Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
So, Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize, and the media noticed she never had a Wikipedia page until the award. The controversy is not as interesting as the reactions of the Wikipedians.......
Firstly, there's the time-worn tactic of identifying small and frankly insignificant errors in the reporting, so as to discredit and thus ignore the entire coverage. It is pathetic and morally repugnant, but in their tiny minds, it gives them some comfort. They would perhaps not be so comfortable if the media began taking a close look at the aftermath of incidents like this, where you will see countless examples of established Wikipedians struggling to get a clear picture in their own minds of what actually happened, let alone why.
Second, they are blaming the novice editor who tried to get one created, but apparently didn't do a good enough job of convincing the Wikipedians she deserved an article. It shouldn't even need to be said that, in theory at least, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. They know. They just do not care.
The Wikipedians have been told for a very long time now, that their disinterested, impersonal and often incomprehensible approach to novices, isn't effective. Yet at the heart of this fuckup is an institutional reliance on a system of draft approval which is everything I just mentioned.
Indeed, a while ago, when they decided it would be a good idea to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from creating articles directly, instead shunting them to the draft space, they were told the draft system was already underperforming, and this would only make things worse. Now we see how. But they were warned. They knew, they just did not care.
There are some who are blaming the specific inclusion criteria they have for professors, and people in general. As if somehow that absolves them of blame. Well, to point out the fucking obvious, it is the Wikipedians who write their own inclusion criteria. As a secondary issue, it is not pervasive to blame the criteria, when these fuckers can't even agree amongst themselves which standard had precedence, and which, if any, the pre-Nobel draft actually met. They know this sort of confusion and dispute is common and widespread even among experienced Wikipedians, so newcomers don't stand a chance unless actively tutored. They just do not care.
They apparently accept, while not seeing the irony, that if they weren't forcing people to use the draft system, their old system of allowing a well meaning newcomer just looking to get recognition for a women in science, to simply write the page and then have it undergo trial by deletion debate, while undignified and chaotic, would have undoubtedly arrived at the correct outcome.
They're not even above putting the blame on the group of Wikipedians who have specifically committed to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of women in science. Not working hard enough, it was said.
There are, of course, those who are trying to put the blame on academia and the media. They didn't make her famous enough, because bias, so Wikipedia is blameless, as it can only follow the biases of the world. Well, yes, except I really have to point out again, SEVERAL OF YOU FUCKERS THINK SHE WOULD HAVE PASSED YOUR OWN INCLUSION CRITERIA. Get that little wrinkle sorted out with some degree of certainty (perhaps treat it like a science experiment?) and maybe we can talk. Maybe about how some argue Wikipedia has a duty to be actively correcting for existing real world bias, for those women who would not meet your current inclusion criteria.
And finally we get to the best excuse of them all. It's not their fault, it is the general public's fault. They, through their media spokespeople, are apparently not nearly grateful enough for the miracle that Wikipedia represents. Do they not appreciate that Wikipedians are not paid, they lament? Oh, the mannity.
Be more grateful for what we do manage, is the cry. Followed rather predictably by the claim that shit like this would not happen if you lazy fucks got off your asses and became Wikipedians. And you, you bastard journalists, if you spent the time you did writing these pieces criticising us on actually writing for Wikipedia, it definitely would not have happened. This was said by, among others, a Wikipedian recently profiled by the Washington Post for merely being a prolific Wikipedian. Quartz even gets a roasting for not having written about this woman before. I'm not making this up, you could not make this up, as the saying goes.
What is important to note here's is that no lessons will be learned. There will be no change in any policies, there will be no change in how Wikipedians react to external criticism, there will be no change in how Wikipedia interacts with newcomers, and there will absolutely be no change in the relentless march down the road of erecting more and more barriers in front those who want to put worthy content in, so as to ease the burden on those who want to keep bad stuff out.
As one observed, Wikipedia resource management is a zero sum game. A Wikipedian spending an hour to walk a newbie through task like how to properly write the page for someone like Strickland, is an hour they're not fighting off the hoards of vandals, or indeed writing their own perfect encyclopedia content.
Except it is not though, is it? I may not have a Nobel Prize in Astrophysics, but my Deep Space telescope does stretch back to a time in the Universe when Wikipedia was still expanding, evidently not struggling to find enough editors to both add new content and keep the existing stuff from bursting into flames. So much so there was talk of turning all that surplus editor enthusiasm into a drive for quality, not quantity. They call it 2006.
It was about this time that the first serious moves were made to erect barriers to participation. Semi-protection was invented. And the Wikipedians, realising these magical new tools meant they didn't have to spend so much time on grunt work, they lapped it up. And so, ever more restrictions were invented, right up to the mess of draft space and a multitude of user rights and protection levels that even I no longer properly understand, and I study these weirdos as a hobby!
Not for nothing then, that Wikipedia began declining in 2007-8, and it is still in decline now. That's the real truth behind the reason there was no article on Strickland. If there ever was an upper limit to how many people in this world might have become experienced Wikipedians, they failed to even come close. They needed to reach for the Moon, and got as far as Cleveland. They know this. They just don't care.
Do not look for sources of hope of signs of a turnaround. They are not there. There's no automation or grant or editathon that can fix this problem. Jimmy Wales checked out a while ago, he knows the score, and they hate him for it. He hasn't even bothered to reply to their notification of yet another scandal. He's gotta be sick to the back teeth of it all.
There will be another controversy like this, and a carbon copy repeat of all the bullshit excuses. Rinse and repeat, until it eventually dies. The singularity.
HTD.
Firstly, there's the time-worn tactic of identifying small and frankly insignificant errors in the reporting, so as to discredit and thus ignore the entire coverage. It is pathetic and morally repugnant, but in their tiny minds, it gives them some comfort. They would perhaps not be so comfortable if the media began taking a close look at the aftermath of incidents like this, where you will see countless examples of established Wikipedians struggling to get a clear picture in their own minds of what actually happened, let alone why.
Second, they are blaming the novice editor who tried to get one created, but apparently didn't do a good enough job of convincing the Wikipedians she deserved an article. It shouldn't even need to be said that, in theory at least, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. They know. They just do not care.
The Wikipedians have been told for a very long time now, that their disinterested, impersonal and often incomprehensible approach to novices, isn't effective. Yet at the heart of this fuckup is an institutional reliance on a system of draft approval which is everything I just mentioned.
Indeed, a while ago, when they decided it would be a good idea to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from creating articles directly, instead shunting them to the draft space, they were told the draft system was already underperforming, and this would only make things worse. Now we see how. But they were warned. They knew, they just did not care.
There are some who are blaming the specific inclusion criteria they have for professors, and people in general. As if somehow that absolves them of blame. Well, to point out the fucking obvious, it is the Wikipedians who write their own inclusion criteria. As a secondary issue, it is not pervasive to blame the criteria, when these fuckers can't even agree amongst themselves which standard had precedence, and which, if any, the pre-Nobel draft actually met. They know this sort of confusion and dispute is common and widespread even among experienced Wikipedians, so newcomers don't stand a chance unless actively tutored. They just do not care.
They apparently accept, while not seeing the irony, that if they weren't forcing people to use the draft system, their old system of allowing a well meaning newcomer just looking to get recognition for a women in science, to simply write the page and then have it undergo trial by deletion debate, while undignified and chaotic, would have undoubtedly arrived at the correct outcome.
They're not even above putting the blame on the group of Wikipedians who have specifically committed to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of women in science. Not working hard enough, it was said.
There are, of course, those who are trying to put the blame on academia and the media. They didn't make her famous enough, because bias, so Wikipedia is blameless, as it can only follow the biases of the world. Well, yes, except I really have to point out again, SEVERAL OF YOU FUCKERS THINK SHE WOULD HAVE PASSED YOUR OWN INCLUSION CRITERIA. Get that little wrinkle sorted out with some degree of certainty (perhaps treat it like a science experiment?) and maybe we can talk. Maybe about how some argue Wikipedia has a duty to be actively correcting for existing real world bias, for those women who would not meet your current inclusion criteria.
And finally we get to the best excuse of them all. It's not their fault, it is the general public's fault. They, through their media spokespeople, are apparently not nearly grateful enough for the miracle that Wikipedia represents. Do they not appreciate that Wikipedians are not paid, they lament? Oh, the mannity.
