This is an archive of past discussions about Brianna Wu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reviews by random users on a random website should not be included in this wiki, the information is not relevant and is strictly opinion of nobody in particular.
" One reviewer on Pocket Gamer called it intelligent and "hugely entertaining". Another cited some issues with pacing and a heavily linear storyline, but overall found it "enjoyable and compelling"
Rather disingenuously, you make it sound as if these were anonymous reviews by users on websites, when in reality it is a review written by a staffer on a notable gaming website. Nothing will be removed on this basis of this post. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, User:Sandstein reverted my addition of this image of Brianna Wu to the article infobox, with the comment "Sadly not a useful image, as one doesn't really see her face". Now, while it is correct that the image doesn't show her face very well, and one that did would be better; it is, however, the best free image we have, and as such is a whole lot better than nothing. It does show part of her face, and that she is Caucasian (which, with her last name, might surprise some), pale, rather thin, has long brown straight hair, and wears dresses; all that might not be enough to unambiguously identify her, but it would certainly serve to distinguish between her and most other people (which can be quite useful for example); and it shows her contributing to a notable charity event, demonstrating that she is a charitable type and at least a minor celebrity of sorts. As such, I think it is certainly worth the amount of space in the article which it would occupy, and should still be there until we get a better image. Please discuss. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, part of our manual of style: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This very poor image is not how we expect a person's biographical article to be illustrated - we instead expect something similar to a conventional portrait. We should avoid using this borderline-useless image. What's visually pertinent about a person is her face, used to identify her, not individual factoids such as her ethnicity or choice of dress or that she attends charity venues. Sandstein 16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
GamerGate origins
The statement that GamerGate originated for "journalism ethics" is, at best, a contentious claim. The majority of reliable sources tend to depict the alleged ethics concerns as little more than a smokescreen or a thinly-veiled excuse to target Zoe Quinn and others. They tend to use terms such as "ostensibly" and "purportedly" to describe the journalism ethics claims. Since going into a deep dive on that issue is off-topic for this article, I've simply rewritten the section to avoid that debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering the fact that "reliable sources are either colluding with each other, as seen on GameJuornoPros, or have the exact same ideological bias at play, claiming that GamerGate is a "thinly veiled excuse" for anything is, at best, disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.36.87 (talk)
Getting to NBSB's original point, my own feeling is that we should follow WP:WEIGHT. Since there are (at least) two significant views about the topic, both should be represented, the positive and the negative. Most of the sources that discuss Wu seem to be trying to describe GamerGate in the same way, and Wikipedia should, as best we can, summarize the predominant views in the sources, in as unbiased a manner as we can manage. In other words, I would support re-adding the phrase about GamerGate's origins being related to journalistic ethics, as it provides a more well-rounded view of the topic, which is what best serves our readers. --Elonka17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to develop phrasing that presents the mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint that the ethics issue is a smokescreen, while perhaps noting that a few fringe sources claim otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The "mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint" is currently sourced from Polygon, Kotaku, Gawker and The Escapist, All of which are outlets that are at the center of the ethics issue that has been presented and therefor should NOT be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion about those sources is interesting, yet completely irrelevant. The fact that supporters or opponents of a particular POV have criticized particular reliable news sources does not in any way render them unreliable. To do otherwise would give such people a heckler's veto over what sources could be used in an article.
Citations 16, 17, 18 and 20 are all from aforementioned sites and source 19 is from a report that only allowed somebody from one side of the issue to talk, And 15 is clearly biased against the issue. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Once again, personal opinions that sources are biased does not render them invalid or otherwise unusable. Otherwise, anyone could say any source is biased and we'd have no sources at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
“
A set of IRC logs released Saturday appear to show that a handful of 4chan users were ultimately behind #GamerGate, the supposedly grass-roots movement aimed at exposing ethical lapses in gaming journalism. The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism.
Sarkeesian noted that one of the threats specifically mentioned Gamergate, the anti-woman online movement that purports to be about journalistic ethics.
Known as "Gamergate," the controversy -- ostensibly over ethics in gaming journalism, but used as a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry -- has shone a spotlight on the ugliest part of gaming culture.
First Link: Multiple things wrong with the origins of Gamergate, supports an obvious bias against Gamergate, and implies that you can just ignore the #NotYourShield hashtag and other movements just because they started on 4chan. The IRC chat screencaps themselves don't really prove much in terms of the movement itself being "misogynist", and I don't know how seriously we can take them considering they are coming from Zoe Quinn herself.
Second Link: Again, supports an obvious bias against gamergate, labels harassment that pro-GG supporters have been getting as just a political move, implies that Gamergate doesn't support the open letter made by a group of game developers, reports the skewed statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women (the actual ratio of men to women in people that play games for a significant amount of time every week is 7 to 1), and the article itself just takes Anita's word on the death threats being Gamergate affiliated, even though Anita herself has posted no evidence to back up this claim.
