(Kate Bouman, kept)
Keep (I made the article). She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here. In the past 48 hours Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world. The bio has been translated into almost 20 languages and was viewed over 30,000 times yesterday alone. Her TED talk has received almost 3 million views. Her story *should* be on Wikipedia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
(Clarice Phelps, deleted)
I therefore find it remarkable that of the 600+ biographies Wade has written so far, in her efforts to close the infamous gender gap, only 13 have been deleted.Keep - She was part of a small team that helped discover an element - this is not trivial and I believe her contributions deserve a space on Wikipedia........Jesswade88 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ironically it seems like something that needs further study to determine if the causes are systemic (widespread lack of clue among the Wikipedia community, meaning Wade is just a user of average level of intelligence), or there are specific reasons that explain why Wade is succeeding with such poor reasoning where other editors writing about other things probably do not. It could of course be a bit of both. Dumb luck certainly doesn't account for it, not even remotely. Other Wikipedians brigading around a user seen to have a worthy cause, even if her methods are dubious, certainly would explain it.
I initially wondered if Wade was deliberately using these sort of arguments as part of some elaborate scheme to game the system (a strategy of avoidance and misdirection), but I honestly don't see any reason to think she is that smart. I think she genuinely believes these arguments are how you are meant to do it, and/or they should be persuasive, contrary to the wisdom of the people who wrote the guides that explain what not to say and why.
One thing is for sure. Wade will never be blocked for lacking the competence to edit Wikipedia, even though WP:COMPETENCE is increasingly being interpreted that way by Administrators. That only leaves trying to educate her, but I've seen no sign that she really gets it when people try. And after this long and this many edits, and certainly when she is not seeing her reasoning being defeated by people doing it the right way, there is no impetus for her to learn.
In the face of what criticism she does receive for Doing It Wrong, Wade has often claimed she has no other motive but to make Wikipedia better. And sure, I can believe that. Why not? Nobody this bad at Wikipedia editing would get paid. Nobody this clueless at their task is realistically part of an organised covert group. We know the media will write about anyone the WMF tell them is doing good things, the journalists know even less about Wikipedia than Wade, so they're not going to do anything to challenge the idea she is doing the wrong thing. But someone doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, is still doing the wrong thing.
I guess that is the ultimate failure of the Wikipedia system of self governance. Wade is hardly the first, and will certainly not be the last, to be doing it wrong, and not be persuaded, or compelled, by the system (i.e. other Wikipedians) to stop doing it wrong and either get better or leave. For the good of Wikipedia.
A big reason why Wade is probably not learning, is that she seems to be deliberately employing a strategy of a lack of communication with other editors. I was actually shocked to learn that she has made a grand total of only 26 posts to article talk pages, and just 50 to other user's talk pages.
Rather disturbingly, she has begun to adopt the same arrogant and combative tone as many of the men of Wikipedia, recently dismissing three notices of impending deletion from her talk page as "removed rubbish". Two of the three have been deleted, one being an attempt to recreate Phelps, and one where she tried to create a biography for Fanya Ismail, and her only argument against deletion being "she's the only Kurdish woman to ever win the Women in Innovation award, which very few women win per year", which is of course another textbook example of what not to say. The third article was kept, but the reasons why rather illustrate the weaknesses of the reasons for that outcome.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llis_Bolds
....and it was interesting to see in that debate that yet again, Wade made a pretty poor case, and baled pretty fast when it was challenged, leaving others to duke it out on policy grounds (solid or otherwise), showing quite conclusively that when it comes to Wikipedia policy, Wade is either totally out of her depth, or just isn't remotely interested in the discussion aspect of Wikipedia.
She is a member of the Wikipedia Project dedicated to increasing the number of biographies of women, the horrifically named Women In Red, although her lack of communication extends to not interacting with that project in any way, except passively (such as receiving their newsletter). Since they have some kind of widget controlling the registration process, I can't even tell you whether she even actually joined by her own hand, or someone else added her to the membership roll. She didn't join until four months after she was formally invited, so that suggests the latter.
Being generous, I suppose you could say Wade took the advice of the WMF and just dived right in, editing by the bucket load before she really knew what she was doing, and her reluctance to speak to much less work with others could be shyness or being overawed by the complex bureacracy. But there can be no doubt that she has had enough time to overcome these initial obstacles, and she should be showing signs she is willing to communicate and cooperate the right way. The right way of course being that you should be prepared to accept valid criticism and defend your positions to your colleagues using the established frames of reference. Much like academia, ironically.
The signs instead are that Wade has determined for herself which criticism of her approach to Wikipedia is valid, and has become entrenched in this idea that the Wikipedia process is less about arguing from the evidence and frames of reference (i.e. policy), and is instead about arguing from subjectivity, if not simply emotion. It is remarkable how often she includes, if not simply saying it as a standalone point with no other reason at all, that she thinks person X deserves to be on Wikipedia, so she made it happen.
It seems that for Wade, and it is hard to say for sure given she says so little, if there is pushback against her judgement, it is because the Wikipedia community is biased. It is biased, but Wikipedia has yet to come up with a way to prove when someone is being denied their place in Wikipedia because of the bias of the editors, and when it is happening because someone like Wade is simply trying to include someone who manifestly doesn't meet their standards, and others, for whatever reason, are rallying around her to help her beat the system.
There have been suggestions to alter the standards to eliminate bias, but it has not happened yet. With people like Wade not being challenged on their methods, with these standards being adjusted ad hoc on a case by case basis, based on the sort of poor reasoning Wade employs, designated poor precisely because it is simply a recipe for widespread inconsistency and ultimately chaos, it may never happen.
In case of Bouman, while that biography was kept, as could have been predicted by the very rules and guidance she ignored, or just simply doesn't understand, Wade doing it wrong actually caused harm to both the person she wrote about and the causes she was presumably trying to advance when she chose to include her in Wikipedia........
I’m so glad that everyone is as excited as we are and people are finding our story inspirational.......However, the spotlight should be on the team and no individual person. Focusing on one person like this helps no one, including me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/scie ... -hole.html
Maybe Wikipedia needs to replace women editors like Wade, with women like Bouman? Then again, maybe people like Bouman are too busy actually benefiting the world?