View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:51 am




Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Jess Wade (Jesswade88) 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Look at this delusional bullshit......
Quote:
.....Before criticising my ability to write a wikipedia biography you could try reading some of the other 600 :-). I’d argue that they’re better quality than lots of the biographies / pages on this site.......Jesswade88 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
What more evidence does anyone need that Wade doesn't have a clue what she is doing, much less what Wikipedia is?

Wikipedia has no entrance exam, and no systemic regime of quality auditing. It lets anyone edit, and it gets checked if someone feels like checking it, and they are smart enough to be checking it, and they have the time to properly check it. This is reflected in the quality of the product. Only 0.5% of all Wikipedia articles meets their own idea of what is "Good", which in reality, would be what Britannica calls a first draft.

It is pretty damn obvious Wade is creating content faster than any one person can check it. And she certainly is not checking it.

Maybe Wikipedia should have competency exams and systematic auditing. If Wikipedia did routine sweeps, looking for basic compliance in key aspects, as measured against their own idea of what is minimally acceptable, it would wipe out 90% of the editor base, including Wade (particularly because she works exclusively in biographies, where the expectations are necessarily higher), and probably not for the actual errors alone, but her extraordinary mix of arrogance and ignorance in how she goes about accounting for them.

Can you imagine how fast someone would be blocked for claiming that while they don't always reference their work, others do it even less than they do? The minimum standard, for biographies, is you provide a reference that backs up the text for anything that might be challenged, and you provide it at the time of publishing. No exceptions. No acceptable failure rate. Except perhaps for beginners, which Wade is not, by their measure anyway.

I remain baffled that anyone considers her to be a scientist. If she was capable of critical thinking, she would recognise that what she is writing is sheer garbage, before she hit publish.


Mon May 13, 2019 11:22 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Daily garbage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896952381

Quote:
Kupferman worked in the Israel Defense Force from 1986 to 1988.
Source:
Quote:
Orna Kupferman served in the Israeli defense force from 1986 to 1988
Hmm. Why has Wade changed "served in" to "worked in"? Has she perhaps not realised that for Isrealis, it is mandatory for every citizen to serve in their military, up to and including combat roles. Someone taking the time to tell this women's story, would probably have picked that up, and done better to provide useful context. At this point it is worth noting this "biography" doesn't even tell us how old the subject is.
Quote:
She earned her PhD at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in 1995.
A small issue, but if she bothered to closely read the sources and was writing for readers of Wikipedia, she would have noticed this is more correctly stated as "from The Technion (The Israel Institute of Technology)."
Quote:
She was supervised by Zohar Manna.
She either can't find or isn't interested in what her PhD was about, but she does think it is relevant to namecheck her supervisor? On Wikipedia, notability is not inherited, so if there is some reason this information is relevant to the biography of this subject, it should be included. It is, of course, not normally included, because every PhD student has a PhD supervisor. It is a trivial detail without context. Is Wade including such trivia just to pad the word count?
Quote:
In 1996 Kupferman joined the technical staff at Bell Labs. She moved to University of California, Berkeley in 1997, working with Donald Pederson.
Source:
Quote:
was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs in 1996, and was a postdoc researcher with the CAD group of U.C. Berkeley from 1997 to 1998.
It is really weird how Wade manages to distort sources, even when simply copying single sentences. She has introduced this idea this was a case of her taking a job and then moved to another one, when the source makes it clear these could have been time limited placements to fulfil specific objectives. Such sloppy writing does the subject no favours.

