Talk:Hashtag activism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CCAAG (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jarzofjam, Calstudent123, Clearychizmar. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahgomez8 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JeshuaKJohn, Emilygess, Erikay677 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Henry Guan, Torybigelow, Jhammer.ucb. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 29 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex K. Tran, AAnonymous Bear (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Malberk, Ju13serv.

Updates & new sources

We want to add new hashtags, summaries of them and links to those the hashtags/articles. We will also expand on the introduction section as well as the critiques and support section. Below are the sources we might use to pull some of this info from.

Bibliography:

- For the hashtags: we will use sources from the hashtags/articles we are referring to

- For overall:

https://wac.colostate.edu/books/social/chapter1.pdf

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=bc_pubs

https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/8068/2375

http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/07/11/activism-in-the-social-media-age/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304106740_Media_ecology_and_hashtag_activism_Kaleidoscope

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=jcshesa

Lulutao (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Updating Wiki Page With New Hashtags

I think that there are a lot of new hashtags that can be added to the page. One big one is the #MeToo movement. It is briefly mentioned twice but I think it deserves to have its own little section. Especially because of how big the movement was in the past year or so Lulutao (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding more hashtags

I am thinking about adding more hashtags and doing a bit of reorganizing of the hashtags into subcategories by topic e.g. human rights, environment, etc. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the following sources + topics I plan on adding, or if there's any additional hashtags that you think should be added.

1. IstandwithAhmed - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/16/istandwithahmed-scientists-and-the-public-surge-to-support-boy-arrested-for-homemade-clock/; provides context for Ahmed's story and how the public took to social media to provide support.
2. NotOneMore - http://series.hashtagsunplugged.com/notonemore: provides more context for the hashtag and some of the key players in it.
3. RefugeesWelcome - https://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/as-backlash-builds-others-support-syrian-refugees/
4. noDAPL - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest.html

Itstrinh (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Itstrinh! Adding context for these hashtags is a great way of going about this. The reorganizing is also something that is definitely missing from this page; currently, it is only organized by hashtags, which are becoming more numerous by the day. Jarzofjam (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Weird that entire Me_Too_movement isn't even listed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of 'unreviewed'

I acknowledge that I'm not supposed to remove the tag, but it's been edited and reviewed by numerous other editors, and contributed even by an administrator. I feel that it's in the main space long enough and has enough sources that it warrants the removal of the 'unreviewed' tag. Indeed, according to User_talk:Tutelary#A_page_you_started_.28Hashtag_activism.29_has_been_reviewed.21, it's already been reviewed. Tutelary (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding #IdleNoMore #IcebucketChallenge #UmbrellaRevolution #Sosblakaustralia

Adding to the introduction, the introduction is short and non descriptive, the power that hashtag activism has in bringing a voice and power to the words of those who otherwise would have gone unnoticed. Adding a subsection under examples of Hashtag Activism for #IdleNoMore, the indigenous community is one that uses social media and hashtag activism has been a simple way to get messages across for this group of people. Also has helped involve rural indigenous tribes in mainstream arguments and issues that involve them. Adding a subsection for #Icebucketchallenge, one of the first hashtags that grew awareness for the disease ALS, hashtag activism in this form raised awareness as well as money for the disease. Adding subsection for #UmbrellaRevolution, this is a movement to protest the election process in China. Helped to bring awareness to an unjust system. Helped to give a voice to those who were otherwise silenced. Adding subsection for #Sosblakaustralia. This movement shows the power of Hashtag activism to get the word from small areas such as rural Australia and make a difference globally. Pedenp206 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Peer's Edit

