Talk:Naomi Wu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naomi Wu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Close connection and notability
Regarding the close connection and notability templates, Naomi Wu is only one of the 1,434 tweeps whom I follow, and neither Forbes nor Asia Times are chopped liver. kencf0618 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Naomi Wu is also one of the tweeps I follow. I assume that Newsweek is a good source for her notability? http://www.newsweek.com/naomi-wu-sexy-cyborg-misogyny-silicon-valley-704372 HouseOfChange (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely. Thanks for the edit! kencf0618 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect the close connection template had been added because of Special:Contributions/Naomi Wu. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Iron lung
Via a link from Hackaday [1], I came across this thread on Wu's Twitter: [2]. trying to organize Makers to help create new parts for a few old iron lungs still saving the lives of former polio victims. It isn't a news story/RS yet, but just want to flag as a potential future part of the article if it matures. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Good catch. Given the fierce regulatory environment surrounding medical devices, this story shall undoubtedly mature. kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem of social media and BLP
Wikipedia's BLP policy requires evidence, based on secondary sources that are considered Reliable Sources, before putting negative information into the biography of a living person. One characteristic of respectable journalistic sources is that they make an effort to verify the claims of gossip. Another is that they let the person criticized reply to what critics say. Gossip networks, even when amplified by social media, don't meet that standard.
If the New York Times, for example, reports that Naomi Wu is 10 different people, or that all her technology ideas came from her boyfriend, then a link to that NYT article would belong in this bio, assuming also we include what Naomi Wu says in response. Until somebody reliable verifies claims heard in gossip, I hope we can follow wikipedia policy on BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS
|
---|
This just in: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is intended for discussing the ARTICLE, not for attacking the SUBJECT of the article. My opinion of the doxxing claim doesn't matter, nor does yours. If WP:RS examine and report it, the article will report what RS say. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|
- I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The allegations have been discussed in detail in this RS from last November. Does anyone have any objections to summarizing them from that source? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- See #BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding below. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Date of "SexyCyborg is Dismantling Cliches About Women in Tech, One Boob Shot at a Time" article
Re [7], is there really any legitimate dispute that [8] is clearly dated September 14, 2015? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Draft controversial section on Talk page before adding (consensus) version to article
Wikipedia in general does not recommend "Controversy" sections in BLPs, and particularly when the matter is WP:RECENT and reporting by RS has not occurred. Therefore, I am removing the new section an IP just added and posting it here, so that wkipedia people can discuss how to proceed.
Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband.[1][2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects."[3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address (doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. Patreon Support released a statement on Twitter which stated, "We had several questions about why we removed https://www.patreon.com/sexycyborg . We removed this creator because they shared an individual’s home address in a public video as part of a threat against that individual. We have a zero tolerance policy for doxing."[4]
I will also mention WP:WEIGHT, this new addition as proposed would be 1/3 of the entire bio.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Wu told me she didn’t want to discuss her marital status, but before publishing the piece, I followed up with her. I hoped to discuss the Reddit conspiracy theory that claimed someone she’s in a relationship with was behind her work. Wu has spent significant energy proving these conspiracy theories false, and shutting down this harassment has inspired other women who have faced similar treatment online. “Do you actually have time to hop on Skype to go over the Reddit conspiracy theory?” I wrote. “It would be really helpful [to address these allegations. I saw that video where you say you're [name redacted’s] wife—and I'd like to discuss the unfairness of assuming a woman receives help, just because her partner works/worked in a similar industry. If you don't want to discuss this at all, I understand and won't push. I think the Reddit conspiracy theory is vicious, but since this profile is long and comprehensive, I'd love to highlight your opinions about prototype bias, gender expectations, and racism as they relate to the rumor. Let me know how that sounds, and what you're comfortable with.”]
- ^ Naomi Wu Blasts Vice Over Allegedly Sexist Interview
- ^ A Note About 'Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg
- ^ Statement from Patreon about the removal of Wu's account
- Just for the record, I'm not the IP who added that. I think we should wait for secondary sources (not the involved Vice press release) about the doxxing before adding anything, and I'm still very conflicted about how to handle the plagiarism aspect, but I remain convinced that unethical trolling of feminists, financial scamming, and puffery have all occurred. In any case, I recommend this Twitter thread for the most accurate and sober perspective on the issue I've seen so far. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The cited article says "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories" but that has been worded as "claims" in this text. We should call it a conspiracy theory too. For brevity and for lack of RSes, the last two sentences about Patreon could be dropped. Otherwise it looks okay. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- This draft is an effort to COATRACK in the reddit conspiracy theory, which has never been confirmed by any RS. The draft cites "claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband", the basic reddit theory and something that does not appear in any of the sources cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I was thinking it would be good to mention the harassment she's faced, but perhaps instead of saying "there's a conspiracy theory about her" (which might inadvertently signal-boost the message of the harassers), we should just say "she's been the victim of harassment" (which this Motherboard article is a citation for). --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- This draft is an effort to COATRACK in the reddit conspiracy theory, which has never been confirmed by any RS. The draft cites "claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband", the basic reddit theory and something that does not appear in any of the sources cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS
|
---|
The blog post has since been deleted. Coverage of this theory were on the Internet way before the Vice article. 211.22.161.69 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ceo-apologises-for-saying-sexy-cyborg-female-tech-maker-is-fraud-and-front-for-male-developer-a3696861.html Another article that includes the "rumors"210.140.221.110 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
People go to Wikipedia for research, and it serves as a form of credibility. The fourth sentence in Dale Daugherty from Make's Wikipedia page comments on the issue between him and Naomi Wu. Dale began to have doubts about Wu's authenticity, and send a private message to have someone read the information critical of Wu on reddit. https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/928294396897902593. The subreddit that was critical of Wu was banned by reddit admins, but the content still exists on various archives. There are numerous articles covering the alleged "bro witch hunt" of Wu, but Wu has never addressed the more damning evidence of her critics. The article by Vice mentions the controversy as a "reddit conspiracy theory," and talks about Wu's almost militant use of her followers. After receiving a message from the author asking if Wu would like to clear up the rumors about her, Wu took to twitter to harass and sic her followers on the authors of the article before it was even published. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ8xvUvU0AENDRR.jpg. After the article was published, and it is mostly a fluff piece, Wu reacted by again going to twitter to complain to her followers and then by releasing a video which contained the home address of one of the reporters at Vice. Her "farewell" video on Youtube does not mention her actions, nor did she apologize. The facts are that there are claims that she is inauthentic. It was one of the reasons Dale doubted her. The Vice reporters, doing their job, asked if they could talk to her about the claims, and she reacted by doxxing one of them. Vice released a follow up article explaining their side of things, and Patreon released a statement on why Naomi was removed from their platform. She is using Wikipedia as a tool to legitimize herself and her business. If Dale will forever have his page and reputation tarnished for doubting Wu's legitimacy, then I don't understand why a mentioning of the controversy and Wu's subsequent behavior cannot be published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.75.181.188 (talk • contribs)
|
- I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Did not come to prominence on Reddit
I'm removing the unsourced statement, "Wu first came to public prominence on Reddit." Because, these are her first comments on Reddit, in which she refers to several already-extant projects. Mass media news articles, including some cited already in the article, were written prior to those comments and refer to those earlier projects. At least ten of her 25 Thingiverse uploads are dated prior, as are about a third of her Imgur albums, many of which have hundreds of comments also dated prior. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding
This Buzzfeed article has been proposed as a way to COATRACK into the article reddit's theory that Wu is an ignorant mascot for some techy man.
The Buzzfeed article is in some ways problematic. Reliable sources should do some vetting of claims they publish, but this article is mostly screencaps from Twitter and elsewhere, unvetted, including the conspiracy theory which it sources to an anonymous poster who later deleted it. We don't have a date for that claim, but Wu has been highly visible since 2015, and it is now 2018. So presumably her abilities and creations have made some progress in 3 years of working on tech, something conspiracy theorists do not address.
Buzzfeed clearly states that Dougherty's claims were based on anonymous theories on reddit. It notes that Dougherty asked for advice from somebody who had spent time with Wu (Andrew "bunnie" Huang.) Dougherty later claimed that if he had read the response from Huang, he would never have made his claim that Wu was not a real maker.
Similarly, the Vice reporter who spent 3 days with Wu also did not agree with the conspiracy theories from long-ago reddit "detectives," describing them as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career"[9]. So maybe using that quote from Vice would be an acceptable way to include the conspiracy theory that some people desperately want to add to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I included an absolutely minimal description of the situation: "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer.[1]" to introduce a completely pertinent paragraph which says in no uncertain terms that the claims were reviewed in detail, debunked (although I disagree with that conclusion), statements made because of them were withdrawn and apologized for, and the apology was accepted.
References
- ^ Cho, Kassy (November 20, 2017). "A Male CEO Has Apologized After Saying That This Female Tech Designer Wasn't Real". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
- There is no question that statement of fact, which is apparently the source of all the new controversy, as included is true. It exists in a reliable secondary source which cites and displays the corresponding primary sources. The other IP editor wanted to include a whole lot more. You would not have been unwilling to compromise by demanding consensus here if you didn't know that the number of editors who want to censor this information outnumber, by a few, those here who want to include it. Prior to this, you only complained about the lack of secondary reliable sources and the verbosity of the other IP's inclusion. Because you have moved the goalposts, stating criteria and then revising them after they were met, I will be asking for a wider review of the proposed inclusion. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Proposing a draft that includes reddit theory in appropriate context:
Dougherty explained to followers that his statement was based on Google searches for "Naomi Wu liar and fake," which turned up Reddit pages he called "mostly conjecture." Dougherty also reached out to contacts in Shenzhen, including American programmer Andrew “bunnie” Huang. Dougherty later said that if he had read the response from Huang, he would not have published his claim about Wu.[1] [2] The anonymously posted material on which Dougherty based his original claim was described in a Vice article, by a reporter who spent 3 days interviewing Wu, meeting her friends, and seeing her work as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career."[3]
References
- ^ Cho, Kassy (November 20, 2017). "A Male CEO Has Apologized After Saying That This Female Tech Designer Wasn't Real". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 7 April 2018.
Dougherty told BuzzFeed News that he wrote the tweet because he was upset at Wu for attacking him and calling him a Trump supporter, which he said was a false claim. "I shouldn't have questioned her identity," he said. "I was questioning her attacking us, and it came out wrong."
- ^
Huang, Andrew (bunny) (March 31, 2018). "A Clash of Cultures". bunnie: studios. Retrieved April 6, 2018.
Dale reached out to me on November 2nd with an email asking what I thought about an anonymous post that accused Naomi of being a fake. I vouched for Naomi as a real person and as a budding Maker; I wrote back to Dale that "I take the approach of interacting with her like any other enthusiastic, curious Maker and the resulting interactions have been positive. She's a fast learner."
- ^ Emerson, Sarah (2017-03-25). "Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg: Three days with Naomi Wu, the face of China's cyberpunk city". Vice (magazine).
RFC
![]() |
|
Should the paragraph discussing questions of Wu's authenticity begin with the sentence, "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer."? 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as proposer. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- No The most reliable source discussing these theories (Vice) calls them "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." Feel free to include the claim somewhere if you also include this entire quote. I have proposed a draft containing this claim on this page, above. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- C-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment