View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:22 am




Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
And where does she find the time to review books?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 9888#p9888


Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Jesus. Obviously the tidal wave of flawed articles on scientists doesn't generate even a ripple of interest, much less fact checking. But she writes about a figure in the Brexit farce, and of course that woke a few people up, and gave us a perfect example of how Wade handles this crucial task of handling feedback.

Jess's obligatory promo tweet.....
Quote:
Meet Femi Oluwole, hero, lawyer, political activist and co-founder of @OFOCBrexit. Oluwole worked in EU law before leaving his dream job to explain the political + economic turmoil that would be caused by #Brexit.
.....featuring a picture of the article with the introduction......
Quote:
Femi Oluwole (born 1990) is a British political activist and law graduate.
The difference between a graduate and a lawyer did not go unnoticed by a Tweeter....
Quote:
Tbf he's not a lawyer. He has a law degree but has not undertaken legal training or worked in a law firm. It's actually quite dishonest to say he's a lawyer.
Her reply was the usual Wade brand idiocy, that shows she either didn't understand the complaint or doesn't give a shit.......
Quote:
Thanks! The Wikipedia page says that he studied law.
......the article also has no proof he ever "worked in EU law", whatever that was even meant to mean (if not this dude is totally a lawyer).

In another convo someone accurately suggests......
Quote:
Do you actually fact check anything you write? This is a work of fiction, did you buy your doctorate from the internet?
.....to which Wade replied........
Quote:
everything there is cited. :-)
....and so you can probably guess what happened next. Whether it was being promoted by these tweets, or the subject themselves, she had to eventually eat her words as she "removed errors"........

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =900929864

To be honest I don't really have a clue what she is doing in that edit, much less why, but what it appears she is doing is wholly removing information (or accepting its removal by someone claiming to be the subject) when in reality all that was needed was for it to be reworded so it more accurately portrayed the sources she was citing (Nigerian origin, Peterborough by-election and nature/timing of the EUAFR position).

As always, Wade gives off an air of arrogant indifference to those who point out her failures. If not just plain cluelessness.

As always too, what Wade has put in the biography is woeful, always lacking in crucial context, such as the Nigerian origin reference. Properly summarize that, and readers absolutely understand the rest of the article.


Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:49 pm
Posts: 1
Reply with quote
Gong!

That's Dr. Jess Wade BEM to you, oik.


Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Slimey wrote:
Gong!

That's Dr. Jess Wade BEM to you, oik.
I'd literally never heard of the "British Empire Medal" until this post.

Thanks for the tip though, really helps me explain why it matters to properly examine what grifters like Wade are actually doing, before you make yourself look like a fool for heaping praise on their efforts.

How apt that this news apparently featured an error, or was misrepresented in a Tweet....

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 5230873600

Almost like the Universe knows what Wade is all about, even if the Colonial Office doesn't.

You get back to me when Wade publishes a biography without a single error. She's had 600+ chances, but I guess this is what happens when you start giving out medals for just trying really hard.

GO JESS!


Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:22 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Hmmmm. I can probably guess why Wade doesn't want to comment on this news.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =902495737

.....but I guess we will never know for sure.


Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Classic example of Wade receiving uncritical press coverage of what makes her sad....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1281


Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:04 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Checking in on her to write the above, I was surprised to see Wade actually involved in prolonged Wikipedia debate......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Dutton_(anthropologist)&oldid=904367941

No, this was not a sign of her becoming a better Wikipedia editor. Just an example of what moves her to break out of her usual grinder editing mode, and actually become an interactive member of the community - when it intersects with Twitter spats she gets into with people who criticize her heroes.

Perhaps she should review the Phillip Cross Arbitration Case?
Quote:
Philip Cross has engaged in a personalized, public, off-wiki dispute with George Galloway while simultaneously making significant content edits to George Galloway’s article over an extended period of time.
Quote:
An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest.


It might also be interesting to cross check the level of awareness of Wikipedia's content and conduct rules she does claim to possess in this dispute, and what she has actually done in her own Wikipedia work.


Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
The questions about Wade and Chapman persist, as the two seem to be on quite the mission now.....

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/stemforkenya
http://archive.is/ytwH5

Chapman continues to pretend Wikipedia isn't hugely skeptical of his claims, and Wade keeps pretending like she can't hear them at all, even though she did her usual of turning up and telling everyone what she (still) thinks.


Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:59 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Interview in the New York Times.....
Quote:
The process is finding people first — usually it’s an award holder, someone who’s been given a fellowship, someone who’s published a really great paper or somebody who’s done a recent really good talk. Every morning, I go on Twitter and I’ll look.

Then I check if they meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia, which is a set of rules to determine whether someone is important enough to be on the site.

And then I do a bunch of research, and I write as I go. So I’ll have like 20 tabs open with all different aspects of their career and then start to stitch together a biography from that. It’s really like a journey.
This claimed process matches her actual output. Naturally she doesn't mention the extent to which her Twitter life actually controls what she writes, taking request and corrections, often without nobody else even knowing, the problems with which having been documented here. She also obviously doesn't make clear that looking for award winners etc is how she exploits the loophole in NPROF - award winners don't need independent sourcing, so she basically just cribs their profile from their university or the awarding institute.

Notice how she's calling this research. This is how far standards in science and knowledge curation have fallen. As Wade has proven, any fucking gimp can Google a person's name, find a bunch of web pages and in the space of one evening cobble something together out of it, a page with words that to an utter retard looks like a "biography".

This is not research. This is not encyclopedia writing. It's barely writing, as seen from the horrifically bad prose. To call what she does stitching is an insult to a craft whose practitioners would have rejected someone as poor as Wade after two years experience in a heartbeat. All her problems, all the many stupid things she does that I've documented here, it can all be traced back to this nonsense process of hers. A Google search in a single night, aimed at filling up her two section article template - infobox, Early life and education, Research and career, with the sub-section Awards and honours.

No time to even proof read, much less fact check. Certainly no time to properly assess the reliability of sources, or any of the many other complex things that need doing to reassure yourself you're not giving the reader false or biased or incomplete information.

The only fucking journey she takes, is like someone hyped up on sugar and speed and cocaine, who has to write set number of words by midnight, and any old shit will do, just another +1 for this total of hers. I bet she was fuming she hadn't made 700 by the time of this interview.

Seriously, it never ceases to amaze me, what she chooses to include, and what she chooses to leave out. I bet that in the space of a single day after publishing, she couldn't even fucking tell you.


Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:36 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Interview in the New York Times.....

No mention of her bad writing, or the insane battles she has with nerds on WP? Pathetic.

Did you email this to Maya Salam yet?


Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:11 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.