Jess Wade has official backing for her utter shitness

[Jake Is A Sellout]

Amother day, another improperly sourced biography published by Jess Wade on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Olsson_(scientist)

To remind you, this is actually against the rules. By Order of the Foundation. The Board Resolution on BLPs was crystal clear. You can't do this shit. It puts the whole legal basis of Wikipedia's Section 230 immunity under threat.

But this is Jess Wade. For no better reason than she has a vagina and a tendency to self promote, she has attained broad immunity.

That was the real genius of her deciding to write one biography a day. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, but it sounds like a lot, so Wikipedia Administrators, who are of course cowards to begin with, are genuinely scared of the blowback that blocking Princess Wade would generate.

So what's happened now that makes things different now?

Well, she has received official endorsement, of sorts.

None other than Victuallers, who while still technical a volunteer but in reality is so much more, and I don't even mean the fact they are an Administrator, has joined Jess Wade clean up duties.

A big part of the Section 230 immunity rests on the assumption that Administrators and people who get as involved in the real world aspects of the movement as Victuallers do, they're supposed to stop, not encourage, the violation of these rules.

Victuallers has done the opposite.

This is about as good as it gets as far as proving that Jess Wade isn't just a rogue actor or a lone wolf, she has the tacit approval of those in power at Wikipedia. Since of course, actual employees are barred from editing, lest people take that as an admission of liability.

This case shows what that would mean.

Wade's latest biography is ironically about one of the women who gives out Nobel prizes.

Rather than warn and block, on seeing the usual failures by Wade to properly source material, Victuallers has attempted to fix it. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact they wanted to promote this biography on the Wikipedia front page, the one place on the alleged encyclopedia where they do, sort of, care if an article isn't properly sourced.

Other people fixing her work is of course what Jess Wade has previously said is her idea of what it means to collaborate on Wikipedia. Like a lot of things she has said about Wikipedia, it's offensive, ignorant and plain wrong. Like every mistake she has ever made, Jess Wade doesn't care.

As you could have predicted, fixing Jess Wade's shit work wasn't as quick and easy as the slack jawed yokels Wikipediocracy make it sound, when you can even hear them in between them kissing her butt of course.

Victuallers has managed to source one statement, but you will note that it wasn't simply a case of the source already being in the article but just misplaced. The source was not there. It had to be located externallly and added, even though it has to be the case Jess Wade had already found it and used it. Wasted time, duplicated effort. And who knows why it had been misplaced, Jess Wade doesn't care, and Victuallers didn't ask.

Worse than that, for another statement, it seems like Victuallers hasn't managed to locate the source it hopefully came from, or has but it took so long they ran out of time to add it. And you can tell they appreciate the embarrassment of having a statement like that tagged with {citation needed} even for a day, because they have instead just hidden it. Who knows if they plan to come back and source it.

This shit is insane.

Jess Wade is getting away with shit that ordinary editors can't. People in high places are working very hard to hide the fact there is even a problem here. And I'm not talking about the filter that flags up anyone who puts {citation needed} on a Jess Wade article, for special intimidation. Only loyal followers who won't rock the boat and will accept Jess Wade is their superior, are allowed to do that.

Are you, dear reader, perhaps one of those losers? I know you read. Sad bastards.

Victuallers of course doesn't worry if Jess Wade is learning from her mistakes, and indeed doesn't even engage them in conversation about it. They did talk to her, after a fashion, only to kiss her butt in the form of thanks for writing a biography, with no mention it fails to meet the minimum standard. As is her way, Jess Wade doesn't even acknowledge that.

I've often wondered what the likes of a Victuallers gets out of this, it being obvious what the benefits are to Wade. Well, you can see it here. Victuallers in particular, has a vested interest in the world never finding out that Jess Wade is a fraud. Someone who should never and could never be justifiably be called even an averagely competent editor, as Wikipediocracy laughably suggested she is (were they paid to say that I wonder?).

Not unless you are literally surveying the entire editor community from the very best down to the ones that can barely write their own name. A daily stream of typos and other wierd typography mistakes of course being another characteristic aspect of a Jess Wade biography.

-----

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Special treatment for special editors, hoping to either directly benefit or bask in reflected glory, is just one way they show every single day, that they are a sick cult.

[ericbarbour]

Wiki Loves Egomaniacs. She's just copying Guy Chapman and David Gerard.....
and the resident idiots are PROTECTING HER.

[boredbird]

Amother day, another improperly sourced biography published by Jess Wade on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Olsson_(scientist)

The pattern is the same. Almost every one of the references is to Olsson's own employer pages. The last to are to AFP and Science but they say almost nothing about Olsson besides that she is on the Nobel selection committee with a few brief quotes.

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

The usual rule is that offhand mentions are not enough because you can't even build a stub from them and Wade's use of primary sources proves that. She needs AFP and Science as a fig leaf but you could get rid of them and the article would be almost the same. If you used only the good sources it would only be a few sentences.

The results are indistinguishable from promotional editing. It might be paid editing too. Someone sees her in the press and approaches her "Hey I'm a woman scientist can you make an article for me?" She pays the fee gets the article talls her friends and now Wade's got a lucrative practice going right under everyone's noses. How could anyone tell the difference?

There might be a way to tell the difference.

Victuallers has managed to source one statement, but you will note that it wasn't simply a case of the source already being in the article but just misplaced. The source was not there. It had to be located externallly and added, even though it has to be the case Jess Wade had already found it and used it. Wasted time, duplicated effort. And who knows why it had been misplaced, Jess Wade doesn't care, and Victuallers didn't ask.

Worse than that, for another statement, it seems like Victuallers hasn't managed to locate the source it hopefully came from, or has but it took so long they ran out of time to add it. And you can tell they appreciate the embarrassment of having a statement like that tagged with {citation needed} even for a day, because they have instead just hidden it.

It probably doesn't mean that Wade had already found and used it. What it probably means is that Wade was working from something else that she couldn't reference such as personal communication with Olsson who told her what to include. This is the usual reason why PR ediitng has so many unreferenced claims.

[ericbarbour]

It probably doesn't mean that Wade had already found and used it. What it probably means is that Wade was working from something else that she couldn't reference such as personal communication with Olsson who told her what to include. This is the usual reason why PR ediitng has so many unreferenced claims.

Chances you are correct: better than even. And everyone involved will deny it hotly. Dear, adorable, annoying little Jess will get away with hundreds of abuses. After all, no one's systematically fixing the thousands of shitshows left behind by Ryulong, Will Beback, Orlady, etc. etc. If they are repaired, it's accidental.

[boredbird]

Chances you are correct: better than even.

WikiProject Clients in Red.

[wexter]

NO she is not on a mission of any kind.
NO you cannot drive fact through narrative.
Being on a mission to represent women scientists on Wikipedia does not create more women scientists; it does have the result of adding insignificant scientists that happen to be women to Wikipedia.

We are back to "Critical Theory;" it is the same idea that structural bias exists against a "minority" in this case women scientists. Women (over 50) comprise the majority of the population.

Her mission is "tackling systemic biases such as gender and racial bias on Wikipedia" a.k.a. critical theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jess_Wade



Thanks for pointing out David Whittle, the guy puffs himself up but in reality he authored a book on IBM's OS2 (which was great but only was used in old style ATM machines)