Third Link: Most unbiased of the three links (that's not really saying much though), still purports the statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women, tries to make Gamergate out to be a movement that is "looking to squash the voices of women at all costs", uses Anecdotal evidence to try to say that Gamergate has pushed women developers out of the industry, and again tries to make Gamergate out to be a "a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry" without any real proof.
I find it strange that wikipedia seems to have no problem with being absolutely biased when it comes to #gamergate. Credible sources or not, if those sources do nothing but follow the lead of the very same organizations like Kotaku that #gamergate goes up against.
The action of a few angry individuals can certainly not be equaled with a movement supported by thousands of people.
Brianna Wu states that #gamergate has been attacking people for years, when it only exists for a few months.
She claims that the whole #gamergate movement is behind the attack on her, just because she was on a #gamergate related thread before the attacks started.
Wu has an agenda that has nothing to do with gamergate and she's just using the alleged attack by #gamergate to get publicity for her cause to change video games according to her wishes, whether you see those wishes as positive or not.
Watch this interview with her, it's all there for everyone to see and hear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAssDie-yng (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Die-yng, it's important here to avoid personal attacks, and in this case I think it is also prudent to avoid the appearance of personal attacks. Please limit your discussion to improving the article -- what Brianna Wu may or may not believe, or may or may not have said, is irrelevant unless it is reported in reliable sources. If, for example, the New York Times reports that "Brianna Wu states that GG has been attacking people since 2001," then that might be pertinent to the article. But your assertion of what you think you heard, or what you think someone told you they heard, is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. Note, too, that since this article concerns Gamergate, it falls under the special sanctions that apply to that topic, and your persistent reposting of unsubstantiated claims may lead to action by any administrator. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Article belongs on Wikipedia?
Has this individual made enough contributions to merit having a wikipedia article? It seems like this article (at least) sounds like it was written as a self-biography. How does anybody else feel about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.123.14 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This was already addressed at the articles for deletion nomination page. The consensus of the AFD proposal was Keep. if you feel that was incorrect, feel free to make another AFD request; however, it's unlikely to succeed (I've yet to see an article pass an AFD once and then fail later). For now, this article stays. --Locriani (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't an autobiography. Personally, I felt that it shouldn't have been kept, but the consensus differed from my view, and that's all good. We can resubmit an article for review, but generally I feel that editors should wait at least six months - that will also give some distance on the current events, which will perhaps give us a clear perspective one way or the other. In the meantime, so long as we do our best to provide broad coverage of the subject, there should be no issues with keeping it. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This article needs to be deleted. She has not contributed anything noteworthy in gaming. she is an indie developer that has created one game which wasn't even very successful. If we keep this article then any indie dev that has ever published would need a wiki page. Someone nominate this for deletion please. Xander756 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Your claims are unsupported and amount to personal attacks on a woman who made international headlines after receiving death threats. She pretty clearly meets WP:BIO at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Just going on TV doesn't mean you deserve a Wikipedia page and there has been no official proof of any of her threat claims as of yet. Wikipedia is a site where things need to be proven and verified. Not for hearsay. Xander756 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The threats have been reported by any number of reliable sources, including major newspapers. She's certainly as notable as retired professional lacrosse players, which seems to be your chief Wikipedia interest. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
E-mail
I wonder if any RS reported her "Dickhead" email? [1] I'm not sure if this is considered normal behaviour on Twitter as it is a medium I haven't taken to, but it might be considered significant. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Oops, yes [Huff post]. Apparently it's an "Amazing Response". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
So she sent a sexist harassing email back. I can understand why she would do that. I am still surprised it counts as "incredible". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
I see no harassment in the subject’s email, nor any reason to think it notable. Writing for Huggington Post, Nina Bahadur thought the reply was "incredible". I don’t really understand why we’re discussing it.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No one was "forcing" you to discuss it! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Sourcing?