Be more grateful for what we do manage, is the cry. Followed rather predictably by the claim that shit like this would not happen if you lazy fucks got off your asses and became Wikipedians. And you, you bastard journalists, if you spent the time you did writing these pieces criticising us on actually writing for Wikipedia, it definitely would not have happened. This was said by, among others, a Wikipedian recently profiled by the Washington Post for merely being a prolific Wikipedian. Quartz even gets a roasting for not having written about this woman before. I'm not making this up, you could not make this up, as the saying goes.
What is important to note here's is that no lessons will be learned. There will be no change in any policies, there will be no change in how Wikipedians react to external criticism, there will be no change in how Wikipedia interacts with newcomers, and there will absolutely be no change in the relentless march down the road of erecting more and more barriers in front those who want to put worthy content in, so as to ease the burden on those who want to keep bad stuff out.
As one observed, Wikipedia resource management is a zero sum game. A Wikipedian spending an hour to walk a newbie through task like how to properly write the page for someone like Strickland, is an hour they're not fighting off the hoards of vandals, or indeed writing their own perfect encyclopedia content.
Except it is not though, is it? I may not have a Nobel Prize in Astrophysics, but my Deep Space telescope does stretch back to a time in the Universe when Wikipedia was still expanding, evidently not struggling to find enough editors to both add new content and keep the existing stuff from bursting into flames. So much so there was talk of turning all that surplus editor enthusiasm into a drive for quality, not quantity. They call it 2006.
It was about this time that the first serious moves were made to erect barriers to participation. Semi-protection was invented. And the Wikipedians, realising these magical new tools meant they didn't have to spend so much time on grunt work, they lapped it up. And so, ever more restrictions were invented, right up to the mess of draft space and a multitude of user rights and protection levels that even I no longer properly understand, and I study these weirdos as a hobby!
Not for nothing then, that Wikipedia began declining in 2007-8, and it is still in decline now. That's the real truth behind the reason there was no article on Strickland. If there ever was an upper limit to how many people in this world might have become experienced Wikipedians, they failed to even come close. They needed to reach for the Moon, and got as far as Cleveland. They know this. They just don't care.
Do not look for sources of hope of signs of a turnaround. They are not there. There's no automation or grant or editathon that can fix this problem. Jimmy Wales checked out a while ago, he knows the score, and they hate him for it. He hasn't even bothered to reply to their notification of yet another scandal. He's gotta be sick to the back teeth of it all.
There will be another controversy like this, and a carbon copy repeat of all the bullshit excuses. Rinse and repeat, until it eventually dies. The singularity.
HTD.
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
The world according to a Wikipedian.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862488484
Let me be the first to tell this idiot about the most important Wikipedia rule, WP:IAR.....
It is clear from his attempt to justify his actions, the only reasonable answer to the question, "What is going to happen when I decline this draft? was 'absolute nothing'. That is not his fault, but it is clear from his attempt to justify himself, he wholeheartedly believes in the institutional failings that contributed to it. The system of incomprehensible and impersonal 'welcomes' which made no attempt to point the user to a place whether their specific needs could be met, namely how to improve that draft.
Other than read the entire fucking Wikipedia manual and proactively seek help, Campbpt0 was given absolutely no indication they needed to do anything except wait for two months. It is no surprise they did not return. That was an entirely foreseeable outcome, as foreseeable as the uselessness of their welcome in steering them to help.
Bradv clearly doesn't like it, but if he wants to call himself a Wikipedian, in these circumstances, he was under an obligation to recognise the clear and obvious claim to notability contained in the draft, and either improve it himself, or flag it up so others could. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
As he has made pretty clear in his essay, the only realistic option going forward that might have avoided this controversy, is to get rid of AfC. And since he knows that is never going to happen, we can safely discount any idea this essay had any other purpose than making excuses and deflecting blame.
The world according to a Wikipedian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862488484
Let me be the first to tell this idiot about the most important Wikipedia rule, WP:IAR.....
.....and it's cousin, WP:NOTBURO....If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
......and finally, the always relevant, WP:AGF.......While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
....and this largely overlooked but pretty damn important general guideline, WP:PRESERVE.......Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
It seems obvious this drone's every action in this incident was borne of either an overly bureaucratic approach, or an overly suspicious mindset. His own attempt at self-justification shows that he had absolutely no reason to suspect Campbpt0 was up to no good, nor had he any reason to believe they were going to do what he seems to think they were obligated to do as a result of their draft decline, not least since they were long gone.Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
......
Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so......Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.
It is clear from his attempt to justify his actions, the only reasonable answer to the question, "What is going to happen when I decline this draft? was 'absolute nothing'. That is not his fault, but it is clear from his attempt to justify himself, he wholeheartedly believes in the institutional failings that contributed to it. The system of incomprehensible and impersonal 'welcomes' which made no attempt to point the user to a place whether their specific needs could be met, namely how to improve that draft.
Other than read the entire fucking Wikipedia manual and proactively seek help, Campbpt0 was given absolutely no indication they needed to do anything except wait for two months. It is no surprise they did not return. That was an entirely foreseeable outcome, as foreseeable as the uselessness of their welcome in steering them to help.
Bradv clearly doesn't like it, but if he wants to call himself a Wikipedian, in these circumstances, he was under an obligation to recognise the clear and obvious claim to notability contained in the draft, and either improve it himself, or flag it up so others could. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
As he has made pretty clear in his essay, the only realistic option going forward that might have avoided this controversy, is to get rid of AfC. And since he knows that is never going to happen, we can safely discount any idea this essay had any other purpose than making excuses and deflecting blame.
The world according to a Wikipedian.
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
From his essay, this tweet from Katherine Maher.....
I wonder......before he decided to use this in his defence, did he reassure himself there were no such articles, and did he spot the clear policy issue with assuming such coverage would only occur in newspapers?Journalists — if you’re going to come after @Wikipedia for it’s coverage of women, check your own coverage first. We’re a mirror of the world’s biases, not the source of them. We can’t write articles about what you don’t cover.
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy

Stupid journalists!This is another example of the media failing to understand Wikipedia policy. If Donna Strickland had been turned down for a Wikipedia article because she was a woman, this would obviously have been wrong.
.....
--IanMacM (talk to me) 05:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
It is stuff like this, which is next level clueless, which makes me genuinely wonder why journalists don't go all out in exposing the reality of Wikipedia, instead of giving it a fraction of the scrutiny they apply to the likes of Facebook.
If any journalists are reading, please note, this guy is not an outlier, if anything he is the norm. He has managed to perform 33,000+ edits and has been around since 2005, and nobody on Wikipedia has ever said, 'hey, wait, who let this dumbass in?'.
They barely raise an eyebrow when he says stuff like this.....
You see that, you begin to understand how deeply ingrained Wikipedia's sexism really is.It's silly and over the top to imply that Rolf Harris is known primarily for being a criminal.
......
.
--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
Jesus H. Christ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 0-28/Op-ed
Three Wikipedians have posted their views on the Strickland affair in the SignPost, and it is as horrific as you would expect.
In summary:
-the media doesn't understand Wikipedia (so ignore it)
-we did really well after the controversy came to light (so ignore what came before)
-Bradv was thrown under the bus (so ignore his regrets)
-she wasn't wiki notable before her Nobel Prize, anyone who says differently is dishonest (so don't go looking for the names of which established editors must be dishonest)
-we are a volunteer run website that anyone can fix (so if you still think we screwed up, it's pretty much your fault for not joining in anyway)
It of course took me all of two seconds to spot a MASSIVE FUCKUP, which under their warped critique of the media's efforts, means you can junk their entire piece as worthless uninformed garbage. They know not of what they speak. What a surprise. In my work as a critic, I never ever come across that trait in the True Believers of Wikipedia.
Naturally, these opinion pieces made no mention of all the issues I have noted in this thread. Their cover for such biased output is of course simply because they slapped "Opinion" on it. Well, this is pretty much how Fox News does opinion too, just so you know. Proper opinion still strives to present all sides of a controversy and all relevant background information, before it delivers a conclusion. Journalists get that. Wikipedians, not so much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 0-28/Op-ed
Three Wikipedians have posted their views on the Strickland affair in the SignPost, and it is as horrific as you would expect.
In summary:
-the media doesn't understand Wikipedia (so ignore it)
-we did really well after the controversy came to light (so ignore what came before)
-Bradv was thrown under the bus (so ignore his regrets)
-she wasn't wiki notable before her Nobel Prize, anyone who says differently is dishonest (so don't go looking for the names of which established editors must be dishonest)
-we are a volunteer run website that anyone can fix (so if you still think we screwed up, it's pretty much your fault for not joining in anyway)
It of course took me all of two seconds to spot a MASSIVE FUCKUP, which under their warped critique of the media's efforts, means you can junk their entire piece as worthless uninformed garbage. They know not of what they speak. What a surprise. In my work as a critic, I never ever come across that trait in the True Believers of Wikipedia.
