Jess Wade awarded British Science Association Honorary Fellowship for 2023

[ChaosMeRee]

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/250413/ ... m-british/

News courtesy of the chuckleheads of Wikipediocracy, who went on to pose the question...

Is that anything to Crow about?

Well, not that you care, you Wikipedia semen guzzling fanboys, but I did notice a couple of things that would interest legitimate Wikipedia critics and give them even more reason to harass the living shit out of Jess Wade (because asking nicely is clearly getting us nowhere).

This part of the press release.......

Outside of the lab, Jess is involved with several science communication and outreach initiatives. She is committed to improving diversity in science, both online and offline, and since the start of 2018 has written the Wikipedia biographies of women and people of colour scientists every single day. She has contributed more than 2,000 entries to date.

.....is a straight up lie. It's been a very long time since Wade posted one biography a day. Her posting rate is down and her word count too. She only has eight creations so far this month, and one of those is for a dead person.

It's a worrying time for everybody.

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


The line at the bottom of the release was even more hilarious.....

Main article image credit: Dave Guttridge

Article text (excluding photos or graphics) © Imperial College London.

Photos and graphics subject to third party copyright used with permission or © Imperial College London.

This is even more proof that Commons needs to see explicit proof of permission from Wade for the very similar photo that found its way onto Commons via a WMF blog post, and the only logical explanation for Wade refusing to even acknowledge multiple requests from multiple people to weigh in on the matter, is that she doesn't fucking have it.

So thank you Wikipediocracy for proving with one lame attempt to poke me, your Rightful Lord, that Jess Wade is both a liar and a thief, but y'all don't plan to do shit about it, because you just love sucking Wikipedia dick too much to upset them by turning your attention to this prize winning inspiring "diversity champion".

You pathetic little whores.

You guzzle that Beebledick right down. He owns your little white asses. He fucks you people harder than he fucks those baby seals in the Alaskan springtime.

[ChaosMeRee]

Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be the usual fellatio and anal-sex references, once again indicating his barely-concealed homoerotic obsession.

Thank you Jake for confirming that you have indeed read my take on this issue, but you can't think of any way to respond to the facts without outing yourself as a friend and ally of Wikipedia.

All you have is this juvenile accusation that I am a gay. I'm laughing because it isn't that long ago your forum was trying to say I was only obsessed with Jess Wade because I love her. That I am an incel.

It can get quite confusing at times. Am I supposed to be wearing my Jess Wade skin suit before or after I do whatever it is I am supposed to do to fuel my homoerotic obsession with.....uh....who?

You really should keep a log of all the juvenile bullshit that comes out of your mouths. It is the easiest thing in the world for someone like me, whose concern is for the facts, to identify when you're just making shit up out of sheer desperation.

You really are a clueless bunch of fuckwits, truly. So frightened of little old me and my inconvenient facts, you never seem to spot when you're deliberately being fucked with, for my own amusement as well as to make a serious point.

The post included inconvenient facts to show you ignore inconvenient facts. Check.

The post couched those facts in silliness, to see if you would bite on the silliness. Check.

You are ignoring the serious issues Jess Wade presents. Deliberately.

You are looking at an open goal for Wikipedia critics, and choosing not to shoot.

I have got Wikipedia bent right over, and you're refusing to ram it home. And I suspect this would be the case whether Wikipedia was man, woman, boy, girl or beast.

When it comes to a critical analysis of Jess Wade's career as a Wikipedian, whether she deserves her reputation in any way at all or whether this has just been one long confidence trick on the world's media to further Wikipedia's interests while doing absolutely nothing for the causes Wade claims to represent, you evidently don't want to harm Wikipedia in any way at all, not even a mild little slap on its very fat behind.

You are only interested in saying mean things about a serious Jess Wade critic who is bringing facts to the table and merely seeking answers from her or the Wikipedians protecting her, and the assistance in that endeavour of anyone else who wants to call themselves a Wikipedia critic.

If someone would indeed like to make the case all this stuff has quite innocent explanations, that Wikipedia and the Wikipedians are being somehow unfairly maligned by little old me, then by all means, our door is open. I am a fair and reasonable man, open to the possibility I might be wrong when someone offers a plausible counter-argument, as my record shows.

But from you and yours, there is nothing but silliness.

Why?

Who paid you off.

What was your price?

You Quisling fuck.

I'm just amazed none of your happy following of so called Wikipedia critics hasn't dragged you into the street and kicked your fucking head in yet. The evidence you are a collaborator and traitor is just so obvious, posts like this are just the cherry on top.

It is perhaps proof that there isn't a single person left on your forum who you didn't personally hand pick for their loyalty to Wikipedia and subservience to you. We know how you like to vet newcomers. We know what Tarantino the panty sniffer does to people you deem a threat. We can all see what you have done to the once fearsome Vigilant. Totally neutered.

The cause survives, our here in the badlands, because being a true critic means you would rather live free than be a tamed bitch like Vigilant.

You really do deserve everything I throw your way. And more. If only I had the time.

Go on Vigilant. Say something mean about me....

Call me an incel!

Do what your Master says, you little bitch.

Maybe he will give you a bone!

Lol

(HTD, btw)

[boredbird]

Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be the usual fellatio and anal-sex references, once again indicating his barely-concealed homoerotic obsession.

Thank you Jake for confirming that you have indeed read my take on this issue, but you can't think of any way to respond to the facts without outing yourself as a friend and ally of Wikipedia.

We would never say that here.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/250413/ ... m-british/
This part of the press release.......

Outside of the lab, Jess is involved with several science communication and outreach initiatives

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

"Outside of" what "lab", like she's crossbreeding AfDs in petri dishes?

[ChaosMeRee]

Absolutely neutered.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 85#p339823

Can't think of a single nasty thing to say about little old me.

Too scarred of Jake (or Beeblebrox?!?) to say a word about Jess Wade.

Well trained. Like a house pet.

Whose bitch?



HIS BITCH

[ChaosMeRee]

Poor Crow is so thirsty.

I miss the days prior to his going the full Abd.

Oh well.

Your mean back when I was operating under the impression Wikipediocracy was a criticism website? Yeah, I miss those days too.

It's a shame you're so comfortable in the house that Jake built. It's dulled your senses.

You have of course quite forgotten thet when you mention Abd, all that real critics remember is that when Abd sued the Foundation to learn the precise reason why he was Globally Banned, rather than risk a judge learning their internal processes are totally unjust, they spent huge amounts of donor money on very expensive lawyers to get the case dismissed on the grounds that you can be banned from Wikipedia for "any reason", including "no reason at all". That was always the theory, hidden away in tiny writing in the Terms of Use, untested until Abd tested it. So now we know. It's established legal precedent.

That was a major victory for Wikipedia critics. It really opens people's eyes when you tell them what the Foundation did, and what that means for the farce that is the Wikipedia community's mechanisms for behavioral control. Their myriad policies on blocking and appealing. It's all just so much bullshit.

This precedent underpins the reality of Wikipedia. It is one giant Lord of the Flies shit show. Ergo, anyone who isn't squarely in the HTD camp, is one pretty disgusting human. In case you have forgotten, you're surrounded by those fuckers. The reformers. The minor tweakers.

I dare say the exposure has even seen you be converted to the Light Side. I can't tell, you say so little of substance these days, presumably because you know I'm watching. Boo! Ha ha ha. The absolute bullshit you keep serving up about BLPs does seem to suggest you think Wikipedia deserves to live in some form that would he recognizable to a Wikipedian.

But yeah, back to Abd. What did you do when you learned of Abd's plan? Their intent to sue. You sided with the Foundation. You told him to drop it, not even do it. Told him he was crazy.

You had your reasons, and they were the usual well thought out stuff. I dare say it was as simple as you wanting to support the the opposite of what Abd was doing. Because you're a bit sad like that. No thought goes into what you say or who you attack. There is no strategy, no higher purpose. Abd was in your yard, and it made you mad.

I should have cut your nuts off right then, you dirty little traitor. Someone who would side with the Foundation over any legal issue, is clearly no Wikipedia critic. Not even fucking close. Dangerously close to the complete opposite. A full on believer. A closet Wikipedian. Is that what you are these days? Getting your daily fix.

Instead I merely waited, and now Jake has done it. Neutered you up right nice.

Now you have no opinion at all on anything that matters. Just like Jake wants and needs you to be, in the company of his preferred guests, Wikipedians, the higher ranking the better. A non-threatening house clown.

But thanks for the trip down memory lane.

--> HTD <--

[ericbarbour]

Go on Vigilant. Say something mean about me....

Call me an incel!

Do what your Master says, you little bitch.

Maybe he will give you a bone!

Now it's my turn to lol

[journo]

you can be banned from Wikipedia for "any reason", including "no reason at all".

I thought he sued because of defamation, ie that he had not broken terms of service before the ban but was advertised as having done such. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, can you link the result of the lawsuit? I was also globally banned despite having not broken the terms of service in any way before or during the ban. In fact, I don't think I even had any bad faith or spam edits at all. Nor do I have a criminal history nor am I a pedophile. The entire reason they didn't like me was "disruption", basically calling me a troll. But I also didn't have troll edits. There are even illegal spammers who have been allowed to become prolific Wikipedia editors so something to me seems off about that organization.

[ericbarbour]

I thought he sued because of defamation, ie that he had not broken terms of service before the ban but was advertised as having done such. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, can you link the result of the lawsuit?

The court record:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... _Inc_et_al
The Wikimedia official propaganda post:
https://wikimediapolicy.medium.com/vict ... 05bbb21459

I was also globally banned despite having not broken the terms of service in any way before or during the ban. In fact, I don't think I even had any bad faith or spam edits at all. Nor do I have a criminal history nor am I a pedophile. The entire reason they didn't like me was "disruption", basically calling me a troll. But I also didn't have troll edits. There are even illegal spammers who have been allowed to become prolific Wikipedia editors so something to me seems off about that organization.

We know, thank you very much. Hypocrisy is one of the REAL "five pillars" of Wikipedia. Lying about everything is another.

[Kraken]

you can be banned from Wikipedia for "any reason", including "no reason at all".

I thought he sued because of defamation, ....

Yes he did. The above was the legal argument the Foundation used to persuade the judge to toss the case, rather than defend the claim of defamation.

(if "no reason" is always the reason why anyone was banned in the eyes of the law, then nobody is ever being defamed by a Wikipedia ban, no matter how the unofficial justification is presented or recorded)

Wikipedia doesn't want to talk about what this means. Neither do their bitches Wikipediocracy. Vigilant went all in on the side of the Foundation even. Scumbag that he is.

But they really should be more open about what this means, given where they want to go, and whose money they're collecting to get there. Why should the Foundation be allowed to present "access to Wikipedia" as a "fundamental human right" in association with the actual United Nations, when unlike serious organisations like the U.N., the concept of rights is legally proven to be meaningless on Wikipedia? A place where you have only one right. The right to fuck off if you're unhappy.