Talk:Brianna Wu

Inc. Magazine

[1] David Whitford, "WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army", Inc. April 2015.

Boston Globe 9-15-2015

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/15/the-download-brianna-self-proclaimed-godzilla-tech-feminists/eKoN8TujeD2LJNmjWyD8tJ/story.html

Moon rocks comment

Even mentioning it is undue? It was covered by several news outlets. This page definitely suffers from a pro-Wu bias.—Chowbok ☠ 05:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So far you've only shown that it's mentioned in passing by The Atlantic. Bias ain't nothing to do with it, it's just unencyclopedic who cares kind of material. In a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup. The Atlantic article is interesting, but it's is discussing the comments with tongue in cheek. The title "The Patriarchy Hates the Moon" is a giveaway that this isn't entirely sincere, nor should it be taken literally. Wu's comments are only briefly used in that article to segue between slightly more substantial points. The two tweets are also discussed as a tangent to the main point of the article, and it barely even tries to explain why the comments are significant. It just generously says that it wasn't "exactly true", and says it represents a surprisingly common underlying fear. Big whoop. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also mentioned by thehill.com and PJ Media (and don't tell me that PJ Media is a biased right-wing source while we're using Huffington Post as a RS in the same article).—Chowbok ☠ 22:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, adding a POV template because others disagreed with you inserting some trivial stuff is not very constructive. In fact it appears to be a WP:POINT violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could give me five minutes after posting the template to post my reasoning before rushing forward with your assumptions of bad faith? Sheesh.—Chowbok ☠ 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to improve your sourcing; I've made a few edits to better conform to the source (which explicitly discusses her tweets in the context of a concern about militarization of space), to paraphrase more and rely less on quotes, and to remove the section heading which I find entirely unnecessary and unwarranted for an issue summed up in a couple sentences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Balance

I realize this article is a target for trolls, but it is clearly overcompensating in the other direction. It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This article has no negatives at all. Sadly, it appears all three of the articles relating to this have not a single point of criticism in them. I'd go and hunt down some reliable sources myself but I don't have the time to do that right now. Can we agree there is a bias problem though? --Tarage (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You are beginning from a poor premise in the idea that there is something wrong with this article having "no negatives," if indeed that is the case. There is no requirement that articles have "negatives," particularly biographies; we only add criticism if it is reliably sourced, relevant, properly weighted and deemed worthy of inclusion by editorial consensus. The question for us to discuss is not are there "negatives," the question is whether anything of significance is missing from the article. I would invite those who think something is missing to propose reliably-sourced additions that they believe address these gaps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair point. I should have worded it better. My concern is there is significant criticism that I believe exists, but that may not be reported frequently. Still, I believe that it is enough to at least warrant a mention. I will try to find some reliable sources, but I am open to help in that regard. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think there's pretty clearly at least one "negative" — we cite a political expert who opines that Wu's Congressional campaign is likely to fail. I think as we get closer to the election, if her candidacy turns out to seriously contest the seat, we'll find more reliable sources discussing her campaign positions, platform and chances. If not, and it turns out she's tilting at a windmill, there won't be much more to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a negative to me. You can be the most noble of people and still fail at politics. I'm more concerned that there are no rebuttals of her views, which often times run very absolutist. --Tarage (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it stands, I don't see that we discuss "her views" to any significant extent, though. She's not really notable for her opinions about things, is she? We talk about her upbringing, her work, a few brief snippets of her political platform and the harassment incidents. There's nothing that I see in this article that would be "rebuttable," especially given that there doesn't appear to be any outside analysis or criticism of her Congressional campaign platform, which is the closest thing to anything here that would need a "rebuttal." So if we were to add reliably-sourced "rebuttals of her views," we'd first have to add some extensive reliably-sourced discussion of what her views are, if that makes sense. That's what makes these hypotheticals hard. It's difficult to say something belongs or doesn't belong in any given article until everyone has a clear sense of what is being proposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why this [2] was removed? I see a reliable source, thus meeting the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, and I see significant coverage, thus meeting the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a section directly above this one discussing exactly this, as well as another in the talk pages archives. Grayfell (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but the article in The Atlantic, as previously mentioned, strikes me as a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece (it begins "Like most unhappy young men, in my teenage years I went to war with the moon.") That leaves us with a Washington Times article and an iffy mention in the Atlantic. Given that WP:contextmatters, it strikes me as being undue in the grand scheme of things. That's what I see, but reasonable minds can and do differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual indication of an issue, just a lot of bloviating about how there is an issue with no specifics. POV template is unnecessary. @Guy Macon: Don't go around jumping into things just to get your rocks off about an apparent vendetta with Jorm in the future. People are trying to build an encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't view a single throwaway comment about a tweet she once made as relevant or duly weighted in this brief biography; it doesn't appear to be a significant part of her life. If it someday becomes a significant part of her life (which I suppose could happen if her Congressional campaign takes off and more reliable sources start looking at her political platform and views), we can always add it then. Otherwise, we're talking about a WP:FART, IMO. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, if we are going to determine that any mention of this belongs in a brief biography, I should think all would agree that a single tweet certainly doesn't merit its own section subheading; we don't call out any of her other platform points in subheadings and to do so would place undue weight on that single tweet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While not likely to warrant an entire section, one tweet can be just as worthy of inclusion as one quote. We do it for politicians, for example, quite often. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to make the argument that it merits inclusion; I still haven't actually seen anyone make a positive argument for why it should be included; "it exists and is verifiable" is not an argument, it's a statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It merits inclusion because it is something that a lot of our readers will have read about in biased politicized sources, and they depend on Wikipedia to give them an unbiased account. It merits inclusion because it is a controversial opinion expressed by someone who has chosen to be a public figure. The only reason why this is not being treated the way we normally treat controversial views held by public figures is because of gamergate. Sorry, but being involved in gamergate does not give you a free pass to keep controversial opinions that are covered in reliable sources out of your wikipedia BLP.

