Talk:Brianna Wu

Article belongs on Wikipedia?

Has this individual made enough contributions to merit having a wikipedia article? It seems like this article (at least) sounds like it was written as a self-biography. How does anybody else feel about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.123.14 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This was already addressed at the articles for deletion nomination page. The consensus of the AFD proposal was Keep. if you feel that was incorrect, feel free to make another AFD request; however, it's unlikely to succeed (I've yet to see an article pass an AFD once and then fail later). For now, this article stays. --Locriani (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an autobiography. Personally, I felt that it shouldn't have been kept, but the consensus differed from my view, and that's all good. We can resubmit an article for review, but generally I feel that editors should wait at least six months - that will also give some distance on the current events, which will perhaps give us a clear perspective one way or the other. In the meantime, so long as we do our best to provide broad coverage of the subject, there should be no issues with keeping it. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted. She has not contributed anything noteworthy in gaming. she is an indie developer that has created one game which wasn't even very successful. If we keep this article then any indie dev that has ever published would need a wiki page. Someone nominate this for deletion please. Xander756 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your claims are unsupported and amount to personal attacks on a woman who made international headlines after receiving death threats. She pretty clearly meets WP:BIO at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just going on TV doesn't mean you deserve a Wikipedia page and there has been no official proof of any of her threat claims as of yet. Wikipedia is a site where things need to be proven and verified. Not for hearsay. Xander756 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The threats have been reported by any number of reliable sources, including major newspapers. She's certainly as notable as retired professional lacrosse players, which seems to be your chief Wikipedia interest. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

Under the Controversy section of the page, it mentions supporters of Gamergate are what spread her personal information. Unfortunately, this is incorrect as Gamergate is very active on twitter, anyone can adopt the hashtag and say whatever they want and the more prominent supporters of Gamergate do not allow or condone such actions. Just like those claiming to be feminists act radical and tarnish the Feminist name, so too does Gamergate have it's fringe group tarnishing it's name. It is not fair nor correct to group every feminist with the radicals, it is not fair or correct to group the main group of Gamergate with it's own radicals.

I apologize for the long-winded and roundabout way of asking for the Controversy section to reflect that the fringe group that claim to be supporters are the ones harassing this woman as well as other women in her field. My apologies again and thank you for your time in reading this. Abecrombies (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this because there is no clear proof of who posted the information. The information was posted in a thread on Gamergate on the imageboard 8chan.co by an anonymous user. Here is an image of the thread, with personal information removed: http://marsmar-lord-of-mars.tumblr.com/image/9968435845087.157.218.228 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Gamergate comments in the controversy section seem unnecessary to the article and heavily biased towards supporters of Gamergate, it could be removed and the article would be better without it Nathan905RB (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

Two of Wikipedia's main policies are no original research and verifiability, meaning that we write what reliable sources say, and only that. In this case, reliable sources attribute the information postings to "Gamergate supporters", so that's what we do as well.  Sandstein  16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that has actually tied the leaking of her information to Gamergate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.3.33 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Even so, I don't see how the way different media outlets view Gamergate is relevant to the article and I doubt any reliable source has actually tied the leak to Gamergate supporters Nathan905RB (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Said "Reliable sources" are the ones that are at the center of the controversy to begin with and should not be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, in part. The Polygon article reads: "After tweeting that members of the 8chan message board — a refuge for former 4chan posters — and GamerGate supporters had posted her personal information online, Wu ...". This means that Wu, and not Polygon, identified the posters as Gamergate supporters, and I've made that attribution clear in the text.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, we're almost there. Now we just need to remove the blurb about how Gamergate is somehow about harassing women and then the article should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan905RB (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You say that across several pages but that's not going to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess a more neutral viewpoint towards Gamergate can't really happen on Wikipedia. On topic, I don't see the need for the sentence "an online campaign initially intended to offer criticism of games journalism, but which has since become increasingly associated with the harassment of women in video gaming." You could easily cut it out, change the following sentence from "Anonymous supporters of the campaign then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." to "Anonymous users then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." and come across as less biased and more neutral and still keep the same message. Especially considering the only person tying Gamergate supporters to the death threats is Wu herself. Nathan905RB (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what is said in reliable sources, and if those sources are highly negative of the Gamergate campaign and their involvement with Wu being forced from her home then that is how Wikipedia will present the information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And none of the mentioned sources have accurately tied Gamergate supporters to the leakage of information, so I don't see why we're taking them seriously. Even though Brianna Wu is a victim, her unwanted involvement in the incident keeps her as a source from being unbiased so I don't think we can just take her word on this. Nathan905RB (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. Wu has stated on several occasions that she was reading a thread on 8chan's /gg/ where they posted her address and other personal details, and then she received the attacking tweets. She is allowed to say what she thinks and we can report on that information as her own personal opinions on the actions. That's how WP:PRIMARYSOURCES works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Than why shouldn't we add two words such as "Wu claims" to the sentence stating that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, instead of just reporting it as a fact? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

