Jess Wade breaks yet another fundamental Wikipedia rule

Dedicated to one of the WMF's "finest persons"
Post Reply
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 110 times

Jess Wade breaks yet another fundamental Wikipedia rule

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:11 am

In her characteristic shitness, Wade's latest biography had this strange couple of lines......
She was appointed a Teaching Professor at Harvard Medical School when Lawrence Summers declared that women lack intrinsic aptitude in mathematics and science.[5] At the time, Bertagnolli was the only woman in her department.[5]
Unusually, someone spotted the problem early and fixed it, in the very next edit in fact.

What was the problem? Well, firstly, reference 5., this 2005 Guardian piece, doesn't even mention Bertagnolli, so there's a notability affecting claim in this biography that is entirely unsourced. But shit, Wade marks errors like that so regularly, it is hardly news.

What was unusual was that 5. does talk about Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard. Wade's summary of his remarks is of course not really a completely faithful representation of the source, but again, Wade failing in this basic Wikipedia skill is also hardly news. Shit editor is spectacularly shit, seriously.

What Wade appears to have wanted to do, and this is rarer for her (although I really no longer check her biographies in enough detail to say for sure, who has the time?), was create a connection between this person's appointment and those remarks. It is so poorly worded, which is again another of Wade's traits, we can't really know what she meant to say, but that is besides the point.

Wikipedia has a rule that strictly forbids any editor taking two different sources and drawing their own conclusions, in this case, inferring a connection or indeed a causality. If the controversy surrounding Lawrence's remarks was relevant to this person's hiring, then it has to be the original source that noted it, before Wikipedia can repeat it.

If we are being unkind, and in all honesty Wade has never done anything that would entitle her to good faith, we could say Wade was trying to exact some kind of feminist revenge on Lawrence using her limited powers as a Wikipedia editor. A sort of ha ha fuck you pig type comment.

As usual, she has not said a word about this shit edit, and nobody in the Wikipedia Administration seems to want to investigate whether this was a misunderstanding or something much worse. As we have seen many times, if there is a rule she finds inconvenient or has otherwise never heard of, she will have broken it many times before, and will keep breaking it.

You could create a Wikipedia account to request she be investigated, or even just ask her what she did here and whether it could happen again, but you will be blocked and the request vanished. Seriously. They have automated filters to alert Admins whenever her name is mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.

Princess Wikipedia has extraordinary levels of protection. It's bizarre to me that other Wikipedia editors aren't mad about it. She's no different to Eric Corbett (perceived talent equates to exemption from the usual rules). Worth noting that in both cases, the talent is simply perceived, and once the surface is scratched, it is shown to be a myth.

You could then tell Wikipediocracy that Wikipedia seems determined to protect Jess Wade at all costs, but they would just pretend like there is no issue and call you an incel.

:lol:

See Jake. See how you can't ever really escape the accusation that you're a sell out piece of shit?

Deny it.

Raise this issue on your forum. Get your good buddy Beeblebrox to investigate it, and tell your valued members what happened, and why, assuming the result is nothing happens and Princess Wade can carry on ignoring whatever Wikipedia rule she finds inconvenient or has otherwise never even heard of while she barrels toward 2,000 biographies.

You're a coward.

You're worse than the Wikipedia scum, because unless you want to reveal it here and now and make people think even less of you, you don't have any financial reason to protect Wade.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Jess Wade breaks yet another fundamental Wikipedia rule

Post by boredbird » Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:17 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:11 am
In her characteristic shitness, Wade's latest biography had this strange couple of lines......
She was appointed a Teaching Professor at Harvard Medical School when Lawrence Summers declared that women lack intrinsic aptitude in mathematics and science.[5] At the time, Bertagnolli was the only woman in her department.[5]
Unusually, someone spotted the problem early and fixed it, in the very next edit in fact.

What was the problem? Well, firstly, reference 5., this 2005 Guardian piece, doesn't even mention Bertagnolli, so there's a notability affecting claim in this biography that is entirely unsourced.

What was unusual was that 5. does talk about Lawrence Summers, the former President of Harvard. Wade's summary of his remarks is of course not really a completely faithful representation of the source, but again, Wade failing in this basic Wikipedia skill is also hardly news.


Wikipedia has a rule that strictly forbids any editor taking two different sources and drawing their own conclusions, in this case, inferring a connection or indeed a causality. If the controversy surrounding Lawrence's remarks was relevant to this person's hiring, then it has to be the original source that noted it, before Wikipedia can repeat it.
A little wordy as usual but take the time to read it and Crow is absolutely right. Wikipedia calls this WP:SYNTHESIS and it's supposed to be banned as a form of original research. It's a shame because sometimes it can be an improvement but Jess Wade's POV pushing is a great example of why this rule exists.

What Wade was trying to do is get Wikipedians angry at Summers and get back at him by keeping the article and if someone wants to delete it must mean they agree with Summers. That's her entire theme, strike a blow against teh patriarchy by keeping my shitbios.

Even after others pitched in the references are almost all primary sources, employer pages, lists of publications and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... References

But hey here's the Guardian with an actual news story about some other person so let's throw that in.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 389 times
Been thanked: 690 times

Re: Jess Wade breaks yet another fundamental Wikipedia rule

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:54 am

Never said he was "wrong", just excessively ranty.

Yes, I must agree, Jess has become a "valued insider", and therefore is "above criticism". We have seen similar treatment of people like Corbett, David Shankbone, Cirt, Will Beback, and various others. Unlike the others, she will produce sloppy and dubious content and no one is permitted to point out her incompetence.

I continue to suspect she's going to be dragged off to arbitration someday, when an even more powerful insider decides Jess must be spanked. Also suspect this will happen with little or no warning; and people are already assembling lists of her screw-ups.
-----
путин грязная маленькая шлюха

Post Reply