This thread won't be an exhaustive list of every incident, because who has the time to forensically check every single one of her daily articles. I'll simply note the odd one that I notice, just to remind people she still does it, and reassure the dickwads of Wikipediocray that they remain the most cluelessly inattentive fucks around, in this necessarily forensic business we like to call Wikipedia criticism.
It is understandable, this need of Wade's to overstate a BLP subject's impact. Wade exists to try and get more women represented on Wikipedia, and one of the big road blocks to that, is people not seeing why the women she picks are as worthy as the men.
Sometimes it's sexism of the media or academia, but sometimes, she has just made it up, reflected her heartfelt wishes of what is true about a person she admires, into the reality that is a Wikipedia article. And so naturally, if she can edge something here, fudge something there, she will.
Granted, sometimes it is hard to tell if it is deliberate boosterism, or just a by-product of her basic inability to faithfully represent a source, because we must never forget she is an absolute donkey of a Wikipedia editor, lacking even the basic skills needed. But it matters not what the cause is, really, since it is clear nobody on Wikipedia wants to stop her, or if they do, will ever be allowed to stop her.
I mean, who is even going to try? Wikipedia Administrator Ritchie333 who hangs out at Wikipediocracy? Don't make me laugh. That dumb bastard can barely read. All he knows of Wade, is that he is.....
With feedback like that, from the very people on Wikipedia tasked with not just ensuring basic policy compliance, but the detection and prevention of serious issues like attempted fraudulent presentation of a person's acheivements, well, why would she stop?pleased that Dr Wade is still churning them out like clockwork.