Talk:Gab (social network)

Lack of neutrality, lack of impartial tone, and existence of weasel words.

This article about Gab is not written in an impartial tone. "Widely described as a haven" is not neutral phrasing. Widely described by whom? When you claim it is widely known that way, you need to say by whom, otherwise this is described as "weasel words" according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia has policies about neutrality, nonjudgmental language, weasel words, impartial tone, etc. The rules of Wikipedia to remain neutral are just as important as the rule to use reliable sources while writing or editing Wikipedia articles. Not less important. Saying something is "widely described" on an controversial article, without saying who it is widely described by in-line, is not a neutral way of writing.

I also want to address that the first paragraph of the article is heavily biased against Gab due to the way in which the facts are presented and organized, starting with heavy negative criticism from the cited sources filling the majority of the first paragraph. Most articles list critics and their criticism further down in the article under a subheading such as "Criticism and controversies", which seems to be the method of consensus across most of Wikipedia. It is fine to have some criticism and negative statements in the lede paragraph, but it should not be the primary focus.

Please check the NPOV (Neutral point of view) article that states "inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized".

While this is self-evident to unbiased editors, I have also found sources that indicate that Gab being described as a "haven" is a statement from critics and not necessarily a widely-accepted fact:

• "Critics claim the site serves as a haven for extremist groups." - https://www.liferaftinc.com/blog/resources/gab-explained

• "has been billed by some as the social network for the alt-right" - https://www.inc.com/salvador-rodriguez/gab-apple-twitter.html

Notice the terms used: "critics claim" and "has been billed by some as". This means there is not a near-complete consensus on the matter.

Although I have only just heard about Gab for the first time within the last week and have never used it myself, I am amazed at how many unnecessary arguments have occurred on this talk page. NPOV is a policy of Wikipedia and it is counterproductive to argue against NPOV as it benefits all good-faith users and editors of Wikipedia.

The irony of censoring NPOV edits on an article about a website that has been banned from most big tech platforms for allowing it's users mostly unrestricted freedom of speech is not lost on me. This type of behavior is why people create alternative websites in the first place.

I humbly ask that another unbiased editor or administrator should reinstate my revision or make a similar revision to bring the article up to NPOV standards.

- Commandur (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that this was posted to the talk page.

"Widely described" is absolutely neutral, as the majority of reliable sources describe Gab in this manner. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:WEASEL. The citations are all throughout the article to back up this point.

The article is biased against Gab in the same way that an article about Flat Earth is biased against it: all the reliable sources are in agreement on the topic. Only fringe sources support Gab.

Since you're relatively new to the topic, I am pleased you read the previous discussions. But simultaneously disappointed you consider them "unnecessary," as that indicates you've come here with a pre-conceived notion and are fighting for that stance. Claiming that editors here are censoring NPOV edits is a serious accusation, and you should take that to WP:ANI with diffs to back it up. Otherwise, it's simply personal attacks against the editors who have worked so hard to put this article together.

If you are still unsatisfied with this, your options are to go through dispute resolution steps. However, given the years of editing by many, many people here, I do not think your argument will result in change, as it is basically a rehash of all the previous ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Main Response

First I'd like to point out that you really didn't address most of my points in my original post. However, I'll still give you the courtesy of responding to each one of your points in great detail.

As it turns out, "Widely described" is specifically mentioned as an example of weasel words on WP:WEASEL. See: Unsupported attributions.

If you want to use wording like this, you should pay close attention to the part where it says: "the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution". In other words, in-line attribution is still expected. Considering this is a contentious article, I think we should take things like weasel words more seriously. The fact that people here have already argued about weasel words already proves my point that we need to attribute it to someone.

I'm curious. How precisely do you think I have a misconception about Weasel Words? Perhaps you'd take the opportunity to briefly educate me on any misconceptions I may have.

You said, "The citations are all throughout the article to back up this point." However, citing sources does not grant a free license to keep blatant bias in an article. If you want to stick with the reliable sources argument, I myself cited a "new" source in my edit, but you reverted my edit. Apparently you deemed it too insignificant of a source to keep, despite the fact it was used to show that we can safely attribute the statements to "critics". Or perhaps you merely take issue with using the word "critics" there?

Do you know why there are less articles written in favor of alternative tech? Being in favor of free speech is not particularly controversial. Less controversy means less readers. Less readers means less money. There is essentially no financial incentive for major news outlets to post such an article. If people simply want to know what something is or general facts about that something, that's what websites like Wikipedia are here for, the news isn't going to reliably fill that role for you on most topics. If we aren't careful, someday Wikipedia won't either.

Flat Earth analogy?

