Jess Wade is living proof Wikipedia policy is meaningless. For her anyway.

[ChaosMeRee]

Jess Wade's latest biography is for Indian quantum physicist Urbasi Sinha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1184352701

As usual, the page looks superficially acceptable. But Wade being Wade, it takes an experienced Wikipedia editor only a few seconds to spot the usual signs of her attrociously bad practices. Shit that is unacceptable from a novice, let alone someone with her supposed experience.

The biography curiously doesn't provide a source for the claim that Sinha was the recipient of the South Indian Education Society's 2023 Eminence Award in the Science & Technology category.

I have no idea if this award is a big deal or not, all I know is it sounds pretty cool, and courtesy of Google's relationships with Wikipedia, it has been accepted knowledge since 9th November 2023.

There's just one small problem. The SIES's own website doesn't yet list the winners of the 2023 Eminence Award....

http://www.siesedu.net/awards/eminence_awards.php

So where did Wade get his information? It seems likely she got it from a source that isn't independent of Sinha. She just hasn't included it.

I suppose we should be glad this might be a sign that Wade has at least realized it is totally unacceptable to source BLP caims that speak to notability, achievement or prestige, to non-independent sources.

Her solution however, is typically Wade.

She just puts it in Wikipedia without a source.

She knows it is true, she wants the world to learn how awesome this person is, and thanks to Wikipedia, she has the ability to instantly publish what Wade thinks the world needs to know about them.

It is a quaint throwback to Wikipedia of a decade ago, before they started to take their responsibilities seriously. You either properly source your Wikipedia garbage, or you leave it out of Wikipedia.

Why is Wade allowed to get away with it? Just Google her own name. According to countless news stories written by journalists who clearly don't have the first fucking clue what a responsibie, experienced, praise worthy Wikipedia editor looks like, Wade is awesome.

Wade is a cunt. She CLEARLY knows what she is doing is wrong, but she also knows that there are large numbers of Wikipedia editors who have her back. They value her as a PR tool far more than they value being able to say Wikipedia policy is enforced rigorously and without fear or favour. They will quite happily go to extraordinary lengths to stop you correcting this problem the way it is usually corrected when the editor isn't called Wade.

The question is therefore, what can you do about it? Assuming this pisses you off. If it doesn't annoy you, then fuck off to Wikipediocracy and spend your days sucking the cocks of the most corrupt Wikipedians that ever lived, courtesy of your genial host Jake.

The sad truth of Wikipedia is, when legitimate avenues are closed to you, illegitimate avenues do work. In short, harassment works.

And even if it doesn't, well, you wouldn't be human if you didn't enjoy making the lives of the entitled and privelaged among us just that little bit more miserable, right?

Corruption flourishes in any self policed environment, for as long as the common man doesn't stand up and be counted.

HTD.

[boredbird]

So where did Wade get his information? It seems likely she got it from a source that isn't independent of Sinha. She just hasn't included it.

She got it from Sinha herself obviously . It's paid editing and the clients tell her what she must include. Gender gap is the perfect cover. Right under their noses for years now.

[ChaosMeRee]

So where did Wade get his information? It seems likely she got it from a source that isn't independent of Sinha. She just hasn't included it.

She got it from Sinha herself obviously . It's paid editing and the clients tell her what she must include. Gender gap is the perfect cover. Right under their noses for years now.

I seriously doubt it.

Sure, Wade could probably use the money given her personal circumstances, and the way her prolific rate of production has slowed now that she has other revenue streams arising from her Wikipedia fame does fit a profit motive theory. But it still doesn't feel convincing.

For a start, Wade is just too thick. How she even got a degree is incredible to me, given how much of her editing mistakes are not actually explained by arrogance or haste, but a moronic lack of ability. It's almost comical at times.

You need to be pretty smart to get away with paid editing. Smart enough to tell your client that adding a claim like that without a source is a stupid move. Not genius smart, but Wikipedia smart. You can certainly see Cullen charging someone who doesn't know any better $75 an hour for that level of "expert" advice.

Then again, Jess Wade is unique. She alone can get away with what might seem to be a mistake, but is actually a deliberate abuse of Wikipedia for a profit motive.

But there are too many clear signs that even if she was a paid editor, she is so bad at it, someone would have outed her by now.

You can imagine how furious a client would be, if they saw Wade took their money and wrote her a biography that actual!y merged the details of two completely different people, simply because they had the same name and were both scientists. She really did that.

And there are of course at least two known cases where Wade has clearly done something so bad in how she has written the biography, the nominal customer has been deeply distressed. Katie Bouman years ago and Indira Raman very recently.

And while Clarice Phelps is clearly over the moon at how Wade successfully elevated her from a bit part nobody to trailblazing black woman secientist, her editing mistakes and overall negligence in that affair are so ridiculous, there is still a very big possibility that this could blow up into a huge scandal and expose Wade as an academic fraud and Phelps as the paying beneficiary.

The usual rule applies. Don't look for conspiracies when the most obvious explanation fits the known facts.....

* It is known Wade cares about the gender gap.

* It is known she is the darling of an ignorant media and thus carries great PR value for Wikipedia, turning around a previous media narrative that correctly identified Wikipedia as a deeply hostile sausage fest.

* It is known that Wikipedia editors who exhibit these failings do get warned and then ultimately indefinitely blocked (poor editing as a pattern that the editor either cannot or refuses to correct). The system may be haphazard and malleable, but over the length of time in question here (years) and the seriousness of the mistakes (BLP violations and actual subject harm), for editors not called Wade, an indefinite ban is inescapable.

* It is known Wikipedia editors are corrupt, and the higher up the ladder, the more corrupt they are willing to be. It is also known that they are selfish, vain and irresponsible.

The quid pro quo of allowing Wade to get away with murder fits the known facts. No profit motive needed.