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Review of articles urged:

"Review of articles urged"

"The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."

"Passed 12 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)"

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You are proclaiming that an opinion is "controversial" without evidence. To what "controversy" are you referring? The proffered sources so far are a right-wing newspaper article and a throwaway mention in an Atlantic essay. Is that your evidence of a "controversy?" Because that doesn't seem like a "controversy" to me, it seems like a WP:FART. YMMV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly arguing with you is a waste of time, so I am going to stop responding now. You are going to object to anything that puts Brianna Wu in a bad light. WP:DUE, is quite clear: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". The view that you can drop rocks from the moon and that they will hit the earth[3] is obviously a minority view, because it violates the laws of physics.[4] Brianna Wu is a prominent adherent of said minority view. Compare the minority view that Comet Hale-Bopp was being trailed by a UFO. Art Bell is a prominent adherent of said minority view. Likewise with Alex Jones and the minority view that the mass shootings at Sandy Hook and Columbine were "staged". No reliable sources agree with Jones or Bell, but we don't exclude mention of those minority views from their BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am not quite sure if you are responding to me and/or NorthbySouthBaranof. If me, my apologies. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I have no problem with you or with you disagreeing with me. It is NBSB who i have decided to be a waste of time and not to interact with. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your first link is to a syndicated republication of the Washington Times article, your second is to someone's personal blog which entirely fails WP:RS. If those are the best sources you can find, I think my point stands clearly made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy is right, NorthBySouthBaranof, you and all the regular patrollers of these Gamergate-related bios needs to take a step back and let other people have a say. It's like a broken record and the bias is as plain as day. The very fact that the same little coterie turns up every time rather gives it away.

