by the bucket load before she really knew what she was doing, and her reluctance to speak to much less work with others could be shyness or being overawed by the complex bureacracy. But there can be no doubt that she has had enough time to overcome these initial obstacles, and she should be showing signs she is willing to communicate and cooperate the right way. The right way of course being that you should be prepared to accept valid criticism and defend your positions to your colleagues using the established frames of reference. Much like academia, ironically.

The signs instead are that Wade has determined for herself which criticism of her approach to Wikipedia is valid, and has become entrenched in this idea that the Wikipedia process is less about arguing from the evidence and frames of reference (i.e. policy), and is instead about arguing from subjectivity, if not simply emotion. It is remarkable how often she includes, if not simply saying it as a standalone point with no other reason at all, that she thinks person X deserves to be on Wikipedia, so she made it happen.

It seems that for Wade, and it is hard to say for sure given she says so little, if there is pushback against her judgement, it is because the Wikipedia community is biased. It is biased, but Wikipedia has yet to come up with a way to prove when someone is being denied their place in Wikipedia because of the bias of the editors, and when it is happening because someone like Wade is simply trying to include someone who manifestly doesn't meet their standards, and others, for whatever reason, are rallying around her to help her beat the system.

There have been suggestions to alter the standards to eliminate bias, but it has not happened yet. With people like Wade not being challenged on their methods, with these standards being adjusted ad hoc on a case by case basis, based on the sort of poor reasoning Wade employs, designated poor precisely because it is simply a recipe for widespread inconsistency and ultimately chaos, it may never happen.

In case of Bouman, while that biography was kept, as could have been predicted by the very rules and guidance she ignored, or just simply doesn't understand, Wade doing it wrong actually caused harm to both the person she wrote about and the causes she was presumably trying to advance when she chose to include her in Wikipedia........
I’m so glad that everyone is as excited as we are and people are finding our story inspirational.......However, the spotlight should be on the team and no individual person. Focusing on one person like this helps no one, including me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/scie ... -hole.html

Maybe Wikipedia needs to replace women editors like Wade, with women like Bouman? Then again, maybe people like Bouman are too busy actually benefiting the world?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Jess Wade

Postby CrowsNest » Wed May 01, 2019 12:21 pm

Seriously, wtf?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... lodziejski
Keep - I made this page. Hi again Netoholic She's a Professor at MIT, which alone would warrant a page if she was a man. Where would you expect to write about someone becoming a Fellow of the OSA, other than the OSA and the MIT site? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The idea that being a Professor at MIT confers automatic notability is not, never has and for fucking obvious reasons, NEVER WILL be Wikipedia policy, guideline or general practice. Wade has so far written hundreds of biographies for academics, so she must have been pointed to WP:ACADEMIC countless times, directly and indirectly, and yet she can STILL say something as clueless as that? And get away with it......

She also clearly didn't understand why she was being asked for evidence the awarding of a fellowship had been noticed by someone other than the awarding body and the employer of the recipient. Requiring evidence there was secondary independent coverage of a person's career achievements is pretty much a given in Wikipedia policy as far as determining if they merit a biography. Press releases simply don't cut it.

In what is becoming a familiar pattern, in this case the biography was kept, but that was in spite of Wade's clueless contribution. It was kept only because, under ACADEMIC, it is mere act of being awarded a fellowship from the body in question that means this person merits a Wikipedia biography. Wade clearly had no idea that was the Wikipedia policy position, so it cannot have been the reason she created this biography.

From her comment, it seems more than likely she created this biography under the false assumption that every male professor at MIT has a Wikipedia biography, and that is the (imaginary) case for no other reason than Wikipedia thinks PENISES ARE COOL.

Someone with Wikipedia's public reputation on their mind really needs to get a grip of Wade, because people won't fall to notice stupidity and bias of this magnitude forever.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Wed May 01, 2019 1:02 pm

Rather than be educated on some pretty basic aspects of Wikipedia policy, it seems the pattern is going to be that anyone who attempts to rectify her problematic articles through the usual means, such as clean-up tagging or nomination for deletion, are to be forced to stay say from her, for being guilty of "misogynistic trolling"......
Netoholic is very obviously causing distress to Jess Wade, who simply wants to be left in peace to write new articles. And Netoholic is creating a toxic environment for all those interested in Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Whilst acknowledging WP:NPA it is nevertheless the case that Netoholic's behaviour is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling; and although I will extent WP:AGF to Netoholic, this toxicity needs to stop. If there are notability issues with Jess's articles, the community is large enough to address these without Netoholic's close policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The view from the accused.....
indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling; and although I will extent WP:AGF to Netoholic, this toxicity needs to stop. If there are notability issues with Jess's articles, the community is large enough to address these without Netoholic's close policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It goes without saying that no one expects a full-fledged article to be perfect from the start. But likewise, when a new article that lacks independent sourcing is tagged {{notability}}, {{third-party}}, or likewise, those tags should be retained as long as they reflect valid concerns. That's not exactly been happening lately in User:Jesswade88's brand-new WIR articles, which are written and posted on twitter to a sizable following immediately. If admins want to check those page histories, you'll see me tagging for non-trivial concerns, and then the tags are removed immediately, usually without addressing the concern at all. Jesswade88 removes a lot of them, but isn't the only one - her posts get a lot of attention. There are two interpretations for why the tags are being removed - I (and others) could be just wrong about the concerns.... or her following feels a sense of pride for these articles and that visible cleanup tags detract from the experience. Overall though, her most recent article at least has had a lot of the concerns taken care of, and other editors have found at least some independent sourcing. But perhaps it all points to a change which should be made in how Jesswade88 popularizes these daily articles. Maybe create them in Draft: space and do twitter posts linking there, inviting others to make improvements without the immediate pressure of them being "live" pages? Or write them and ask for help from the WikiProject WIR folks to do a quick assessment to make sure its decently "ready to go", then popularize it a few days later? The recent "media coverage" with regards Jesswade88's Clarice Phelps article is I think is strong evidence that her current method can backfire. And I wasn't even involved in that one. So yeah, I guess admins could IBAN me (after only about two days since I even learned of her existence)... I think that just encourages even more of a bubble around her daily project. Wikipedia would be better of if instead we were forced to work on articles together. I'd like to note that though I wasn't named by her, she has targetted me to her followers outside of Wikipedia. I'll be on the losing end of this no matter what. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
With this sort of reaction to attempts to correct her, it is perhaps not surprising that she has already seemingly become entrenched in this idea that she is right and her critics are wrong.......
don't edit Wikipedia in the day (I have a job) so didn't know you were the editor who tagged it. >> I didn't 'target' you to any followers, I simply commented on how ridiculous it is that within moments of the page being shared, you'd claimed a Professor at MIT wasn't notable, then flagged it for deletion. As for creating as drafts - I'm quite sure the biographies I write don't need help. This isn't about my 'pride', so please don't be so patronising. I remove your relentless criticisms because the the tags are inappropriate, and you only seem to put them on pages about women scientists. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I refuse to believe there are no Wikipedians who cannot see the false statement she made above (as mentioned, there is not and never will be a presumption of notability simply because someone is a Professor at MIT). And yet nobody seems to want to correct her on that glaring error.

I predict that eventually, albeit likely several years from now, blindly protecting Wade, pretending she has a fucking clue what she is doing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is harassing her, is going to seriously damage Wikipedia in the long run. It is manifestly not the case that the Wikipedia community is big enough to handle the issues she has.

SHE THINKS BEING AN MIT PROFESSOR GIVES YOU AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO A WIKIPEDIA PAGE. False. Wrong. Inorrect. Not policy. Idiotic. Stupid. How many different ways can it be said? Yet the community says nothing, except ban the guy who can see it, of course.

Draft space is EXACTLY where the articles created by people who are that fucking clueless about the basic concepts of Wikipedia, are meant to go. It is for people like Wade, who have yet to demonstrate they can be left to work on their own. How many of her hundreds of articles have been created under these false assumptions? I can absolutely believe nobody has looked, and/or attempts to flag up issues have simply been removed, as has been alleged.

If she doesn't start actually saying things in her own defence that make sense, there will be an issue, because she will end up doing something that none of her defenders and protectors will be able to wave away or blame on someone else. I've quoted what she said above about her own perception of her competence at this stage of her editing career, because you just know if she does do something really dumb, these defenders will seek to excuse it on account of her status as a novice.

Nobody on Wikipedia who is quite sure they don't need help, is a novice. Another basic aspect of Wikipedia that she apparently doesn't know (understandable, because the realisation COMES WITH EXPERIENCE). And a bit of humility.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 1:44 am

There is most definitely a campaIgn to protect Jess Wade from any scrutiny. In true Wikipedia fashion, this is seeing the time worn wiki-battle tactics of simply ignoring what a critic says and instead find something in the critic's history or behaviour to discredit them. Her main protectors at this time appear to be Tagishsimon, Markus Pössel and Administrator! Victuallers, although of course Ritchie is offering some of his patented brand of stupid as well, but what's new there? All of these are highly experienced users, so they are due absolutely no good faith for engaging in classic Wiki-battle obfuscation and diversion tactics.

The idiotic thing about all this is that at the very same time one section of the Wikipedia community is preparing to muzzle a critic of Wade for the high crime of looking at a handful of her creations over a couple of days and finding obvious problems, over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard another group are finally getting to grips with the prospect Wade might have been the trigger of a citogenisis incident regarding the Clarice Phelps debacle.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 895140291#"First..."_claims_for_scientist_BLP

From information ironically gleaned from the media frenzy surrounding the heroic Wade and the evil people who deleted her biography on Phelps because RACISM AND PENIS, it seems to be the case that this incident actually occurred because Kit Chapman, a journalist writing a book about the discovery of superheavy elements, chose to Tweet Wade about his findings ahead of publishing a book. Wade then seems to have included "Phelps is the first African-American woman to identify an element" in Wikipedia, based on that communication.

https://undark.org/2019/04/25/wikipedia ... y-problem/

Phelps’ entry was created last September by Jess Wade, a postdoctoral researcher in physics at Imperial College London. As a side-project, Wade has been working to combat the underrepresentation of female scientists on Wikipedia. She tries to write one new biography per day, an endeavor that has brought her considerable media attention. So when a journalist writing a book about superheavy elements learned of Phelps’s contribution to the discovery of tennessine, he sent Wade a private message on Twitter, and she promptly created a Wikipedia entry.


What links Wade, Chapman and the person who wrote that piece? Not one even has a basic understanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not the place where you publish claims like that for the first time.

It raises the very real prospect that Wade has been a useful idiot in Chapman's attempt to sell his book, once he finally publishes it. One of the reasons Wikipedia does not deal in original research of course, is that it reduces the motivation to abuse it for self-promotion.......

Kit Chapman wrote a 2016 feature for Chemistry World called "What it takes to make a new element" about the discovery of element 117 tennessine (and other superheavy elements), and wrote a book that is slated to be published this summer by Bloomsbury Publishing called "Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Period Table". A few hours ago, he posted on Twitter: "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." Note option #2 above refers specifically to superheavy elements. Can we say, "According to science journalist Kit Chapman, Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to be part of a team to discover a superheavy element.", cited either to the book or the tweet or both? Pinging DGG, Natureium, and Icewhiz curious about your opinions. Thanks. Leviv ich 00:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


Chapman's tweet.....
Btw: to those who have said that no expert has said Clarice Phelps is the first African American woman to discover an element...

Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman.
So even now, if we are to accept the absurd position that Wikipedia stands up biographies using tweets now (not a problem for Wade apparently), Ward's claim that Phelps was the "first African-American woman to identify an element", already needs a qualifier, "transuranium".

Citogenisis is a serious issue, the worst crime against knowledge Wikipedia can ever commit, and yet this incident is only coming to light now on Wikipedia, days after the Phelps biography had already been through all the community scrutiny of two Afds, and a media shitstorm for supposedly denying Phelps her due reognition as the Rosa Parks of science. So preventing people from even putting Wade's creations under that spotlight because IT MAKES HER FEEL SAD, is only going to massively increase the likelihood she causes serious informational and reputational damage to Wikipedia with her total ignorance of basic Wikipedia concepts like WP:V and WP:RS.

