Talk:Jess Wade/Archive 1

Archive 1

COI

On 2 Oct 2017‎, User:Jesswade88 created a Wikipedia BLP for Ben Britton, her colleague at Imperial College London. On 22 Feb 2018,‎ User:BenBritton in turn created this BLP of Wade; he has since added 91% of its text and made 36.1% of its edits. Jesswade88 has acknowledged knowing Ben Britton personally. The possibility of quid pro quo implicates WP:SELFPROMOTE, which states, "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." KalHolmann (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I know Dr Jess Wade. We both work for the same institution, Imperial College London (which employs 8,000 staff) and this fact is in the public domain. To date, we have not authored any scientific work together.

My edits have been in good faith, and independent of the call of "tit-for-tat". Edits have been timely in recognition of Dr Wade's achievments, awards, and media profile (which have been added to addressed the notability query raised prior). I remain an interest in this article, beyond its original creation, as I am concerned that there is a bias against recognising female researchers on Wikipedia. I note that @wikimediauk are in favour of Dr Wade's work to improve the quality of Wikipedia and I wish to support Dr Wade in recognition of that enterprise. https://twitter.com/wikimediauk/status/1017807900746625025?s=19 BenBritton (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks User:KalHolmann for raising this. The pages are not used to promote either me or User:BenBritton, merely describe our research areas or awards/ fellowships. I barely knew Ben in October when I created the page and it does not read as publicity. If you find anything which even remotely comes across as self-promotion, please remove it immediately. I would not want to seem impartial. I have worked hard this past year to ensure all my pages meet the WP criteria for notability. Jesswade88 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth

Jessica Wade seems to have been born in 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.151.196 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You will need a reference for that. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Attacks and defence

The attacks here reflect very poorly on the Wikipedia community. Luckily Jess has has dozens of notes of support which although not reported here do show that the majority of Wikipedia editors are highly supportive of the work that Jess has done and as you can see from the article many people believe that her work deserves recognition. This is reflected in this Wikipedia page which IMO does not in any way try to big up what are already impressive achievements. The wiki community appear to agree with this view or they would have corrected the well referenced article. As you can see from the Guardian story today - other 3rd party reliable sources agree with this viewpoint. Victuallers (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Criticism seems unfounded. This gives very bad press for Wikipedia that already seems to have a problem of not enough women being engaged and not enough women written about. Fully support Jess Wade. --LRO 09:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrohrstrom (talk • contribs)

Concur with this. The repeated complaints about Dr Wade's notability despite coverage of her work and advocacy for women in STEM from several national and international media outlets does the Wikipedia community no credit. Indeed, several of the ad hominem comments appear deeply unfortunate given Dr Wade has made and is making such an important contribution to the recognition of women scientists on Wikipedia. Some users calling for deletion appear not to have considered the poor optics of their attack - which risks discouraging Wikipedians from contributing pages for other notable yet unrepresented figures. SimonWyatt (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of these issues have arisen from newly created accounts, the user that PROD'd and opened a deletion discussion had just three edits to their name before flagging up their notability concerns on this page, that is an insufficient amount of time to understand wikipedia policy on WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DELETION. I feel it rather reflects well on wikipedia that our policies and processes work and the AfD was speedily closed. I would note, however, that our policy on Conflicts of Interests applies here, as it does on any other biography of living persons and as such any editor associated with the subject of the article should refrain from editing it. Cheers. Polyamorph (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability Query

