Talk:Steve Huffman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Overt COI & Systemic Bias Effects in this article

This article is non-encyclopedic. It is composed largely of unjustified editorial exposition with little or no encyclopedic value ("better mobile experience and stronger infrastructure"), quotes from the subject which are given undue prominence, literally submissions from Mr. Huffman's representatives, and a gaggle of systemic hangers on who edit war against anyone attempting to describe any of the many controversies that Mr. Huffman has been party to. Please stop using Wikipedia as a public relations platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1e60:ef70:713b:f856:e42e:a0a5 (talk • contribs)

This is the new censorship I guess

Im going to hold off editing until the dispute is resolved but in no way is this the end of this.

We all know Steve Huffman went into the SQL database and changed (maybe one maybe 100006543683456904537) comments.

This was a MAJOR news story

https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13739026/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-edit-comments https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-modifies-donald-trump-the-donald-2016-11 https://gizmodo.com/reddit-ceo-caught-secretly-editing-user-comments-chatl-1789342358

99% of the edits on that page are done by PAID wikipedia editors from Beutler Ink. They used opencooper to do this. At some point don't we want to have some integrity in a public site? Is this a site for information, or advertising? Or do we want repeats of the gamergate wikipedia bullshit?

https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/wikipedia-gamergate-scandal-how-a-bad-source-made-wikipedia-wrong-about-itself.html

Ill be here until this is resolved, and I've documented every step of this process for my article.

As has been mentioned in other threads please read WP:CRIT. You seem not to have noticed that the item is not being removed just placed in the proper spot in the article. As to claims of paid editing please provide proof otherwise you are engaging in casting aspersions as well as battleground actions. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is confusing for some of you. The CRIT guideline CLEARLY STATES - "Controversy" section. "For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. " Is this not a new section for a specific controversy covered in dozens of media articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the paid editors are literally on this page's history if you took 10 seconds to read you'd see the dozens of requests for edits that Rhiannon made to opencooper specifically asking for him by name. Several other wikipedia users have additionally requested this same heading. Why are you so intent on keeping the scandal buried under PR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No confusion here. I even know how to sign my posts. Asking for someone by name is not proof of paid editing. You've linked 5 items not dozens. The item isn't buried. You've also been advised to read WP:UNDUE. I would add that you may want to read WP:RGW since your edits are falling into that pattern. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the CRIT page..."For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources." This was. Do you want dozens of urls? I have them. I only put 5 in there to limit spam. Was there somewhere that had a hard and fast rule of how many "news sites" need to push a story before it can be a separate controversy section? Do you work for Beutler Ink or any corporation affiliated with Steve Huffman, or have you had any interactions with he or any of those entities outside of Wikipedia?

It would absolutely be a violation of WP:UNDUE and a WP:BLP to split out one single event consisting of two sentences into a separate controversy section. It is apparent from your edits that your purpose in editing this article is to portray the subject in the worst possible light, which runs completely contrary to the neutrality expected on Wikipedia. You do not have consensus for the changes you are trying to make and you will not be able to obtain that consensus because your changes represent blatant policy violations. Casting aspersions by suggesting editors who are attempting to uphold our core policies are somehow affiliated with Huffman does nothing to dispel the view that you are here to push a specific point of view. Do you plan on covering the incident for your article? If so, it is a distinct conflict of interest for you to be editing the article directly. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The article wasn't edited. There have been numerous posts and talk since the incident that suggested it be its own section, and numerous edit wars, none of which I was a part of until recently. What I did was add a section header to conform to Wikipedia standards. You sure are angry about a page you haven't cared about before. If you'd like to throw more of a tantrum, feel free to head over to either of our user pages so we dont waste space here with your childish rants. If you won't answer my questions regarding your personal bias please stop editing the page. Unlike both sides of this edit war in the past I am neither a Trump hater or supporter. Siihb (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As to your demands about who can edit this page see WP:OWN. You have provided no evidence of personal bias by any other editors. The only childish rants here are yours. MarnetteD|Talk 01:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you may need a refresher on the meaning of the word "demands" as well. Regarding the personal bias, this began when opencooper reverted an edit that added a section in line with the rules of wikipedia which I have quoted repeatedly. The edits done by opencooper on behalf of Beutler Ink who acknowledged in their requests that they were acting as paid agents for Huffman are visible to anyone clicking the history of this page. Siihb (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Siihb - I usually pay very little attention to an editor who always erases messages from their own talk page while leaving a lot of messages on other editors' talk pages and on article talk pages. It usually indicates an editor with an open mouth and closed ears. In other words, the censorship that I am observing is of User talk:Siihb. I am saying that here rather than on User talk:Siihb. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bobbie, I am not big on this here courtesy on Wikipedia, mostly because I've seen none from anyone else. If what I am doing isn't permitted, why allow it? It is doubly ironic given that the last message I left on your page has a giant thing hiding it that says The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Back on topic.....I will again reference the Matt Lauer page showing very clearly a scandal with which he was associated with being ITS OWN SEPARATE SECTION. Again, we are discussing how an incident where someone engaged in comment changing, which has devolved into comment changing. This is an open source information site. Are we really squabbling over formatting on one page over another? If this isn't allowed on this page, can we have the Matt Lauer section about his scandals changed to be consistent? Its baffling that this is even an argument. Siihb (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)::::::And given that we have paid editors ON THAT VERY PAGE the whole process does not come off as transparent. It comes off as hey here is this rich powerful dude, who paid wikipedia people to fluff his content, and now his article is inconsistent with other wikipedia articles for example: Matt Lauer. Of important other note is that I am not the first, second, etc person to make these exact same statements. At some point the people on this page need to acknowledge that this was a major scandal specific to Huffman and that the readers deserve to see it separated as its own section, to be in line with other Wikipedia articles. Lauer is just the first that comes to mind. Siihb (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment controversy needs its own section.

This will bring it in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and consistent with other articles, such as Matt Lauer, or for someone in a similar line of work, Mark Zuckerberg. Both Lauer's and Zuckerberg's articles have scandals/controversies broken out under bolded headings per Wikipedia guidelines. It is time the Huffman page followed suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines state not every controversy needs a controversy section; if you read WP:BLP policy, it generally is not in favour of them, and supports integrating material into the main part of the article. Matt Lauer has one, because in his case, there were major life consequences; he lost his job and his whole career of what, 30 years? went down the toilet. It made international news. Steve Hoffman's actions upset some reddit users, and the majority of sources are from web based or internet interested media. The event did not take over a media cycle like the Matt Lauer accusations. He is still CEO, and to date there has not been significant blowback. So the approaches to formatting the two articles are different. Zuckerberg's is "legal controversies"- its a bit difficult to avoid one of those when you keep getting sued by people wanting a slice of Facebook, and are summoned to testify before Congress.

And yes, you do need consensus to put a separate controversy section in, if other editors object.

Odd, I see none of that on the Lauer page. Should I expect some changes soon? For consistencies sake? Siihb (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get other editors feedback, you could try WP:BLPN the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard; they discuss issues just like this all the time. Curdle (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now a major controversy is sandwiched between two fluff sentences "Huffman also worked to make the site more advertiser-friendly" and "Beginning in 2017, Huffman led the redesign of Reddit's website with its first major visual update in a decade" which is directly from paid wikipedia editor comment in September 2018. Ironically the specific scandal in question regards the article subject suppressing negative comments about them. Sure seems like it is more of the same here. I don't see a single comment on the Lauer talk page asking about adding the controversy/scandal. Those are for ALLEGATIONS. Huffman has admitted to his chicanery when forced to by user evidence. What am I missing about this user's page that has so many editors intent on sandwiching a major user scandal between two paid ads? Siihb (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The effects it had on his career, and the amount of coverage it received. I think you are missing something; the archived part of the discussion on the Matt Lauer talkpage. There is quite a bit of of discussion over wording, and how much emphasis to give the allegations. At one stage, there appears to have been an entire separate article on the allegations that was been merged into the main Matt Lauer article. [1]. Curdle (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, just a heads up - If you want to respond to another editor's posts, don't sandwich your own comments in between- makes it difficult to read, as we are supposed to sign each post, which provides a date time stamp as well. Makes it confusing as to who said what, and when- if you want to make it clear you are responding to a specific part, you can quote see WP:TALKO. As to what else you are missing; to be perfectly honest, Matt Lauer doesnt interest me at all. I saw the post at ANI, and you didnt seem to understand why you were getting so much resistance to your proposition. As you are a relatively new user, and dont seem to have made that many edits previously, I thought I would attempt to explain. Even if you decide not to post there, you really should read a few posts at WP:BLPN it will give you a much better feel for how the community in general approaches BLPs - electing not to have a separate section really isnt that uncommon. Curdle (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)