Liliane Léger

Dedicated to one of the WMF's "finest persons"
Post Reply
User avatar
Sucks Mod
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 650 times
Been thanked: 297 times

Liliane Léger

Post by boredbird » Sun Feb 20, 2022 6:09 am

Crow posted this in another subforum. I've reposted it here minus some of the ranting so it won't get lost:
Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 12:10 pm
Two days ago she created this biography for Liliane Léger, allegedly a 77 year old French physicist. The biography has just two prose sections. The first, Early Life and Education runs to about a hundred words, yet unsurprisingly there is only one reference, which is the subject's own thesis. The second, Research and Career, is about 75 words, and yet also only has one reference, a pdf, with no identified publisher, and a title which suggest it supports only the last line. There is an Awards and honours section which lists five entries, all of which are sourced, but four of the five reference are in French.

There can't be any argument this is unacceptably poor editing. There can't be any argument that Jess Wade is taking the absolute piss, and has graduated from expecting other people to do the basic work of referencing her shitty biographies. Not only do they now have to piece together which of the provided sources might cover all the unreferenced text and append them (and remove any text that isn't supportable), they now have to take the risk of downloading pdf files and using French translators. And it is a risk, because copy and paste errors when entering urls into the citation tool is one of the many key characteristics of Wade's hasty editing style.

You could ask Jess Wade why, after all these years and her hundreds of biographies, she still isn't following even the most basic of Wikipedia policies, in contrast to her media profile as a celebrated and talented editor, and the fact she is someone who sees herself as some kind of "Ambassador" for Wikipedia. If she even gives you an answer (her last talk page post anywhere on Wikipedia was in July 2021), it would be a non answer.

You could report this to a relevant Wikipedia noticeboard or even the Wikipedia project Women In Red that she nominally belongs to (but has never really participated in) if you wanted. You will essentially be told to fuck off. Maybe even literally, if you don't take the hint that you're not the kind of person Wikipedia wants to hear from.

You could try to fix the article yourself if you want. You will be detected by the filter Wikipedia editors specifically set up to flag instances of new editors editing Wade's new articles, and a Wikipedia Administrator will probably revert your edit, even if it was a perfectly good edit clearly marked as BLP enforcement, on the assumption you are a banned editor.

She can literally do whatever the fuck she wants. And she is doing just that. She quite literally posts a new biography every single day. All have much the same issues, and either nobody notices, or nobody cares. Or more likely, anyone who does care and is in a position to do something, such as a Wikipedia Administrator, is frightened of the consequences of potentially upsetting such a valuable PR tool.

User avatar
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 281 times

Re: Liliane Léger

Post by wexter » Sun Feb 20, 2022 3:07 pm

As I mentioned, Jess Wade is not creating more women scientists.

Yes Jess gets to break the rules and lesser mortals are blasted by insiders for breaking all the rules all the time. The rules can be applied any which way, by a minority of spin-heads, and that is intentional. Wiki-idiots are snow crashing Neal Stephenson's party.

I usually throw the rules back at the Wiki-idiots and that makes them go beaucoup ballistic.

Its clear to me that Wiki-idiots are creating their own future backlash.

Its also clear to me that the way to castrate Wikipedia is from the outside, it does not pay to argue with deaf folks.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply