Talk:Gab (social network)

The "Platform" and it's "Commentary"

"Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content,[23] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary.[12][24]" I just think this is an incredibly bad sentence. I assume this means that some "official Gab spokesperson(s)" has made comments that someone has deemed "antisemitic". If that's the point the Article intends to convey, then it should detail who said it, who they said it to, and who deemed it "antisemitic", because the skeptical Reader can reasonably conclude just about anything from this statement; which means it's meaningless.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

See the third paragraph of Gab (social network)#Antisemitism and violence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the deleted tweets Article, neither of which seem to be particularly "Antisemitic" to me. One news Article from CNN about two deleted tweets, both of which could only be considered objectionable by someone with a vested political interest in finding something antisemitic about a platform that allows antisemitism.Tym Whittier (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think the tweets are antisemitic, that's your prerogative, but that's not relevant to whether this article describes them as such. What is relevant is how they're characterized in third party, reliable sources, such as the CNN article "Social network Gab, a home for anti-Semitic speech, produced some of its own". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think CNN is credible, particularly on this topic, and particularly given that this is opinion and not fact. Can YOU make the argument how those two tweets are antisemitic?Tym Whittier (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSN is thataway. Have fun convincing them that CNN isn't credible; your opinion about that here doesn't mean shit.--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my point; that lack of credibility was multifaceted and conditional: As it applies to THIS article, it's the ONLY RS for the assertion (that "Gab itself" is antisemitic), that it was opinion (vs. fact). Also waiting for someone to explain how the two deleted Tweets could legitimately, reasonably be considered antisemitic, other than because some Authoritarian Leftists said so. I've seen the credibility of otherwise reliable RS diminished in other Articles for various reasons, and usually the solution is to find more than one RS saying the same thing. So I dispute your assertion that once a source has been annointed as "credible" they are given carte blanche to say whatever they want about any topic that they want and no one is allowed to question or challenge them. There's a difference between saying "Gab has X content." and "Gab is owned & operated by X.", and I think it takes more than one source about two old and deleted tweets to say that. Journalism is a highly competitive environment and Gab has been around for several years. If there was anything to this, someone would have published a detailed and extensive work making this point, and AFAIK they have not. I think the reason for this is because there's nothing there to publish.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Jorm, if you disagree that CNN is credible (either on this point or in general), take it to WP:RSN. CNN is widely used as an acceptable source, so we're not going to discount that report just because you happen to disagree with its description of Gab's tweets as antisemitic. People are absolutely allowed to question or challenge their conclusions—we often use conflicting sources in Wikipedia articles to cover multiple viewpoints. But so far as I can tell, the only person making the argument that the tweets are something other than antisemitic is you, and you are not a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"...the only person making the argument that the tweets are something other than antisemitic is you, and you are not a reliable source..." This issue isn't about whether or not the tweets were antisemitic, the issue is whether or not those two tweets condemn the entire platform. Between you ignoring my points and Jorm deleting my arguments, this is getting increasingly difficult. I can't help but wonder if there isn't something else going on, besides simply building a better encyclopedia and implementing Wikipedia Policy.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is not condemning the platform. If you don't disagree that the tweets are antisemitic, then "the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary" should be uncontroversial. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Do YOU think those two tweets were antisemitic? If so, can you explain them? Or does your "explanation" boil down to "because CNN said so"?Tym Whittier (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I do, but my opinion on whether the tweets are antisemitic is no more important to what this article says than yours is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you done the research and actually seen the tweets? I've asked several times for someone, anyone to enunciate a line of reasoning that starts with those tweets and ends with antisemitism, and have found no one capable of doing this. I also disagree with your assertion that opinions independent of the RS are irrelevant. RS makes mistakes all the time, and I find it very odd that you would say such a thing. If CNN said 2 + 2 = 5, would you be arguing in favor of condemning a math book that disagrees with that conclusion as inaccurate? I sense great reluctance to offer an explanation as to why & how those two tweets could reasonably be considered "antisemitic", possibly because the analysis for that conclusion would rely more on ideology and dogma than on common sense. I apologise for bringing things to this point (a direct, open, and probably lengthy discussion about the actual tweets), but most of my points have been ignored, plus the additional interference of having some my arguments deleted for stated reasons that seem to have nothing to do with anything pertaining to this Article, and this feels like there's more going on here than "building a better encyclopedia", "building consensus", and implementing Wikipedia Policy.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to discuss the tweets. Doing so would be original research. This line of argument isn't going to work. Stop wasting people's time. --Jorm (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You say "work" like I have an agenda and a goal in mind. I don't care what the Article actually says. As a New Editor, I want to know that a true consensus has been achieved on this Article, in accordance with Wikipedia Policy, and not blind adherence to ideological orthodoxy. As a New Editor, I want to know that the time & effort I'm putting into trying to learn Wikipedia Policy is meaningful, and that they mean more than a pretext. So let's "flip" this, then. Let's assume that Gab in fact IS "antisemitic". Not "contains antisemitic content", but through-and-through, to it's marrow, systemically, intrinsically, patently, hard-wired antisemitic. This fact shouldn't be buried in the middle of a lower paragraph as an afterthought; it should be added to the list of adjectives in the first sentence of the Lede (or thereabouts). If "Gab itself" is antisemitic, then let's modify the Lede to say "Gab is an antisemitic English-language social media website, known for its mainly far-right user base." If it's a fundamental quality of the website/media platform; why wouldn't that fundamental quality be listed in the Lede? I think the reason that it's not is because the source is weak, and putting that assertion in the Lede would be too obvious; it would get challenged and the whole assertion by CNN would get deconstructed and debunked in the Discussion Page. FYI, today the Lede says "and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary." and not "is itself antisemitic" (or words to that effect).Tym Whittier (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have read the tweets. I'm not going into detail on whether or why I think the tweets are antisemitic because, as I have said before, my opinion of them has no bearing on what this article says. Your CNN 2+2=5 analogy is flawed—there are endless sources saying that 2+2=4, and so ignoring thousands of sources to use one contradictory source to say that 2+2=5 would make no sense (not to mention there would likely be plenty of coverage in response to a reliable source such as CNN publishing a foolish claim such as that). However, in this case, the source is not going up against thousands of other reliable sources characterizing the tweets differently.