North, I'd like to politely request sourcing for the 'Pro-Gamergate chanboard' 8chan. It's fine if what's what you state, that it's impeccably sourced. I'd just like to know which sources you're talking about. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This was a very minor edit, yet it was reverted twice for two different reasons, the first being that a person's own tweets are not a reliable source. I cited proper BLP sourcing [indeed, that whole section is sourced almost entirely from the subject's podcasts]
and restored the edit, and then was told it was trivial info, even though it was important enough for the subject to declare publicly. Now the entire sentence about funding has been removed. My edit was hardly WP:BOLD; I will not be defending it on that basis. Why has the entire sentence about funding been removed? Why was it there before? Is there anything else that should be added or removed? I'd like to add info on her previous careers in journalism and fundraising, but if I'm going to be reverted for using the subject as a source it would be a futile effort. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
She is not a secondary reliable source. What I am asking you is, is there any evidence that the amount of funding or source is a matter of significant interest such that it was discussed by someone besides her? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Twitter is filled every day with messages that are inconsequential to all: famously, "I ate a cheese sandwich.” And many, many Twitter messages are of interest to a very limited circle. I was mistaken about reliability, but here you answer NorthBySouthBaranof's concern regarding WP:UNDUE or perhaps WP:N by asserting that an isolated Tweet demonstrates this. It's not clear to me whether wikipedia typically discloses the extent of family and friends investments in startups; can you cite some other examples? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an allowable WP:BLPSELFPUB, but I think that the whole "she raised..." part should be omitted, leaving only "At the age of 19, she established a small animation studio". Neither the amount of funds nor their source strikes me as particularly noteworthy, this is an unexceptional sum and source of funds for this sort of business venture. Sandstein 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the intent here was to take a dig at how much (or how little, depending on one's perspective) Wu has raised, by using a primary source to note how much her family donated vs. how much the public donated. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary attribution of intent should be avoided at all costs. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC).
As someone who publicly puts themselves on a platform of self-made success, I think it's significant to note for anyone reading this particular Wiki page. Not everyone is going to get 200k from their parents to start a business. That said, if you think it unimportant, I'd question the significance of having the article at all, but I'm not sure that's a thread you want to pull at Metalmunki81 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the Controversy section of the page, it mentions supporters of Gamergate are what spread her personal information. Unfortunately, this is incorrect as Gamergate is very active on twitter, anyone can adopt the hashtag and say whatever they want and the more prominent supporters of Gamergate do not allow or condone such actions.
Just like those claiming to be feminists act radical and tarnish the Feminist name, so too does Gamergate have it's fringe group tarnishing it's name. It is not fair nor correct to group every feminist with the radicals, it is not fair or correct to group the main group of Gamergate with it's own radicals.
I apologize for the long-winded and roundabout way of asking for the Controversy section to reflect that the fringe group that claim to be supporters are the ones harassing this woman as well as other women in her field. My apologies again and thank you for your time in reading this.
Abecrombies (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the Gamergate comments in the controversy section seem unnecessary to the article and heavily biased towards supporters of Gamergate, it could be removed and the article would be better without it Nathan905RB (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC).
Two of Wikipedia's main policies are no original research and verifiability, meaning that we write what reliable sources say, and only that. In this case, reliable sources attribute the information postings to "Gamergate supporters", so that's what we do as well. Sandstein 16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Even so, I don't see how the way different media outlets view Gamergate is relevant to the article and I doubt any reliable source has actually tied the leak to Gamergate supporters Nathan905RB (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Said "Reliable sources" are the ones that are at the center of the controversy to begin with and should not be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You're correct, in part. The Polygon article reads: "After tweeting that members of the 8chan message board — a refuge for former 4chan posters — and GamerGate supporters had posted her personal information online, Wu ...". This means that Wu, and not Polygon, identified the posters as Gamergate supporters, and I've made that attribution clear in the text. Sandstein 18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, we're almost there. Now we just need to remove the blurb about how Gamergate is somehow about harassing women and then the article should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan905RB (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess a more neutral viewpoint towards Gamergate can't really happen on Wikipedia. On topic, I don't see the need for the sentence "an online campaign initially intended to offer criticism of games journalism, but which has since become increasingly associated with the harassment of women in video gaming." You could easily cut it out, change the following sentence from "Anonymous supporters of the campaign then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." to "Anonymous users then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." and come across as less biased and more neutral and still keep the same message. Especially considering the only person tying Gamergate supporters to the death threats is Wu herself. Nathan905RB (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows what is said in reliable sources, and if those sources are highly negative of the Gamergate campaign and their involvement with Wu being forced from her home then that is how Wikipedia will present the information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
And none of the mentioned sources have accurately tied Gamergate supporters to the leakage of information, so I don't see why we're taking them seriously. Even though Brianna Wu is a victim, her unwanted involvement in the incident keeps her as a source from being unbiased so I don't think we can just take her word on this. Nathan905RB (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Mrs. Wu has stated on several occasions that she was reading a thread on 8chan's /gg/ where they posted her address and other personal details, and then she received the attacking tweets. She is allowed to say what she thinks and we can report on that information as her own personal opinions on the actions. That's how WP:PRIMARYSOURCES works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Than why shouldn't we add two words such as "Wu claims" to the sentence stating that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, instead of just reporting it as a fact? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The papers are citing her, and this article is citing the papers ergo, she is being cited. I'm sure you know this. 'Claimed' and 'alleged' are *wholly* appropriate Metalmunki81 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You say one post earlier that you can report on the information as her own personal opinions on the actions. How are her own personal opinions on the matter not her claims? Who's claims are they then, if so? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
She is not presently cited for anything in the article but if she is cited then all that she says must be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And the way the article is currently written (i.e. The line about Wu having to flee her home because of Gamergate supporters) without adding something about her claiming they're Gamergate supporters makes it sound like it's a factual statement that should be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims. That's exactly my point. Nathan905RB (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The only reason why this article exists it to serve as an easily locatable briefing to anyone wishing to write articles about Brianna Wu, her alleged harassment or its alleged connection to GamerGate. Notice how this page was only created after her alleged harassment took place, and how that information has been a core part of the article since its creation. The sole purpose of this article is to push an agenda (demonisation of GamerGate), which is not in keeping with the stated goals of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.76.24 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The section, as it stands, meets and exceeds all of Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and no original research. I'm closing this request unless you can provide verifiable sources that meet the community guidelines present at those pages. Unfortunately, your assertions of one thing or another, however true they may be, do not meet these requirements. --Locriani (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clear, since this is a matter of some controversy: provide sources that back up your claims, and I'm more than willing to include them as a rebuttal in the controversy section. The 1 link present in this talk discussion does not meet these requirements (nor is it really germane to this discussion). News articles, blog posts, etc. that are not written by yourself are eligible, as I understand the guidelines. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to reopen the request; however, I doubt you'll find anyone willing to modify the article until you can provided sources to back up your claims. --Locriani (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"Personal information about her had previously been made public on the Internet by anonymous persons Wu linked to GamerGate" - This looks like an affirmative claim that is actually completely unsubstantiated at this point. It should either be solidly evidenced as is or reworded to reflect the tenuous link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.6.104 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wu posted opinions that are critical of gmaergaters. Wu is then harassed by anonymous people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that the group of people she critiqued would then respond as they only know how to. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The burden of proof here falls onto Wu, she has no evidence that Gamergate supporters were the ones that actually leaked her information aside from her own word. Considering her negative views towards Gamergate I doubt we can consider her unbiased in this situation. The wording in question needs to be changed to reflect the fact it's only a claim that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, so that the article can be more neutral. Oh, and nice biased response. Nathan905RB (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing. It's not our problem if you think that Wu was wrong in her determination that it was Gamergate supporters who were behind the leaked information and the subsequent threat to herself and her husband. If people believe her, and that information is presented in the press, then that is what Wikipedia reports on. Unless there are any actual reliable sources saying that the claims that Gamergate is not involved (when Wu said multiple times that she saw her address get posted on 8chan's /gg/ and then the Tweets happened) then there is nothing that should be changed on this article on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedic consistency
We have styled "GamerGate" here, but the WP article is "GamerGate Controversy", so perhaps using "GamerGate Controversy partisans" or something similar wherever "GamerGate" is used to refer to the group would be more consistent. Ideally, "GamerGate" would refer to the group, and "controversy" would be a subsection of an article with that title, but I'm not going over there. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"Gamergate" being primarily anonymous, having no official membership, no leadership, no official positions, not even any notable spokespeople is anyone who posts under the tag #gamergate. We have an article about the controversy that those postings caused when the harassment and death threats became public and people took notice. i am not sure why you think the naming and focus of one article poses any binding impact upon the content of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom20:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Works section
The notability of those articles don't stand on their own, and they don't seem relevant to the article at hand. Seems like the whole section should go per WP:NOTLINK. It would be one thing to have a list of games but it's just the one and it's covered in other sections. Boughttwo (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Image question
Just a question. Are those images fair use or do we have a release from the individual who holds copyright to use said images? I cannot conduct this search currently, but this was one of the issues with Zoe Quinn's article for a bit (prior to receipt of fair use authorization). Tivanir2 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to ask Brianna Wu for a picture of her to replace these images? You can barely see her face in either of them. GamerPro6403:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
While I understand the reasoning for the question, here's one for you. Is it a good idea to ask a person who has been the subject of virulent online attacks to release a free image with a license deliberately intended to permit reuse and alteration? Given what has happened even to copyrighted images related to the women involved, I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which such images would not be abused. Risker (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Largely agreed with Risker here. I mean, we can ask, but it's not like people combining her photos and, well, photoshop, is an improbable experience. I'm male and subject to far less abusive attention online and it's happened to me many a time. Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the kind of people who produce harassment shoops give a damn about copyright law.