She is not being cited so it isn't her claims on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You say one post earlier that you can report on the information as her own personal opinions on the actions. How are her own personal opinions on the matter not her claims? Who's claims are they then, if so? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

She is not presently cited for anything in the article but if she is cited then all that she says must be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And the way the article is currently written (i.e. The line about Wu having to flee her home because of Gamergate supporters) without adding something about her claiming they're Gamergate supporters makes it sound like it's a factual statement that should be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims. That's exactly my point. Nathan905RB (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason why this article exists it to serve as an easily locatable briefing to anyone wishing to write articles about Brianna Wu, her alleged harassment or its alleged connection to GamerGate. Notice how this page was only created after her alleged harassment took place, and how that information has been a core part of the article since its creation. The sole purpose of this article is to push an agenda (demonisation of GamerGate), which is not in keeping with the stated goals of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.76.24 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The section, as it stands, meets and exceeds all of Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and no original research. I'm closing this request unless you can provide verifiable sources that meet the community guidelines present at those pages. Unfortunately, your assertions of one thing or another, however true they may be, do not meet these requirements. --Locriani (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear, since this is a matter of some controversy: provide sources that back up your claims, and I'm more than willing to include them as a rebuttal in the controversy section. The 1 link present in this talk discussion does not meet these requirements (nor is it really germane to this discussion). News articles, blog posts, etc. that are not written by yourself are eligible, as I understand the guidelines. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to reopen the request; however, I doubt you'll find anyone willing to modify the article until you can provided sources to back up your claims. --Locriani (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Personal information about her had previously been made public on the Internet by anonymous persons Wu linked to GamerGate" - This looks like an affirmative claim that is actually completely unsubstantiated at this point. It should either be solidly evidenced as is or reworded to reflect the tenuous link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.6.104 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu posted opinions that are critical of gmaergaters. Wu is then harassed by anonymous people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that the group of people she critiqued would then respond as they only know how to. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof here falls onto Wu, she has no evidence that Gamergate supporters were the ones that actually leaked her information aside from her own word. Considering her negative views towards Gamergate I doubt we can consider her unbiased in this situation. The wording in question needs to be changed to reflect the fact it's only a claim that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, so that the article can be more neutral. Oh, and nice biased response. Nathan905RB (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. It's not our problem if you think that Wu was wrong in her determination that it was Gamergate supporters who were behind the leaked information and the subsequent threat to herself and her husband. If people believe her, and that information is presented in the press, then that is what Wikipedia reports on. Unless there are any actual reliable sources saying that the claims that Gamergate is not involved (when Wu said multiple times that she saw her address get posted on 8chan's /gg/ and then the Tweets happened) then there is nothing that should be changed on this article on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate origins

The statement that GamerGate originated for "journalism ethics" is, at best, a contentious claim. The majority of reliable sources tend to depict the alleged ethics concerns as little more than a smokescreen or a thinly-veiled excuse to target Zoe Quinn and others. They tend to use terms such as "ostensibly" and "purportedly" to describe the journalism ethics claims. Since going into a deep dive on that issue is off-topic for this article, I've simply rewritten the section to avoid that debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact that "reliable sources are either colluding with each other, as seen on GameJuornoPros, or have the exact same ideological bias at play, claiming that GamerGate is a "thinly veiled excuse" for anything is, at best, disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.36.87 (talk)

Getting to NBSB's original point, my own feeling is that we should follow WP:WEIGHT. Since there are (at least) two significant views about the topic, both should be represented, the positive and the negative. Most of the sources that discuss Wu seem to be trying to describe GamerGate in the same way, and Wikipedia should, as best we can, summarize the predominant views in the sources, in as unbiased a manner as we can manage. In other words, I would support re-adding the phrase about GamerGate's origins being related to journalistic ethics, as it provides a more well-rounded view of the topic, which is what best serves our readers. --Elonka 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to develop phrasing that presents the mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint that the ethics issue is a smokescreen, while perhaps noting that a few fringe sources claim otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The "mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint" is currently sourced from Polygon, Kotaku, Gawker and The Escapist, All of which are outlets that are at the center of the ethics issue that has been presented and therefor should NOT be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion about those sources is interesting, yet completely irrelevant. The fact that supporters or opponents of a particular POV have criticized particular reliable news sources does not in any way render them unreliable. To do otherwise would give such people a heckler's veto over what sources could be used in an article.

I further note that the section you removed was sourced to Time and The New York Times, among others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations 16, 17, 18 and 20 are all from aforementioned sites and source 19 is from a report that only allowed somebody from one side of the issue to talk, And 15 is clearly biased against the issue. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, personal opinions that sources are biased does not render them invalid or otherwise unusable. Otherwise, anyone could say any source is biased and we'd have no sources at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

“ A set of IRC logs released Saturday appear to show that a handful of 4chan users were ultimately behind #GamerGate, the supposedly grass-roots movement aimed at exposing ethical lapses in gaming journalism. The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism. ”

— Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy, Ars Technica.

“ Sarkeesian noted that one of the threats specifically mentioned Gamergate, the anti-woman online movement that purports to be about journalistic ethics. ”

— The Gaming Industry Could Stop Gamergate — But It Won’t, Re/code.

“ Known as "Gamergate," the controversy -- ostensibly over ethics in gaming journalism, but used as a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry -- has shone a spotlight on the ugliest part of gaming culture. ”

— The game industry’s top trade group just spoke out against Gamergate, Washington Post.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First Link: Multiple things wrong with the origins of Gamergate, supports an obvious bias against Gamergate, and implies that you can just ignore the #NotYourShield hashtag and other movements just because they started on 4chan. The IRC chat screencaps themselves don't really prove much in terms of the movement itself being "misogynist", and I don't know how seriously we can take them considering they are coming from Zoe Quinn herself.

Second Link: Again, supports an obvious bias against gamergate, labels harassment that pro-GG supporters have been getting as just a political move, implies that Gamergate doesn't support the open letter made by a group of game developers, reports the skewed statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women (the actual ratio of men to women in people that play games for a significant amount of time every week is 7 to 1), and the article itself just takes Anita's word on the death threats being Gamergate affiliated, even though Anita herself has posted no evidence to back up this claim.

Third Link: Most unbiased of the three links (that's not really saying much though), still purports the statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women, tries to make Gamergate out to be a movement that is "looking to squash the voices of women at all costs", uses Anecdotal evidence to try to say that Gamergate has pushed women developers out of the industry, and again tries to make Gamergate out to be a "a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry" without any real proof.

None of these links do much to "prove" that Gamergate is a thinly veiled excuse to harass women in video games Nathan905RB (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it strange that wikipedia seems to have no problem with being absolutely biased when it comes to #gamergate. Credible sources or not, if those sources do nothing but follow the lead of the very same organizations like Kotaku that #gamergate goes up against. The action of a few angry individuals can certainly not be equaled with a movement supported by thousands of people. Brianna Wu states that #gamergate has been attacking people for years, when it only exists for a few months. She claims that the whole #gamergate movement is behind the attack on her, just because she was on a #gamergate related thread before the attacks started. Wu has an agenda that has nothing to do with gamergate and she's just using the alleged attack by #gamergate to get publicity for her cause to change video games according to her wishes, whether you see those wishes as positive or not. Watch this interview with her, it's all there for everyone to see and hear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAssDie-yng (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Die-yng, it's important here to avoid personal attacks, and in this case I think it is also prudent to avoid the appearance of personal attacks. Please limit your discussion to improving the article -- what Brianna Wu may or may not believe, or may or may not have said, is irrelevant unless it is reported in reliable sources. If, for example, the New York Times reports that "Brianna Wu states that GG has been attacking people since 2001," then that might be pertinent to the article. But your assertion of what you think you heard, or what you think someone told you they heard, is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. Note, too, that since this article concerns Gamergate, it falls under the special sanctions that apply to that topic, and your persistent reposting of unsubstantiated claims may lead to action by any administrator. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Reviews by random users on a random website should not be included in this wiki, the information is not relevant and is strictly opinion of nobody in particular.

" One reviewer on Pocket Gamer called it intelligent and "hugely entertaining". Another cited some issues with pacing and a heavily linear storyline, but overall found it "enjoyable and compelling"

should all be removed. Fill In Blanko (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather disingenuously, you make it sound as if these were anonymous reviews by users on websites, when in reality it is a review written by a staffer on a notable gaming website. Nothing will be removed on this basis of this post. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This line needs editing, it's kind of a mess.

" Her father had grown up in the small town of D'Lo, Mississippi, then joined the U.S. Navy to get a medical degree, and upon returning to Mississippi, opened his own clinic, and then with his wife, a series of other small entrepreneurial businesses, so Brianna was exposed at an early age to a dynamic environment of small businesses and the computers to run them."

Run on sentence, needs to be reworded.

Image

Brianna Wu draws for the 2008 Alzheimer's Research Trust "Match it for Pratchett" campaign

In this edit, User:Sandstein reverted my addition of this image of Brianna Wu to the article infobox, with the comment "Sadly not a useful image, as one doesn't really see her face". Now, while it is correct that the image doesn't show her face very well, and one that did would be better; it is, however, the best free image we have, and as such is a whole lot better than nothing. It does show part of her face, and that she is Caucasian (which, with her last name, might surprise some), pale, rather thin, has long brown straight hair, and wears dresses; all that might not be enough to unambiguously identify her, but it would certainly serve to distinguish between her and most other people (which can be quite useful for example); and it shows her contributing to a notable charity event, demonstrating that she is a charitable type and at least a minor celebrity of sorts. As such, I think it is certainly worth the amount of space in the article which it would occupy, and should still be there until we get a better image. Please discuss. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No image is better than a bad image, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, part of our manual of style: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This very poor image is not how we expect a person's biographical article to be illustrated - we instead expect something similar to a conventional portrait. We should avoid using this borderline-useless image. What's visually pertinent about a person is her face, used to identify her, not individual factoids such as her ethnicity or choice of dress or that she attends charity venues.  Sandstein  16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

I wonder if any RS reported her "Dickhead" email? [1] I'm not sure if this is considered normal behaviour on Twitter as it is a medium I haven't taken to, but it might be considered significant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Oops, yes [Huff post]. Apparently it's an "Amazing Response". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Yes, it's an "amazing response" because it was sent in reply to someone who sent her a sexist, harassing e-mail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So she sent a sexist harassing email back. I can understand why she would do that. I am still surprised it counts as "incredible". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

I see no harassment in the subject’s email, nor any reason to think it notable. Writing for Huggington Post, Nina Bahadur thought the reply was "incredible". I don’t really understand why we’re discussing it.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No one was "forcing" you to discuss it! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Sourcing?

North, I'd like to politely request sourcing for the 'Pro-Gamergate chanboard' 8chan. It's fine if what's what you state, that it's impeccably sourced. I'd just like to know which sources you're talking about. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This, this, this, this, this, this and this, for starters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Funding for her first startup

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brianna_Wu&diff=634088125&oldid=634069157

This was a very minor edit, yet it was reverted twice for two different reasons, the first being that a person's own tweets are not a reliable source. I cited proper BLP sourcing [indeed, that whole section is sourced almost entirely from the subject's podcasts] and restored the edit, and then was told it was trivial info, even though it was important enough for the subject to declare publicly. Now the entire sentence about funding has been removed. My edit was hardly WP:BOLD; I will not be defending it on that basis. Why has the entire sentence about funding been removed? Why was it there before? Is there anything else that should be added or removed? I'd like to add info on her previous careers in journalism and fundraising, but if I'm going to be reverted for using the subject as a source it would be a futile effort. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the source of her funds is a matter of significant interest in reliable secondary sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is; she herself thought so. You haven't addressed why you removed the entire sentence. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

She is not a secondary reliable source. What I am asking you is, is there any evidence that the amount of funding or source is a matter of significant interest such that it was discussed by someone besides her? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is filled every day with messages that are inconsequential to all: famously, "I ate a cheese sandwich.” And many, many Twitter messages are of interest to a very limited circle. I was mistaken about reliability, but here you answer NorthBySouthBaranof's concern regarding WP:UNDUE or perhaps WP:N by asserting that an isolated Tweet demonstrates this. It's not clear to me whether wikipedia typically discloses the extent of family and friends investments in startups; can you cite some other examples? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an allowable WP:BLPSELFPUB, but I think that the whole "she raised..." part should be omitted, leaving only "At the age of 19, she established a small animation studio". Neither the amount of funds nor their source strikes me as particularly noteworthy, this is an unexceptional sum and source of funds for this sort of business venture.  Sandstein  23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the intent here was to take a dig at how much (or how little, depending on one's perspective) Wu has raised, by using a primary source to note how much her family donated vs. how much the public donated. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not the editor who added "she raised $250k at age 19 to start a studio". Your attribution of intent should be directed at that editor. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary attribution of intent should be avoided at all costs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

As someone who publicly puts themselves on a platform of self-made success, I think it's significant to note for anyone reading this particular Wiki page. Not everyone is going to get 200k from their parents to start a business. That said, if you think it unimportant, I'd question the significance of having the article at all, but I'm not sure that's a thread you want to pull at Metalmunki81 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)