Jump to content

Talk:Brian Wong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brian Wong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wong sexual assault indictment inclusion consensus

[edit]

Also, it's a little weird to call it a "lawsuit," which is a term generally reserved for civil matters. This is a criminal matter. I'm going to change the heading of that section to "Criminal Charges". Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Background: Over a month ago, there was intense discussion on the WP:BLPN which has since been archived [1]

Administrator Bbb23 wanted someone to put on this talk page for further discussion regarding this issue.

"What needs to be done here - and probably better on the Wong Talk page - is a discussion (RFC?) as to that issue. If there's a consensus that Wong is a public figure, there still has to be a discussion about what material/how much material may be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)" [2]

The two main concerns are:

1) Is Brian Wong a public figure?

2) If 1) is met, then how much material to include.

Wikipedia definition of public figure: A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. [3]

The reason for these two main questions is to determine if BLP:Crime which is applicable to non-public figures apply.

Various arguments were put forward both for and against the addition of the indictment of sexual assault. A big concern is whether social media popularity constitutes part of the definition of public figure.

Arguments for being a public figure:

Does having a large social media influencer part of the reason for being a public figure?

Brian Wong is a Linkedin influencer given exclusively to 500+ people in the world and has over 715,800 followers: In addition to the hundreds of media interviews and news articles which I won't list, his Linkedin is followed by over 715,800 people. These are professionals with real profiles and linkedin considered him a business leader and influencer. [4]

Linkedin definition of an influencer:[5]

Argument against proposed by user:Collect "Having a "blue check mark" does not mean one is a "public figure". More clear? Collect (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)"

Does identification by Brian controlled Facebook public page self identifying as public figure enough evidence to be a public figure? [6]

Potential arguments against: It could be a Facebook auto option if one wanted a public page.

Does self identification in an interview that one is a public figure enough to meet this definition? As an analogy, Wikipedia policy on coming out regarding sexuality is that this info cannot be included in any bio until one comes out publicly which can later be included on their bio. Following this analogy, does coming out with the intention of being a public figure and later performing actions consistent with this goal such as numerous public speaking, interviews, writing for major papers among others constitute as a public figure?

“I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience. And for four years of those classes,”[7]

This is not about notability guidelines and strictly focused on whether or not Brian Wong is a public figure and meets Wikipedia's standards. "This has nothing to with notability guidelines. The IP is clearly saying that a blue checked Instagram account means that the person is a "public figure", not that a blue check means the person meets our notability guidelines. We wouldn't even be arguing over this if the Wong article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)"

Thank you very much for drawing attention to this discussion and eventually a consensus. 2001:569:7E43:7900:A93E:65D0:4C24:2F58 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive284#Brian_Wong
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive284#Brian_Wong
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
  4. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongbrian
  5. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/49650
  6. ^ https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal
  7. ^ https://www.sauder.ubc.ca/News/2011/In_Living_Colour_-_Brian_Wong_takes_Silicon_Valley_by_storm
Brought in from BLPN, I am skeptical that he is a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME and removed details about the allegation with exception of how it impacted his career. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– There are three other people listed on the disambiguation page, and it's not at all clear that this one would be highly meganotable enough to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over all of the others. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose to prove that 96 per cent of people intended to get to the Canadian entrepreneur, instead of expecting a different Brian Wong and being surprised to not see the different American entrepreneur or the politician instead? Pageviews only prove anything if they're comparing dabbed-to-dabbed or undabbed-to-undabbed, so that you know that every pageview represented somebody landing at the topic they expected to land at, and prove nothing if they're comparing dabbed-to-undabbed so that you have no way of really knowing whether every one of those viewers actually got where they intended to go. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think more that way myself, but in my later experience, I have gotten the impression that having a particular topic at the base name has less of an effect on its traffic flow than you might expect. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't guarantee that every person who goes to the current primarytopic wanted to go there. In fact, I can guarantee the opposite; there is such a thing as a basename bump. However, the evidence we do have is a strong indicator that a vast majority of readers do get where they intend. The usage numbers for the other two articles and the dab page are tiny. The driver article at least is well cross-linked in other driving articles - it's no hidden, orphan article, and people still don't visit in any numbers. If a large number of people wanted a different article, we would see unusually large traffic to the dab page, which we don't. If you want to set up special redirects on the dab page to see where people actually go from there, that could be useful. Otherwise, moving the page as proposed guarantees that everyone who searches for "Brian Wong" will go to the wrong page, i.e., the dab page. When we have no evidence that people are currently being misdirected, that's making the WP experience worse for readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Canada has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am sympathetic to this overall sentiment, in that we shouldn't be too eager at declaring a primary topic among several not-too-famous people where one of them manages to get like 60%. But 96% is a totally different ballgame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that even half of that 96 per cent represents people who wanted the entrepreneur and thus got where they wanted to go, as opposed to expecting the politician or the race car driver and thus not getting where they wanted to go. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've had cases where a disambiguation page was initially in place, with one of the topics getting around, say, 80%. A successful RM would cause the percentage to go up a little, but never by more than 10%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Wong&oldid=1206072228"