The "Jess Wade Problem" Problem

[Vigilant]

I also find it very funny that Crow got his panties in a twist while I was excavating the seemingly bottomless hole that is Laura Hale's corruption, claiming that I was stalking the poor thing, but goes so hard after a woman editor who seems to write pretty decent articles.

Did she turn you down for a date or something?

Oh well, now that the Swivel Eyed Loon has come out as a wannabe drag queen, perhaps your love life will pick up.

[Barnaby Flintlock]

It is perhaps not an accident that you failed to offer an excuse for why the other statement mentioned, lacks a source. Can you not find it? Even if it's in there somewhere, it can often take some time to locate it, right? That's why the policy requires an inline source, at the end of the sentence it supports. People have thought about this, and have written the policy accordingly.

Is that what the policy requires? Let's check:

Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Nope.

I didn't offer a source for the first statement because your complaint was ridiculous. You want someone to source that a well-known oncologist did their specialist training in oncology? That is literally how you become an oncologist. If you want to pick nits, at least try not to be an idiot about it.

I'm happy for now, to show that her last two articles failed to be sourced properly, and for reasons that seem to be she is hasty/lazy, and nobody noticed or cared enough to fix it. Which seems to be the pattern alleged.

You were wrong about the first one. I didn't even bother to look at the second one.

Like I said, if others think she's all good, more power to them. You go help her finish the encyclopedia if you want. I'm out.

Are you out? Really? You keep implying you're done, finished, going away, whatever, and then you keep coming back and embarrassing yourself. Don't you have important trainspotting to do?

I was talking about the promoted to full professor in 2016 claim, actually.

To cover all of them though, I'm sure you know as well as I, that any claim of expertise or award or training or education or academic post etc, is considered likely to be challenged, and your excuses for why she apparently doesn't need to put a citation that backs the content at the end of the sentences that contain the content, would not be accepted. She would have to source all those statements if she were to ever ask these pages to be assessed for policy compliance, and if she couldn't, they would be removed, since it would have to be assumed they can it be verified.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Has anyone here actually ever read a Jess Wade biography properly? Read it as if you were assessing it for Good Article status? Because I have. Not the ones mentioned above, but one that certainly seemed representative of her work.

It had multiple issues, serious issues, facts and figures not matching any source to be found anywhere in the article type issues. All of which are the sort of thing that happen when someone is simply working too fast, and apparently has an expectation that other people are following along behind her, identifying and fixing all her mistakes. They are not.

The people who have the time and ability to fix her articles, unsurprisingly choose to instead devote that time to writing their own articles, or improve articles that interest them. Maybe if there was community adoration and flattering press coverage to be had for fixing her articles, people might do it. But there isn't, so they don't.

You seem to be missing two very important facts. One, you are unlikely to find much support for your anti-Jess Wade crusade here for the simple reason that you're wrong in most of your allegations. Judged in the same way as most article creations, they are above average.

The second thing that you're missing is that some percentage of the readers here just don't care if Jess Wade's articles are any good or not. Some regulars would be pleased if the articles were not only wrong but actively misleading. I would guess that the majority of the people reading this aren't bothered by the things that send you into OCD-fuelled incel tantrums. Even if they were bothered by them, they're not going to fix them precisely because it annoys you.

[Giraffe Stapler]

To cover all of them though, I'm sure you know as well as I, that any claim of expertise or award or training or education or academic post etc, is considered likely to be challenged, and your excuses for why she apparently doesn't need to put a citation that backs the content at the end of the sentences that contain the content, would not be accepted. She would have to source all those statements if she were to ever ask these pages to be assessed for policy compliance, and if she couldn't, they would be removed, since it would have to be assumed they can it be verified.

Sorry, what policy was that, again? WP:VERIFIABILITY? The one I quoted? Where in the policy is the "end of the sentence" part? Would you mind quoting it for me, I'm kinda dumb.

[Midsize Jake]

Would you mind quoting it for me, I'm kinda dumb.

Too late, sorry...

Normally I would have shown up an hour earlier to ban Mr. Flintlock/Crowsnest, but I had to deal with a personal problem.