The words "working with Donald Pederson." do not appear in the given source at all. Assuming it is even correct, as with the PhD supervisor, readers are given no clue why this is relevant to the subject. The source gives some clue (he may be the head of this CAD group), but Wade has chosen not to include that detail. That is btw, the first opportunity Wade had to tell readers what her early research actually involved, but for some reason Wade ignored it.
Quote:
In 1998 Kupferman was appointed a Senior Lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
As seems the usual for a Wade effort, such dry facts are dumped into the page, devoid of any context. No reason is given as to why she was appointed, why there was a shift from research to teaching, why she chose to move to Israel. It is at this point you realise Wade hasn't even uncovered other basic biographical details, like, is she actually an Israeli citizen. Was she actually born in Israel? It is worth noting here that Wade seems to know, or think she knows, because she has included this biography in the category "Israeli women scientists". Wikipedia policy of course, says do not do this unless you have provided a source in the article which backs it up. And what happened to this idea that isolating women in occupational categories is wrong? Wade conforming to the Wikipedia patriarchy? Well I never. Easily explained when you realise Wade is all about abusing Wikipedia to promote women.
Quote:
She acted as Head of Computer Science from 2008 to 2011.
Source:
Quote:
She served as the Head of the Computer Science Department in 2005-2007
Quote:
In 2012 Kupferman was awarded an European Research Councilgrant to study high quality reactive systems.
Again, a small point, but perhaps speaks to Wade's motives - the grant is awarded to Hebrew University, with the subject named as Principle Investigator. The source used is primary, so Wade clearly isn't bothering to assess the importance, she's just scraping Google and dumping anything she finds. What she has oddly not noted given her strategy, is the size of the grant (nearly 1.5 millions Euros) or that the project ended in 2017. It was apparently successful, generating lots of papers, but we can only infer that from the primary source, given there is no secondary coverage.
Quote:
She is developing formal verification and synthesis computer systems for both hardware and software.
Since the source for this was the same grant page, we can say the present tense of this statement is disputable. The sentence itself seems to be garbage, I doubt Wade is properly qualified to accurately convey this technical language.
Quote:
She uses an automata theory approaches to check branching time models.
Source:
Quote:
In particular, she is renowned for her work on the automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking and to synthesis.
Again, I highly doubt that nothing is being lost in the path between what looks to be already a potentially garbled source, via Wade, into Wikipedia. Wade also used a paper as a source, but again, I highly doubt she even has a clue what the abstract means....
Quote:
Of special interest in formal verification are safety properties, which assert that the system always stays within some allowed region. Proof rules for the verification of safety properties have been developed in the proof-based approach to verification, making verification of safety properties simpler than verification of general properties. In this paper we consider model checking of safety properties. A computation that violates a general linear property reaches a bad cycle, which witnesses the violation of the property. Accordingly, current methods and tools for model checking of linear properties are based on a search for bad cycles. A symbolic implementation of such a search involves the calculation of a nested fixed-point expression over the system's state space, and is often infeasible. Every computation that violates a safety property has a finite prefix along which the property is violated. We use this fact in order to base model checking of safety properties on a search for finite bad prefixes. Such a search can be performed using a simple forward or backward symbolic reachability check. A naive methodology that is based on such a search involves a construction of an automaton (or a tableau) that is doubly exponential in the property. We present an analysis of safety properties that enables us to prevent the doubly-exponential blow up and to use the same automaton used for model checking of general properties, replacing the search for bad cycles by a search for bad prefixes.
.....much less knows how to summarise it. This is why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and indeed expert editors writing about the field they are familiar with, not just writing about all science as if it is all the same thing. Note that the words branch model appear nowhere in that abstract (so it has to be assumed Wade is either delving into the guts of the paper, or is otherwise claiming expertise).
Quote:
Kupferman has served as the Advisor on Gender Issues for the President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
No source given. It is true as per already seen sources, but Wade's lazy/sloppy mode of editing has seen it get detached from this sentence somehow. Indeed, the source provided the exact dates, which will be useful context for later information.....
Quote:
She was the Advisor on Gender Issues for the President of the Hebrew University in 2011-2013.
Quote:
She has spoken about the challenges achieving gender balance in academia at the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Source is a YouTube video of the talk. Verification? Possibly not (AFAIK videos are not acceptable sources for such things). Putting verification aside, where is the evidence this talk was important? Again, we are left with the impression Wade doesn't really understand why Wikipedia expects to see secondary sourcing for certain things. She doesn't seem to understand that she doesn't get to decide by herself what to include in this Wikipedia biography (just as she doesn't get to decide for herself who deserves a Wikipedia page). Unless, as seems to be Wade's motive, the point of Wikipedia is to be some kind of LinkedIn for feminists in science.
Quote:
She called for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to end gender segregated education.
This is ridiculous. This time, amazingly, she has a third party source.....