Be careful what you wish for, because a journalist looking to write a story on Wikipedia might find stuff like this, written in March by a researcher hired by the WMF......One common theme appearing in a number of publications was that, in all their writing about Wikipedia, no one had apparently taken the time to [include] any indication [of] how Articles for Creation works.
I mean, I would have been ecstatic if the media coverage of this controversy had included background sentences like "Even among the Wikipedians, Articles for Creation is a process which is little understood and of questionable value, in large part because it drastically reduces the amount of collaborative working, placing unassessed randomers like Bradv in positions of great responsibility", but you just know they'd whine about how that's not right either.Research on AfC has found that going through that process means drastically less collaboration than creating an article directly in the main namespace. Is that beneficial to Wikipedia?
....
Prior to our analysis, little was known about AfC. While we now know more about AfC, there are many open questions. How good is the AfC process? Who uses it, and who reviews the drafts? What are the key social and technological parts of it, and can these be improved?
Naturally, these opinion pieces made no mention of all the issues I have noted in this thread. Their cover for such biased output is of course simply because they slapped "Opinion" on it. Well, this is pretty much how Fox News does opinion too, just so you know. Proper opinion still strives to present all sides of a controversy and all relevant background information, before it delivers a conclusion. Journalists get that. Wikipedians, not so much.
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
Through a bizarre set of circumstances which don't need detailing here, the following was just dropped on a Wikipedia noticeboard.....
But the person who wrote this is none other that the very same Jess Wade who has managed to convert her Wikipedia editing into a veritable shit-ton of publicity recently, reams of puff pieces which will both bring more money into the WMF's coffers, and will do her future career prospects no harm whatsoever. Shit, she might even land a job at the WMF, special liaison to Science or some such, it is uncanny after all how many editors seem to manage to land staff jobs.
Typical of the coverage was the casting of Wade as a one woman Wikipedia machine.....
I wonder, when the SignPost Opinion pieces I mentioned above were written, decrying how the media just doesn't understand Wikipedia, did they stop and consider that pieces like this, which give a very distorted view of what Wikipedia is, are coming directly from the source?
Anyway, to my eye, coverage like this absolutely places a higher burden on Wade to be seen as having a particular responsibility in this endeavour than the average Jane editor. If she wants the hype, if she wants to be known as a Wikipedia Superstar who inspires others and effects real change, then she should absolutely expect people to rate her performance.
This is what gets me about a lot of these press hungry Wikipedians. Why do they seek recognition at all? They chose Wikipedia as their hobby, their recognition and reward is meant to only be internal satisfaction and meaningless awards from your fellow editors, by design. That's the deal you signed up to, that's the downside to you being given this awesome power to publish instantly, with nobody asking you any questions at all, least of all 'do you know what the fuck you're doing?'
The comment about a different continent is of course just stupid. Language is surely the only relevant barrier in knowing of scientists outside your country. The idea they are in different disciplines and therefore unknown to each other is remarkable to. Is laser physics really that different to diode physics? IIRC Strickland's breakthrough was on the benefits of using diodes too..... If they are so very different, then surely she will have similar difficulties in identifying virtually all women scientists that need recognising.
The press coverage of course revealed who she is aware of - women who work in her University, and women scientists who were the "first" to do something. Bravo. That's some Deep Mind shit right there, Dr. Wade.
And she rather misses one crucial point - she didn't have to discover her at all, someone had already alerted Wikipedia to the existence of Strickland. The difficulty came in finding anyone to give enough of a shit to take the five minutes to find some sources and move it to main space.
The real eye opener here, is that, as the press coverage indicated, collaboration isn't apparently any real part of what Dr. Wade does. Unbelievably, she has just a handful of edits to Wikipedia space, which is where all the collaboration happens. It is there you can find the Wikipedians belatedly making some effort to identify women scientists stuck in Draft Space limbo.