That's a good point that photos will be manipulated. But we have a picture of Zoe Quinn on Wikipedia, who also has had words said about her too. It's not the best pic but I find it to be decent for the time being. And I do agree with Peter that some people on the internet don't care about copyright anyhow. GamerPro6405:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I did the cropping and uploading here. Sure, please do ask the subject for a better photo, but know that the average response rate for this sort of thing (asking an article subject for their pic) is 10% in 3 months. I've done a number of these. :-) When/if you do ask, make sure to ask that the pic be (1) one they have the rights to, most often by being the photographer, or explicitly asking the photographer to release the rights, NOT just some pic they look good in but that was taken by someone else that they can't reach right now (2) released under a free licence, generally http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, NOT "permission to use on Wikipedia". You'll then need to forward that release to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (and wait some weeks for the OTRS there to stamp it). --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Grammar
"She cofounded..." sentence is just bad. You don't found a studio alongside another person: that suggests you create it and plonk it down next to where they are sitting on the street. You might found it with someone, or possibly "along with" someone (though that's informal) — but not "alongside", which suggests physical position. 86.179.191.90 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by The Truthiness
Today TheTruthiness (talk·contribs) made this edit changing the phrase "forcing Wu to flee her home" to "causing Wu to flee her home." The edit summary was "POV, she wasn't literally forced from her home- she chose to leave in response to them".
I checked both sources cited:
PBS: "Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public."
Boston Globe: "That’s when the harassment began — a frightening online campaign threatening rape and death that forced Wu to flee her Arlington home."
Our text does not say Wu was literally forced from her home; we don't imply that a bulldozer smashed through a wall and pushed her out of the building, or whatever that would mean. The word "forced" in this context means to place someone in such fear for the life and limb of themselves and their family that they do not feel that it would be safe to remain. That's how the news sources use it, it's plain English, and we use it too.
Just a note, but as per the reliable sources, the existence of the threats is not a question of her tweeting something. Polygon: Game developer Brianna Wu, head of development at Boston-based Giant Spacekat, fled her home after receiving a series of specific, violent threats directed at her and her family on Twitter last night. Police confirmed they are actively investigating the threats.PBS NewsHour: Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public.The Boston Globe: That’s when the harassment began — a frightening online campaign threatening rape and death that forced Wu to flee her Arlington home. In the process, she became the latest of several female targets across the country — the second in the Boston area — as well as a symbol of the sexism that some say is roiling the $21.25 billion gaming industry in the United States. As such, I have reverted to the previous wording for that section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This is offtopic for this section but I will respond to you here anyway. You are claiming she DID NOT tweet she had been threatened? There's no doubt about that, her tweets reporting the threats are sourced for anyone to read, as are the threats. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That she used a particular social media platform to discuss the threats is not relevant. The sources report, as fact, that the threats occurred. Therefore, we report, as fact, that the threats occurred. Your wording transforms the statement in an unacceptable manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Why exactly are we saying that she was "forced" to leave her home? The threats may have led her to leave her home. But the threats did not "force" her to leave her home. I have received death threats. My friends have received death threats. We have not left our homes. Some people may leave their homes when they receive death threats, but that doesn't mean they were "forced." The vast majority of death threats are unfounded. Moreover, there isn't really any evidence that she actually left her home. Video interviews inside her house showed that she was in the same location before and after claiming that she left her home. There are videos of her inside her home before she claims to have received death threats. Then, there are several videos inside her home immediately after, and long after, (in various increments of time) she claims to have left her home. Clearly there is not any evidence other than her own assertion that she left her home, and there is some circumstantial evidence that she did not leave her home. Most importantly, "forced" is an inappropriate word to use. "Led her to leave her home" makes more sense. "Force" implies some kind of intentional coercion. You might say "termites forced me to leave my home," but it would be more appropriate to say "termites caused me to leave my home." The word "forced" is inherently bias. It implies that people were sending death threats to try to get her to leave her home, which is probably not true. I would also like to add that "widely attributed to GamerGate supporters" is not very well reinforced by just two sources. These sources *attribute* the threats to GamerGate supporters, but they do not prove it. The same level of evidence could be found for those who attribute the threats to trolls. After this sentence, it would be appropriate to add "Others attribute the threats to third-party trolls," and then add several sources which attribute the threats to trolls. After all, there is no more evidence that they are GG supporters than there is that they are trolls. The sources suggesting they are GamerGate supporters are not evidentiary. They are editorial. You can't say that the GG supporter claim fits, but the troll claim doesn't fit. Both claims come from opinion, not from evidence. This is heavily biased. Saying only that they have been widely attributed to GG supporters leaves out the vast majority of commentators who have actually attributed the death threats to trolls. Neither side has ANY evidence to back up their argument. Using the word "attributed" is in and of itself a little confusing. Many readers don't bother reading sources. They come to wiki so they can get a quick summary. Including