Student 1: Bryannie Bach

• Lead section: single sentence, which is short. Aim for a minimum of five sentences because this is the first paragraph that readers will read, ultimately determining if the reader wants to continue or not.
• Clear section: outline is filled with misc. hashtags, it would be helpful if there are classifications, whether this be based on categories, similarities, goals, etc.
• Balance coverage: incorporate more related categories rather than solely different types of hastags. For example, you can discuss the purpose and meaning behind hashtags, and how it became popular. Was this because it was convenient? Why this symbol?
• Neutral content: third person perspective, does not use bias language
• Reliable sources: some links were linked to other Wikipedia articles, which I am not sure if it is reliable if the third parties sources are not reliable
• Strengths: specific hashtags, and how it evolved
• Weaknesses: needs to be more classified according to broad categories because right now it appears as just a list of hashtags, rather than an article

Bryanniebach (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Bryanniebach

More Statistics and Replace References

This article sums up a lot of the main points in a very succinct manner. I would have liked to see more statistics and numbers as that adds credibility to the piece. I also agree with the other reviewers in that more details could have been provided to further strengthen the introduction to the article. The article yields many examples of the hashtag movements, but it would have been nice to know the results, outcomes, or effects. There is a clear structure to this article, but I would argue that some of the references are not as credible as others. News articles and popular media websites could provide a bias perspective on this subject. More information backing up the main ideas would improve the article. Jhammer.ucb (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate and Stopgamergate sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

: Entire section removed by SSTflyer (talk · contribs) here because there are potential definition and POV issues. None of the sources were really good to begin with. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as these are different hashtags, if a section on gamergate were to be made it would have to be a seperate section. Additionally, there would need to be sources demonstrating that gamergate is an example of hashtag activism, and not for example just a harassment campaign. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So the page was reverted from this to:

"Twitter users who believed the harassment of women had gone too far protested the #GamerGate hashtag with #StopGamerGate to rally around feminist gamers." So is the editor claiming that there's a certain amount of harassment which does not go too far, or is perhaps even desirable? Yikes.--Runescrape (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that #GamerGate and #StopGamerGate are easier to understand in the context of each other. The idea that related hashtags *must* be separate and that hashtag activism *must* not also be part of a harassment campaign appears to be a standard established by a consensus consisting entirely of yourself that you've taken upon yourself to enforce yourself. You should've opened up a talkpage discussion before spreading out a tiresome war in a WP:POINTy fashion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Two problems with your proposed changes.

A) The 'notable examples' is a list of notable hashtags individually. It does not group related hashtags.

B) We cannot describe Gamergate the harassment campaign as originating from 'claims of collusion'. The harassment campaign arose from Eron Gjoni alleging that his ex-girlfriend had slept with people, one of whom was a game journalist.

As such, I'm going to both split the sections (as I suggested earlier) and changed the description for the Gamergate hashtag. I don't believe the gamergate hashtag is an example of hashtag activism, given that its purpose is to harass people deemed targets by its users, but I'm willing to see what kind of section you personally would like to propose. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Aparslet, you've reverted my changes to the section on gamergate. Why is this? Would you care to explain on the talk page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I feel you are bringing a POV-war in from some other part of wikipedia to this article. This article is about hashtag-activism. Whether or not gamergate is hashtag activism, discussing it's "controversy" is not really relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparslet (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and my edit was not about its controversy- it was about the use of the gamergate hashtag, which was used primarily to co-ordinate the harassment of targets of the gamergate campaign. If you don't believe that the gamergate controversy qualifies as hashtag activism either, I feel as if it's uncontroversial to remove it from the list of examples of hashtag activism. Is that the case, Aparslet? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same #GamerGate? I'm looking at the hashtag right now and can't find any of that readily, so to claim this is the "primary use" of the tag is odd. Where did you get that idea?--Runescrape (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that #StopGamerGate seems to be a largely anemic hashtag almost exclusively populated by bots and #GamerGate proponents. I think we can safely discard that from the #Gamergate section and remove the #StopGamerGate section.--Runescrape (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is based around citing information to reliable sources, and does not allow original research in its articles. What you personally think about the hashtag has nothing to do with how our coverage of it should be. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove #StopGamerGate because #StopGamerGate has 20 results on Google News, mostly from blogs and small local publications. #GamerGate has over 5000. I'm curious why you added the hashtag but not #GamerGate given the former's obscurity.--Runescrape (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you confused? I never added the stopgamergate hashtag. My involvement in the article has been advocating that gamergate not be in the same section as stopgamergate, because the two are separate hashtags. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you seem to have removed mention of the #GamerGate hashtag from the "#GamerGate and #StopGamerGate" section. I'm still confused why #StopGamerGate is worth mentioning here given its obscurity.--Runescrape (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Tell me- do you have policy based reasons why the gamergate section here, which is currently written by you, should differ so heavily from our current article at Gamergate Controversy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is about whether we should keep the #StopGamerGate section, not what you think of an article somewhere.--Runescrape (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think how you've rewritten a section is relevant to the talk page section about that section (check the title!) Would you please answer the question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote is supported by the sources, I'm not going to bother with some giant article. If you have better sources, add them or replace mine. Regardless of your opinions, #StopGamerGate does not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability.--Runescrape (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Per your talk page suggestion, I'm rewriting the section with better sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do.--Runescrape (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"#Gamergate was a Twitter hashtag originating in August 2014 to orchestrate a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry" I don't think any of your sources say that #GamerGate was formed "to orchestrate a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry". Have you removed #StopGamerGate per our discussion?--Runescrape (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't talk nonsense. You told me that if I had better sources, I should add/replace them. I agreed to, and as such have rewritten the gamergate section. I believe my summary is perfectly representative of both the general coverage of gamergate, and the sources used in this article. If you dispute the summary, perhaps you should look to the Gamergate Controversy page to argue it there, as that is where I largely cribbed the summary from. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You have found some articles which say "some #GamerGate supporters did bad thing" and then conflated it to "people primarily use the #GamerGate hashtag to coordinate harassment campaigns". The name dropping seems gratuitous as well - are we talking about the hashtag or doing PR work here?--Runescrape (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to contend that this is not an accurate summary, you'd do well to contend that at Gamergate Controversy, where the summary is essentially from. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment is not a recognized form of "activism." If the description can't be re-written to focus on the activism, for example if no activism is associated with the hashtag, then is doesn't belong here. 166.172.62.255 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's my opinion that it doesn't belong here. My invitation is to those who wish to keep it that they rewrite it so that it focuses on the activism in a way that is consistent with the vast majority of reliable sources and our main article on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you add three tangentially related critics to the section? Is the main article as blatantly promotional?--Runescrape (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read the main article here, Runescrape. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So is the article promoting people, then? It reads a lot like something written by a PR firm, the article is mostly pictures of random small developers and lecturers/consultants.--Runescrape (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The article describes the subject of the article using the reliable sources which discuss the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, I checked out the article. Nowhere does the article - or do your sources - claim "[the hashtag's] primary use was the orchestration of a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry" and, again, the namedropping of three random consultants is gratuitous.--Runescrape (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign orchestrated primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate" - first sentence of the article. Are you sure you read the article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say the hashtag was primarily used for harassment? By your logic, Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign orchestrated primarily through the use of Twitter would become Twitter's primary use was the orchestration of a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry. You might want to read up on the association fallacy yourself.--Runescrape (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be the case if the sentence was Twitter refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign orchestrated... etc. The first word in the sentence is fairly important. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I'm just going to walk away.--Runescrape (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Fellow editors, Based on an examination of the discussion above, and a comparison with the Gamergate controversy article itself, the version at Special:Diff/705617577 appears to be a significant misrepresentation of the sources; violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The discussion & phrasing include what appears to be an attempt to use WP as a source, in combination with a formal fallacy (A was used for B; therefore A was primarily used for B); and no sourcing has been provided despite requests.
I note that the underlying sourcing the the "orchestration of a harassment campaign" also appears weak; relying on two sources (of the hundred or more used in the article) - one of which admits bias and requires a fallacy of composition to "support" the statement; and the other of which uses the phrasing as the underlying premise of its argument, not the conclusion. But these are matters for the Talk page of that main article.
On the basis that the information included here is not verified by sources, I am reverting back to a previous, more neutral, version, with minor copyediting. Policy & source based discussion is encourage & appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Inserting your own completely unsourced version because you feel the current is not reflected by the majority of sources is a bit ironic. To put this simply, Ryk: Your POV pushing did not work on the main article, it will not work here. Please desist. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of fact. I reverted to a previous version. Please feel free to respond to the substance of the objections outlined above; rather than on the editor. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The summary you propose is unsourced. That you think putting in an unsourced summary of events somehow fixes issues of WP:OR and WP:NPOV is laughable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

refactored to roughly chronological positionI have removed the section, pending resolution of the issues above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing the Gamergate Controversy section altogether seems like WP:POINT making behaviour, but honestly I agree with it- a harassment campaign is not an example of activism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, it is not intended to be, and is not, WP:POINT. I do not agree that the previous version meets core policy; and have detailed the reasons above. You, fairly, desire the reverted version to be sourced. If we cannot agree on a interim version, and feel that either proposed version fails to meet policy, then we should remove until a consensus, hopefully with other editors, can be obtained. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of attracting other editors as you suggest, I'll place a small notice on the talk page of main article for this (Gamergate Controversy). PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great. I shall look forward to their input. If you have time, a response the issues highlighted above, particularly the fallacies & misalignment with sources, would be both appreciated & helpful in achieving consensus. Let me know if anything is unclear or requires additional detail. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

To expand on the issues with the phrasing previously added: Gamergate controversy lead section states Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign orchestrated primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, ...; presuming that this is aligned with sources & policy (strongly refuted by editors at that Talk page), we look at the information added here, The hashtag #Gamergate was a Twitter hashtag originating in August 2014. Its primary use was the orchestration of a harassment campaign against several women in the video game industry. This is not the same as at the GGC article; nor is it a simple rephrasing. One is the harassment campaign was primarily orchestrated through the Twitter hashtag; the other is the Twitter hashtag was primarily used to orchestrate a harassment campaign. Logically speaking, Most cats are also four-legged animals does not imply most four-legged animals are also cats. As these statements are fundamentally different, a source is required. Even if they were not different, if challenged (as above), a source is required, and should be provided. Waving away the question with "consensus of reliable sources", as is the wont of some editors, doesn't cut it - WP:SYNTH doesn't allow it.
The second sentence is on the origins of the controversy (not the hashtag activism) is, IMHO, not sufficiently important for a summary at this article; but I welcome input from other editors on this aspect. The Some people claimed ... is WP:WEASEL & fails WP:IMPARTIAL; this is probably resolvable with rephrasing. Statements made by different users of the hashtag have often been inconsistent or contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify central goals and motives beyond the harassment. is a truism, valid for all hashtag activism; and gives the appearance, however unintended, of cherrypicking from the article to discredit the hashtag activists (again, see: WP:IMPARTIAL). Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Describing something in Wikipedia's voice as "harassment" or a "harassment campaign" despite 16 months of activity and not a single conviction is borderline libelous. Although it's true that many press sources have indeed (unfairly, judging by a glance at said hashtag and the forums where it operates) described Gamergate this way, harassment is a crime, and not a single individual involved in Gamergate, let alone a whole movement, have been convicted of criminal harassment or participation in some sort of a harassment campaign. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Question: do we have reliable sources calling #GamerGate or #StopGamerGate "hashtag activism"? Looking through the history, I can only find a guest blogger at a "a national, nonprofit media organization", which I don't think would be considered reliable. Woodroar (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think, but have not checked each edit to verify, that the sources remained unchanged through the edits to the article over the past few days; so they may not be the best that we have available. I concur with Woodroar's assessment of that particular source, which also suffers from being a listicle. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources: this on stop, this, this on pro, and this("The most sincere of the hashtag activists seek legitimacy in those same mainstream eyes. And to many of them, SPJ, an organization with an ethics code and professional-sounding name, makes for an ideal arbitrator to re-litigate what they compare to original sin: the media labeling Gamergate as a movement of hate."), though pro has way less news sources willing to call it activism, because on the harassment and wrath stuff. StopGamerGate can't be understood without mentioning the harassment and negative stuff. @Ryk72, PeterTheFourth, and Woodroar: How do you guys feel about these sources? I'm not gonna be too close to this topic area, but I hope it helps. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look through the sources. Here's my $0.02:

• blogs.lse.ac.uk is a guest blog by a PhD candidate, and the "[t]his article gives the views of the author, and not the position of..." disclaimer indicates that it's an opinion/editorial piece.
• The Telegraph doesn't specifically mention #StopGamerGate, but gives examples of "hashtag activism" in one sentence and mentions "defend[ing] the victims of Gamergate" in the next. Specifically labelling #StopGamerGate as "hashtag activism" would be SYNTH.
• Tech.co uses the term "viral activism" and the author seems to have a generally positive view of it (but certainly not of #GamerGate), so linking #GamerGate with the negatively-charged "hashtag activism" would also be SYNTH. I'm also doubtful that the author or Tech.co would be considered reliable at RSN, as they're both light on journalistic or scholarly credentials and experience.
• CJR is the best of the bunch, clearly calling some GamerGate supporters "hashtag activists". But there are a couple caveats to consider. The first is that, if we mention #GamerGate in this article, we must balance this single article's characterization of GamerGate as "hashtag activism" with the hundreds that do not. The second is that CJR itself isn't particularly kind to GamerGate as a whole, either, and we would have to include that in our summary.

To summarize, neither source supports mentioning #StopGamerGate, and a single source may support mentioning #GamerGate but NPOV and DUE requires that we accurately summarize not only the CJR but also the near-unanimous characterization of GamerGate found across media. Woodroar (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Last source for real is a trivial mention of stop in CNBC

I don't have an issue with your summary and caveats. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also not usable here. The phrase "hashtag activism" isn't used, not to mention it's a commentary section (a.k.a., opinion/editorial) from a university student. Woodroar (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? Looks like I'm out of sources. Thanks for vetting.

Let's start workshopping, then. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Version of section	Editor(s)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet	Maybe @Ryk72, Aparslet, and Runescrape: ?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet	Maybe @PeterTheFourth: ?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

FYI: Pings don't work unless you put a signature at the end of them, Discuss-Dubious. I'd like to see your proposed version of the section before I propose my own- I'm still not convinced that it qualifies for inclusion on this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you for informing me. :)

Alright, anyone who wants to write is welcome. I am too busy to do so RN. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 04:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What should we add that would concisely explain GG and be relevant to hashtag activism and use the cite? It is far too complex for me to write and do it well. I spent all day and decided not to save anything. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this, but all of the examples in the article were removed as POV-pushing a couple days ago. The sourcing for all of it was rather poor, but even that poor sourcing was better than what we currently have to support inclusion of #GamerGate and/or #StopGamerGate. I'm afraid it's really a non-starter without quality sources, and even with sources it's still UNDUE.

I'll give you an analogy, one that's perhaps more neutral than GamerGate but also maybe ridiculous. Metallica is a metal band. That's how basically every source ever describes them. But say you track down some source that calls them britpop. But it's a great source, mind you, absolutely impeccable. Does that mean they get listed at List of Britpop musicians? Some editors may say yes, because it's sourced. There's certainly a discussion to be had there. But you can't ignore the sheer crushing weight of sources that say otherwise. So maybe Metallica does get listed among the britpop bands, but you can bet it'll be the most footnoted and annotated and qualified claim on Wikipedia. But I seriously doubt it would even get that far, simply because of that sheer crushing weight of sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea this might happen. It's all good; consensus has finally been achieved and I have closed this thread. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Peer Review

The article appears to be developing quite nicely. I agree with the previous reviewer in that the intro and origins could be fleshed out a little more to create a stronger foundation for the article. Also, I would suggest that the hashtags be given subcategories based on whether it is a movement versus a campaign. Another subcategory to consider is the reach of the hashtag. Is it a global phenomenon or limited to a particular country? Under the criticism category there are also direct quotes that I am not sure meet the wikipedia guidelines so I would double check on that as well. M LeFort (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hashtag activism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120713191826/http://kykernel.com/2012/03/07/a-call-for-justice/ to http://kykernel.com/2012/03/07/a-call-for-justice/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308142114/http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/citynews/10807 to http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/citynews/10807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

There are proofreading mistakes, which can be found beside the section ‘Notable examples’ with the ‘[edit]’ right beside it, text styling errors, multiple grammatical errors throughout, as well as odd sentence flows. In the first sentence alone in the introduction, there were four citations that I think could have been used in a much better way. These four articles cited cover different critiques and viewpoints, which were no longer used again in the rest of the article, but instead were only linked to a basic definition of what hashtag activism is. Therefore, more than it just being an over-citation, I feel that these sources weren’t utilized well. In the breakdown of notable examples of hashtag activism, the subsection on #HimToo is underrepresented with only one sentence to describe the social media campaign, while the others are given a whole paragraph. On the other hand, #PrayforParis and the #icebucketchallenge were overrepresented. As for the citations, there are multiple missing/empty ones. Moreover, rather than scholarly articles, a notable amount comes from news articles/op-eds, which do not guarantee factual information, nor were any biases noted for information that came from such sources. -- Nicgonzie (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Template messages to the article for an increased chance that the issues you bring up will be adressed. --Spannerjam (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

#Sosblakaustralia

I would propose the following edits and grammar edits to the following section:

"In March of 2015, an activism campaign took hold in Australia. #Sosblakaustralia was a campaign started in a small, aboriginal town in Western Australia. This campaign was to combat an initiative that would close down 150 rural aboriginal communities. Though this movement started in a rural community of 200 #Sosblakaustralia with poor Internet connection, it eventually spread to thousands of followers including Australian celebrities such as Hugh Jackman, and this caused the movement to expand as far as London. In 18 days, this movement had over 50,000 followers and had reached over 1,000,000 people worldwide."

I also propose that this section should have more additional information about the effect that it caused after the 18 days. In addition, I think there should be more examples like these in the following articles to help support this viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikay677 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Things to Improve From The Article

- Update on Recent # Movements. The article can add new popular hashtag which appeared from the second half of 2019 to the beginning of 2020 to keep the list up-to-date (e.g. #flygskam Flight Shaming which is popularized by Greta Thunberg)

- Adding More Covered Topics to the Article. A lot of sections covered in the article can be further equipped with additional information. A huge portion of the article covers the list and brief explanations of each movement. In my opinion, here are the topics from the article which can be added/further improved:

History Segment. The history segment of the article is a bit short. We can improve the section by providing details on how and when did the movement gained traction and how the rapid growth of Instagram and Twitter further impact the movement.

Adding a Segment on the Impacts of # Movements. The impacts of the hashtag movement can also be an excellent addition to the article. We can add statistics that quantify the impact of these hashtag movements and explain the further implications (social, economic, and political) of the existing movement and how they have shaped our society in this era of social media.

- Sources. Some information on the article was cited from other Wikipedia articles. It will be nice if the information used in the article is sourced from more credible sources.

Stan1500 (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Stanford Anwar (UGBA 192AC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• "MayDay IMG 4259-1".jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)