Have some "Uplifting News"

[ericbarbour]

Such a shame that Crow isn't here anymore (?), because I've got a recent report that will make him turn purple with rage.

https://www.today.com/parents/jessica-w ... -rcna51628
https://scoop.upworthy.com/woman-made-o ... scientists
https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/ ... edia_bios/

To be fair: she did good albeit sloppy content work. And she spent a lot of time fighting with deletionists (and still does today), which will forever be the shame of WP's upper classes. The Clarice Phelps editwar will go down in history as one of their most PUBLICLY embarrassing squabbles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ice_Phelps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... omination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ice_Phelps

It led to a classically-stupid arbitration, and the desysop of Rama, the (almost inactive anyway) admin who restored the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Case/Rama

Icewhiz was the major force behind the battle, and you remember what happened to him. (Her? It?) That shrieking goddamned lunatic should never have gotten any advanced powers. ALL THE INSIDERS FUCKED THIS UP. Only they can take the blame. Then they fucked up the Eostrix RFA, with almost no real evidence that Eostrix was a sock of Icewhiz.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2254

Yet I still get the impression that Wade is not merely a sloppy content writer. She's also frantically chasing publicity. Planning to run for a House of Commons seat or somesuch?

Also, this exchange from the Reddit thread makes a great demonstration of the general stupidity of Redditors. She HAS an article already, you shitheads, and you could have easily found it for yourselves.

from-Wade-thread-reddit.png (28.64 KiB) Viewed 3704 times

[wexter]

Just sampled page views for ten random Jessica Wade Entries - each entry generates about 2.3 views per day; has on average 30 edits in total; and has involved 10 editors. Page views per day are inflated by a single entry that receives 10 views per day, without this entry page views decline to 1.3 per day per entry on average. Page views are also inflated by single days where the entries get attention from friends and family perhaps.

A good smattering of Wade articles have been tagged for quality from time to time. Anyone that calls her articles out for being insufficiently-considered will get a beat down.

Writing about irrelevant women scientists does not seem to create any
-1) interest whatsoever in obscure women scientists
-2) more women scientists.


The effort does create
-1) recognition, publicity (PR), and awards (British Empire Medal) for Jessica Wade
-2) clickbait

It seems like quite a bit of effort with no real reach..

A huge number of articles created per month;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... &limit=500

The ten entries sampled;

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project= ... arah_Haigh

[ericbarbour]

A good smattering of Wade articles have been tagged for quality from time to time. Anyone that calls her articles out for being insufficiently-considered will get a beat down.

Have you seen any examples, especially this year? I suspect revisions from content battles on her work are being disappeared because Ms. Wade is "famous" and therefore "untouchable" and "special" and all that rot.

Look at the histories of those articles, and any others she started recently. Steven Pruitt, Andy Mabbett, and a couple other insiders are following her around and watching them. Clearly she's now a "special wiki snowflake".

[wexter]

Wade clearly violates "notability standards" in the spewing of articles to an agenda.
She is framing an issue and building a narrative and the press and Wikipedia (WMF) thinks this is laudable.

October 11, 2022
https://www.today.com/parents/jessica-w ... -rcna51628

Wade gained notice when, still in her 20s, she began writing the Wikipedia biographies about women and minority scientists who never got their due — from employers, from other scientists, from the public.

This 33-year-old made more than 1,000 Wikipedia bios for unknown women scientists

Notability would apply to people who were recognized for their achievements; and would therefore be known (or their work would be known) to either academic peers or the general public.

We have been talking about the latest arbitration about the framing of Polish history; and here we have the same type of issue framing and conflict of interest. https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... 299#p24299

The idea here is to recognize women who are not notable and do so doggedly.

there is likely to be no cost for misconduct, and possibly a great benefit - Robert McClenon

And here we have it; we have an dogged editor with an agenda owning a topic and creating a narrative.

[ericbarbour]

And here we have it; we have an dogged editor with an agenda owning a topic and creating a narrative.

Because insiders are protecting her. If not, she would have been forced out by the patrollers very quickly. This is a naked you-wash-my-back ploy for "good publicity"--Ms. Wade gets some and WP gets some. To hell with the content.