Talk:Kellie Gerardi

Proposal

Hey all, I have been working on a potential rework of this page. The goal here is to remove some information that is inaccurate or a violation of policy, to clarify inaccurate claims about the specific scientific projects Gerardi has worked on, and to generally improve and expand upon content overall. You can find the full rework here. Full disclosure: Kellie Gerardi has paid me to look at this page.

Changes to content that violates WP:BLP

Given policy on BLP, I have changed these immediately.

Research and science communication

• Changed current wording from ("She said she was motivated to democratize space access and monetize space travel.[2]") to ("She said she was motivated to democratize space access,[2] and believes a "tidal wave of scientific research" can come from it.[19]"). In the source, Gerardi did not say her goal is to monetize space travel, so it is a BLP violation to say she did - I included what she has said as an alternative.
• Changed ("She says she wants to use her platform to demonstrate a path toward space industry work that isn't based in traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.[8]") to ("Gerardi “[believes] in the democratization of access to space and the expansion of Earth's economicsphere”,[5] for "researchers to use space as a laboratory to benefit humanity",[26] and advocates for “the science and engineering of space exploration.[27]"). The original content is a BLP violation, as Gerardi did not say what Wikipedia says, and the cited source doesn't say it, either. I've provided additional sources that more accurately describe her views in her own words.

Changes to content that is inaccurate

Research and science communication

• Removed claim that she met Richard Garriott while working coat check; this is not in either source cited.
• Reworded section on Mars One to clarify that she was accepted as a candidate before it became bankrupt, not after.
• Clarified Project POSSUM and related section; the current wording incorrectly says the program is designed to "train citizen astronauts", but it doesn't actually teach about spaceflight; it also lasts longer than 5 days, and the price isn't exactly relevant to Gerardi.
• Changed ("On November 2, 2023, Gerardi flew the one-hour sub-orbital spaceflight operated by the space tourism company Virgin Galactic, Galactic 05, as a citizen scientist doing commercial research") to ("On November 2, 2023, Gerardi flew the sub-orbital spaceflight operated by Virgin Galactic, Galactic 05, as a payload specialist doing scientific research.[20]"). While Virgin Galactic is a space tourism company, this was a research flight committed with several experiments conducted onboard.
• Corrected the technical details of the experiments in the paragraph after; the existing explanations do not accurately describe the nature of the experiments that were conducted onboard.
• Added a new section ("In June 2024, Virgin Galactic announced Gerardi as a crew member on a second research spaceflight scheduled for as early as 2026 aboard the Company’s Delta Class spaceship. The mission is designed to enable IIAS to introduce new research while also expanding upon the results from the Galactic 05 mission.[17] Gerardi will be leading an all-female, international research space flight crew from IIAS.[23]") on a future spaceflight Gerardi will be on, sourced to reliable news outlets.
• Changed ("Gerardi is a popular TikTok influencer") to ("Gerardi is a popular science communicator"); while the source in question's title does indeed call her a TikTok influencer, the article body calls her a science influencer, another refer to her as a science communicator.

Career

• Changed ("In 2012, she joined the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a commercial spaceflight lobbyist, as a media specialist and copywriter.[3][6]") to ("In 2012, she joined the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a U.S. trade association for commercial spaceflight.[4][6]"). Gerardi says she is not a copywriter and never has been, and the source in question is inaccurate.
• Changed ("From 2014 to 2020, Girardi worked in business development at Masten Space Systems.[3]") to ("Gerardi also worked in business development at Masten Space Systems.[4]"); the timeline presented in the article is not accurate. Gerardi says she worked at Masten over a different span of time.
• Removed "as a customer support analyst"; Gerardi has never been one, and the source doesn't say she was.
• Removed the bit about Gotham; Gerardi does not work for Gotham, and she has no connection to immigration policy at any level.
• Added ("Gerardi currently serves as the Director of Human Spaceflight Operations for IIAS.[37]") her current position at IIAS.