So if it has genuinely never occurred to this RockStar Wikipedian to go looking in Draft Space for easy wins so she can meet her self-set targets, and if collaboration has nothing to do with her Wikipedia activities, and if she is really so limited in her ability to identify deserving women scientists, then yes, we can quite easily say she is doing a rubbish job at her chosen task.
Quite a few people on Wikipedia are trying their hardest, Dr. Wade. It isn't enough. Not nearly enough. Put your scientist's head on and theorize why that might be......feel free to use our vast database of research materials.
As a final thought, what's worse for Wikipedia? The implication of the press coverage that Dr. Wade is the best they have to be working on this critical mission, or that she isn't?
An interesting comment. As the Wikipedians never tire of telling you, they're not paid, they're volunteers, they are not contracted to Wikipedia in any way except the usual do and don'ts, so expecting anything of them, least of all a sensible and productive programme of encyclopedia building, is nonsensical. They can just sit there and pick their nose all day, and you have no cause to complain. And for ordinary editors, I would agree (while pointing out this is why Wikipedia is so crap).For what it's worth, he also takes to twitter to tell other people that I'm doing a rubbish job. I don't know what I've done to him, nor why it was my responsibility to identify a physicist in a different continent / discipline before she won a Nobel prize, but it's just bizarre. I'm just trying my hardest. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
But the person who wrote this is none other that the very same Jess Wade who has managed to convert her Wikipedia editing into a veritable shit-ton of publicity recently, reams of puff pieces which will both bring more money into the WMF's coffers, and will do her future career prospects no harm whatsoever. Shit, she might even land a job at the WMF, special liaison to Science or some such, it is uncanny after all how many editors seem to manage to land staff jobs.
Typical of the coverage was the casting of Wade as a one woman Wikipedia machine.....
That particular piece makes no mention of the fact Wikipedia is a collaboration, that she can't do what she does without the help of hundreds of other people, that even the articles she personally writes, are not her sole work for very long. The entire piece was framed about what she wants to do, what she is doing, why she is doing it, and how her efforts will bring good things to the world.Jess Wade is a scientist on a mission. She wants every woman who has achieved something impressive in science to get the prominence and recognition they deserve – starting with a Wikipedia entry.
I wonder, when the SignPost Opinion pieces I mentioned above were written, decrying how the media just doesn't understand Wikipedia, did they stop and consider that pieces like this, which give a very distorted view of what Wikipedia is, are coming directly from the source?
Anyway, to my eye, coverage like this absolutely places a higher burden on Wade to be seen as having a particular responsibility in this endeavour than the average Jane editor. If she wants the hype, if she wants to be known as a Wikipedia Superstar who inspires others and effects real change, then she should absolutely expect people to rate her performance.
This is what gets me about a lot of these press hungry Wikipedians. Why do they seek recognition at all? They chose Wikipedia as their hobby, their recognition and reward is meant to only be internal satisfaction and meaningless awards from your fellow editors, by design. That's the deal you signed up to, that's the downside to you being given this awesome power to publish instantly, with nobody asking you any questions at all, least of all 'do you know what the fuck you're doing?'
The comment about a different continent is of course just stupid. Language is surely the only relevant barrier in knowing of scientists outside your country. The idea they are in different disciplines and therefore unknown to each other is remarkable to. Is laser physics really that different to diode physics? IIRC Strickland's breakthrough was on the benefits of using diodes too..... If they are so very different, then surely she will have similar difficulties in identifying virtually all women scientists that need recognising.
The press coverage of course revealed who she is aware of - women who work in her University, and women scientists who were the "first" to do something. Bravo. That's some Deep Mind shit right there, Dr. Wade.
And she rather misses one crucial point - she didn't have to discover her at all, someone had already alerted Wikipedia to the existence of Strickland. The difficulty came in finding anyone to give enough of a shit to take the five minutes to find some sources and move it to main space.
The real eye opener here, is that, as the press coverage indicated, collaboration isn't apparently any real part of what Dr. Wade does. Unbelievably, she has just a handful of edits to Wikipedia space, which is where all the collaboration happens. It is there you can find the Wikipedians belatedly making some effort to identify women scientists stuck in Draft Space limbo.
So if it has genuinely never occurred to this RockStar Wikipedian to go looking in Draft Space for easy wins so she can meet her self-set targets, and if collaboration has nothing to do with her Wikipedia activities, and if she is really so limited in her ability to identify deserving women scientists, then yes, we can quite easily say she is doing a rubbish job at her chosen task.