Your hypothetical argument about including antisemitism in the lead is also based on your own personal opinion of what should be highlighted, and not based on how Gab is widely represented in sources. It is the proportion of coverage in reliable sources that determines what goes in the lead, not individual editors' opinions of what is a "fundamental quality" or not (more guidance available in WP:LEAD). You are drawing conclusions about this article and the motivations of its editors based on a flawed idea of how Wikipedia articles are meant to be written. Gab is very often discussed as being far-right, and as being a place for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, which is why those are the descriptors used in the lead. Gab making anti-semitic tweets is relevant to the article, but the tweets are only mentioned in two outside sources (that I've seen) compared to many more that describe the site as far-right/etc, which is why the characterization is relegated to a brief mention further down the page rather than the first sentence of the article.

We have at this point been going back and forth on this for several days, and I don't think either of us has successfully convinced the other. Demanding I present my own opinions on the tweets is going to be fruitless, if that's how you're planning to continue this conversation. If you'd like to request more opinions on this please feel free to do so, but I'm not willing to engage with you endlessly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, then. If you want to "hang your hat" on a single source (CNN) that says that two old & deleted tweets condemn the entire platform then let's bring the source into the Article, and have it say something like "...according to CNN, Gab is anti-semitic due to two old and deleted tweets..." and then let the Wikipedia Reader themself decide how credible they think CNN is, and how condemnatory those tweets were. I'm not interested in "changing your mind", I'm illustrating 1) The weakness of your position and 2) Your inflexibility and unwillingness to collaborate.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking to Gab's #herorobertbowers Hashtag in the Article

I'm not proposing this actually be done, as I'm aware that it could seriously "stir the pot", but while reading the Discussion Page and then the Article I noticed there was great "to do" about this hashtag and all the terrible things it said. My first inclination was to copy & paste the hashtag into the browser and go take a look myself, and then my 2nd thought was, "Well, wouldn't it be convenient if there were already a link to do that in the Article?". So rather than making such a link, I decided instead to post the question "Is there anything in Wikipedia Policy that prevents someone from making such a link?" This question has several levels. First, is there a problem with the idea in general (directly linking to off-Wikipedia sites in an Article), and second, is there a problem specifically with THIS Article? Does Wikipedia have a special category for "bad", "forbidden", "taboo", "hate" sites, where links to those sites are prohibited. On the chance the answer is, "Yes you can, but not in this Article.", I'm posting the question here (since it's Article-related. If the answer is "No, never, not on any Article.", then please delete the question and I'll ask it in the Tea House (or wherever).Tym Whittier (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I will personally remove all links to gab from this article. It is not acceptable to link to antisemitic sites on Wikipedia.--Jorm (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just because a site's userbase contains some horrible fringe stuff doesn't justify painting the whole site as such. Doing so is blatantly POV-pushing. Don't remove the links - I'm pretty sure someone who does will already know the risk from reading the article and will try to avoid such content. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• We will not be linking to an anti-Semitic site. That is it, cut and dried. --Jorm (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The anti-semitic nature of Gab is in dispute. You seem to have a very firm opinion on this, for someone that seems incapable of defending it.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be quite unusual to include such a link in the article text, per the external links policy. Not because Gab is "bad" or "forbidden" or what have you, but simply because we don't generally link out to external sites in that way. Take a look at some of our articles that are entirely about hashtags, such as #NotAllMen, #AmINext, or #HomeToVote (just picked a few from Category:Hashtags). One of them links to the tweets using that tag in the "external links" section, the other two do not.

To go back to this specific question, we shouldn't link to the #HeroRobertBowers posts for three reasons: 1) The hashtag is only very briefly mentioned in the Wikipedia article (and I'm not seeing this "great 'to do'" you're describing); 2) linking to posts containing the hashtag doesn't further any encyclopedic goals; and 3) we should not be directing readers towards hate content in this kind of targeted manner. The article already links to Gab for people who want to explore it themselves (in the infobox, external links section, and in some of the citations)—we don't need to curate a list of particularly horrific hashtags to highlight for readers as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention Dissenter in the lede

Dissenter has become a major part of Gab and has gotten a ton of media coverage. Based on this, I think it deserves a mention in the lede of the Gab article. X-Editor (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, probably. I'll add something in but feel free to tweak etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Other than a slight grammar mistake, which I fixed, the new paragraph is good addition. X-Editor (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the catch. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: No problem. X-Editor (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Changes by PBZE

Hi PBZE, recently you made some major changes to the lede and the wording we use, primarily to water down or downplay the alt-right aspect of Gab. Why do you feel that this aspect should receive less coverage in our article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I felt that the former version of the lead was too opinionated and too overwhelmed with the external reception of the site. I don't think I removed any coverage at all, the coverage of the website's alt-right issues were still there. I just made it less opinionated. PBZE (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Decrypt Media reliable?

Tsumikiria recently made an edit summary[1] saying that a better source is needed for backing up the claim that StartEngine kicked Gab off its platform, that they won't return fees and that Gab plans to sue them. The only other source I've found is a Decrypt Media article[2], but i'm not sure if its reliable because Jorm said in an edit summary that it is a "Very questionable source." and Tsumikiria also said in another edit summary that I should take the discussion of Decrypt Media's reliability to the talk page[3], which is exactly what I've done. @Jorm: @Tsumikiria: @GorillaWarfare: @Softlavender: @Emir of Wikipedia: @Grayfell: @AKA Casey Rollins:, what do you guys think? X-Editor (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Decrypt claims on their manifesto[4] that they are "both editorially independent and technologically agnostic." I can't seem to find a masthead, but the website does say who the authors of their articles are and has pages on them, such as this one[5]. X-Editor (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a masthead of any type, so the answer is "no, it is not reliable."--Jorm (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If there's no other source then I'd say just leave it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This info is significant to the site, but it really should have a better source both for WP:V and for context. The site's stated mission is to promote blockchain, and its content mostly seems like standard startup-culture boosterism with a crypto twist. I could not find any reliable sources discussing this outlet, only others in the same cryptocurrency walled-garden (which has major reputation problems). Please ping me again if this goes to RSN, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. I don't think there are many corroborating sources, but Andrew Torba himself seems to say this in a Gab post, but as he does he directly quotes the DecryptMedia article[6]. However he did say that they got added back later on[7]. Seems a little circular but IDK since Torba is independently corroborating their report.
As far as DecrpytMedia, they are a newer website, launched in 2018, and funded by ConsenSys, a blockchain company. Doesn't sound like the most reliable of sources but my hunch alone isn't enough to prove that it's not reliable. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 03:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Separate Torba from "Users and Content"

From the organizational perspective, headlining "Users and Content" and then immediately launching into Torba is confusing to the Reader. I think the sentence where Torba says "Gab is for X" (whoever) can work, but his political leanings and voting does not belong in this section.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change the short description to "American micro-blogging Internet service"

The term far-right is subjective and potentially harmful. We currently do not call Twitter a "Far-left micro-blogging Internet service", despite its founder Jack Dorsey fully admitting a left-wing bias. Though we currently do not have naming conventions (WP:NC) for social networks, if we are to apply the same standards to all social media short descriptions, I suggest we keep it as short and as objective as possible.

Let's have a look at the various social networks, and how they compare with Gab's description.

• Facebook - Global online social networking service. Global because it's used worldwide, social networking service because that's what it is.
• Twitter - Global micro-blogging Internet service. Global because it's used worldwide, micro-blogging Internet service because that's what it is.
• Google+ - Social network owned and operated by Google LLC. Same here. One could argue "operated by" does not belong there.
• Instagram - Online photo-sharing and social networking service.
• Tumblr - Microblogging and social networking website.
• LinkedIn - Social networking website for people in professional occupations. This one has a stated purpose, and is clearly only for people in professional occupations.
• Reddit - online news aggregator. Probably should be capitalized, but still okay.
• VK - popular social networking service in Russia. Probably should be capitalized and changed to Russian social networking service.
• Bebo - Social networking service.
• Douban - Chinese social networking service website.
• Odnoklassniki - social networking service.

Based on all of these, I think the most fitting description would be American micro-blogging Internet service. Since it's a micro-blogging service, much like Twitter (in fact, it advertized itself as a Twitter alternative), and is based in the US. The decision to name it a Far-right social network came from a very short discussion and I think should be reconsidered, if we are to apply the same standards across all social networks.

Alex.osheter (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't call twitter a Far-left micro-blogging Internet service" because it isn't one, and there are no reliable sources that say it is one. There are, however, many reliable sources that say that Gab is filled with Nazis. You need to go convince those reliable sources you are correct, not here, I think. The description shall remain until reliable sources change their minds.--Jorm (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the description of a service be what its intended purpose is, as opposed to what some sources say it is? Especially given how the aforementioned sources have a strong left-wing bias? Coverage changes, but stated purpose rarely does. Gab's purpose is being a micro-blogging Internet service. Its userbase doesn't change this fact. Both Facebook and Twitter are filled with Nazis, but we don't call them that. A social networking website is not defined by its userbase, unless that's the stated purpose of said service (See: LinkedIn).

Please consider this and look at the facts objectively, we don't tag any other social networking service with similar labels. Chinese Sina Weibo is heavily left-wing, and despite there being actual scholarly studies on its bias and userbase, we still don't call it a "Left-wing microblogging service". Why is Gab given special treatment? Alex.osheter (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Shouldn't the description of a service be what its intended purpose is, as opposed to what some sources say it is?" No. If we followed this logic then I could simply say that I was President of the United States of America and you'd have to use that as my short description. Facebook and Twitter are not primarily known by their userbases; Gab, however, is known mostly because it is filled with Nazis. If that weren't the case, we might be able to call is something else.

This is not going to happen, what you're requesting.