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With respect to Criteria 2 and Criteria 7 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Dr Wade has won several awards from national academies for her work on public engagement and STEM, with a notable impact on society. This includes the Institute of Physics which is the licensed institute with awarding powers for Chartered Engineering and Chartered Scientist Status, and represents physicists on a national and international stage. This includes the IOP Bell-Burnell Award for Women in Physics 2016, IOP Early Career Physics Communicator Prize 2015. This includes award of the Robert Perrin Award for Material Science from the Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining. Specifically on criteria 7, Wade was recognized for her achievements by the US state department as the UK representative for the 2017 "Hidden No More" visit, which included representatives from 48 countries world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBritton (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a bit concerning that she created your Wikipedia page and you created hers, and you both work together in the same academic institution? Nobody doubts that you will both one day be "notable" academics, but you are using Wikipedia to self-promote, and also promoting other figures in the London tech / AI / physics scene who are simply trying to make money out of a fad. Please remember your responsibility to the reader. 79.78.157.140 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Another editor joining the talk here. It is indeed quite concerning that Dr Wade, and many others, practically spam Wikipedia with information solely intended for marketing and boost of self-importance. I am also quite in favor of the removal and exclusion of such personas from the world of Wikipedia. Such pages are quite frankly destroying the reputation of this otherwise brilliant project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.131.107 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi User talk:77.85.131.107. Please inform me how any of the pages that I have created are remotely like marketing? Have any of these scientists, engineers or journalists ever tried to sell you anything? It is hard to see your contributions to the "otherwise brilliant project" when you are just commenting on my Talk page from an IP address, but I am impressed to think that with my relatively minimal contribution to Wikipedia I could be destroying any reputation. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Due to her activities in public engagement for the sciences and the several high grade awards that Dr Wade has received for that work there is no doubt that she fits the notability requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. The accusation that Dr Wade "spams Wikipedia with information solely intended for marketing and boost of self importance" lacks any form of evidence whatsoever and is as it stands simply an unfounded insult and fairly obviously intended as such. I ask myself what the motivation of the "anonymous" commentator is and can only speculate that their unfounded and malicious comment is motivated either by jealousy or even worse misogyny.Thony C. (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that the two anonymous accounts 79.78.157.140 and 77.85.131.107 were created solely with the purpose of attacking Dr Wade and one other female academic and I have to ask what the motivation of these commentators is and whether their destructive and malicious behaviour really is in the interest of Wikipedia? Thony C. (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am an avid Wiki reader (not a writer). In my humble opinion, this page does not meet the notability guidelines. Please consider taking the appropriate steps to correct this. There are many academics, politicians and businesspeople who do not have their own wikipedia page but who arguably have more notability or are more well-known (especially from developing countries). Thank you to all writers who positively contribute to the Wiki project.

Re: User:BenBritton, I really don't think academics without the title of distinguished professor at a major research university should be given a Wikipedia page without substantial scrutiny. The awards Dr Wade was given are minor early career awards that fail to make the case that she is a notable academic:

1. The Julia Higgins Medal has only been awarded since 2013 and appears to be a minor award that most individuals within science would not recognize.

2. The Jocelyn Bell Burnell Medal and Prize is only 1000 GBP and appears to be another minor award that most individuals within science would not recognize.

I +1 the motion to delete this page due to lack of notability. --Local labrat (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Labrat - the notability issues raised as "page issues" have been removed by another user. To provide further context, I am not sure if you have seen the recent article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/girls-female-scientists-jess-wade-wikipedia-stem-role-models) or the news article https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jul/24/academic-writes-270-wikipedia-pages-year-female-scientists-noticed), the fact that Dr Wade has been reported on in foreign media (https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/07/05/ciencia/1530788593_072320.html). Perhaps you also missed that Dr Wade was recently on BBC world news (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2088022108131787&id=100007720536919) or that Dr Wade was mentioned as an "Honorable mention" as a wikimedian of the year by Jimmy Wales (the founder of Wikipedia) - see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_of_the_Year). You also ignore the fact that Dr Wade has 11.7k followers on twitter (26/07/2018) which makes her notable outside of the pure physics community [I include this as an indicative metric which supplements the numerous other awards that have been discussed above]. Finally, your comment on assessment of "Professor status" for Wikipedia is a personal and subjective criticism and is not within the Wikipedia notability criteria. In light of these comments, and the numerous other comments on this talk page I have removed the deletion note from the page. BenBritton (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Being an academic in the UK can be a multi-faceted career in the 21st century. Scientists are increasingly expected to perform activities in addition to their research. Teaching, books, and, more and more, engaging with the public. Dr Wade is very notable and increasingly influential in that aspect of her career.