Other changes

• Combining the Education section with the Personal Life section, including greater detail on her specific research background ("In 2016, Gerardi joined the International Institute for Astronautical Sciences and specialized in bioastronautics research and spacesuit research."
• Combining career with citizen science and science communication sections
• Split paragraph on MDRS to make it clear that was not tied to Mars One.
• Trimmed section on PopSci interview ("In 2015, she wrote an essay in Popular Mechanics..."), which oddly focused on tarantulas instead of the actual research.
• Added content about her role "Gerardi currently serves as the Director of Human Spaceflight Operations for IIAS.[17] The program conducts bioastronautics research and space-suit technology development.[18])
• Removed section on brand partnerships; most of these are directly cited to social media posts, which is insufficient to establish notability.
• Added content to the section on Luna Munda ("The book was read from the International Space Station by Axiom Mission 3 Commander Peggy Whitson,[35] and was featured in the First Lady’s Reading Nook at the 2024 White House Easter Egg Roll.[36]")

Discussion

I'm opening this to discuss these changes before any are made. The BLP violations are high-priority issues, and per Wikipedia policy ("contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion") I have removed it, but I am open to discussing any and all potential changes here. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. But that's mostly because you seem to already be an experienced editor.

In the future: please place your references in the edit request. Those numbers in the [brackets] could change at any time. ⸺(Random)staplers 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Randomstaplers! I will keep that in mind for future requests. I've gone ahead and made the proposed edits. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your understanding of WP:BLP. In this edit, which you invoked it as contentious material that must be immediately removed. Neither of these sentences qualify.

• She said she was motivated to democratize space access and monetize space travel.

The cited source says: "I was really motivated to be part of opening up access to space and democratizing access to space and expanding Earth’s economic sphere,” she says. [1]

• She says she wants to use her platform to demonstrate a path toward space industry work that isn't based in traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The cited source says: One of Gerardi's goals is to demonstrate that there's a path into the space industry, even for people like herself who don't come from traditional backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and math, she said. [2]

47.133.161.79 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I will have a more comprehensive response to all of your edits, 47.133.161.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but those two sources clearly do not say what your claim; she never said she wanted to monetize space travel, and she never said she wanted a non-STEM spaceflight path. They attribute words to Gerardi she did not say, which is why they are a WP:BLP violation. The fact you added them back is really unfortunate, and I hope you'll self-revert, or at the very least change them to actually include the full quotes from the articles - not attributed to Gerardi in her own voice. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are paraphrasing, they do not quote her directly. They are clearly in the quoted material that you can read in the post you are replying to. These are neither egregious nor BLP violations.

1. She works for multiple companies which are working to privatize and commercial space travel for both profit and so that anyone can pay some reasonable amount to go to space. The direct quote is said in many places that she wants to "expand" the "economic sphere" into space. Earth's "economic sphere" is the interconnected network of commodities, goods and services. Monetizing means to turn something into a revenue-generating commodity and is the same understanding with many fewer words. Most readers don't know what "expand Earth's economic sphere" means. It's business speak, not layperson.

2. The second quote is so close to what is in the source it's practically a WP:COPYVIO and could just be changed into a quote. 2600:1702:DB0:17C0:89B6:24FE:750E:708F (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Gerardi “[believes] in the democratization of access to space and the expansion of Earth's economicsphere”. This is one of your edits.

This is saying the same thing as point 1, except it's not useful to a reader because this is written in jargon. I'm not against using her exact quote, but we need to somehow explain to the reader what this means in an encyclopedic tone.

cc: @Randomstaplers 50.52.191.229 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Problems with edits from IP editor

Not all edits added by the IP editor are bad; some of them are quite good, including details on the length of spaceflights. However, a large number of them contain errors or WP:BLP violations, and I have compiled them below. Much of these are also plain reversions of the accepted edit request made above.

