Talk:Brianna Wu: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 67: Line 67:
:Nope. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:Nope. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


(The rest of this inappropriate and unproductive discussion has been redacted.) [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
::I don't think so. The COI standard here is not as stringent as the appearance of impropriety. If the editor were continually warring against consensus, then it would be something to consider, but that is not the case as far as I can tell. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 03:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Is [https://www.reddit.com/user/peterthefourth this]? [https://twitter.com/eastgate/status/545610519508701186 This] also appears odd.--[[User:Runescrape|Runescrape]] ([[User talk:Runescrape|talk]]) 03:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::The [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself.2C_family.2C_friends|WP:COI]] states: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions."--[[User:Runescrape|Runescrape]] ([[User talk:Runescrape|talk]]) 04:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::The guideline is primarily targeting close friends and, most importantly, article subjects. Engaging with someone on Twitter, or expressing opinions on a forum, isn't enough to indicate a serious conflict of interest. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Are you suggesting that people who post on Reddit should be banned from editing Wikipedia? In all honesty, I'd have some sympathy for that suggestion, but I want to make sure that's what we're talking about before we really dig in to the merits of the proposition. Thanks. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 04:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::The quality of editors in general would be greatly involved if the Reddit posters were eliminated. Were such a mass eviction possible (including those who choose to use different usernames), I'd be happy to be the first up against the wall. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 07:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Come to think of it, that would exclude me too. So maybe we should just keep the status quo around here! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it a problem that nobody deigned to ping me about this scurrilous and groundless personal attack? Yep. There is no conflict f interest whatsoever, except with these endless personal attacks orchestrated on Reddit and the chan boards. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 10:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:Oop. Sorry. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 11:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself.2C_family.2C_friends|WP:COI]] states "if you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." If you feel you have no personal connection to the subject, you can let your evidence speak for you. A search on your respective twitter handles suggests you do have a personal connection with the subject.
:You have also stated "there is no conflict f interest whatsoever, except with these endless personal attacks orchestrated on Reddit and the chan boards", would you care to expound on this claim or take it to AE?--[[User:Runescrape|Runescrape]] ([[User talk:Runescrape|talk]]) 14:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
::Runescrape, you seem to have come here solely to attack another editor. Are there, you know, changes you think should be made to the article? If so, let's hear about them. If not, I think Dr. Bernstein is correct above that this belongs somewhere else, like arbitration enforcement. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:31, 6 March 2016


Removal Of Self-Promotion

Regarding Promotional Tone, primarily my attention caught unnecessary self-promotional tones here; Aligning herself with Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn - Noting the creation of a legal defense fund - This quote, "I’m one of the best-known women developers in the world today. That’s a fact." There are sourced materials that Brianna Wu is (or was) a columnist and/or contributor for; The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Huffington Post, The Mary Sue, and Polygon - This is a conflict of interest and suggests influence. Her PDF link for Argentus is a magazine creation website and is convincingly padding her RESUME. Adjustments should be made before a nomination for deletion is renewed. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, nominate the article for deletion, and we'll see how things shake out. After that, however, I request you go over to Muhammad Ali and tag that article for deletion as well; there is an absolute ridiculous amount of self-promotion by that subject (e.g., his claim to being "the greatest" is completely unsourced). Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To beg debate on Muhammad Ali's achievements by comparison to severely-objective claims? Is puerile absurdity. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like one of the editors to the page discusses this and related articles with the subject. It does seem strange that this hasn't been mentioned before.--Runescrape (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, MarkBernstein's edits appear to be a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runescrape (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
absurd and despicable, this complaint is also misplaced. AE is that away --> MarkBernstein (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have been in contact with the subject numerous times on Twitter. As your talk page appears to be protected, I have no way to notify you anyway if I wanted to file an AE claim.--Runescrape (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. Magazine

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

Boston Globe 9-15-2015

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

This should go in the lead

This amount of funding for new emotional tech is very significant.

"She says her company will soon release a new version of Revolution 60, a shoot-'em-up set in outer space, and is seeking $25 million in funding to develop software that will help computers know when we're happy, frustrated, or sad."

www.inc.com/david-whitford/gamergate-women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please leave a while to let a consensus for this edit develop. When you find a consensus, or if no-one responds in a reasonable amount of time, please reactivate the edit request template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only significant if they actually get funded to create the technology. Anyone can say they're looking for funding. (Similarly, creating the technology is the notable part; the funding itself is interesting, but the achievement is it working). Fleetingshadow (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear BLP violations should not be restored. TPO doesn't grant exemptions. The conversation isn't going to lead to improving the article as BLP violations cannot be added. We don't subject Wu to such idle speculation when made by others and for good reason.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unencylopedic line

In a September 2015 interview, Wu stated that she was "taking a step back" and no longer responding to hateful posts before blocking them. How Wu chooses to use her social media isn't encyclopedic or notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Because her notability is due, in a significant extent, to the vicious online attacks against her, then it follows that her response to those attacks is both encyclopedic and "notable" in this context. I enclose "notable" in quotes because that Wikipedia concept actually applies only to the topic of the article, Brianna Wu, rather than to specific pieces of information about her. We will not help perpetuate the harassment against her by failing to discuss how she has dealt with and responded to that harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, in point of fact, it has now been discussed in The Washington Post: [2]. <redact> MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors to this article appears to have discussed it with the subject

Is this a problem?--Runescrape (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The rest of this inappropriate and unproductive discussion has been redacted.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brianna_Wu&oldid=708625808"