The only way damage to Wikipedia isn't caused, is if the media fails to report the discovery that Wade was at best spreading misinformation about Phelps, and nobody inside Wikipedia or out in the activist universe noticed, certainly not at the time it would have been timely and relevant.

How do you prevent such things? By putting Wade's creations into draft space, and only publishing them on Wikipedia once an experienced editor has checked them for BASIC things like verification of claims in reliable sources. The tragedy of the Wikipedia system is that by their internal standards, Wade is already experienced, perfectly entitled to operate without training wheels.

For someone who seems so wedded to using primary sources to verify factual claims, if this statement is true, it would be particularly ironic.....
......AFAICT, ORNL and Phelps haven't advanced the issue of African-American "firstness". ..... Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 2:05 am

:roll:
You know who's a random person from the internet? Myself and everyone else commenting on this thread. You know who's a credentialed science writer who actually knows what they're talking about? Drs. Jarvis, Zaringhalam, and Wade. Whose opinion should we go with here? Leviv ich 15:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the legacy of eighteen years of Wikipedia. The level of competence and skill presumed in words like "writer" and "editor", has been completely destroyed.

Some of the greatest minds that have ever lived, were amateurs in their field. Wikipedia could have harnessed that power and genuinely advanced human knowledge. It did not.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 2:52 am

Of course, a big reason for the mess Wade is causing, is Twitter. She is whining on her feed about editors who do anything to stop her being all she can be on Wikipedia, and she of course gets a long stream of supportive comments from absolute fuckwits who know even less about Wikipedia than her.

'Does Wikipedia take into account page views' (to decide whether or it to keep an article) being the sort of utter shite being floated there. Wade has, of course, previously used that classic 'argument to avoid' and its variants. And yet I am quite sure if I replied there to remind Wade that no, Wikipedia does not have a biography for every MIT processor, and other common mistakes she is making, she would block me in a nanosecond, no matter how politely or constructively I said it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade

On Wikipedia, abusing the "thank" button to sarcastically give feedback to people you are in a dispute with, is considered harassment. Being utterly clueless about Wikipedia, Wade of course does not know that. So it is no surprise to see her "thanking" people this way on her Twitter feed.

This sort of nonsense comment going unchallenged in the Administrators noticeboard however, that should surprise people......
Netoholic, Jess Wade has not precipitated a pile-on on you by anything she has done on Twitter. You have brought this on yourself. We need to be very very clear about this. Jess Wade has the freedom to express her dismay at the treatment her articles have received.
.....
She is the aggrieved party in this matter, and any suggestion that she should shoulder any responsibility for the actions of anyone who has involved themselves in this matter, or curtail her freedom to talk about whatever she damn well feels like talking about, is repugnant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The precedent setting ArbCom case which ruled that yes, if you use Twitter to harass other users, you can't hide behind Free Speech, and you will be banned for it, was of course, ironically, a case of a man using Twitter to harass a woman over her attempts to make Wikipedia more friendly to women. It would not exactly be very equitable if the same thing cannot be done when a woman is harassing a man.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 3:22 am

Another data point on her utter lack of awareness of her own pretty limited Wikipedia abilities.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 1852276737

She thinks she wouldn't make Wikipedia Administrator because people hate her. Riiiiight.

Anyone who has ever criticised Wade in any way other than being utterly polite and constructive, who then dared to oppose her bid for Admin, would be mobbed in an instant. That is a good thing, excepting the mobbing aspect, if it weren't for the rather obvious fact that due to its ongoing cultural problems, which Wade and her supporters are not improving in any way, the number of times criticism is levelled on Wikipedia in a polite and constructive fashion, is minimal.

She would fail in her bid, hopefully, but it is an increasingly thin hope, not because of a hate mob, but because, when people bother to actually look, and ask her probing questions (she wouldn't get away with being so reluctant to speak, and speak clearly and definitively), that she is lacking in the required knowledge of and experience with some very basic Wikipedia concepts.