such a biased sentence, and no counterargument, even though both sides have the same level of evidence is just ridiculous. It shows the amount of bias present on this article. You really have no argument to undermine me. There are hundreds of sources who attribute the death threats to trolls. "Attribution" in both cases refers to an opinion. The sources given, who attribute the death threats to GG supporters, are just opinions. I can attribute it to the flying spaghetti monster too, and that is just as valid a claim, because it is not based on any evidence. I would really love to see an argument against this. There should be room for the other side. Claiming that it's only been attributed to GG supporters is spurious and insidious. That's an intentional mischaracterization of the actual opinions on the issue. Especially when your sources include blogs. An op-ed in a reputable publication might be slightly more credible than a tweet, but if there is no evidence to support the claim, it's still just a statement of opinion. I don't care if it's printed in the NY Times or on Twitter. It's an opinion. Allowing opinions as sources for an attribution is fine, as long as the opposite opinions and the opposite attribution are published as well. But in this case, they are not. The only information on whodunnit on this page is directly biased. If the sources were based on actual evidence, then I would say "fine." But we are talking about attributions based on opinion. Both sides of the discussion are making different attributions, based on the same level of evidence: none. So allowing one side a special privilege to publish itself is incredibly biased and intellectually dishonest. If you can't come up with an argument for why the attribution to trolls should be left out, despite the much larger number of supporters of this claim, and you aren't going to change the article, then you should be ashamed of yourself. It doesn't matter what your opinion on the matter is. I don't even have an opinion myself. The fact is that we don't know where those death threats came from, so to only include one biased opinion should be infuriating to anyone who values journalistic integrity, intellectual honesty, academic freedom, and, well, the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.253.22 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Leaving the BLP issues aside, the wall of text has a point about one specific item. The sources as provided do not support 'death threats widely attributed to gamergate supporters.' They support 'Brianna Wu has stated she has received death threats as a result of the gamergate conflict' but thats it. She doesnt overtly say they were posted by gamergate supporters and neither do the articles. I'm going to attempt to reword it, but it needs to be removed as currently written as its not supported by the sources used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss here first. The sources -- starting with the authoritative coverage in the Boston Globe -- do clearly associate the threats with Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Associate is not the same as attribute. "These threats have been widely attributed to Gamergate supporters." is not supported by the sourcing used. The reason they do not directly attribute death threats like that is because its accusing people of a criminal act. The preceding sentence "Subsequently, Wu began receiving multiple, specific rape and death threats including her address, forcing Wu to flee her home." is an accurate summary of events. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
[2] " Angry gamers responded by coalescing around the #Gamergate hashtag. Some went as far as to attack Quinn, including with rape and death threats"
the first three i clicked in the article. Dozens more available. or we can just take out "widely attributed" if that is what you are concerned about. the sources directly directly tie the harassment to gg. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be happier without 'widely', given the sourcing, but attributed is fine given the sources you have provided. They really *should* be directly ref'd for a claim of that seriousness however. Just being in the article somewhere is not enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this material included, the edits in the history being nondescript. At the very least it's a disturbingly notable new chapter in the sustained GamerGate harassment of Brianna Wu; it merits inclusion.
Kencf0618 thanks for coming here. I think that adding links to this particular article is best discussed in advance. I had done a bit of WikiGnome work to improve a citation, which was then subsequently removed. As I know things have been contentious with this article, I wanted to ask for others' comments, as I had reverted the edits. I believe one of the URLs had been the very one that I put into a citation format. I think that arriving at a consensus here on what links to include & how to include them would help avoid continual reversion or even war-editing. We especially want to avoid the later! Peaceray (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if this was actually an organized campaign, it might be noteworthy. But, right now, this "operation" is just what Jace Conners calls his harassment of Wu and his wild conspiracy theories. If it snowballs into something more, I can see an argument for inclusion. But in the context of all of the Wu critics that exist, he is just a particularly eccentric and loud voice. LizRead!Talk!18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. That said, it's an exemplary example of the insanity she has to deal with. kencf0618 (talk)
I spent a day reading up on Connors. It's such a bizarre fantasy in his mind, I almost think he is a troll, albeit, one that is almost conducting performance art. LizRead!Talk!02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
He's trying to be to GamerGate what Stephen Colbert was to Fox News. He's just doing it so badly most people can't tell. Rhoark (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The guy's an elaborate troll who has caused some very real mental anguish.
Weak support - the new photo is slightly blurry, but then again so is the old one. TRPoD is right that the front angle is better. And removing the caption if the photo is changed would be common sense. Ivanvector (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
" Her father had grown up in the small town of D'Lo, Mississippi, then joined the U.S. Navy to get a medical degree, and upon returning to Mississippi, opened his own clinic, and then with his wife, a series of other small entrepreneurial businesses, so Brianna was exposed at an early age to a dynamic environment of small businesses and the computers to run them."
Run on sentence, needs to be reworded.
