Jess Wade is still an utterly shit Wikipedia editor

Dedicated to one of the WMF's "finest persons"
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Jess Wade is still an utterly shit Wikipedia editor

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:34 pm

I randomly checked a Jess Wade biography today, because, well, I'm just a really bad person, right? I must be. There couldn't be ANY OTHER REASON why I find this useless piece of shit such a brilliant example of the wide gulf that often exists between what Wikipedia editors claim is important to them, like the BLP policy, and what is actually important to them, like protecting useful PR fluff like Jess Wade, who of course, actually considers herself quite the good editor. And why wouldn't she? Nobody on Wikipedia has ever had the balls, or the vulva, to tell her the truth.

Despite this issue having been raised multiple times now on Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, Jess Wade is still adding statements to Wikipedia that, under the supposedly strictly enforced BLP policy, should have an inline citation at the end of the sentence.

Her latest creation was Sally-Ann Poulsen.... ... 1017835606

....and without checking for a single other flaw, because there will undoubtedly be many (one of which is even in these quotes!), here is the astonishing amount of text she included in that biography, without providing an inline citation.....
After earning her doctorate, Poulsen got a moved to the United Kingdom, where she was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge and AstraZeneca. She proposed that adenosine receptors offered novel opportunities of drug design.
After ten months at Queensland, Poulsen returned to Griffith University as an Australian Research Council Queen Elizabeth Fellow. She was made an ARC Future Fellow in 2012, and promoted to Professor in 2014.
She is an Associate Editor of MedChemComm.
Wikipedia not wanting to do anything about this clear and obvious breach of their most important rules, by a highly experienced editor, on a DAILY BASIS, is quite understandable. As a collective, they are irresponsible, they are immoral, they are corrupt. These things are known.

What puzzles me still, is why Wikipediocracy are uninterested.

Let's talk about the history of Wikipedia criticism for a moment. That BLP policy. How did it come about? Well, to QUOTE FUCKING WIKIPEDIA.....
In May 2005, an unregistered editor posted a hoax article onto Wikipedia about journalist John Seigenthaler.....The incident ultimately led Wikipedia to introduce stricter referencing requirements for biographies of living people.
The Seigenthaler incident was a major controversy.

Controversial incidents on Wikipedia are good because they tend to drive real change.

Wade is a sugn of that change. Now, to create a biography, you have to be an experienced editor. Why? Because if you are experienced, it is assumed you know about (and indeed care about) those stricter referencing requirements.

Wade does not care. She can lie all she wants about how she really really does, she can GET FUCKED, because the evidence that she doesn't care, is staring everyone in the face. You don't add that much content to Wikipedia, that many times, without an inline source, if you actually care.

And yes, to refer to one of the cowardly ways Wikipediocracy previously tried to excuse this piece of shit's ongoing sloppy editing, it is hopefully pretty damn obvious that the sort of information I reproduced above as lacking a source, is indeed, material that is potentially open to challenge, and thus can and should be removed on sight.

Why? Well, those are basic but important career claims which define this person's standing in their field, and Wikipedia has a long history of being abused by people who would like to take advantage of Wikipedia's open editing model to produce the CV they wish they had, rather than the one they actually have. Sometims it is as seemingly innocent and minor as claiming you made full Professor just a year or two before you actually did.

As such, while it may sound daft, in context, and when thinking back to actual hoaxes like Seigenthaler, you're not going to find anyone on Wikipedia who will actually say, oh no, we don't need a source for when someone was promoted to full Professor. They will ask you, why would it not be sourced, and you're not going to have an answer for that, are you? Not a good one anyway. In Wade's case, you're simply not allowed to ask. Because she might cry, or some shit.

In practice, cleaning up after Wade can't be done, as an outsider at least, because applying the rules to Jess Wade is not allowed on Wikipedia. She is PROTECTED. Seriously. She is that valuable to their bottom line. Ditty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you OH OH. They have edit filters and everything. Any new editor adding {citation needed} to these sentences, or indeed removing them for lack of a source, is automatically flagged for attention and is likely to be banned as a sock-puppet engaged in harassment. Even though they are 100% following policy and precedent.

