Talk:Jess Wade

Guardian profile of Jess Wade

Just flagging for regular editors of this page that today, 1 Oct 2023, the Guardian published an article about Jess Wade and her work here on Wikipedia - ‘Why are they not on Wikipedia?’: Dr Jess Wade’s mission for recognition for unsung scientists. I don't have time at the moment to see if there are edits to her page that should be made, but I wanted to leave this here in case other editors have time to look at it. - Dyork (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Image redux

2017

2017 Chicago

@Jesswade88, Beccaynr, Schmarrnintelligenz, Zeromonk, and -sche:: Also pinging everyone who participated in Talk:Jess_Wade/Archive_1#Article_image(s). Beccaynr has proposed another image candidate, the Chicago image, left, presumably because a respected scientist should not be seen to have a sense of humor (former image, 2017, right). I don't like the proposed image because it's badly backlit so the face can't be seen, even the 2019 image in the previous discussion (q.v.) was better. Odds are good, of course, that our expressed opinions will be for naught, as I expect JW will show up and give her opinion which we'll just respect; but on the slight chance she doesn't:? --GRuban (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed the image to one that jesswade88 uploaded to Commons, and cited WP:BLPIMAGE; I can say more about my reasoning, but wanted to at least first avoid presumptions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As an initial matter, I added no/missing permission templates to the former image (both original and cropped), because permission from the image creator appears to be missing and the image may be protected by copyright, based on the "All photographs © The Photographic Unit Ltd 2023" statement on the image creator's website.

If permission is provided, I think it seems helpful to compare how Wade is typically portrayed, e.g. the recent Guardian article; Imperial College London faculty website listed in the infobox; Nature's 10 award, listed in infobox; an image posted with a 2019 Independent School Parent/Telegraph interview; other sources use stock imagery of female scientists, e.g. This physicist has written over 500 biographies of women scientists on Wikipedia; overall, available representations seem to indicate the prior image is not representative of how Wade is typically represented in the media, at her workplace, or by awarding institutions. I think according to WP:BLPIMAGE, it is appropriate for us to assess at the outset whether an image used in an infobox is an accurate representation of the subject, based on available sources. If it is, then I think this particular image may raise additional concerns in this particular context, but I think the accuracy issue would be worthwhile to address first. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The source for the 2017 image is the Wikimedia blog, where it is marked CC BY-SA 4.0, via Jess Wade herself. The blog is written by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It is a reliable source for such things. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I noted the pending requests for permission documentation from the image creator listed at Commons as a courtesy notice in this discussion, but it isn't intended to be part of the discussion here - the apparent lack of permission provided to Commons from the image creator listed at Commons was something I noticed when examining the various available images and their origins. Beccaynr (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Let us let Commons admins decide. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Chicago image is clearly inferior due to backlighting distorting facial features. It's unclear to me what aspect of WP:BLPIMAGE is relevant here so @Beccaynr: if you can elaborate on that, that would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In my source-based comment, I attempted to demonstrate that as an initial matter the image you reverted over a BLP policy objection appears to present the subject in a false light, which is one aspect of WP:BLPIMAGE. Wade does not appear to routinely be presented by RS in a way that some readers might find comical, so it seems accurate to instead portray her in the infobox with an image that reflects the weight of the available sources, e.g. portraying her as a scientist, employee of a university, award winner, etc. I am trying to address this issue first - is it accurate to use a comical representation of a subject who is otherwise widely-portrayed as a serious scientist in reliable sources? From my view, the weight of available reliable sources indicate the comical image is not appropriate per WP:BLPIMAGE. Beccaynr (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Aha - so my theory was correct! Anyway, she provided the 2017 photo, so at least at the time, she was happy with it. The Chicago photo doesn't portray her as a scientist, employee of a university, award winner, etc. either, and is objectively a poorer quality depiction. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what your theory is - I added the photo that Jesswade88 uploaded - the 2017 Chicago photo, which can be verified by clicking through; similarly, it can be verified that Jesswade88 did not upload any version of the 'comical' photo to Commons, that I removed based on WP:BLPIMAGE and have attempted to support here with further explanation and a review of sources of how she is otherwise widely-portrayed. The 2017 Chicago image is her photo, and is a portrayal similar to how she appears in other reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The BLP objection is frivolous. BLPIMAGE talks about mugshots and portraying subjects in false or disparaging light, which is not an issue here with either option. The subject weighed in on a discussion that included this exact image and expressed dislike for another image but not this one. I'd be interested to see any possible alternatives that improve the image quality once they are available. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of an orderly discussion, I have tried to bifurcate issues, to first discuss whether it is accurate to depict Wade in the infobox with an image some readers may perceive as comical, based on how she is widely-portrayed in reliable sources. Another issue is whether the infobox placement of the image is a disparaging way to portray a scientist known for her efforts to reduce gender bias on Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have also asked image guru Adam Cuerden if they have an opinion about improving the 2017 Chicago image. Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest; modern photos are very different beasts to old photos in terms of what you're trying to do. If WP:Graphics lab wants this, they'd probably be more experienced with this kind of change. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 19:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the other image looks likely to be deleted if something isn't done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 19:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Saved, with Beccaynr's thanks even! I'm glad we can be collegial even when we differ. --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I had noticed what seemed like a routine issue that could be fixed, so I tagged it; and of course I am thankful to get guidance on Commons SOPs and process; I am not particularly active over there, but my tagging is fairly routine. And GRuban, I think you and I have a great history of collegiality despite differences in opinion, but I no longer feel comfortable participating in this discussion based on feedback I've recieved on my user talk page. However, I think I have said about as much as I can, although I think it is WP:NPOV policy that is always in the back of my mind when I am considering additions based on the weight of sources. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

APS 2019 - 1 (cropped)

Here is an alternative. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone recognizes the perversity of a "BLP concern" resulting in an image that the subject has stated makes them "incredibly uncomfortable" being re-proposed? VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of her feelings about this photo. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I so assumed. To be clear it was an indictment of the situation, not any editor. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The 2017 Chicago image uploaded by Wade is available as an option and potentially capable of improvement. Hopefully everyone recognizes the perversity of a 'partially-shadowed face concern' in the 2017 Chicago image resulting in an image that the subject has stated they "hate" being re-proposed? Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"The subject's face is obscured" is a really good reason to not use an image as the lead image in a biography. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup, but I'm not seeing any compelling policy-based reason being advanced that would favor using either of the proposed replacements in place of the professionally taken 2017 photo that's currently in the infobox. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

List of journals and co-authors

Is it really necessary to include a list of every journals she's published in ? These are quite standard journals in the field, and this list takes a considerable amount of space without bringing value. The same goes for the list of her co-authors; without context, this adds nothing. 195.176.113.213 (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)