Edit request
Could you please add the following categories to this person's Wikipedia article:
(Redacted)Absent a change in her position, those categories are not appropriate. You haven't provided a source either (and it needs to be self-identification). --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Propaganda written by the person of whom the article is about should be deleted and detailed accurately instead of manipulated to seem the truth since it's on wikipedia, please refer to the gamergate sublink of this article to see what i'm referencing
151.225.55.103 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 2 April 2015
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"==Career==
Brianna Wu was raised in Mississippi by adoptive parents."
to
"==Career==
Brianna Wu was raised in Hattiesburg, Mississippi by adoptive parents.[1]
Partly done - I've moved the image to the infobox, which negates the need to have it in its current position and hence the request to format the image. Yunshui雲水11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Revert last two protected edits
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
WeakStrong support. I suppose. The quality of the pictures leave much to be desired, but best to return things to the way they were I suppose. — Strongjam (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. The article lived for a long time with no image of the person at all, then when I found some, carefully scrolling through a video to get the best of a bad lot, everyone complained about them. Gratitude is not for us. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. The opposition to this specific change and suggestion for alternate option responded to. Closing the request until there is consensus on which image should be used so we don't waste an administrators time with this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)22:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey @Technical 13: looks like Brianna Wu likes the full image, as do her followers. And I admit I do too - the crop only points out that it's not really a great portrait, it's mostly shadows, while the half-length is more alive. Anyway, any chance you could change your mind, given that the subject likes it? Otherwise would be ironic, and not in a good way. As someone once wrote, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad." --GRuban (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, don't get the logic. Wasn't your objection that you supported using a part of that image instead? How is it that the the part is less dark and shows her better? --GRuban (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Hello? Again, the question is: why is the cropped part of the image less dark and shows her better than the whole - which she (and I) prefer? If you have now changed your objection to "she should donate another image", I'll certainly be fine with using that image when she does, but she hasn't yet (or actually probably has, but it was deleted, sigh), so we can only use what we have. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, the cropped part shows just her without the contrasting white paper making her look darker. So, it is an easier to see image. If she wants to take a clear selfie and upload it to commons with a PD or CC-BY-SA 3 or better on it, I have no problem with that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
his objection seems to be either that he thinks a cropped version of the same image is less dark, which is at best debatable,
or that the article subject should donate a better image, which would certainly be nice, but we shouldn't wait for it as it may never happen, and
the end result of the objection would be that an indisputably worse infobox image is in the article, which seems worst of all worlds. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The way I view it is this, there are zero objections to the cropped image and one objection to the uncropped version. Therefore, the best way to go is the cropped version. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I object to the cropped image, as it's worse than the uncropped image. I imagine the others who support the uncropped image feel the same way, and to say that there are no objections to the cropped image is disingenuous. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I must agree with Peter; I prefer the uncropped image, and have said so. Of course, we could follow the "zero objections" chain of reasoning to conclude that no one has ever objected to a picture of Queen Elizabeth II in the infobox, so therefore ... :-) --GRuban (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is one user in strong objection- I note that I'm unable to completely understand his reasons for objecting. We have four users who believe that the edit request would improve the article. Is consensus required to be unanimous? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Brianna Wu has released new images under Creative Commons (c.f. the bottom of the linked page -- license granted under CC-BY 4.0). One of these should be added to the infobox as a profile picture, since the existing photos are less clear than the newly-released photos. There was previously some debate regarding the existing images, but there was consensus that donated images of better quality would be preferred for this article, if they became available.
Accordingly, I propose that this photo (or a cropped version thereof) be used for this person's infobox profile picture. (I changed the proposed photo because it was pointed out that the one I originally picked looked angry, which, in the context, seemed inappropriate).
Not done The license is not specific enough. The Twitter link makes it clear that she wants these to be Wikipedia-usable, but she only says "All are in the Creative Commons", not which Creative Commons license applies. That is important because there are CC licenses that are incompatible with Wikipedia, and there are important differences among those which are compatible. Additional confusion because here she says "public domain", which is something else again. Maybe you can ask her to specify the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, which is the most commonly used on Wikipedia Commons. Sandstein 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've sent her a request for clarification re: the specific licence. Will re-open this request if/when I get a response. --Christopher C Scott (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, if I could, I'd like to expand on the request. Could File:Brianna Wu and Amanda Warner in library.jpg be also added to the article, right under the Career section? This is because Amanda Warner, as Wu's partner in Giant Spacekat, seems to be an important part of Wu's career, so a pic of the two of them would be very appropriate for that section; and because a pic of Wu without sunglasses would be better for actual article illustration purposes. If necessary, if that would make the article too image-heavy, remove the other image I made. (dual sob)--GRuban (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Since nobody opposes, although the motorcycle image isn't an ideal lead image, we normally prefer conventional headshots without sunglasses. Sandstein 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 2 April 2015
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
2 edits related to podcasts that she does. Both edits to commentator section
1)The article says that the podcast Isometric is on the 5by5 network, but they recently moved to the Relay.fm network. Could you please change this? Proof:http://www.relay.fm/isometric
2) She is on another podcast called Rocket, which is also on the Relay.fm network. I would appreciate if you could add this to the commenter section as well. Proof:http://www.relay.fm/rocket
Make Distinction Between Amanda Warner From Known Celebrity
Suggestion to revise name "Amanda Warner" with "Amanda Stenquist Warner" and discern from MNDR's Amanda Warner.
