It's bullshit, the sort of bullshit that would immediately offend the brains cells of any serious Wikipedia critic, naturally, but Wikipediocracy long ago ceased to be the place where you would ever see a serious Wikipedia critic call out obvious bullshit.I can't see any obvious issue
She's never done anything to catch my attention
seems to write pretty decent articles
Judged in the same way as most article creations, they are above average.
Would you say that Wade's biographical contributions to Wikipedia were better, or worse, than the average contributor? Because I'd have to suggest that while there may be issues with her work, nothing you have presented so far suggests that Wikipedia has a specific 'Jess Wade' problem at all, and frankly, I'd suggest that if the average Wikipedia article on academics/scientists was of similar quality, it would probably be an improvement.
Last time I checked, there are over 300 BLPs of women with no citations at all. I'd focus on those.
What proportion of articles meet the criteria for Good Article status? Can we please have a thread on every single editor who has created more than say five articles that fail that standard? If not, why pick on one editor in particular?
That last comment was typical of the sawdust heads of Wikipediocracy. Good Articles were mentioned in the context of how detailed a check of a Wade article needed to be, to spot all the issues it has (because they seemed to be struggling with the concept that an article can look good on the surcace, but actually be quite poorly sourced). This dumbfuck (Poetlister, a veritable Professor of Didn't Read The Question Properly Miss) took it to mean Good Article is the minimum standard, which it isn't (but would be if Wikipedia were EB).
If pigs fly and these Jess Wade apologists ever decide to have a serious conversation about this serious issue, they should keep in mind that there is a very obvious bar that Jess Wade should be measured against, to see if she is doing better, worse, or the same as her peers.
And on a side note, isn't it just so Wikipedia Applogist Time that they're all seemingly fine with the proposition that if it isn't, if Wade is bang average, then at least 50% of editors who are experienced enough to be allowed to create an article, still wouldn't be capable of being 100% properly sourced!?!?!
When running the rule over her vital statistics, you would and should compare Jess Wade's performance against the creations of....
* an editor who has been on Wikipedia daily, for THREE AND A HALF YEARS
* an editor who has published over FOURTEEN HUNDRED fully formed biographies
* an editor who has had countless flattering media articles written about her for her work as a Wikipedia editor
* an editor who is so famous for being a Wikipedia editor, they have their own Wikipedia biography
* an editor who is regularly referred to (by herself and others) as a Wikipedia "ambassador" at outreach events, where she teaches people how to be a good Wikipedia editor
This is the standard to measure Wade against. And if you care to find any other similar editors, I will be happy to bet $1,000 to the dog shelter of your choice, that their ability to meet the minimum standard on a consistent basis, and indeed, far exceed that into Good Article territory or better with the actual quality of their creations, knocks Wade's out of the fucking park.
It's almost a joke that these fucknuts are even suggesting that it is anything but FUCKING INSANE that an editor with that kind of experience, profile and status, would still be publishing articles daily that have such basic and obvious issues like having simple factual statements like "[subject] as promoted to Full Professor in 2016" not being sourced to an inline citation. Which, for a claim like that, would be the minimum standard all day every day, whatever those lying bastards want to claim.
As always, Wikipediocracy is taking everyone for fools, especially people who are experienced with Wikipedia, have found it to be a complete joke due to the inconsistencies and favouritism of the Admins corps, and have left.
Wade is a joke. A fraud. A phoney. Wikipediocracy are a joke for pretending she is anything but. Especially if, as was suggested, they only do that because they are FRIGHTENED OF BEING SEEN AS MEAN TO WOMEN.
Even in 2021, I am pretty sure you're still allowed to criticise a woman for being below a minimum standard expected of everybody, man, woman or dog. And if she cries and claims she's being harassed, well, maybe she should have gained the required level of maturity, before she joined a project that lives or dies on people being willing to work for free on the understanding that EVERYONE is EQUAL.
There are plenty of bullshit projects out there who will happily take women who have largely self-certitied their abilities to do a particular task, or have only ever had them certified by fawning apologists who frankly don't even care if she isn't good at her job, they only care that she looks pretty on the front cover of LOOK WIKIPEDIA HAS MORE WOMEN EDITORS AND HERE IS ONE OF THEM WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEET HER AND BE TAUGHT BY HER magazine.