If this keeps up, we might have to put all new unidentifable UK accounts on moderation, which would of course suck pretty badly.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Would you mind quoting it for me, I'm kinda dumb.

Too late, sorry...

Normally I would have shown up an hour earlier to ban Mr. Flintlock/Crowsnest, but I had to deal with a personal problem.

If this keeps up, we might have to put all new unidentifable UK accounts on moderation, which would of course suck pretty badly.

No problem. He can't quote something that doesn't exist in policy. I was interested to see if he had any kind of a point at all about Jess Wade's articles. He doesn't. It's just more jealousy that he's not getting the attention and praise he knows he deserves.

[Beeblebrox]

Would you mind quoting it for me, I'm kinda dumb.

Too late, sorry...

Normally I would have shown up an hour earlier to ban Mr. Flintlock/Crowsnest, but I had to deal with a personal problem.

If this keeps up, we might have to put all new unidentifable UK accounts on moderation, which would of course suck pretty badly.

You're allowed to have a life, it's fine. It's not like anyone was fooled at any point.

[Midsize Jake]

You're allowed to have a life, it's fine.

I wasn't under that impression when I took the job...

[Poetlister]

Has anyone here actually ever read a Jess Wade biography properly? Read it as if you were assessing it for Good Article status? Because I have. Not the ones mentioned above, but one that certainly seemed representative of her work.

What proportion of articles meet the criteria for Good Article status? Can we please have a thread on every single editor who has created more than say five articles that fail that standard? If not, why pick on one editor in particular?

I move that this thread should be locked.

[Beeblebrox]

because petty axe-grinding by an emotional child?

[Vigilant]

Leave it open.

It'll be the very first place any new baby crows show up.

[Anonyanonymous]

All true. The governing class of Wikipedia doesn't care. They just want to control Wikipedia for their powerful allies only. later I may make a new thread about it.

[BrillLyle]

This thread is exhausting.

I am glad the misogyny was called out.

As far as Jess Wade’s entries go, as a sock I used to follow her entries and would try to clean up and add to them - as she does make some of the same edits consistently. Her work triggers my OCD in terms of citations and sourcing. Personally I wish she would improve her citation style and be more consistent.

And she does create and edit colleagues at her uni, which I wish she would avoid.

But esp during the early days of COVID, I really appreciated a lot of people she made pages for.

So mixed bag. Her editing is triggering to me as it’s well I’m not sure sloppy is the word but not really great. But I admire a lot of the entry choices unlike Penny Richards, Wade curates living people who are often relevant.

But yes, sigh, wish they were done more precisely and better.

And that she took the time to flesh out corresponding Wikidata items.

- Erika
“Like it’s hard?!?” LOL

[Ritchie333]

As far as Jess Wade’s entries go, as a sock I used to follow her entries and would try to clean up and add to them - as she does make some of the same edits consistently. Her work triggers my OCD in terms of citations and sourcing. Personally I wish she would improve her citation style and be more consistent.

The problem is, all regular Wikipedians make errors, and subjects are sometimes too obscure for random editors to be able to spot them and fix them. It's a bit of an art to be able to find them and call people out on them without brassing them off.

[Anroth]

Since there is no mandated citation style, if you find yourself tidying up citations after another editor, that is you making work for yourself. Unless the citation is so incomprehensible as to prevent actually finding where a reference is from.... but at that point you should not be 'cleaning up' you should be exploring the various avenues to prevent them doing it.

RE citations, do what you want, dont get invested in a particular style. An OCD gnome will come along and reformat it (multiple times sometimes) afterwards.

Dont worry be happy, dooo doo doo dooo do do do do do

[Beeblebrox]

In some ways I am a creature of habit. Like, I have a friend that I was first introduced to by a nickname. I didn't even know his real name for the first three months we knew each other. Twenty-five years later, he's grown and matured, married, owns his home, and is a professional therapist. I still have to remind myself to use his "real" name in mixed company because in my mind his real name is that name he was called when he was my drinking buddy and partner in crime.