• This edit re-adds information about Gotham. She did teach organizations how to use Gotham, a data analysis software, but she has no connection to it on any policy or immigration level. That is why it was removed. The content added by 47.133.161.79 now says it is "controversial", without explaining why, or if she has any connection to said controversies (she doesn't).
• Removed reliably-sourced content from Space.com and Vogue Turkiye saying the content is mentioned later; it isn't.
• Removed reliably-sourced content claiming it "failed verification"; the source in question does in fact not say this, but she did say this in the Palm Beach Post. This likely was mixed up at some point.
• Re-added content falsely claiming Gerardi has said she wants to "monetize space travel", while removing reliably-sourced content later in the article without explanation.
• Re-added content incorrectly claiming Gerardi worked in customer service. The source says her team did work, but it never said she did, and it's misleading to claim
• Removed reliably-sourced content without explanation ("Gerardi works as the Director of Human Spaceflight Operations for IIAS.")
• Added a claim in the lead saying Gerardi "leads customer service operations"; even under the most generous reading of the Business Insider source, this is simply not true.
• Re-added incorrect technical information about the research on Gerardi's spaceflight - this information is egregiously incorrect, as I explained in the previous edit request that was accepted by Randomstaplers.
• Claimed to "remove unsourced" information, but in actuality removed content that was sourced without explanation.
• Re-added a claim that Gerardi is a lobbyist; neither source in the body backs up this claim (she is a media specialist at a group that engages in lobbying - but no source has identified her as a lobbyist).
• Removed content claiming it "needed a secondary source".

Unfortunately, I feel like the IP in question here has a very poor understanding of policy, specifically WP:BLP, which is held to a far higher standard than other types of articles. I'd strong encourage editors to look closely at these edits - most of which were already removed as part of a previous edit request. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) @47.133.161.79 To play devil's advocate:

• Although it comes from one source, Business Insider thinks Gotham "controversial":

As a technical-project manager for Palantir's philanthropic efforts, Gerardi said she helped organizations use its flagship Gotham data-analysis software, which is typically used by law enforcement and other government agencies. But Gotham has been the subject of controversy in those settings, such as when used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to screen immigrants at the border.

• Yeah, that kind of ties to controversy to this BLP too.

• "Spacesuit research" claim is dubious... I can't find it among your sources.
• Yeah, that's fair.
• Fair
• Fair
• Fair
• Fair
• This source is problematic, you should replace or eliminate it. That's probably why that claim was reverted. Why is a website on parenting talking about space?
• See above.
• The CNBC source says Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry association that lobbies. However, I don't know if a media specialist makes a "lobbyist" per-se. If the BLP hasn't visited the United States Captiol, it's only accurate to mention that that she works for the lobbyist organization.
• I don't know why the story of Luna Muna was removed...

Anyways, I gave you some leeway since I assumed your subject is a smaller BLP, but since these problems have been pointed out, it's controversial enough that these issues need to be corrected.⸺(Random)staplers 17:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 (Work). Oh I see. For the last one, mentioning more than what was said for Luna Muna is undue weight. So don't mention the plot unless there have been critics or awards.⸺(Random)staplers 18:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) I've removed the most problematic claim on "monetization", but you're going to have to do the rest yourself. Consider this a  Go ahead, but I'm warning you: never cite content farms if you want to continue editing.

⸺(Random)staplers 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That all makes sense - I can take a look at these specific issues that you've signed off on here. For the others, in order of comment:

• For Gotham - the controversy over the data analysis software is apparently when used by law enforcement and government agencies. However, from what the source says, she's using the software in philanthropic efforts. So while it's controversial in one area, I think at the very least it needs to be more clear that this area kind of isn't the same as what Gerardi is in, if that makes sense? From what I can tell, she's not involved with law enforcement or immigration herself, so it could be reworded to make that more clear.
• The Vogue source mentions it towards the end, but it's also in Turkish, so essentially impossible to directly quote here. I think cutting the claim could be the best thing here, given the circumstance.
• I don't have an issue with cutting the Ergobaby source.
• Yeah, it's tricky. Describing the company as a lobby or industry association makes sense, of course, so rewording to that would make the most sense I think. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• That makes sense.

For the claims you marked as "fair", I'll go back in and specifically change those back to prior. The rest, I'll leave in place. Once I'm done with this, I'll tag you Randomstaplers, so you can give it another glance. The IP edits definitely should not be reverted outright. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that should be the all of the validated changes. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just a nitpick: don't use curved quotes. Use straight quotes. You can go ahead and make that minor edit.
• Also, a tip for next time. Emphasize your best sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin-galactic-unity-spaceplane-launch-alan-stern-kellie-gerardi/ I don't know why you had to use sub-par sources...⸺(Random)staplers 20:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting I have gone through the article and sources and made a number of edits for neutrality and alignment to sources - it is very difficult for paid editors not to "sneak in" promotional wording, whether intentional or not, and so my own personal preference would be that the actual changes to the article be made by non-conflicted editors so these things can be picked up at the time. My own nitpicking would note that some of the comments made here by Toa Nidhiki05 are not quite fully accurate, and that they appear to have an overly sensitive interpretation of what makes a "BLP violation" and what is "egregious". Melcous (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• You removed it under the guise that she "did not work for Gotham" and was uninvolved. Gotham is software which the source said she helped organizations with. I re-added what was in the source because your grounds for removal did not hold up to scrutiny when compared to citation.
• It's already in the body of the text with better sources that are in English.
• It was not in the cited content when I checked your edit. I see it's in the source you provided here, so no reason it can't be added back in. However, her motivation about commercialization (aka monetization) should stay to balance it, too. WP:NOTPROMO
• Expanding Earth's economic sphere with privatized and commercialized space travel IS monetization. Re-word or removal is certainly open to debate, but to claim it's not properly paraphrasing the cited content is false and it's not a BLP violation at all.
• The two cited sources say the work her team does is customer support/service, in one of them she includes herself in a direct quote as doing the support work with her team for customers. [3]
• You added this exact sentence in two places. I didn't remove the one in the proper chronological/subsection.
• From the second source: Kellie Gerardi is a missions operations lead at Palantir Technologies. The two sources above describe the work on that team to be customer support/services AKA services and support for Palantir customers. This is not controversial. [4]
• Your edit proposal did not cite any sources, you only claimed it was not accurate. Some of what you claimed was "accurate information" was not in the sources that remained, while things you removed are. The way you wrote about the work done was clearly promotional about the subject. They should be factual with WP:NPOV in an encyclopedic tone that provides the reader useful information. Challenging you removing reliably sourced details about what she did without a citation and explanation as to why the three cited reliable secondary sources are wrong is completely warranted. You are a paid editor and immediately biased to provide the service your client is asking for. Randomstaplers could not have fact-checked you on this because you did not provide a source or any indication of what was wrong with the paragraph or how you intended to change it.
• Ergobaby is not a reliable source and the source itself is an interview, making it a primary source. The entire statement is WP:SYNTH and the timeline you provided was not cited.
• The content says she worked for a spaceflight lobbyist, not that she is a lobbyist. From the source: In 2012, Gerardi started working as a media specialist with the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry association that lobbies on behalf of commercial spaceflight companies. I did notice that I restored she was a copywriter for CSF, but the second source does not specify who she did copy-writing for. I've fixed that here: [5]
• These are WP:PS. See WP:NOTPROMO.

2603:6081:4300:245:B8CC:DF9F:7268:AD19 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy. But when you say a BLP said something, you have to provide a source where they said it. What you're describing as "paraphrasing" can (and is) easily seen by others (or, at least by me), as more than that. The best way to handle stuff like this is to quote exactly what the BLP says. BLP articles have a more stringent set of rules than other articles when it comes to specific claims, too - again, it's generally better to repeat what sources say rather than paraphrasing. This is why saying that Gerardi is a lobbyist, because she worked for what the source calls an "industry association that lobbies on behalf of commercial spaceflight companies", isn't actually sufficient - you need to find sources calling her a lobbyist. Frankly, this same standard applies to other articles as well, but it's particularly important on BLPs.

I don't have time to respond to all your points in detail at this very moment, so I'll do it later. But I'll note you (again) changed the technical details of what happened on the Virgin Galactic flight are not accurate. You appear to be drawing them solely from the TechCrunch source - which is by far the least reliable of the four cited. Gerardi's flight did not involve humidifiers. The Space.com source says: "A third experiment Gerardi will perform involves fluidic behaviors in microgravity environments, which has wide implications for spaceflight technologies, from spacecraft plumbing to pharmaceutical production and medical treatment procedures." The TechCrunch article was here before I started editing or proposing; given it's listed in perennial sources as not wholly reliable, I think it's pretty clear that, when a conflict exists with other, better sources, it simply should not be used.

