Examples of academic boosterism by that agenda pushing turd Jess Wade

Dedicated to one of the WMF's "finest persons"
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 32 times

Examples of academic boosterism by that agenda pushing turd Jess Wade

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon May 03, 2021 11:19 pm

Jess Wade is famous for overstating the academic contributions of women on Wikipedia, and in their kindness, Wikipedia happily let her do it. Clarice Phelps and Katie Bouman were the two really bad examples, but there are others out there.

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.....
pleased that Dr Wade is still churning them out like clockwork. 
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?

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Examples of academic boosterism by that agenda pushing turd Jess Wade

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon May 03, 2021 11:21 pm

29 April 2021

Christina Hicks
Hicks studied the health of global coral reefs. She showed that the coral reefs that have healthy ecosystems were in in remote areas with low fishing pressure and locations where there were high levels of local engagement with local marine management.[4] On the other hand, places with poor fisheries governance, intensive capture and a recent history of environmental disaster have worse performing coral reefs.[4]
This entire section is sourced only to the abstract of a paper where Hicks is listed ninth in a list of 39! authors. And as an abstract, it is merely a highly technical summary of the work done, whose wording doesn't even come close to what Wade has presented as it's supposed contents.

While one might hope Wade might have actually read the paper to reassure herself that what she has presented here as the work of one woman, or a team under her supervision, suitably reworded into lay speak, is accurate and supportable by this source. But you should already know from her past record, that she doesn't do stuff like that. Where the hell would she even get the time?

Far more likely, as she did with Phelps and Bouman, she has given all the credit for the work of a whole team, or even a series of teams, to one woman who was merely a part of it.

This is the whole problem with Wade. She's absolutely fucking pissed that the media, not even the science media, cares enough about women in science to summarise a paper like this from the perspective of what one woman did, so she just flat out does it herself.

So even if what she has written is a fair and accurate assesment, and that is definitely up for debate, it would be considerd a product of Wade's original research, and thus be disallowed on Wikipedia.

And then there would be the outrage and the insulting and all the other stuff that, if it was done by anyone else on Wikipedia, would get a person warned or even blocked for being manifestly uncollegiate.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Examples of academic boosterism by that agenda pushing turd Jess Wade

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon May 03, 2021 11:29 pm

30 April 2021

Holly Ingraham
She identified that these heavier mice had extraordinarily high increases in bone density of up to 800%.
How ironic that this appears to be a case of Wade stealing the limelight from a different women researcher who works in Ingraham's lab. I suppose this is what happens when you are skim reading for mentions of "she" and "her" I guess.

Also, and this is not a biggie, but who would seriously say they started their "scientific career" on their first day of undergrad school?

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Examples of academic boosterism by that agenda pushing turd Jess Wade

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri May 14, 2021 8:33 am

9 May 2021

Laura Kaufman
Kaufman joined the faculty at Columbia University in 2004, where she served as Director of Undergraduate Studies.
There would seem to be a world of difference between the post given to this woman by Wade and instantly published by Wikipedia, and her actual post according to the university itself.......
Kaufman returned to Columbia to teach in August 2004, and has been the director of undergraduate studies in the chemistry department since 2012.
Similarly, it would seem relevant that Wade apparently didn't think it was relevant to clarify that this post wasn't given to her until she had been teaching for eight years.

As is normal for Wade, to get to the truth, you can't simply click the source provided by Wade, because the source provided by Wade for this claim didn't back up the claim. She will naturally say, oh well, it was one click away from the web page I had provided.

Quite.

Post Reply