Literally all I know about Wu is what I have read in this article plus some vague comments made at various noticeboards over a prolonged period. Just knowing that she must be controversial (because of those vague comments) makes it obvious to me that this article is screwed up because ... there is nothing showing. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I can promise you that I, for one, will give your suggestions all the attention they deserve. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"She must be controversial" because... you say she must be controversial? This is very circular. If she is "controversial," surely you will be able to find and cite published reliable sources that support the existence of a "controversy" around this tweet. So far we have a single article from the Moonie paper, a single throwaway line in an Atlantic essay (which doesn't claim anything is "controversial") and some guy doing math calculations on their personal blog. If these are the sources you are hanging the hat of "controversy" on, there is no there, there. If she is as controversial as you claim, surely you can find reliable sources which state that there actually is a controversy. That is what due weight and WP:BLP demand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't bothered because it means engaging with maintainers of the walled garden like you, PeterTheFourth, Jorm etc. Like I said in the ANI thread, such people tend to use any tactic, including filibustering, to prevent any content that does not show their heroes in a good light. You know she is controversial - don't pretend otherwise. Generally speaking, I can find better things to do with my time here than waste it debating with people who have a clear-cut agenda. It's the Gamergate thing. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

So let me see if I have this straight. Looking at the article currently, the following sources are acceptable and reliable:

• A journal published by the "University of Waterloo Games Institute"
• A podcast called The New Disruptors
• A discontinued Canadian children's magazine
• The Ringer, some podcast website that doesn't even rate an article on here
• Wu's own website

The following sources are not acceptable:

• The Washington Times
• The Atlantic

Have I got that right?—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The podcast appears to only be a source for the fact that she appears on that podcast; that's uncontroversial and an acceptable use of a WP:SELFPUB for something about the person themselves. A peer-reviewed academic journal is an extremely high-quality source. I am unaware of the citation to The Ringer but I agree that that source is probably not a high-quality one and we should seek to find something better. (No slight intended to Bill Simmons, but it's a pretty new site with no track record of reliability or fact-checking.)

The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church and is not known for its reliability, balance or fairness. It is a questionable and partisan source, and I would no more sole-source something from it in an article about a liberal than I would sole-source something from Jacobin about a conservative. The Atlantic essay includes a single sentence mentioning the tweet and that's all - it's barely even a passing mention, and certainly does not support any claim of a "controversy" about the tweet. It is nothing more than "someone tweeted something that was wrong," and if every Wikipedia biography listed every tweet by that person that was wrong, we'd have some awful biographies filled with garbage tweets. Thankfully, we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of bad tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck, I just looked at our biographical article on Donald Trump, quite possibly the world's most famous tweeter, and nowhere does it mention the literal hundreds of tweets he has made that are wrong. And that's probably the right decision - I bet I could find a million impeccable reliable sources talking about his tweets, but it really isn't that important or encyclopedic that Donald Trump once tweeted something wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A better analogy would be Rep. Hank Johnson's comments on Guam, to which we devote a paragraph: Hank Johnson#Comments_on_Guam_tipping_over.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, that too is a WP:FART which certainly doesn't need a paragraph or a subsection heading; the sourcing is one article from The Hill and one from the AJC (both of which non-trivial and which are better sources than anything yet proffered here); but that biography also has the virtues of being a) much longer, hence due weight is more easily reached, and b) is about something actually said in a committee hearing in the House of Representatives by an actual member of Congress, rather than being about a single tweet, since deleted, by a party primary candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, The Hill is a reliable source? So therefore I can readd the moon rocks mention if I also reference this?—Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Chowbok, You seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is reliable if I like what it says and unreliable if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone else's snark aside (Guy made a big show about how he wasn't going to engage with me anymore, a pledge he's already apparently abandoned) yes, I believe The Hill is a reliable source, and if that source had been presented here to begin with, we'd be having a different discussion. It may merit mention - there still needs to be discussion about how we word it and how much weight we place on it, but we actually now have a non-trivial mention in a reliable source. There's now a starting point for discussion rather than hypothetical arguments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal defense fund

She has started a legal defense fund for women targeted by Gamergate, and the Wu family is offering a $11,000 reward for information leading to the prosecution of those who have sent her death threats This is some time ago now - what happened? - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

FBI Investigation

Right now the article says:

"In early 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) closed its investigation of the matter. The FBI had identified four men who sent threats and obtained confessions from two of them. The US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts declined to prosecute, giving no specific reason. Reacting to the report, Wu stated the FBI did not care about the investigation and that she was 'livid' "

Sounds like the FBI determined that a crime was committed and that the US Attorney decided to ignore the crime, doesn't it?

Reading the sources, you get a far different story: They say that the person who send the threats did so because of his belief that Brianna Wu was a "a professional victim who exaggerated the threats" that he send the threats as a joke, and that he agreed to never do it again.[5] Another source[6] says "After more than a year of investigation, the FBI has concluded that nothing criminal occurred during GamerGate, a months-long culture war in the gaming industry that involved death threats and revelations of horrible ethics among video game journalists" and that "Ultimately, the FBI was unable to “identify any subjects or actionable leads” and closed the case". (The source is definitely biased, but so are a lot of the sources used in the article, and the primary documents from the FBI appear to say the same thing).

This is not to say that harassing people is OK. It isn't. But this article has been systematically scrubbed of all negative information, with constant demands for more sourcing if the information is negative and acceptance of any source that is positive.

No mention that she runs a Patreon account where she once earned an average of $3,400 a month (currently $1,230 a month) to "help deal with harassment". [7] No mention of the multiple paid speaking engagements.

No mention that In March 2016, Wu was profiled on the SyFy channel series The Internet Ruined My Life, where she talked about how a man named Jace Connors made death threats against her, forcing her to flee her home. It turns out that Connors (real name Jan Rankowski) is part of a comedy group called Million Dollar Extreme, which Wu knew about as early as February of 2015.[8]

Now I don't give a fig about gamergate, except that I really dislike online harassment. But I also know that at times online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated by those who make money from being harassed. I also support WP:NPOV and opposed any biased editing that thinks that, because someone was harassed, their Wikipedia page should omit any negative information. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of POV pushing from Guy Macon.

• "systematically scrubbed of all negative information" like what? You need to provide RS.
• "No mention that she runs a Patreon account where she once earned an average of $3,400 a month (currently $1,230 a month) to "help deal with harassment". [9] No mention of the multiple paid speaking engagements." Not sure how that's negative information. Or relevant.
• "No mention that In March 2016, Wu was profiled on the SyFy channel series The Internet Ruined My Life, where she talked about how a man named Jace Connors made death threats against her, forcing her to flee her home. It turns out that Connors (real name Jan Rankowski) is part of a comedy group called Million Dollar Extreme, which Wu knew about as early as February of 2015." That's some interesting spin there.
• "online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated" Oh there's the POV pushing.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Goose sauce: [10] Gander sauce: [11] I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia community gives your theories about POV the amount of attention they deserve. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• "online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated" Oh there's the POV pushing.
• The thing you're referring to is 1) someone attacking for me, and 2) not allowed on the GGC talk page in particular.
• how about providing RS for the edits you desire? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware that believing someone "is a professional victim" is an excuse or justification for sending death threats or that they should be treated as a "joke."

I'm not aware of any reliable sources reporting on Wu's Patreon or her speaking engagements and you haven't presented any.

That someone makes death threats as a "hoax" does not lessen the fear involved when someone threatens your life; it's easy to say "just a hoax" after the fact, but it is not a contradiction to discuss something that made you fear for your life even if it later proves to be unfounded. Moreover, your claimed contradiction(?) is WP:SYNTH as no reliable source discusses it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading the sources, you get a far different story: They say that the person who send the threats did so because of his belief that Brianna Wu was a "a professional victim who exaggerated the threats" that he send the threats as a joke, and that he agreed to never do it again. Yes, the apparent perpetrator admitted doing it as a "joke," admitted he had committed a federal crime by sending a threatening communication and pledged never to do it again, a quote which I have added to the article. That's not really a "far different story," is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Unwatching this page

I am convinced that certain editors are persistently adding bias to this article (plus certain others fighting for a NPOV article) and that this will eventually end up at arbcom. I have stated my objections, and am now walking away. I am tired of the constant sea-lioning [12] and am unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)