Criteria #7 at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) states: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I strongly suggest that Dr Wade is having a substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity. The links in comments above provide evidence as does the current discussion about the appropriateness of including eligible female scientists on Wikipedia. Shanemcc (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I also wish to agree that Dr Wade is having a substantial impact outside academia in her current capacity, in line with Criteria #7. I am an early career researcher in Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and am very active on Twitter, and I see the impact Dr Wade has there engaging with people outside of her immediate academic environment, encouraging further exploration of the work of prominent female scientists and engineers via this very site. I also strongly disagree that any of Dr Wade's work is driven by self-interest - in fact on the contrary the time she spends to contribute valuable and notable information to this site is volunteered. If Dr Wade was selfishly driven then she would spend more time on her own research and not be contributing so generously on Wikipedia. M.t.dunstan (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add my support to the existence of this page. I believe the argument raised by BenBritton above regarding international coverage of Dr Wade's public outreach activities clearly shows that this individual meets the general notability criteria, his COI notwithstanding. (Regarding my own potential COI: I do not know Dr Wade, have never worked with her, and to my knowledge have never spoken to her). If Dr Wade's project of creating Wikipedia pages for notable female scientists has a bias towards London-based figures as claimed by an editor above, this bias should be rectified, not simply deleted. And the claim that this is intended as self-promotion or a money-making scheme is unsubstantiated ad hominem which fails to assume good faith. In short: I believe Dr Wade clear meets the notability criteria and the arguments raised above by critics are not compelling. Andrewbissette (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this page should stay. Obviously there are many people out there that may fit the general notability criteria to an even higher degree, but that is not the issue. The criteria are met, full stop, and then the article stays.LRO 10:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrohrstrom (talk • contribs)

I am entirely convinced that Jess Wade more than amply satisfies the notability criteria. Her contributions to both conventional media and social media have attracted wide attention and have a lasting significant impact outside academia. The wider public attention she is bringing to science and some of the hugely important issues running through it and wider society is tremendously impactful. Making progress with such issues is fundamental to the continuing vitality of the STEM community. The free and open sharing of accurate information is at the heart of what the Wikipedia project is about. I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would put their effort into regressive attempts to suppress such information. AngusW99 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing

(Redacted)

In complaining about this issue KalHolmann you have drawn more attention to and repeated the so-called "outing". It would also have been better to discuss this at Jesswade88s talk page, rather than this article page. I will request WP:RevDel on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Polyamorph, thank you for redacting this section. Regretfully, I confused Talk:Jess Wade with User talk:Jesswade88, where my comment ought to have been directed. I concur with your request to WP:RevDel. KalHolmann (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent AFD

Once again we have an anonymous account that was set up purely to attack Dr Wade, which I find a disturbing development. Also Local Labrat's definition of notability for academics on Wikipedia would exclude quite a lot of very famous people in the history of science, Darwin for example!Thony C. (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case, the user made a couple of edits a few weeks prior to making the deletion request. We should assume good faith, the user withdrew the deletion request and accepted they were wrong after some more experienced editors stepped in. Purely for their academic activities this person would not meet our notability guidelines, and that is why the user nominated the page for deletion. However, notability in this case arises from their other outreach activities and significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could the article creator BenBritton declare here whether or not they know Jess Wade personally and, therefore, if they have a conflict of interest? I very much appreciate their contributions here but feel it would be in the best interests of wikipedia if there is a COI that it is declared and where possible if they could then refrain from further editing this page. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, there is a COI, I do know JessWade. This Wiki page was originally created in good faith, and before I knew her personally as a friend (we were acquaintances at Imperial). The merit in this creation has been evidenced in the substantive edits by 3rd parties. I shall declare new suggested changes on the talk page as per conflict of interest. I have never been employed in the same division as each other at the College (and I have, nor does she, have any line management responsibilities. I did declare this in a prior edit to this talk page, but I think that has been included in the redaction. BenBritton (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birthday Honour

Dr Wade has been awarded a Medal in the Birthday Honours - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/birthday-honours-lists-2019 - due to my noted conflict of interest I cannot add this news, so would someone be so kind, as I believe this is notable news.