It won't matter what they say in their defence, it is considered suspicious by default, that a new editor would start their Wikipedia career cleaning up the mess of a high profile fuck-up like Wade. And maybe it is. But one day, maybe it will be a journalist who tries it. And a scandal will hopefully ensue. Because Wikipedians are quite consistent - they never see it coming. The scandals. They just keep hoping the person they fuck with in their desperate desire to keep their dirty secrets secret, isn't a journalist.

And there are secrets galore here. Such as, in Wade's fucked up view of how to do Wiki Gud, it is other people's job to put an inline reference the end of each of these sentences, EVEN THOUGH, most of the time (but not always) the reference needed is already in the article, somewhere, because she is actually trying to write supportable biographies (with only the occasional outright fabrication like Clarice Phelps, if she feels her agenda demands it). That is why I call her sloppy. She could do it, she could follow the BLP policy here, there's no good reason why she doesn't, she just CANNOT BE BOTHERED.

To do it, would hurt her self set goal of posting a new biography every day. A goal she set, obviously, at a time when she didn't have the first fucking clue how much time and effort it actually takes to write even a very short Wikipedia biography, even if all you are doing is a bit of copying and pasting from any old Google result on that name.

A hypothetical Jess Wade controvery for example, might lead to a situation where a Wikipedia editor gets just one warning for failing to provide an inline source if it pertains to a basic career claim like "promoted to X on date Y", and after that, if they do it again, they get BANNED.

Wouldn't that be a fucking marked improvement to Wikipedia's still quite frankly woeful record when it comes to source provision?

User avatar
Sucks Mod
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: Jess Wade is still an utterly shit Wikipedia editor

Post by Kumioko » Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:46 pm

Welcome back crowsnest!

User avatar
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4601
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1142 times
Been thanked: 1844 times

Re: Jess Wade is still an utterly shit Wikipedia editor

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:09 am

Is that why Graaf complained at me in email? meh

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Is Jess wade still a shit editor? Yes. She may even be getting worse.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:32 am

Is it my imagination, or is the sheer size and number of discrete facts that little old Jess is now leaving to the reader to locate a source for, be that a source she has already placed somewhere in the article, or forgotten to add at all, getting bigger?

As usual, I simply picked the last biography she posted, and instantly found that this entire paragraph lacks a single inline citation, even though that is what is required by the BLP policy to prevent harm (since every single part of it speaks to the subject's notability).
She was appointed to the faculty at Princeton University in 1994, where she would be promoted to Professor in 2008 and the Damon B. Pfeiffer Endowed Professor in 2016. David spent a year on sabbatical at the University of Cambridge, where she worked with Andrea Brand.
Never mind the words, look at all those years. Jess has previously shown she's not all that great at getting even these right, even though you genuinely scratch your head at how someone (and Jess is a scientist!) can't manage to reliably read "2008" from a source and type "2008" into Wikipedia.

Maybe part of it is because she admits she edits Wikipedia while waiting for her results. Perhaps that's what happened here. The machine beeped before she had a chance to chase down the references, and because it was near to the end of the day and mindful of her self set target of posting one biography a day, she decided, as she has so often, to say fuck it, that's close enough.

Wikipedia editors are mugs. Where else would you be expected to clean up after such a sloppy co-worker, fixing issues such as this on a literal daily basis, and not actually get paid for it?

Which is perhaps why they don't even bother.

Don't bother asking the Wikipediocracy union for help either, we know where they stand on this one specific issue - with Jess's freedom to be all she can be, and the management that revels in the good PR to be had from people thinking she is what she claims to be, a really good editor. :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 1351
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1284 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Jess Wade is still an utterly shit Wikipedia editor

Post by Bbb23sucks » Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:27 am

Moderator note: I have merged to these two topics into one.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Post Reply