Interesting that you compare the article's bias to "Flat Earth" of all things. This is severely tangential, but I'll humor you here... Most "reliable sources" in the time of Aristotle and even as late as Galileo would have had severe issues with modern astronomy. Those "reliable sources" that punished those freethinkers and would fight against what we now consider facts, are the ones you'd likely be touting as "reliable sources" about flat earth ideology, if you lived in those times. (Because if you thought they are reliable, then of course you'd believe them that the world is flat.) The astounding ability of humans to be incorrect in their serious convictions is why we need to be careful about blindly trusting any sources, "mainstream", "fringe", or otherwise. I'd be remiss to mention that theories on physical reality, demonstrable through mathematics, logic, scientific tests, etc. is a completely different ball game than sociopolitical bias in the media or the same on a Wikipedia Talk Page, which is more often driven by feelings than by logical analysis. Astronomy and physics on the other hand can be interpreted a variety of ways, but in nearly all cases are based on some core irrefutable facts.

Back to the Topic

Just because the majority of articles present a certain opinionated bias does not mean we as writers and editors need to indulge in said bias. Instead, we should attribute the bias to the sources it comes from. There is also an inherent bias in that sources conflating free speech with extremism are more controversial, and inherently pull in more readers. This encourages news outlets to continue to post opinionated and controversial articles. I think an argument could be made that, in general, journalistic quality has been worsening horrifically ever since the decline of the physical newspaper.

Response to Accusations

Now I'd like address your unmerited accusations against me.

1-RGW: I'm not asking for the article to be POSITIVE about Gab. I just want the article to be NEUTRAL in accordance with WP:NPOV. Truthfully any contrarian arguments to NPOV stance is unilaterally unnecessary. If editors were better educated on NPOV writing, such discussion need not exist. Also, one could easily argue that your insistence on keeping weasel words in the article is good evidence that you are in fact the one who is trying to fight for a preconceived stance concerning this article. Maybe you should re-read WP:RGW. I am, after all, perfectly fine with this article being neutral.

2-ANI: Perhaps you can see it as a serious accusation, but I accused no person in particular. Secondly, there is a prevailing attitude present among a certain group of editors in the Talk pages that this article must remain overly-negative. There is plenty of evidence for it, just read the Talk archives. As for diffs, how about the last three diffs where my improved version was reverted? I'm sure I could find plenty more affecting other editors, but if I spent all day doing that I'd be running around in circles just to make you happy.

3-NPA: First of all, I think you misunderstand NPA as nothing I said can be construed as a "personal attack" by any reasonable person. NPOV is a non-negotiable tenet of Wikipedia. This Talk page section is littered with comments of people pushing negative messages about Gab. Generally speaking, a website that provides a service is a neutral entity. While I've read the founder is certainly not politically neutral, the website itself is still just a platform, a tool. Like a hammer, a screwdriver, or a calculator. They can be used for good or for nefarious means, depending on the user. I am also not going to take the time to file NPA on every single incident.

(3-NPA, continued:) There are a lot of the arguments against NPOV in the Talk page, most are thinly disguised as referring to "reliable source" material as the reason for the obvious bias. Those talks are entirely unnecessary, because NPOV is a core tenet of Wikipedia. We don't need a "reliable source" to tell us to be neutral in how we write and edit. Wikipedia already says to do that. You can present biased ideas from biased sources if you want - just do it while following Wikipedia's rules.

(3-NPA, continued:) I did not specifically attack any person, nor did I attack their work putting together this article. That is an outrageous accusation. I merely referred to the problems presented by multiple editors with their own biased views. This is all about improving the article, not about attacking strangers on the internet, for which I have no real motivation. While I would like to assume everyone is acting in good faith, that is not always the case. How are you seriously going to argue that "Widely described" without in-line attribution isn't weasel words? We know readers aren't frequently going to click on the cited articles to see who wrote it... that's why the article itself should be neutral.

In fact, if you've read RGW, RGW also prohibits "taking sides" in our editing:

See: RGW: Seeing editing as being about taking sides.

Main Response: Continued

Someone's perception of a source being "fringe" or someone's perception of a source being a "reliable source" does not always necessarily reflect reality. Unlike facts, perception is malleable. One thing to seriously consider is the fact that a typically-reliable source that is reliable about most neutral topics, may be severely unreliable when it comes to certain sociopolitical topics. Suddenly, the source you rely on may not be so reliable. This is a serious issue with modern media.

The negative bias in the article and on this article's Talk pages archives is palpable. I could cherry pick some juicy tidbits for you if you really want, but it's easy enough to find them. Just read the Talk pages archives and see for yourself.

Conclusion

You said, "I do not think your argument will result in change, as it is basically a rehash of all the previous ones." Well, I guess we will see - if one of us files a dispute, that is. I never had to make a dispute before so I'll have to research it some more, but I'm curious what determines if I should file the dispute, or whether you should file it because you take issue with my edits. I'd like to think there is still hope for Wikipedia to remain a neutral encyclopedia. If I believed it was already over and completely controlled by one side, I wouldn't even be here.

__ Commandur (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. - Notice to those who repeatedly delete edits:

Follow the normal protocol

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Commandur (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you do not think it can be improved you should delete it, and then the person adding it should bring it here for discussion (see wp:brd). Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Slater is right, we're already in the Discuss portion of BRD. I've already pointed out how WP:WEASEL is satisfied by the current sourcing in the body. As to this:

Do you know why there are less articles written in favor of alternative tech? Being in favor of free speech is not particularly controversial. Less controversy means less readers. Less readers means less money. There is essentially no financial incentive for major news outlets to post such an article. If people simply want to know what something is or general facts about that something, that's what websites like Wikipedia are here for, the news isn't going to reliably fill that role for you on most topics. If we aren't careful, someday Wikipedia won't either.

This is both your own opinion on media companies & a bizarre appeal to have Wikipedia fill a hole that you feel traditional sources do not. We will not do that. We report what third party reliable sources say, and the vast majority of media and academic sources describe Gab as far-right.

Most "reliable sources" in the time of Aristotle...

This is an old, tired argument that editors have rejected over and over again. We are dealing with what reliable sources say now. We do not speculate on what future sources might say, so this entire paragraph is not persuasive.

Just because the majority of articles present a certain opinionated bias does not mean we as writers and editors need to indulge in said bias

This is flatly wrong. We present the facts as reported in reliable sources, and per WP:DUE we do not give fringe views equal footing. If we did, the article on the September 11 attacks would be full of crap from Truthers.

nothing I said can be construed as a "personal attack" by any reasonable person

Accusing others of intentionally inserting bias into an article can be considered a personal attack by Wikipedia's standards. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I just heard about GAB today and wanted to read about it when I saw the link to this article featured in the search results. From the first three sentences, I could already see this article was a hit piece, not a reliable source of information. There are TWO HUNDRED and SEVENTY, that's 2-7-0, citations from opinion pieces in various media outlets. Opinions are *not* reliable sources of information. At the very end of the citations list are two "additional reading" sources that are probably the only credible, peer-reviewed sources ... but they have nothing to do with GAB. This Wikipedia entry, or whatever you call it, concretely illustrates why serious teachers/professors tell their students not to use Wikipedia as a source to write papers. The fact that it's a featured search result further illustrates how the internet has done a huge disservice to the young minds of our world when it comes to serious topics because the louder, more persistent, opinion; and the more avid, relentless editor (or group of) is the one who ultimately dictates what "fact" is considered to be. Opinions are not facts! So, this article is invalid as it is composed mainly of opinions. Lesson learned: stick to Wikipedia for information on actor filmographies, band discographies, gardening, fight stats, and municipal information. Alerion69x (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the citations are to opinion pieces. Zaathras (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

MOST of them are. How much research and data was acquired to write an article that contained the words "God Emperor Trump" in its heading? Are there people that, in fact, referred to him as such? And if so, where is the proof of that? It doesn't exist, for that is a term used by people to "make fun of" Mr. Trump. And this statistic of 5.4% of posts contained hate speech was based on a database of "offensive language" compiled by people who considered those terms to be highly offensive even in cases where their own "research" determined the words were no longer offensive and were downgraded to slang, and in some cases were originally used by the very people the words referred to *against each other.* The database still flags it as "hate speech," but that term itself is subjective, not objective ... a.k.a. Opinion. This article is only for you and yours, but cannot be considered a serious, fact-based piece of information because it comes from a place of malicious intent to vilify people with a certain ideology. One which they are free to have, as are you. It's all one huge echo chamber of opinion smashed together to try to drive home the idea that GAB users are ______. Easily dismissed in one paragraph. Be well, Sir Zaathras. I am on to more important things. Alerion69x (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:rs, if it is an RS we assume that it has done the research and is just presenting its conclusions. And read wp:or. As to much of the rest see wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of Wikipedia being used as a political tool, there is no evidence of any of the claims of these opinions regarding Gab, and Gab has the best reputation as far as dealing with law enforcement. --Massintel (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Atomwaffen Division

"In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of antisemitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by several neo-Nazi and alt-right groups, including Identity Evropa, Patriot Front, and the Atomwaffen Division, a terrorist organization tied to a number of murders."

I've checked the site sourced next to this, and the Atomwaffen Division is never mentioned once. Please correct this or cite a different source. 174.130.211.224 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. I removed. I also didn't notice that the cited source mentions recruiting except in reference to Twitter not Gab, but I left "used as a recruitment tool" in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The source was erroneously removed as an 'overcite' a couple years ago, per Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 12#Redundant and overcited. I have restored the content and the source. As always, any further discussion of this content should be based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change "As of 2021, posts on Gab are limited to 3,000 characters" to "As of 2023, posts on Gab are limited to 5,000 characters." 98.22.34.247 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)