Talk:Brianna Wu: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Note inconsistency between sources: reply to Runescrape)
(→‎Edit request)
Line 149: Line 149:
   
 
*Ping to enforcing admin {{u|HJ_Mitchell}} — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  
*Ping to enforcing admin {{u|HJ_Mitchell}} — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  +
  +
:*To enforce what? That statements made to a largely empty room are rather insignificant in a biography? --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:52, 14 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)
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)
absurd and despicable, this complaint is also misplaced. AE is that away --> MarkBernstein (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
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)

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)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

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)

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)

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)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

500/30 restrictions

Given recent disruptions and the history of disruptions and article protection stretching back to 2014, I am extending the 500/30 restriction that is on the Gamergate controversy article to this one. This action is not the result of any complaint delivered to me or any other administrator. I will consider lifting this restriction after observing its effect on this article for at least three months. This restriction may be appealed to WP:ANI, WP:AE, or any appropriate venue by any party. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Can you also add {{pp-30-500}} to the article body? That will give a nice blue lock icon. There is an edit filter that MusikAnimal setup that looks for it, although I don't think it's enforcing yet. There is also the old edit filter that is currently enforcing 500/300 on the GGC article and some caste articles. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The blue padlock won't do anything by itself (despite the documentation). We'll need to manually add it to Special:AbuseFilter/698, which I can do for you, if you'd like. phab:T126607 will be implemented soon, when you'll be able to simply apply the "extendedconfirmed" protection as you would any other protection level — MusikAnimal talk 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do, I don't know my way around edit filters that well. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I presume that the addition of the 500/30 rule is a preemptive restriction because of the ending of the current protection in three weeks? I ask, because I can't see any significant problems here from people who would not pass that condition, but I might be missing something and, of course, we might not be seeing problems while the article is protected. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I examined the history of problems and it's been protected on and off since 2014. I thought it was time to try something new. Gamaliel (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, although it seems the bigger problem in the last 4 months has been issues between established editors, as the only editors who would fall under the 500/30 conditions weren't really doing anything problematic. I guess we'll revisit this in three months time. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I only looked at logged sanctions and the most recent version of the talk page. If there were problems that weren't logged, I didn't take them into account. If there are other problems, we can certainly discuss them here, though AE might be the best place for certain types of issues. Gamaliel (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't User:Runescrape the only editor that doesn't meet it? Next to the hatted BLP violation and the related BLPN discussion, he/she was pretty mild. Regardless of whether you are acting on a complaint, did you receive one? Just curious as to what attracted you here if it wasn't correspondence of some fashion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I received no complaint. I saw a discussion about this page on Reddit. Gamaliel (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Odd that the original intention of 30/500 was to stop reddit reader brigades from coming to WP. Disappointing that the same unwanted behavior would drive admin action. Kind of like showing up at a deletion discussion because it was discussed elsewhere (I think we have templates to discourage that misbehavior). Not sure what we do about admins that enact sanctions and restrictions based on some offsite discussion they disliked even though onsite discussion was much more egregious. Solution: stop reading reddit to decide what to do. But I'll let you ponder the cognitive dissonance rather scale any buildings in a onesy --DHeyward (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Heaven forfend that a tool used to "stop reddit reader brigades from coming to WP" be implemented based on, of all things, perusing reddit. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
In point of fact, the original purpose of 500/30 was to demonstrate that TRPoD would still be incivil without reddit brigades to blame. Rhoark (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
As a general modus operandi, a page should not be protected on the mere basis of being discussed innocently elsewhere. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and off-site collaborations like Art+Feminism or WikiInAction are important components in countering systemic bias. Rhoark (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, while you're here and concerned about the state of the article could you please investigate the claim that "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism", which seems to have no supporting citations? Thanks in advance.--Runescrape (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel- do you intend 500/30 to cover just the article proper, or the talk page as well? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth, are you implying that noting unsourced claims is improper in some way? You appear to be responding to me, so I would advise that if you are offended by unsourced material I would advise you either find supporting citations ASAP or remove the <redacted> claim.--Runescrape (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Any claim is potentially fabricated, This one is derived from a direct quote from the subject. We have no reason to doubt it, and in its nature it's difficult to refute. Why would anyone want to? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Runescape, it's a fair question about the 500/30 restrictions. Originally (that is, on Gamergate controversy), they covered both the article and talk page, and it's useful for all to know the ground rules moving forward. It sort of pains me to say it, but I would advocate for the restrictions covering only the actual article; I don't think they're necessary here on the talk page, though I am sure opinions will differ. I would also like to note that you may find you receive better responses if you address your fellow editors in a collegial manner rather than presenting ultimatums. But as the French say, chacun à son goût. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"[The claim of having a college degree] is derived from a direct quote from the subject. We have no reason to doubt it, and in its nature it's difficult to refute." I would advise you use your favorite search engine to query the topic if you think this is the case.--Runescrape (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we questioning whether or not the subject has a degree? Or, what, exactly, are you driving at? No nonsense about Google: say it here (and, if it's a BLP violation, suffer the consequences) or hold your peace. Thanks, and have a splendid day. 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

David Whitford, editor at large, Inc. Magazine interviewed Wu for his article, "Brianna Wu vs. the Gamergate Troll Army" where he writes, "At Ole Miss, Wu studied journalism and wrote for The Daily Mississippian, but she never graduated. She left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001 after getting swept up in the excitement surrounding George W. Bush's election as president." (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201504/david-whitford/gamergate-why-would-anyone-want-to-kill-brianna-wu.html) Requiring more than just her word on the subject of her academic credentials is perfectly reasonable. Marteau (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Inc. Magazine, but it looks pretty legitimate to me. That definitely strikes me as a better source than the one currently cited for Ms. Wu's degree. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel But since the article is currently fully protected shouldn't the first line of the article be {{pp-blp|expiry=20160328}}<!--{{pp-30-500}}--> Then when the 500/30 restriction is the only protection the first line should be {{pp-30-500}} -- SLV100 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems

  • The article links to a small podcast as a citation... and a broken link.
  • "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" - Unsupported by any citations. Please add them or remove the claim.
  • ", then worked as a journalist until [the subject] was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame." - Also unsupported by any citations. Please add them or remove the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runescrape (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the podcast you are looking for. Looks like the URL changed.
  • The citation was there, but it was removed, Special:Diff/630323327. As for studying journalism, the LA Times covers it, but I really don't see any issue with trimming it back if the original source isn't usable. — Strongjam (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, it seems some inconsistencies between reports have surfaced with respect to the subject completing a degree. While Inc. magazine writes "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001 after getting swept up in the excitement surrounding George W. Bush's election as president." However, the Boston Globe, one of the sources cited by this article, claims the subject is "a graduate of the University of Mississippi".--Runescrape (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Note inconsistency between sources

Inc. magazine writes "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001 after getting swept up in the excitement surrounding George W. Bush's election as president." However, the Boston Globe, one of the sources cited by this article, claims the subject is "a graduate of the University of Mississippi". The article presents the latter claim without challenge: "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism".--Runescrape (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What specific edit do you want made? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors should be wary, here as elsewhere, of violating Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons, either inadvertently or delberately. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
We should add the Inc. Magazine source to the article. The unsourced statement "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" should be replaced with a statement which combines the statements from Inc. Magazine and The Boston Globe.--Runescrape (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What specific edit do you want made? In other words: What text do you want changed to what text? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I should rephrase this: The unsourced statement claiming "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" should be replaced with a statement which combines the interviews from Inc. Magazine and The Boston Globe. The relevant sections to combine would be "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001" from Inc. Magazine and "[the subject is] a graduate of the University of Mississippi" from The Boston Globe.--Runescrape (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And what would be your proposed new statement- as in, what would you type were you to be able to make the edit? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My proposed new statement would be a combination of both aforementioned sections.--Runescrape (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I lament that I cannot implement an edit you are unable to detail. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Type out the combination as you think it should be, Runescrape. Dumuzid (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"While Inc. Magazine reports Mrs. Wu left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001, The Boston Globe described her as a graduate of the University of Mississippi.12." Feel free to adjust this as necessary, but it seems safe enough. It just quotes two sources and notes the discrepancy - for whatever reason - between the two. If any issue arises, the onus is on the sources.--Runescrape (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What if we were to change the sentence from "She later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism, then worked as a journalist until she was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame" to "She later returned to college to continue her studies in investigative journalism, then worked as a journalist until she was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame." Seems to me to be true no matter which source you credit. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any evidence supporting the claim that the subject worked as a journalist either. In fact, nothing written by the subject shows up in any reliable sources before 2012.--Runescrape (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
See this Guardian article: [3]. "Four years ago, after working in animation, and then journalism, Wu founded a small development studio, Giant Spacekat." That's something. "Working in journalism" doesn't necessarily mean being in a position where your byline winds up under stories. And I'd offer a (hopefully) friendly reminder that we should stick to sources rather than 'evidence,' per WP:OR. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like if someone added some information about Wu's recent appearance on a SXSW panel about online harassment. E.g. according to the following sources, she "accused social networks of standing by while their platforms were used to spread hate" and explicitly avoided talking or making the panel about Gamergate. [4] [5] Everymorning (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Everymorning, usually the process is that you draft an edit you would like to see to the article, then request it be made. If you want to type up the information as you'd like to see it added, it would be helpful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, then let me propose the following addition: "In 2016, Wu hosted a panel at South by Southwest called "Is a safer, saner and civil internet possible?" in which she accused social media sites of not acting to stop their users from spreading hate on their platforms.[1]
I mean, I'm not exactly opposed to including something like that, but I am not exactly sure why it's notable? I would just say not everything she says at a conference is going to be included in the article. Why do you think this is important? I'd appreciate hearing! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times article is dominated by Wu’s remarks: [6] MarkBernstein (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, do you think the talk about social media platforms (or anything else, for that matter) should be included? I am again not against it, but it doesn't feel like it's an improvement to the article at this point. But I am often wrong. Your opinion would be appreciated! Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What if a Software Developer spoke in a forest and nobody was there to hear it? --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • To enforce what? That statements made to a largely empty room are rather insignificant in a biography? --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brianna_Wu&oldid=709963194"