For example....

Q. You have implied on multiple occasions that you believe Wikipedia has (or should have) a biography page for every MIT Professor, contrary to WP:ACADEMIC. On what basis do you make this claim?

Q. What was the origin of the claim "Clarice Phelps is the first African-American woman to identify an element", that you published on Wikipedia on 31 August 2018, but which was not in the source you provided, contrary to WP:V?

Q. You have previously you are "quite sure" you do not need any help with your article creations, which by your own admission are occurring at a rate of one a day. Given Adminship requires the highest levels of knowledge, do you stand by that self-assessment of your current knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidance?

She would absolutely crash and burn. Or it would be the greatest ever undeserved promotion since RexxS. I honestly would not be surprised at either outcome, it has become that easy for vested interest groups to manipulate Wikipedia's core processes.

It's starting to look like the only career path Wade is interested in pursuing, is that of the professional victim.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 3:34 am

Hilarious that it fell to another woman to have to the correct Wade's mistake on the Phelps claim.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862056837

While they seemingly have similar interests and motives for being on Wikipedia, the contrast between Wade and her corrector is obvious....

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipe ... Jesswade88

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipe ... _the_Brave

....Wade has made half as many edits over half the time, and more importantly, her corrector is someone who spends far more of their time interacting with other editors and Projects on talk pages.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 11:06 am

Wade is STILL insisting she has done nothing wrong with the Phelps case. Unbelievable.
CP's page originally said Phelps was the first African-American woman to contribute to the discovery of an element - which is true, as far as the author of a book on Superheavy elements who spoke to Phelps' and other discoverers of superheavy elements is concerned. The challenge with Phelps' page was fin ding an appropriate source. ........Jesswade88 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t make claims that aren’t backed up by sources -....... As for Clarice Phelps, the claim came from a book (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/superheavy-9781472953896/), I didn’t write a biography based on something I had imagined. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
1. She did not include a citation for that claim when she made it on Wikipedia (as in none at all, not simple an inappropriate one)

2. Nothing can be cited to a book that has not been published yet (the link she gives says it is available to pre-order!)

3. According to the author's own Tweet, she clearly did imagine this idea the book supports "discover an element" (she has missed out the rather important qualifier, superheavy)

It is frankly not possible to be this stupid, this careless with basic concepts like what you have and have not done, and also be a scientist. Her degree is clearly worthless. Perhaps she even cheated her way through the course?
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Jess Wade (Jesswade88)

Postby CrowsNest » Thu May 02, 2019 11:32 am

Still being thoroughly nasty to people who are pushing back against her ....
I recognise you get frustrated by women scientists being on this site. Maybe there are other more productive ways you could edit?Jesswade88 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It is becoming a pattern - anyone who disagrees with her idea of who does and does not merit a Wikipedia article, is getting this sort of snark, on and off Wikipedia.

Naturally, Wade either hasn't noticed, or just doesn't care, that the target of her snark here is actually a woman (or at least claims to be), and a woman who is clearly a damn sight more familiar with Wikipedia than she is (part of the comment that triggered her snark).......
It's also somewhat problematic that [Katie Bouman's] current GNG-derived notability is itself to a significant degree the result of a prematurely created Wikipedia article that essentially became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wikipedia's concept of notability and the specific guidelines on how notability is to be interpreted have been developed over nearly two decades, and are based on broad consensus. It doesn't help science, it certainly doesn't help us women, and it doesn't help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia if we can't evaluate new articles based on existing standards of notability and verifiability without being called "stupid." --Tataral (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There is history here of course, because in the grand tradition of Wikipedia, Wade marked this editor out as her enemy when she realised that she wanted to delete her article on Bouman, but had, shock horror, created a Wikipedia article on a cat.......
Just to confirm, Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist", but you thought a cat called Brexit warranted its own entry? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brexit_(cat)&action=history Jesswade88 (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
As is also the established pattern, that too was a textbook example of SHIT YOU'RE NOT MEANT TO SAY IN A WIKIPEDIA AFD.

She gives no fucks, does Wade.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abd, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests