Jump to content

Talk:Kiwi Farms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is censoring you-know-who’s name really helpful, let alone necessary?

I know this is one of those perennial proposals that inevitably gets shot down as “READ THE FAQ”, but censoring “Voldemort”’s name is kind of ridiculous for the following reasons:

1. The article already discloses their initials and provides links that openly discuss their name
2. Everyone already knows who they are even if they’re not individually notable
3. They are not solely known because Kiwi Farms harassed them; contemporary readers probably know them best for their recent legal issues and for being the subject of a lengthy YouTube documentary series
5. There is very little organized harassment going on against them currently; in fact it’s actively discouraged by people who participated in the original campaign

Tl;dr we are not protecting anyone or doing anything useful by hiding the name of a well-known internet personality. Dronebogus (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person is still alive, is not a public figure, and has no source of notability outside of being harassed. (Youtube notability is not Wikipedia notability.) So I would be very skeptical of proposals to add their name to the article.
This is not to say that I couldn't ever be convinced, but it'd take some WP:EXTRAORDINARY sourcing. Sourcing that'd probably be sufficient to establish a whole article on them. Loki (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of a public figure to have a Wikipedia page: Keffals. If not a public figure, then that article needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same person that we're talking about here. Keffals is unambiguously a public figure with notability independent of being harassed. Loki (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, Keffals has actually interviewed Christine. So we have that, as well as Fox News and other mainstream news outlets discussing her legal issues and the Kiwi Farms involvement, in terms of reasons Chris could be considered at least somewhat notable. I’d say if both national news has coverage of you and a notable streamer has hosted you you’re no longer strictly a “private individual”; that and she (Chris) isn’t trying to lay particularly low or anything. Dronebogus (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that argument around CWC's self-promotion; it's the strongest argument in favour of inclusion, and one I also voiced earlier. I'd advocate it more firmly if not for my concerns over their competence. However, if we are to go with that argument for them being a high profile individual, this feels like procedurally it would adhere best to WP:NPOV and WP:AVOIDVICTIM to first handle via a separate discussion of unsalting Chris Chan, a page draft created then mainspaced with a fuller recounting of who they are and their significance beyond WP:BLP1E, and then that article linked from here. lizthegrey (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft title is also salted, but if someone who actually has track record of writing articles (i.e. not new editors) wants to take a stab at a neutrally-written, well-sourced draft about CWC, I'll unsalt. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CWC has several news articles in her name that are independent of being harassed, so I’d argue she’s notable enough. She is also considered a public figure I believe- she is one of the most documented people on the Internet. Dr. Precursor (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "documented" was involuntary and part of the harassment for many years. We can't count that towards a good faith notability argument because of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If there are sources that do not have to do with the harassment and "documentation" then there is an arguable reason for an experienced editor to draft an article that adheres to policies around BLP and NPOV and not doing unnecessary harm to subjects. lizthegrey (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is just turning into “any time anyone mentions CWC it’s just part of the harassment feedback loop”. Which you could argue it sort of is, but let me reiterate that the organized harassment ended years ago. A handful of idiots randomly paparazzi-ing CWC is not “organized harassment”. Neither is someone keeping track of her public court records, or what she posts of social media or YouTube, or discussing an inadvertent IRL encounter. Point is that CWC is an internet celebrity, a public figure by her own free will, and a household name for a lot of people— whether or not you think it’s good that she is any of those things. We aren’t “defending” her “privacy” when she makes zero effort to lay low anyway. We’re just patronizing our readers, who weren’t born yesterday and probably have heard of CWC at least in passing. Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply that these are your motives, Dronebogus, but the argument here does boil down to me as being "the harassment was so successful that we should allow it to continue on Wikipedia." I tend to agree that the possible harms are quite low. But for me, the benefit to the encyclopedia is nil. As such, the balance (for me, anyway) is an easy one. As ever, happy to go wherever consensus leads, but akin to Loki, I don't see myself as easily persuadable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not really what I was arguing; my case was the harassment is almost entirely in the past, they’re widely known as part of internet popular culture (not to mention the fact that their legal problems were covered on national news), and the article dances around mentioning them in such a clumsy way it’s almost patronizing. I’m not arguing for any change in their notability status; I’m arguing it’s bizarre we’re going out of the way to symbolically “protect” the privacy of a well-known individual by not mentioning their name, once, in an appropriate context, in a largely unrelated article. Dronebogus (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please no. Can we all find better things to do in life than talk about this all over again? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean by “Inevitably gets shot down”. I don’t like it when old consensus gets treated as gospel even when there’s valid reasons to reconsider something. Dronebogus (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to suggest that there is encyclopedic value in naming this person, that's pretty much subjective judgement. If you believe it is worth it despite the BLP issues and implications people have suggested countless times, that is also subjective judgement. The consensus, as far as I know, is against inclusion. WP:CCC applies, but I just don't agree with your points and I don't think it is really worth our time to discuss this again. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus, I apologize for my clumsy wording. I know that's not your argument, and I don't doubt the good faith of your motives. But I do feel like it ends up being the practical upshot here. This person is notable only because of a harassment campaign. I see absolutely no benefit in using the name, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment I would not say is a thing of the past given KF's and other sites' habit of paparazzi photo snapping of her every time they encounter her in public. lizthegrey (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do get the feeling that it is sort of a fossilized consensus from many years ago, when the person who shall not be named was basically an obscure crackpot known for drawing a strange webcomic and occasionally delivering homophobic rants on YouTube. At this point, it seems like they are quite well-known basically everywhere on the web except Wikipedia. It does not seem plausible to me that we are actually doing much in the way of protection by maintaining this omission.
It is probably relevant that most the people who come to argue for the inclusion of the name are farmsers, and that farmsers are generally execrable morons (they invented the term "A-logging" but somehow failed to realize this describes nearly every post made on their site for the last decade). It is indeed hard to see that much benefit from mentioning CWC, especially since so many people will become extremely rankled at the idea of doing so. I regard the issue as mostly a minor curiosity emerging from Wikipedian idiosyncrasies -- e.g. Daniel Brandt may, by now, clear the notability guidelines, but we sure as hell do not have an article on him. Maybe this is just the price we pay for having a project that works well most of the time. I think it is probably not worth arguing about it too much.
Food for thought: has anyone actually asked CWC for an opinion on this? jp×g🗯️ 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if anything she’d appreciate the publicity for her cult (yes she’s running a cult now) Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a relevant thing I think, now that she's out of custody; it's possible to discern whether she is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual of her own choosing. lizthegrey (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in all seriousness as much as I’d like to know her opinion, the inevitable unwanted publicity it would attract to both us and CWC far outweighs any microscopic benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cwc has made a wikipedia page on them self before so I don't think they are against it Tankfarter (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me turn the question around. Is reopening this can of worms really helpful, let alone necessary? Naming her would only cause a whole heap of trouble. People would try to use it as a bridgehead to introduce more content about her, to distract from the actual subject of this article and generally to be disruptive. So, why bother? It really doesn't add anything meaningful to our coverage of the actual topic here. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what is known as the slippery slope fallacy. When that happens anywhere else we protect pages, block trolls, and revert vandalism. There is nothing so special about CWC that her name represents a class-5 security threat. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that last addition is in any way helpful to this discussion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus, that last comment is Exhibit A for why this is a problem. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to offend anyone, I thought it was just a joke. Anyway removed now. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus, I can't speak for anyone else, but that sense of "this is a person about whom it is safe to make jokes" is part of what makes me resist directing any attention their way. That said, I absolutely understand how that sense develops. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference between poking fun at someone, stalking/harassing them in the sense of paparazzi/stanning, organized trolling/harassment, and an organized hate campaign. I think they’re all kind of being conflated here. Once again I’m sorry if I accidentally offended anyone by making an arguably insensitive joke but it’s not because I hold ill will or prejudice against CWC or think it’s “safe” to make fun of her any more than I think it’s “safe” to make fun of anybody else. Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the literal use of the term "bridgehead" is a good illustration of the distance between the factors in play here and the task of writing an encyclopedia article. jp×g🗯️ 20:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bridgehead is literally a fortification used by invading military forces to secure passage across a difficult terrain feature (i.e. a river or marsh) -- even if it is "just" an analogy, it still makes no sense outside the context of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. The purpose of the website is not to build fortifications -- it's to build an encyclopedia. jp×g🗯️ 00:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect JPxG (and I do, in fact, respect you!), this reads a bit like "no one around here knows how to build an encyclopedia but me." Reasonable minds can differ on a great many topics, and we can still have the same goal in mind. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fair to say kiwifarmers are more likely than not to have a battleground mentality regarding wikipedia, if I'm being honest, so it's not that danielrigal sees it as a bridgehead, it's that other people would use it that way, regardless of how we see it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. I wasn't aware of any potential ambiguity in what I said but I am happy to confirm that this is what I meant. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To spell things out based on policy: I think there is growing evidence now that CWC has been released from custody that they are behaving in a high-profile way, actively seeking media attention. This potentially means they are notable in their own right and not subject to WP:1E (counting the harassment and "documenting" as one ongoing event for these purposes). As @Dronebogus says, there are tools for dealing with pages that are frequently vandalised because the individual also happens to be the subject of a harassment campaign (see for instance Brianna Wu which is goldlocked). Yes, it creates work and is a pain, and inevitably will be used to further harass them, but we don't avoid creating pages entirely because of the heckler's veto.
The argument against is that even if they are behaving in a high-profile way, we owe a duty of care to avoid endangering people who are WP:INCOMPETENTS and are behaving in a high-profile way due to exploitation of their mental incapacity. There is also another argument regarding WP:AVOIDVICTIM harm reduction: if we view it as suitable to include their full name in an article relating to harassment of them, does that present a neutral view of them in the totality of the circumstances? Or is it necessary also to create a dedicated BLP for a fuller presentation pursuant to NPOV? lizthegrey (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily doubt many people visiting the article for Kiwi Farms of all things will not already know who Chris is. At this point, mentioning her name is only disallowed because that's already how it is. Gumbod (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people on Wikipedia seem to conflate “old consensus” with “policy”. Consensus can, and should, change. Dronebogus (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but that's a bad argument when it isn't changing. The reason this consensus remains is that lots of editors support it. Loki (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or a bunch of editors just happen to hold a lot of sway on one or more pages and they’re unwilling to change their minds. Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how [people] unwilling to change their minds is a problem. People exist, all you need to do is convince them. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slighly related topic: should the individual's name be omitted from reference 21? Skyshiftertalk 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If I understand correctly consensus is not to include her name in the article, not “censor every possible mention”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then I don't see the point of omitting her name in the prose. I can just click reference 21 and her name is right there, in the article (as references are part of the article). I think if the name is omitted from the prose, then it should also be omitted from that reference, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Skyshiftertalk 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could reasonably make the argument that with two other references provided as verification for that particular sentence, it is not necessary and could be removed. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Skyshiftertalk 12:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a general note, we do not necessarily pretend that Chris-chan doesn't exist; I have declined more than a few RD2 requests where her name appears in various locations. The long-standing consensus is that including her name in articles (here or elsewhere) will just serve to prolong the harassment. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone breaks the taboo on actually using her name. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will happily type her name one thousand times per day if it helps to prevent Wikipedia from being dragged into "lolcow" bullshit. Dumuzid (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same Tankfarter (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly stylized

Joshua "null" Moon (owner of the website) has clarified the stylization of the Kiwi Farms before on his podcast. I think that the article should be edited to have the correct stylization of the website name. MakerJulian (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Taylor Green swatting

According to the Washington Times, the FBI charged two foreign men on 8/28 for the swattings (with nothing mentioned about KF at all). It would probably best to edit the relevant section to note that MTG claims that the swatting was done by Kiwifarms, rather than presenting it as fact.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/28/feds-charge-two-foreign-men-for-swatting-marjorie-/

Jtrainor (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, thanks for the heads up. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section doesn't present it as fact. It says that she stated it was done by Kiwi Farms, which is not the same thing - that's what attribution is for! Also, the Washington Times is a WP:MREL source and shouldn't be used for something like this. We can't use something like "alleged" when attributing something to a living person unless sources contain the same level of doubt. If there's a WP:RS stating that Kiwifarms wasn't involved, of course we could include that, but we can't just infer that from a single Washington Times piece and then imply that someone was lying as a result. EDIT: Also, examining closer, the two men you're talking about were charged for a separate swatting incident (in 2023; this one.) It's unrelated to the one MTG described as originating from Kiwifarms, which took place in 2022. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiwi_Farms&oldid=1247886571"