I appreciate that you're willing to discuss things, but I think you really need to step back a bit for the moment and listen to what other editors are saying here. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm very familiar with policy and another editor agrees that your understanding of the policy is unusually extreme in this case and your COI appears to be influencing what you understand about the source material. Your reasoning for at least two of the proposed changes were "the sources say X, but Gerardi says that's not accurate". This is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Your comments about source material, existing content, and edits is also varying in their accuracy, also noted by another editor.
• The source explains she did media work for a lobbyist. That does not imply she is a lobbyist at all. Gerardi joined the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a commercial spaceflight lobbying group, as a media specialist. This reflects what it is in the source material and it's factual and neutral.
• Neither the content nor the source claim there were humidifiers onboard the flight. They both explain the purpose of the fluid dynamics test.
  • Space.com: uses for spacecraft plumbing to pharmaceutical production and medical treatment procedures
  • TechCrunch: uses for humidifiers and syringes designed for use in space

A humidifier in space would involve spacecraft plumbing. Syringes are used in pharmaceutical production and medical treatment procedures. TechCrunch is more specific. As to WP:TECHCRUNCH, Darrell Etherington is a staff science and technology writer, not a blogger or guest contributor with a COI. The concern to be aware of when evaluating TechCrunch as a source is whether or not the material is promotional or there is a WP:COI between the author and the subject matter of the article. None of that is an issue here. The sources are in agreement with each other which is why they are both cited with the content.

As another editor said, it's difficult to avoid WP:FCOI getting into the edits. It does appear to be the case here, which I'm sure is unintentional.

I also don't think I made any problematic or controversial edits, and you've not shown that to be the case. 152.117.96.157 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with it.

• Your original edits said that Gerardi was a lobbyist. It only doesn't say that now because your edit was not maintained.
• The source claims that purpose was humidifiers. The source used is TechCrunch, which is of questionable reliability. Humidifiers were not, in fact, used, nor were they relevant. I can say this both because the more reliable source does not mention them, and because I've personally talked with the subject about this - but even without the latter, there's not good sourcing on the matter. Your insistence on retaining this inaccurate bit of information is really unfortunate.

At this point you've forced a good chunk of your edits through, again, despite another editor agreeing they should be removed. I would highly encourage you to read more on our policies before making future edits. I may have a COI, but that's why I disclosed it, and why I propose edits through the appropriate and required channels. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Please stop inaccurately describing my edits. This is my original edit. And this is your change. The subject of lobbying in both edits is the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.
• You need a reliable source to show that the uses listed are inaccurate, which you have not provided.
  • You have also not shown Darrell Etherington's piece in TechCrunch, or the use of it here (it's not establishing Gerardi's or the flight's notability), to be an unreliable or not useful source per WP:TECHCRUNCH.
  • Your earlier insistence to use a WP:FORBESCON source is part of the reason this seems to be related to your WP:FCOI, and I encourage you to take a step back since no non-conflicted editors have weighed in to challenge the content or the source.
• I did not revert the "monetization" verbiage that Randomstaplers agreed should be removed. However, this same idea remains from one of your edits with the vague business and economist jargon. I only argue it should be explained if it's included so it is useful to readers. Gerardi “[believes] in the democratization of access to space and the expansion of Earth's economicsphere”. I question your WP:COMPETENCE on this subject matter aside from your FCOI to paraphrase this statement into use encyclopedic material suitable for Wikipedia.
  • "Economicsphere" is a made-up word.
  • "Earth's economic sphere" is the global network of financial and commoditized transactions. This specific phrase is privatized space business jargon for the buying, selling, and trading of resources off-Earth: [6][7] [8]
  • "Democratize" means to take action to make it possible for everyone to access something.
    • In the context of space travel, this means changing the current access limited to the government by giving corporations the incentive and ability to make space travel accessible to the public. This is by capitalizing on the resources in space and commercializing space travel.

There's a number of ways you could help the reader understand what she's saying here and how it contextualizes her journey into her role in society as a social media influencer, citizen scientist, and business person in commercial spaceflight. It doesn't have to be the word "monetize", but what's there is not encyclopedic and not useful to a reader.

Please stop questioning my understanding of policy, especially without specific examples and accurate evidence of it. You have not directed me to a single policy that I have not properly applied, while I have corrected you a number of times and directed you to specific policy you are not adhering to. Other editors here have also noted these issues with both your talk page and article edits here. 67.135.240.178 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am questioning your understanding of policy because you don't seem to understand it. I'm particularly concerned by how you don't seem to get that you cannot attribute people as having said things if they haven't actually said them. You're going through so much detail here to justify why it should count as a paraphrase, but fundamentally she didn't say what you said she did. This is the exact sort of thing WP:BLP exists for, and it's why BLP articles require particularly careful writing. Often, its okay to paraphrase - but when you go beyond that and actually start saying things the subject didn't say, that's a problem.

As for the comment you made about her quote - it doesn't matter if the word is made up ("Economicsphere" isn't normally how it's spelled - it's usually "Economic sphere") - it's what the subject says about herself, or at least what the source says. And it's much closer to being accurate than "monetize". Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Attribution of paraphrasing without direct quotes is standard on Wikipedia, and has to do with conveying the meaning of what someone said when the direct quote is not useful. You have already been told by another editor your claims that an "egregious" BLP violation is not accurate.

You're going through so much detail here to justify why it should count as a paraphrase

Again, this is not accurate. I am explaining the meaning of what she actually said to you, because you clearly lack the competence on the subject matter to determine whether any paraphrase is an accurate accounting of what she actually said. I am doing this so you do not accuse future editors of BLP violations for making this content useful in the future.

The fact that you think it "does not matter" if you add nonsense to the encyclopedia is concerning. Wikipedia is meant to provide useful information to readers so they can learn about the subject matter. Made-up words and technical jargon does not accomplish that task. 173.94.14.230 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted significant/problematic IP/new user contributions to BLP

@Melcous, @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work), did you notice that most of this articles controversial/problematic edits you changed came from IPs?

• An editor concerned about @Freespace23 being a potential COI?
• This first diff from @Librarianfacts?

Anyways, just something to put a pin in. I doubt semi-protection is warranted right now, but it may need to be in the future.⸺(Random)staplers 23:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is actually the reason Gerardi reached out to me to begin with. There were previously even more bizarre claims, like that Gerardi wanted to have her honeymoon in North Korea. I don't know why this relatively minor figure would be the focus of IP-related problems, though. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to use her wedding website as a source, but the archive of it does say the bit about North Korea. [9] 2603:6081:4300:245:B8CC:DF9F:7268:AD19 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Drmies @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) @Melcous That's not a reliable source, IP. ⸺(Random)staplers 03:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  • ...why did you feel the need to bring it up? ⸺(Random)staplers 03:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    You and @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) are calling into question if there is some kind of campaign against the subject of this article. Toa's edit here is a claim that one of the users inserted a claim about Gerardi wanting to have her honeymoon in North Korea. That is concerning, so I checked Toa's edit to find it. I found that even though it's not an appropriate source (or reliable, which is why I removed other content sourced to it), it did accurately describe content it was sourced to (though it has since been removed). This is an entirely different issue of poorly sourced content versus synthesized content. 2603:6080:8601:6332:1DB3:2700:4FAF:A05F (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is where it seems to get weird. @Toa Nidhiki05: what on earth is controversial or problematic about the difff you have linked above from Librarianfacts? They simply added which educational institutions she attended. Most of the content I changed does not appear as you have said to have been added by IP editors, but rather seems to have come from you as a paid editor including promotional wording like "social media star", doing "complex and varied" work, people saying her views were "something to be celebrated" or content you added that did not accurately reflect the sources cited. You have also said above that the mention of North Korea was "bizarre", but while the source is not reliable, it does appear to have come directly from her. I don't really understand what is going on here. Any insights @Drmies:?Melcous (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit to add: My apologies, the diff from Librarianfacts was added by Randomstaplers. Can you please explain what you were trying to point out by including that? Melcous (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous I did a Wikiblame on your edits, and all your edits came from IPs. And just now, I noticed the entirety of June this year is all IP edits. It's all very bizarre.⸺(Random)staplers 03:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of that was me, trying to meet the paid editor in the middle, since they were claiming the paraphrasing of the article phrasings (as you listed above) were inaccurate because they weren't precisely what the sources said. 2603:6080:8601:6332:1DB3:2700:4FAF:A05F (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Randomstaplers please fight the urge to pull me into a content dispute. Also, I don't see what's bizarre about edits in June having been made by IPs. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)