Examples of Jess Wade's more outrageous abuses of Wikipedia as an advertising/promotional platform
Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 9:45 am
Due to the nature of her biographies, and her basic reason for being a Wikipedia editor, it's safe to say all of Jess Wade's work on Wikipedia is promotional, to one degree or another.
Her biographies are largely if not sometimes exclusively sourced to primary or non-independent sources. And her basic reason for writing the biographies, is to bring exposure to people she believes have been wrongfully overlooked by the traditional science media.
For these two reasons alone, it's perhaps unsurprising that you never see a negative fact included in a Jess Wade authored biography. Other than, of course, the times when Jess Wade's idiocy means the person she has written about becomes associated with a Wikipedia controversy.
I make no claim that she is doing this deliberately, much less for money, but if you know a bit about how Jess Wade does her Wikipedia editing, you sometimes wonder. She has the perfect cover now. Just slip an advert or two in there. Either a whole biography, or an aspect of one. Who would notice?
Her preference for communicating over private channels (which tbf may really only be so that she can avoid being criticised for how dumb she often is), and her habit of taking requests directly from subjects over said channels, does leave her open to accusations of nefarious intent. She is naturally, too dumb, and too full of herself, to see the danger.
But general stupidity is, as always with Wade, still the most likely example of why she sometimes doesn't seem to show any awareness at all, spectacularly so, of the Wikipedia rules about not using the site for promotion or advertising.
Her biographies are largely if not sometimes exclusively sourced to primary or non-independent sources. And her basic reason for writing the biographies, is to bring exposure to people she believes have been wrongfully overlooked by the traditional science media.
For these two reasons alone, it's perhaps unsurprising that you never see a negative fact included in a Jess Wade authored biography. Other than, of course, the times when Jess Wade's idiocy means the person she has written about becomes associated with a Wikipedia controversy.
I make no claim that she is doing this deliberately, much less for money, but if you know a bit about how Jess Wade does her Wikipedia editing, you sometimes wonder. She has the perfect cover now. Just slip an advert or two in there. Either a whole biography, or an aspect of one. Who would notice?
Her preference for communicating over private channels (which tbf may really only be so that she can avoid being criticised for how dumb she often is), and her habit of taking requests directly from subjects over said channels, does leave her open to accusations of nefarious intent. She is naturally, too dumb, and too full of herself, to see the danger.
But general stupidity is, as always with Wade, still the most likely example of why she sometimes doesn't seem to show any awareness at all, spectacularly so, of the Wikipedia rules about not using the site for promotion or advertising.