The head of the section of the awards document is: Order of the British Empire Medallist of the Order of the British Empire BenBritton (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This has been done (not by me), and congratulations to Dr Wade! If there is any other news you'd like to bring to my attention pop it on my talk page.PeterGrecian (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

phelps blp back n forths among ed's &/or admins

Rama's arb evidence pg has a post w this timeline:

1. 31 August: Page created by Jesswade88.
2. 11 February: Deleted by TonyBallioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
3. 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
4. 4 April: Deleted again by TonyBallioni per CSD G4 and salted following second deletion discussion.
5. 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by Hodgdon's secret garden.
6. 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin DGG.(*)
7. 27 April: Amakuru deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as {{db-repost}} by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
8. 29 April: Rama undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
9. 29 April: Fram moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.
   ____
   (*)Here is the professed compromise draft 27 April 2019 at the way back machine (it had toned down certain claims to scientific notability & referenced various recognitions of subject's science outreaches)
   (**)This capture 28 April includes admin action log entry 27 April 2019 Amakuru deleted page Clarice E. Phelps.

   commentary: ".. one of the most senior admins (not just an admin but checkuser and oversighter, and until last year on Arbcom), approved it, aren't we having a wheel war? .."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

".. 'wheel war': a fight in which two or more admins repeatedly undo each other's actions .." --- buzzfeed[1]

"Wheel war   A dispute between Wikipedia administrators who use the priveleges of Wikipedia administrators ... as weapons in an edit war." --- Dariusz Jemielniak, p.222 of Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples. (Although perhaps(?) we're resorting to a layman's if-it-looks-like-a-duck,-swims-like-a-duck,-and-quacks-like-a-duck,-it's-likely-a-duck -type understanding. Yet, perhaps, per more technical/wikilawyerly definitions: (1) Owing to fact any wikicontributor with a WP acct can move wp:drafts into wikimainspace without special "tools", when this same was done by user:DGG, a draft reviewer-happening-to-be-an-admin, its being undone by user:Amakuru, although he's another admin, therefore wasn't technically wheel warring. (2) By the same logic, inasmuch as the namespace's salting was done according to an RfD close but simply at an admin's discretion, user:Rama's admin-tool'd Restore (per wp:IAR) ALSO wasn't wheel warring but, rather, simply his wp:Bold-ly done article creation accompanied by a removal of a unilateral salting, if done slightly less-than-courteously. <shrugs>) In any case - Text of 31 Jan 2020 deletion review (resulting "restore from draft") is here--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Article image(s)

@Schmarrnintelligenz and Jesswade88: Honestly, I prefer the 2017 image for the lead section/infobox. Now, both images are quite good: both are high resolution, display the subject full face, in focus, happy, all of that, so if people feel strongly in favor of the 2019 one, I won't object strongly, but the 2017 image, is, well, more fun.

• 
  2017 image
• 
  2019 image

On a related matter - I don't think the Gallery of images adds that much. These, in contrast, are not great images, you can barely see the subject, and they don't really convey much information, basically - "she gives talks" - which, really is conveyed by the large quantity of text on the page that says how she is a science communicator. I'd be OK with one or two of these images illustrating one or two of the sections about her being a science or Wikipedia communicator, but I don't think having a dedicated Gallery section for them is very useful.

Also pinging Dr. W in person, since though her views shouldn't determine the content of the article, especially on a cosmetic matter like this they should be strongly considered. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Schmarrnintelligenz - I hate this new photo. It's horrible and makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Jesswade88 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

[2] 2017 image restored by User:Zeromonk. Any opinions about the gallery? --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment that I also think the 2017 image is better. -sche (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Author(s) of reference Nature's 10

In the references, all 10 authors of "Ten people who mattered this year" (Nature's 10, ref name="n10"), doi=10.1038/d41586-018-07683-5, are named. The Nature's 10 text is composed of ten texts by ten authors. The part about Jess Wade was authored by Nisha Gaind, not by the others. Should we name Nisha Gaind alone, omitting those nine who did not contribute to the section about Jess Wade? --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Year of Birth

Hi everyone, I noticed that the year of birth said both 1988/1989. I have not seen this other than in cases when a person's date of birth is either disputed or unknown. I am wondering if the correct year could be determined and put on? If there is another reason of any sort why it isn't no worries from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyj600 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

updated with cite GooglerW (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)