This is my way of saying that when I do content work I still do it the way I learned it like 13 years ago, using <ref>and not citeweb or whatever. If someone is so bothered by that that they feel it must be changed to citeweb and include an access date, they will go ahead and make that change. (they usually do actually)

Somewhere or other there is a super-old list of proposed WP rules from the early days, including IAR. One of the rejected rules was to always leave something for someone else to do to improve it even further. I always kind of liked that one, but obviously it isn't necessary because the project will literally never be done.

[No Ledge]

For those watching from the crow's nest here's a direct link to Wade's appearance in the opening session of Wikimania 2021: https://youtu.be/auvxKRFV9mk?t=902

For better or worse, she's become one of the public faces of the Wikimedia Foundation.

[tarantino]

Crow is back obsessing over Jess.

Click To Go
Branston Hicks
Peainthemattress

[Giraffe Stapler]

Crow is back obsessing over Jess.

Click To Go
Branston Hicks
Peainthemattress

I would say we might as well add Basher Six (T-C-L) and KJD45 (T-C-L) to that list, but the only person who cares about this is Crow. Let him keep his own list.

[Ritchie333]

I’ve never said much about Mr Mick Nack Crowsnest before, but I’m sitting here reading this while my fiancée’s cooking breakfast in the kitchen, thinking “hooo boy I’m so glad I’m not him, what a pillock.”

[Midsize Jake]

He can be a bit of a handful.

Nevertheless, I gather that his two latest points of contention are that Dr. Wade is now a "privileged editor" because she brings in so much media coverage (of the "let's falsely assure readers that WP is actually working on this gender-gap problem" variety) that she can't be blocked, or even chastised in any meaningful way; and also that despite having done the whole new-BLP-every-day thing for years now, her actual article-writing hasn't really improved much — at least not technically, or in terms of sourcing-quality.

Are either of those things true? I'd say the first thing probably is, though it's probably just as much because she seems like a nice person, and as for the second thing, after this much time maybe she should have shown a bit more improvement. Obviously I wouldn't knock her efforts to anywhere near the extent Mr. Crowsnest does, and she did at least try to get that one article deleted recently when the subject objected to it, so that was good.

I suspect some of the reason she "gets away with it" (on the odd occasions when it's actually problematic) is due to people sympathizing with her over the existence of Mr. Crowsnest himself, and the fact that she's kept at it despite being targeted by such a person.

[Ron Lybonly]

Is there a particular reason why is this Crow person so obsessed with this one editor? Or is this just a crazy person's random fixation?

Does Crow have other baggage, too, or is does he specialize in this one fixation? He seems to put a lot of time into this.

I hope he lives far away from Dr. Wade. Maybe volunteer him for the no-fly list. If he's American, put him on the take-the-crazies'-guns list.

[Hemiauchenia]

Is there a particular reason why is this Crow person so obsessed with this one editor? Or is this just a crazy person's random fixation?

Does Crow have other baggage, too, or is does he specialize in this one fixation? He seems to put a lot of time into this.

I hope he lives far away from Dr. Wade. Maybe volunteer him for the no-fly list. If he's American, put him on the take-the-crazies'-guns list.

Crow is just generally unhinged, like a lot of the sanfranbanned users. It's best for ones sanity not to try to attempt to understand the logic of his actions, because there is none.

[tarantino]

He also hates Drmies and WPO.

See Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (T-C-L)

[eppur si muove]

See Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (T-C-L)

I dug a bit and came across this lover letter to this site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... :_my_story

[Zoloft]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

[ArmasRebane]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

He was overwrought all the time, was he?

[Zoloft]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

He was overwrought all the time, was he?

Ironic.

[Vigilant]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

He was overwrought all the time, was he?

Ironic.

[Casliber]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

You're easily entertained then

[Hemiauchenia]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

You're easily entertained then

I dunno, I also have a soft spot for Crows more unhinged rants. They're entertaining in an unintentional way. Reading his posts on Sucks is sort of like seeing a freak show.

[Zoloft]

Oddly enough, I actually enjoy reading some of his stuff. It can be entertaining. I wish he'd put that creative energy into something useful. He reminds me of a wrought iron guy I used to work with.

You're easily entertained then

Give me a pencil eraser and a piece of string and I can entertain myself for hours.