Someone should close this thread as it is only going to become Yet Another Gab Enthusiast Who Doesn't Understand How Wikipedia Works Wasting Our Time.--Jorm (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"If we followed this logic then I could simply say that I was President of the United States of America and you'd have to use that as my short description." What I said specifically applies to social networks, since there isn't a set standard. The current short description violates WP:SHORTDES guidelines for short description content - Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental. No need to be confrontational, I'm simply trying to make this article consistent with other, similar articles. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument, and sources already indicate Gab's unordinary user base. Reflecting what sources tell us isn't controversial by any measure. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as there are scholarly resources citing Sina Weibo's pro-Government user base and heavy-handed censorship. We don't put this in the shortdesc, since this information belongs in the article and does not reflect what the service actually is. Gab being a far-right website is not a universally accepted fact. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, but it is what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say, and so that's what the Wikipedia article (and its short description) reflect. There are not per-topic-area rules on short descriptions as you're implying, and blindly reflecting what the subject of the article says about itself would go against WP:PRIMARY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify on how it goes against WP:PRIMARY? Alex.osheter (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources writing about themselves are primary sources, and should not be relied upon in articles except for basic details. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that, based on the sources, Gab's far-right user base is what makes it notable. Hence it has primary focus in the description and short description. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't base the short description on notability. If we did, Avatar (2009) would be "Highest grossing movie of all time", which it isn't. It's just a 2009 movie by James Cameron. The Nazi Party would be "political party in charge of the holocaust". etc. Alex.osheter (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey may well describe himself as left wing, but it would be more accurate to describe him as either (Redacted) depending on how charitable one were being. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I've removed your characterization of Dorsey; it's neither productive nor in keeping with WP:BLP (which does apply to talk pages). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Fair enough. I'm sorry for any annoyance I've caused. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Piling on to add to the existing consensus. We follow what the majority of secondary sources say about a subject, not what it says about itself. We don't need the fact of GAB's being a far-right site to be universally accepted (there's little in this world that is), we just go by the majority view of secondary reliable sources, which appear to support the current wording. I agree that this thread should be closed, this isn't going to happen. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I liked the "known for it's right-wing..." because it leaves open the number, or ratio of far-right Users, but Gab is certainly KNOWN for them, no matter what their numbers. No one doubts the existance of the hard/far/extreme (pick one) right, the question is whether or not their existance defines the entire platform. It used to work, IMO, until someone came along and "fixed" it.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Looking to modify the current description of Gab with a more accurate, less biased description. This looks awful on Wikipedia: "Gab is an American microblogging Internet service, known for its mainly far-right user base. The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right."

Try: "Gab is a newly-founded American social media Internet service dedicated to "preserving individual liberty, the freedom of speech, and the free flow of information on the internet.'"

Because your original description makes you look as fanatic as CNN, and why you're not getting another cent from me if this is how you treat people with different points of view. 24.233.173.169 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - No rationale or citation for this. Brigading the article will not change this.--Jorm (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Slander about Dissenter

"It was developed to allow its users to avoid websites' moderation practices, which sometimes involve removal of individual comments or deleting or disabling comment sections altogether." I think this is an inaccurate description. Dissenter is a completely separate comments section, one that simply allows Gabbers to comment on any URL. Many other services (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) offer similar functionality, with Twitter allowing a search of all public tweets that link to a specific URL, just not as straightforward as Dissenter. A better explanation is this: "It was developed to allow its users to comment without registering for accounts on individual sites, which may exclude a comment section, may have a biased moderation team, or may have a stricter comment policy." There are creators and sites that will delete any comment that is not a "yes man" comment, so any opposing views are filtered out. We also see social media sites targeting individuals with opposing, but non-violent, perspectives. This censorship is unhealthy, and it's one of the reasons why Gab exists. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please provide references that support your position. We can talk then. Until then, there will be no changes.--Jorm (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the term "avoid websites' moderation practices" means the exact same thing as "avoid website's censorship". There's a fine line between the two, but it's obvious that Twitter and Facebook are no longer "moderating", and have gone "all in" for censoring it's Users based, not on violations of the Terms of Service, but because of their dissident ideological positions. That's not moderation, that's censorship. However, Jorm is right; we need sources before a real discussion can even happen on this issue. If there are no sources to assert that censorship is censorship, the Article can't say it.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious to you, maybe. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Private websites deciding what they wish to allow and disallow on their site is not "censorship". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. That would normally be true if the "moderation" were applied consistently, however when the "moderation" policies allow some group to violate ToS, and other groups are silenced, that's "censorship". It's the additional component of ignoring their own standards that makes "censorship" a more appropriate word than "moderation". Example, if the ToS said something like "Twitter will suspend any alt-right account that annoys us" and then they did just that, I'd call that "moderation", but IMO as it is now, they have objective-sounding standards on the one hand, but on the other hand they silence speech that conforms to those standards, based on ideology. It's a nuanced distinction, and admittedly weak (meaning most people might not agree, because most people don't "drill down" and think about things like this. It's my opinion, it attempts to be precise, it's the best word choice, and this is an encyclopedia, which to me means it's worth the extra effort to carefully consider these critical word choices, for the benefit of the Reader, etc...Tym Whittier (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixing this article so it stops reading like a hit job

This is a perfectly suitable opening paragraph:

Gab is an American microblogging Internet service, known for its mainly users supporting free speech. Gab is also developing a web browser called Dissenter The microblogging site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.

Just because you can find a quote finding a negative opinion about someone or something doesn't make it reasonable to include it in the opening sentence or every politician's entry would also read like a hit job. This article would still be far from neutral even with my suggested change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetdeet (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Neutrality" does not mean to have no viewpoint. In fact, the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view specifically says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The vast majority of independent, reliable sources that discuss Gab discuss it in the context of its far-right userbase and content, and so this article reflects that. While Gab themselves might prefer the article portray them as a website for "free speech" and all that, that is not how they are described by independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Split conversation about the term "microblogging" to section below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To call ALL 850,000 users (as of a few months ago) "far-right" is what this article is suggesting in the current language of the opening sentence. That doesn't make sense. I'm not saying we need to follow Gab's self-description, but it should carry some weight. I think the best way to know if someone was a white supremacist, for example, is they simply tell you that because real ones never hid it ... as opposed to others suggesting those kinds of labels. In any event, it is simply wrong to suggest the entire user base is "far-right". Deet (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deet deet: The intro says known for its mainly far-right user base (emphasis mine). It does not claim every single user is far-right. Also, Wikipedia absolutely describes people as white supremacists who themselves do not use that label—again, Wikipedia goes by what reliable, independent sources say, not what subjects say about themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me any data showing >50% of the user base is actually "far-right"? Deet (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give you the sources that are in the article (and more, if you really insist) that describe the userbase as "far-right". If anything this article is less harsh than the sourcing in painting all of the users with that brush. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give you an article from yesterday that describes Wikipedia as "leftist-dominated" with "zealous administrators and editors" (Google: ‘Click-Gap’ Is Facebook’s Latest Tool to Favor Establishment Media) but those opinions do not mean we should change the opening description of Wikipedia's own entry, even though this Wikipedia entry seems to be proving the linked article's description of Wikipedia. Deet (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please just make it neutral. Gab is not a far-right platform. As a Sanders supporter and Stallman follower I believe freedom of speech is just as important as freedom to read and freedom of thought. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral viewpoint online encyclopedia and I don't care that this comment will go through one ear and right out the other but this article is objectively NOT neutral. 158.140.206.170 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Microblogging

Moved from section above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "microblogging", and I liked the Lede better when it was a "social media platform" last month. I remember the big discussion we had a year ago on this question. Not sure how a better description got replaced by a weaker one. Could it be an attempt to diminish Gab's status as a comparable possible replacement for Twitter? Doesn't Gab itself explicitly name Twitter as it's competition? How many microblogs name Twitter or Facebook as their competition? Can someone define both and then differentiate between the two definitions? Was this done before the change? Gab allows you to send private messages. Do "microblogs" allow for this. Gab is also highly conversational, with upvotes and downvotes, etc... Very similar to function as Twitter. What's the best, most commonly "microblogging website", and how similar is it to Gab? Gab has "Groups" where people who share similar interests meet and discuss things. Do "microblogs" have this feature/function? Did someone swoop in and make this change and hope no one would notice? Who's the biggest advocate for this change? I'd like to have a discussion on this because the more I think about it, the less I think that advocate (whoever it is, IDK) has any experience with Gab.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Also, two of the three references given for the 1st sentence explicitly use the term "social media", and the third doesn't even have the word "microblog", so there are no sources for this word/term and change. I won't change it (risky), but someone else should.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Do you mind if I split the conversation about microblogging out into a separate section? It's worth having, but it's not really related to the topic here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and it would make things clearer. My primary gripe is with the use of the term "microblog", and also the process by which it was injected into the Article, as I find no Google Search results that have "Gab" and "microblog" in them. Thanks for asking. LOOK MA! I'm COLLABORATING!Tym Whittier (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like X-Editor changed the short description to say "microblogging service" and added the term to the lead here with the summary "Changed first sentence in the lede a bit to keep things consistent with other social network articles on Wikipedia". I agree that "social network" makes more sense to me, but I'm also not sure I'm really that clear on what a microblogging service is... Maybe they could weigh in with their reasoning for the change? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm puzzled because a brief look at his User Page indicates he's an experienced Editor and yet despite that he's swooped into an Article that's pretty active, made this arbitrary change, without Discussion and (worst) it's a very weak point, in the sense that no one but him, and two Wikipedia Articles (including this one) refers to Gab as a "microblog". I'm new, but I do remember reading something about how other Wikipedia Articles are not "Reliable Sources", so then that leaves "synth", which I understand is done, but only after solid consensus, since it's not directly sourced and effectively "paraphrased", which I recognize is at sometimes necessary. But there virtually all of the RS describes Gab as a "social media" platform/website, which makes X-Editor's action in this Article all the more confusing and I'd wish he's show up and explain himself soon, or failing that, revert to the old way and THEN have the discussion, but this change seems unilateral, unsourced, synth, or even OR. The fact that it was done by an experienced Editor with no previous experience in this Article makes me wonder if his account was hacked.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

After careful consideration and waiting a period of time, I've "reverted" the Lede back to "English-language social media website". If X-Editor wants to defend his change, they can do so here.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Antisemitism is a prominent"

"Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content" Really depends on your definition of the word "prominent".

For me, "prominent" is more of a visual word regarding the placement and size of an image, so in this respect using that word to describe text that some might describe as "anti-semitic" seems clunky and inelegant, like a mixed metaphor. Example you won't find a lot of "anti-semitism" by browsing to Gab's "Home" page (the most common starting point on any website). Sure it might be there, along with the other 98% of the content, which means it's "not prominent". If Wikipedia wants to offer some moral condemnation to the anti-semitism, I wouldn't object to that (given popular opinion, etc...), but there's "neutral POV" and then there's bad and inelegant wordsmithing used to imply the idea that antisemitism is a large and prominent picture, and not a thought, idea, series of thoughts, that is repeated so often that it takes up the most of the dialogue. In fact, a substantial number of Gab Users are anti-anti-semitic and will block you for anything they perceive as anti-semitic. FYI, there are actual, bona-fide Jews on Gab. Which, as I think about it might be interesting if RS could be found to provide some balance to the "Gab is an anti-semitic website" narrative. In short, the ratio of anti-semites to anti-anti-semites is about 1:1, and neither of them are "prominent". They're all part of a very large mix. Diversity is Gab's strength. I've realized that the consensus in general to shade Gab as "anti-semitic" has already been achieved, but even within that context, there should be limits, if for no other reason than it's simply bad writing, as well as not accurate.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Prominent - highly noticeable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does not address my primary point, that there is a difference between being "visually" noticeable, and being intellectually noticeable by reading text. Your version assumes that it's "noticeable" without looking for anti-semitism. My point is that you have to actually look for it. If there were a large banner at the top of the page that said "Welcome to Gab, We Hate Jews", I'd agree with "prominent".Tym Whittier (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's cool that you think this, but you're in the minority, and we're not going to rehash this. Again. I suppose it sucks if you use gab and come here and realize that you're hanging out with Nazis and don't want to believe that, but here we are. In Germany, there is a saying: What do you call it when ten people are sitting at a table with a Nazi? Eleven Nazis.--Jorm (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)