Quite a few people on Wikipedia are trying their hardest, Dr. Wade. It isn't enough. Not nearly enough. Put your scientist's head on and theorize why that might be......feel free to use our vast database of research materials.
As a final thought, what's worse for Wikipedia? The implication of the press coverage that Dr. Wade is the best they have to be working on this critical mission, or that she isn't?
-
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 5229
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1419 times
- Been thanked: 2174 times
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
CrowsNest wrote:An interesting comment. As the Wikipedians never tire of telling you, they're not paid, they're volunteers, they are not contracted to Wikipedia in any way except the usual do and don'ts, so expecting anything of them, least of all a sensible and productive programme of encyclopedia building, is nonsensical. They can just sit there and pick their nose all day, and you have no cause to complain. And for ordinary editors, I would agree (while pointing out this is why Wikipedia is so crap).For what it's worth, he also takes to twitter to tell other people that I'm doing a rubbish job. I don't know what I've done to him, nor why it was my responsibility to identify a physicist in a different continent / discipline before she won a Nobel prize, but it's just bizarre. I'm just trying my hardest. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
But the person who wrote this is none other that the very same Jess Wade who has managed to convert her Wikipedia editing into a veritable shit-ton of publicity recently, reams of puff pieces which will both bring more money into the WMF's coffers, and will do her future career prospects no harm whatsoever. Shit, she might even land a job at the WMF, special liaison to Science or some such, it is uncanny after all how many editors seem to manage to land staff jobs.
Typical of the coverage was the casting of Wade as a one woman Wikipedia machine.....That particular piece makes no mention of the fact Wikipedia is a collaboration, that she can't do what she does without the help of hundreds of other people, that even the articles she personally writes, are not her sole work for very long. The entire piece was framed about what she wants to do, what she is doing, why she is doing it, and how her efforts will bring good things to the world.Jess Wade is a scientist on a mission. She wants every woman who has achieved something impressive in science to get the prominence and recognition they deserve – starting with a Wikipedia entry.
They HAVE to lie about the process. Most WP content writers are doing it for reasons of EGO. Otherwise why bother? (Unless someone is paying you to do it of course...) I suspect the odds of her ending up a "deep insider" are better than 50-50 and her odds of becoming a WMF employee are approaching the same. As long as she keeps lying to the media effectively.
The talkpage is full of real hilarity, if you know how their twisted little minds work. Such "delicate language" and so many verbal turds. Their little community fucked up on this, and they will never ever admit they fucked up. I can tell this is a case of circle-the-wagons-and-get-the-stories-straight because well-known assholes like Dave Souza, SarekOfVulcan and DGG showed up to sandbag everyone else. Even Brian Josephson is in there fighting with the "little tin gods of wiki". You should see what they did to HIM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donna_Strickland
-
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 5229
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1419 times
- Been thanked: 2174 times
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
In case you missed it: the shitshow
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... e8fe5d5c89
http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/donna-str ... wikipedia/
https://www.thisisinsider.com/wikipedia ... ze-2018-10
https://observer.com/2018/10/wikipedia- ... trickland/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... in/571909/
https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-re ... us-enough/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/hom ... 101777.cms
Even the Guardian, Jimbo's former "captive newspaper", covered it
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... dia-denied
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... e8fe5d5c89
http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/donna-str ... wikipedia/
https://www.thisisinsider.com/wikipedia ... ze-2018-10
https://observer.com/2018/10/wikipedia- ... trickland/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... in/571909/
https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-re ... us-enough/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/hom ... 101777.cms
Even the Guardian, Jimbo's former "captive newspaper", covered it
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... dia-denied
Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
You'd think a lot of things should just be recognised as important on Wikipedia.......You'd think when 8 Nobel laureates say that the bitcoin market is a bubble, that would be important enough to put into the article's lede.......
Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


Re: Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
Classic Wikipedia.
We strongly deny there is anything wrong, as we proved to you dumbasses in the media, we are equally poor at having articles on worthy men or women before they are awarded a Nobel, but we are going to do something anyway, so please blindly write about how we are doing something and not look too closely at the reasons why or whether it achieves anything, like you always do, and we never thank you for. Good day Sir!In December 2018, Women in Red is focusing on women laureates.