[Giraffe Stapler]

A new account named Jekarran(T-C-F-L) seems to be crowing rather loudly on Commons. Odd that no one there seems to have noticed that the deletion request was started by the actions of a WMF-banned user with a long-running grudge against Wade (just like the last time).

[Hemiauchenia]

A new account named Jekarran(T-C-F-L) seems to be crowing rather loudly on Commons. Odd that no one there seems to have noticed that the deletion request was started by the actions of a WMF-banned user with a long-running grudge against Wade (just like the last time).

Another recent Crow sock on meta, Jeremiah QG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... eremiah_QG made a page complaining about Jess Wade (since deleted, but existence is verified in the users logs https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Jeremiah_QG) and a post on my meta talkpage calling me a dickhead, presumably in response to recent comments I made on this forum. Stay classy Crow.

[Midsize Jake]

This is really concerning, because if he's finally learned to stop using the names of Northern English footballers when registering new accounts, it's going to make his socks a lot harder to spot.

[Giraffe Stapler]

A new sock, unhappy with the closure of the deletion discussion, left a rant there and then a threat on the closing admin's talk page:

David Guttridge

I am going to contact this professional photographer and ask them if he ever signed a contract that granted exclusive Creator and Licensor rights to Jess Wade. Or if he let her use his camera with a tripod and timer to create it herself. Those two incredibly unusual things are the only proper legal meanings of that credit line on that blog piece. You are a Commons Administrator, you are supposed to know that. When David Guttridge tells me that neither of these things happened, as I believe he will, I am going to sue you for fraud on behalf of the Wikimedia community and for theft on behalf of Guttridge. It is unacceptable for you to falsely claim that you "reviewed" a license and found no reason to "doubt" whether an employee of the Foundation had been "competent" when there is nothing of the sort here. If you do not understand this message because you are not skilled in reading or writing in English, that is not my problem. I gave you a chance to review your actions, you blocked me. Now it gets serious.D56 Prime (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I await the outcome of these very credible lawsuits. Now it gets serious.

[Midsize Jake]

Still, you never know — this could be the lawsuit that finally takes down Wikipedia and the WMF for good, forcing all of their websites and related entities off the internet forever and ever. You just have to wait and let these things play out... Legal costs? Pshaw! It's only money. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again — and remember, it's not over until the fat lady sings! (Please excuse me for body-shaming, I'm sure she's a very nice and desirable lady!) The war isn't over until we say so! The fight must go on... Never give up! Never surrrender!

[lonza leggiera]

…[snip]…

— and remember, it's not over until the fat lady sings! (Please excuse me for body-shaming, I'm sure she's a very nice and desirable lady!)

…[snip]…

Adiposely challenged she may well have been towards the end of her career, but for anyone with a voice as divine as hers a few extra centimetres around the waistline pale into utter insignificance,



and I still can't listen to this one without weeping:

[eppur si muove]

Adiposely challenged she may well have been towards the end of her career, but for anyone with a voice as divine as hers a few extra centimetres around the waistline pale into utter insignificance,

Although I acknowledge that those are the two prime examples that led to the saying, Nilson has an edge to her voice that I don't like. Okay I far prefer her to Berit Lindholm who was the first Brünnhilde I heard live but, If I had to look for examples of a real heavyweight voice bringing things to a conclusion, there can't be many more magnificent than this.

[The Garbage Scow]

A new sock, unhappy with the closure of the deletion discussion, left a rant there and then a threat on the closing admin's talk page:

David Guttridge

I am going to contact this professional photographer and ask them if he ever signed a contract that granted exclusive Creator and Licensor rights to Jess Wade. Or if he let her use his camera with a tripod and timer to create it herself. Those two incredibly unusual things are the only proper legal meanings of that credit line on that blog piece. You are a Commons Administrator, you are supposed to know that. When David Guttridge tells me that neither of these things happened, as I believe he will, I am going to sue you for fraud on behalf of the Wikimedia community and for theft on behalf of Guttridge. It is unacceptable for you to falsely claim that you "reviewed" a license and found no reason to "doubt" whether an employee of the Foundation had been "competent" when there is nothing of the sort here. If you do not understand this message because you are not skilled in reading or writing in English, that is not my problem. I gave you a chance to review your actions, you blocked me. Now it gets serious.D56 Prime (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I await the outcome of these very credible lawsuits. Now it gets serious.

Though long-winded narcissist he may be, I admit he may have a point about the potential copyright issues. It's hard to listen among his general looney toons fixation on Jess Wade. The threatened lawsuit is pathetic on its face.

[Vigilant]

A new sock, unhappy with the closure of the deletion discussion, left a rant there and then a threat on the closing admin's talk page:

David Guttridge

I am going to contact this professional photographer and ask them if he ever signed a contract that granted exclusive Creator and Licensor rights to Jess Wade. Or if he let her use his camera with a tripod and timer to create it herself. Those two incredibly unusual things are the only proper legal meanings of that credit line on that blog piece. You are a Commons Administrator, you are supposed to know that. When David Guttridge tells me that neither of these things happened, as I believe he will, I am going to sue you for fraud on behalf of the Wikimedia community and for theft on behalf of Guttridge. It is unacceptable for you to falsely claim that you "reviewed" a license and found no reason to "doubt" whether an employee of the Foundation had been "competent" when there is nothing of the sort here. If you do not understand this message because you are not skilled in reading or writing in English, that is not my problem. I gave you a chance to review your actions, you blocked me. Now it gets serious.D56 Prime (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I await the outcome of these very credible lawsuits. Now it gets serious.

Though long-winded narcissist he may be, I admit he may have a point about the potential copyright issues. It's hard to listen among his general looney toons fixation on Jess Wade. The threatened lawsuit is pathetic on its face.

Abd and the Swivel Eyed Loon had a better case.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Though long-winded narcissist he may be, I admit he may have a point about the potential copyright issues. It's hard to listen among his general looney toons fixation on Jess Wade. The threatened lawsuit is pathetic on its face.

It isn't impossible, but it is unlikely. The photographer was almost certainly taking portraits on a "work for hire" basis so the school owns the rights. Jess Wade gives the image to the WMF blog. The blog says the image is freely licensed. Now, Jess Wade could have given them an image owned by the school and lied to the blog about it being freely licensed, but how these things usually go is that she asked someone if she could use one of the pictures of her from that photo session and release it with an open license and they said "yeah, sure, whatever". Universities tend to know about CC licenses, so they might even have known what they were agreeing to.

The problem is that Commons relies on people being honest and trustworthy, so they don't ask for proof that someone owns the rights to what they upload. If you say you took a picture, that's good enough for them.* So most images don't get this level of scrutiny. And I'm not sure how far Jess Wade's stalker is going to get trying to pin down Imperial College London on the status of that image, although I encourage him to try. I'm sure the police will add it to their file.

*Which is why Commons and Wikipedia are full of copyright violations. Go ahead and put that CC-by-SA photo in your book, but don't be surprised if you get sued and don't expect the WMF to help you out.

[The Garbage Scow]

It isn't impossible, but it is unlikely.

I agree with that. I'm thinking of the drama around Vivian Maier's photos, where some bottom-feeder attorney wanted to sue the guy who was publishing her photos, so he scoured France and managed to find a distant cousin of hers to agree to a lawsuit. Crow won't be able to sue anyone without an aggrieved party and I doubt the original photographer or his employer would want to partner with some random from the internet in a lawsuit against Jess Wade for copyright violation of a photo of herself. That would be moronic.

[Ryuichi]

but how these things usually go is that she asked someone if she could use one of the pictures of her from that photo session and release it with an open license and they said "yeah, sure, whatever".

[Midsize Jake]

That's a good point — since we deal with these issues more closely than most people, we probably think people are much more concerned about the whole concept of releasing something under an open license than they actually are, since most people aren't concerned about it at all.

I mean, this is a photo of Jess Wade looking silly; it's not a photo of Princess Di's last breath or Taylor Swift punching a small child. I'm not saying Dr. Wade is a total non-entity or anything like that, but let's face it, nobody's ever going to make any money off of this photo, probably ever, no matter how nailed-down the copyright is. It's really more of a "gracious gesture" that the photo was arranged and/or taken in the first place, if we're being honest here.