https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-hebrew ... -1.5284490

And yet what has Wade done? Massively over-simplified its content. The newspaper seems to confirm this is a pretty big deal, and the subject's role within it has been significant. It is obvious Wade lacks the will, time or indeed basic competence to recognise the difference between that sort of sourcing, and her merely finding videos on YouTube. This does a total disservice to the subject and Wade's claimed cause, because here is an example of her not doing what she claims she is aiming to do on Wikipedia. A total joke. Her Twitter followers would be ashamed, if they had the first clue how to spot the gulf between what Wade promotes herself as (new book out soon!), and what she actually does.
Quote:
Kupferman was elected to the Academia Europaea in 2016.
Unusually, but perhaps because it is such a basic fact, the source matches Wade's text. But when you look at the source, it is amazing to see that Wade has, through her bizarre methodology of writing, seemingly missed the fact that the subject's research interests can apparently be split into three distinct topics, namely Formal verification, Logic in computer science and Automata on infinite objects. Again, just more evidence she probably has no clue what she is writing about, as she copypastas these Career sections.
Quote:
She was also awarded the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Michael Milken Prize for long-standing Excellence in Teaching.
Source:
Quote:
She was awarded the Michael Milken Prize for long-standing Excellence in Teaching.
Yet again, Wade has made assumptions not supported by the source (or not bothered to include the source which verifies this prize is awarded by this university).

Following a previously established pattern, the very next line in the same source......
Quote:
She volunteers, giving encouraging talks, at high schools and drug-addiction centers.
I thought, let her self-promotion in Nature, Wade was all about including exactly this sort of rich biographical detail in Wikipedia, not just copypasting (poorly) various faculty pages?
Quote:
Kupferman has served on the editorial board of Formal Methods in System Design and Logical Methods in Computer Science. She is Editor-in-Chief of ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.
Source:
Quote:
Prof. Kupferman is member of the Editorial Board of the journals Formal Methods in System Design, and Logical Methods in Computer Science. She is Editor-in-Chief of the ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.
Why the implication the roles in the first sentence have ended? That is not supported by the source, despite it being used to support the idea the role in the second sentence is still true.
Quote:
Selected publications
Selected how?

Overall, the usual problem. A shitty biography with clear sourcing issues, basic factual errors, serious misrepresentations and major ommissions. Clearly the product of someone working too fast, and with the wrong motives and goals. It has found its way onto Wikipedia only because Wade has a second book to sell, and she clearly needs to MAKE QUOTA at any cost.

Someone who really cared about this person getting their due recognition on Wikipedia, and was a competent Wikipedia editor, mindful of its goals and practices, could have done a far better job. Wade has saved that theoretical editor no time, because it would be quicker for that sort of editor to chuck her useless shite in the bin and start again from a scratch.


Tue May 14, 2019 3:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Another day, another error.....and it is a doozie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =897115771
Quote:
Dora Angelaki ........ is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuroscience.
No, she is not.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/editorial-board
http://archive.is/HbZao

This unsourced claim appears in the introduction of the biography, which is OK, because Wikipedia policy allows you to say things there without a source, as long as they are sourced in the main body of the article.

Delving below the fold, we find this.....
Quote:
In 2013 Angelaki was made editor-in-chief of The Journal of Neuroscience.[15]
Source 15 is this...

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/3/867

.....and so now we at least know that the claim in the introduction was correct at one time. We also notice that Wade didn't even get this right - if it can even be inferred from that link, she was presumably appointed in 2015, not 2013.

It didn't take much effort to reliably source the basic details......

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/50/16551
Quote:
Dora Angelaki will become the new Editor-in-Chief effective January 1, 2015.

https://medicine.yale.edu/pharm/news/ar ... x?id=12540
Quote:
Marina Picciotto......has been named editor-in-chief of The Journal of Neuroscience.......Picciotto’s appointment takes effect May 1, and will run to December 2020. She has been interim editor-in-chief since September 2015, and is a former senior editor of the publication.
.....although it is proving difficult to figure out what went wrong, why she served such a short term. Either way, it is clear that Wade's introduction is not only wrong, it could be damaging to the subject and/or the journal to be implying she still holds that role.

We can probable surmise that what played a significant role in an error like this landing on Wikipedia, is Wade's over-reliance on sources like NAS Member profiles, the one for Dr. Angelaki still currently incorrectly stating she is EiC of that journal. But since Wade has not even identified that as the source for her claim, she cannot even hide behind the defence that all she did here was replicate the error of a presumed reliable source.

As always, the only real explanations for fuck-ups like this, is that Wade neither has the time, the knowledge, the inclination or indeed the motivation, to get it right. It takes more time than she is prepared to devote per person per night to even nail down the basics like the fact Angelaki was only EiC for all of eight months (if that), much less to go further to establish what really happened, which would actually benefit the reader.

Wade simply didn't double check her work, not only to double-check if NAS was still correct, but not even to double check if she had got the correct year for when she took up this role. It is clear her self-imposed schedule of one biography a day, cannot allow it.

Editing quickly has its merits. Wikipedia was built on the idea that nothing has to be finished right out of the box, what you start, others can build on. But there is a clear difference between being quick, and begin so quick that the people coming behind you are not so much building on your work, as they are correcting it. The (largely theoretical) benefit of anyone being able to correct any Wikipedia article at any time, is not a license to be negligent. But Wade has already made statements to the effect that this is how she sees the Wikipedia editing model, as a licence for her to be quick and sloppy, with it being left to other people to correct her mistakes.

It is almost laughable when you consider wade attempts to defend herself by suggesting other Wikipedia articles are worse than hers because they lack sources. Well, despite the lack of sources, Wikipedia's own article on the journal in question is at least correct, it lists the right EiC. That being another very quick way Wade could have double-checked own work before hitting publish.

I await any sign the governance model of Wikipedia is fit for the purpose of identifying and rectifying the ongoing risk posed by Wade, as she just adds to the work that will be required in the long run. Or whether she is just going to be allowed to keep churning away in this wholly irresponsible fashion, because they can't face being the ones to shoot Bambi.


Wed May 15, 2019 4:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
The magic of Wikipedia.....
Quote:
Comments on style
Of the first 31 sentences in this article, 17 begin with "She" and 6 with her name. The second paragraph in Research and career is the most extreme example. The short sentences make the article choppy. The article would benefit from a copy edit, combining related sentences, varying terminology, and varying sentence structure (such as beginning a sentence with a subordinate clause rather than the subject). Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Why post this on one article, when the criticism applies to all of Wade's crappy output?

She does it like this because she is rushing (to make quota), because she is simply scraping and dumping facts (poorly), and arguably because she's too stupid to ever have been allowed to even think she is any good at this Wikipedia stuff, much less get to the stage she seems to think she is well above the average editor. I mean, she might well be, but that is admittedly on a scale from complete fuckwits (not forgetting Wikipedia literally lets children edit) right up to Featured Article writers (producing what Britannica would consider minimally acceptable), the distribution skewed massively (probably as much as 10,000 to 1) toward the former.

She knows so little about Wikipedia she doesn't actually realise how bad it makes her look when all she can seemingly say in her defence is she isn't as bad as some other editors. She's supposedly a scientist and a writer, so by rights she should be in the top 10% of Wikipedia editors in terms of the quality of her output. She isn't anywhere near that.

I bet she won't even reply. Won't even notice the comment, too busy drafting the next piece of garbage. That is how she rolls. She will quite easily get to a 1,000 biographies without having changed her signature style.


Thu May 16, 2019 5:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Thanks to the unique talents of Dr. Wade, the fake news that "Dora Angelaki is ..... Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuroscience." has been blasted all over Twitter......

https://mobile.twitter.com/jesswade/sta ... 88/photo/1

People will be reading that shite long after it gets corrected in Wikipedia (and of course, as you might have expected, it hasn't even been corrected on Wikipedia yet, even though the page has been live for over two days).

What has to happen before someone notices Wade is an absolute fuck up?

Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if the only reason Wade is getting away with being this fucking crap at the very basics of Wikipedia, is because people aren't actually reading her Wikipedia output at all?

Here's hoping she gets a retweet from someone who really wouldn't have any excuse for not spotting such an error...... :twisted:


Thu May 16, 2019 6:11 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
I bet she won't even reply. Won't even notice the comment, too busy drafting the next piece of garbage.
Well done me. After a two day absence (quota took a big hit there), she's jumped right back on the shit train. Not noticed the feedback at all, or just doesn't give a tiny rat's ass. The next poop down the tube follows the same characteristic style of she/name/she/name....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =897569051

Oh, and OF COURSE it took me all of two minutes to find an error. In the second line of the main body of the article....
Quote:
She was a doctoral student at Stanford University, where she earned her master's degree in 1985 and a PhD in 1991.[2]
Source 2 supports the words, but of course doesn't mention the years.

http://www.contaminantssummit.com/prese ... cohen.html
http://archive.is/y5ioB

They will be somewhere in the other references, hopefully, she just works too fast and is too sloppy to keep track of what came from where.

I had a bit of time, so I delved further, and so, well, YOU KNOW IT GETS WORSE.
Quote:
She .... was the first woman to be awarded tenure.[4]
Source:
Quote:
She was also the first woman in her department to receive tenure.
https://www.dailycal.org/2018/06/20/lisa-alvarez-cohen-appointed-uc-berkeleys-next-vice-provost-academic-planning/
http://archive.is/btK4r

Oh, and that source? A student newspaper.
Quote:
The Daily Cal is run entirely by current or recently-graduated UC Berkeley students.....A board of directors composed of Daily Cal alumni, UC Berkeley professors and working news media professionals oversees long-term fiscal management for the newspaper. The board of directors has no input or control over the Daily Cal’s editorial policy or newsroom operations.
Does Wade know the implications of these statements on the likely reliability of this source for any remotely challengeable biographical claim? Has Wade even noticed it is a student paper? I'm guessing her schedule doesn't allow time for source appraisal beyond looking at the name.


Fri May 17, 2019 4:05 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
A rare example of Wade speaking at length on Wikipedia.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =897671412

All the same usual crap. I don't think she is ever going to get it. I think she is going to have to either be forced out, in the process causing a huge controversy, or the Wikipedians will have to live with their new reality, that someone with Wade's numerous problems in complying with the very basics of Wikipedia, is simply untouchable, because feminism.


Sat May 18, 2019 4:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Case in point, check out this bonkers request at the Clarice Phelps draft.....
Quote:
When can we publish this page?
Hello fellow editors, what do we have to add to this article to get it moved into the main space? I am very grateful to everyone who has helped turn this article around. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The way she displays absolutely no awareness of what is going on, is astounding. Who is she thanking, and for what? Why is she still claiming ignorance of why Phelps is deemed non-notable?

That article now contains this ridiculous line......
Quote:
Chemistry journalist Kit Chapman wrote that Phelps was "the first African American woman" to be part of a team that discovered a new element.[11]
.....source 11 being nothing more than a Tweet from Chapman. Ridiculous.

That garbage is there (and will be defended by many a fuckwit as legit Wikipedia content) as a direct result of Wades's total incompetence and agenda driven editing. She has the cheek to call what she is doing, democratizing knowledge.


Sat May 18, 2019 4:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Aside from those two rare examples of Wade speaking, it was simply yet again a case of another day, another screwup.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=María_Yzuel&oldid=897695585[/url]
Quote:
In 1971 Yzuel was appointed to the University of Zaragoza, where she was the first woman in Spain to become a Professor in Physics.
Source:
https://spie.org/news/spie-professional ... zuel?SSO=1
http://archive.is/MTf6I
Quote:
María Yzuel
.... was the first female professor in Spain to receive tenure in physics. María Yzuel has taught at the Universities of Zaragoza and Granada and at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (Spain) where she has been a professor with the optics group in the Department of Physics for 25 years.
Two errors for the price of one. Not only is there disagreement over what the first actually was (first professor, or first to get tenure), but also to which institution this applies.

As ever, the mess seems to be the result of her haste (and contrary to her claims there does also seem to be a pattern of wilful inventiveness behind these "mistakes"), and untangling it would take someone far more time than Wade is taking to churn this shit out.


Last edited by CrowsNest on Sat May 18, 2019 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat May 18, 2019 4:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
It took mere seconds to spot an error in the second article she posted that day......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Stone_(academic)&oldid=897720820

Quote:
Awards and honours
2007 Kavli Foundation Scholar[6]
Reference 6 is merely "leakeyfoundation.org", and unsurprisingly doesn't mention Kavli or the article subject, it being just a home page. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention a Leakey Foundation anywhere either, so Christ alone knows what she has done here, if not a simple dumb copy paste error.

We already know her normal pace of editing produces fuckups like this, so when she is publishing an article at 10.30 at night, her second one that day because she is presumably trying to keep to her quota after the recent gap, it almost becomes inevitable.


Sat May 18, 2019 5:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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.