Secondary: Perhaps a URL made available for "Amanda Stenquist Warner" to differentiate from a celebrity persona.
--j0eg0d (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No it shouldn't be alleged, we follow our sources. As for your second comment. I've redacted per WP:BLP, we need reliable sources for anything like that. —Strongjam (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, as I must point out, the sources the article cite do not confirm that Wu received dozens of threats as of February 2015. They simply interview Wu and Wu claims she received that many threats on her media platforms. Someone who alleges that they received threats in an interview with a major publication is not evidence of those threats occurring. This is terribly misleading for Wiki to do.
Wu herself is a primary source. (Redacted)
You are correct in assuming that it is not the job of the Wikipedia editor to investigate a claim, but it is also not the job of a Wikipedia editor to assert whether someone actually received threats if the sources (publications) cited do not give any evidence of them occurring. It is the job of the editor to point out whether threats have been confirmed or not, to which the sources given do no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.139.185 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not say Wikipedia should conduct investigations
What I said was to not misrepresent the source and leave out context. None of the sources confirm whether Wu received threats, they simply interview Wu and let her speak of what she claims to have received.
Hence you state that Wu alleges to have received dozens of threats, not assert that she did - considering the sources cited on her page do not confirm whether she did or not.
Wikipedia should cite what was said in those interviews, not assert them as fact. It is recklessly misleading to assert it without confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.139.185 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to the Red Pen of Doom saying The reliable sources clearly address the issue
My post/question was thrown away with the claim of the reliable sources clearly address the issue and my questions regarding which sources proved that Wu received dozens of threats were ignored. Will anyone point to the specific information within the sources which proves Wu received so many threats? Because I have read the sources and none of them confirm.
Thus I will re-post:
In regards to a Boston Globe piece saying that reports were made to the Arlington Police Department, which report do you refer?
This report on the PAX East incident states that the Boston Police Department were of one threatening Tweet, but deemed it non credible
A Boston Police Department spokesman said Saturday evening that police were aware of the threatening tweet, but deemed it “not credible.”
“We work very closely with this event,” Lieutenant Michael McCarthy said. “We have officers on scene and will respond to any credible threats.”
I have not seen anything in the articles which confirm she received that many threats. The Congresswoman for Brianna Wu, Katherine Clarke said that the FBI was disappointing in regards to taking GamerGate seriously.
The congresswoman states that Brianna Wu reached out to her, but she has no confirmation on whether Wu received dozens of threats in the space of a few months, which is what the Wiki claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditor55 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No evidence has actually been cited which proves she received so many threats, if no evidence has been cited, then the claim needs to be altered on her Wikipage otherwise it's misleading.
Editors on Wikipedia do not investigate claims, that is considered original research and is best done on another format like a personal blog. Editors depend on reliable sources to verify information and claims. You can debate the reliability of a source, either on an article talk page or on the reliable sources noticeboard or provide an alternative reliable source to support a different interpretation of a claim. But editors aren't reporters or journalists and don't search out and evaluate evidence to back up or refute any claims, at least not on Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!09:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The source correctly attributes the statistics. The article does not and is misrepresenting the source. The specific case of "Wu has received X number of threats over Y months" is written in the source as "Wu disclosed that she has received X number of threats over Y months." It's a fair criticism using your criteria above about reflecting what sources say. "Disclosed" is an unbiased and non-weasel word term that should be used here as the source did ("claims" is a word to avoid). --DHeyward (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If The Boston Globe reported a fact, we report that as a fact. Observing that the Globe provided sourcing -- as all reputable newspapers do in every case -- does not call that fact into question, nor does it allow Wikipedia to do so. If the Globe is satisfied that threats were received and reports that threats were received. Wikipedia will report that threats were received. End of story. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
reliability
The reliability of Breitbart is an off-topic discussion you may consider reintroducing HERE. It is a continuing debate without clear affirmations. --j0eg0d (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is clear affirmations. Those stating that Brietbart does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have provided reliable sources that back up not only individual cases of non-fact checking and publishing/not retracting known falsities, but third party general analysis of the source being not reliable.[8] Those claiming otherwise have provided nothing to support their claims that it is a reliable source. One side has sources and evidence and the other has nothing - that is a clear affirmation despite the fact that those without evidence continue to ark ark ark ark. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
On review of said "sourced material". There are 3 sources, not including the "essay" linked above. Each source (including the essay) express the 2010 controversy as alluded to the blogger Andrew Breitbart and his blog BigCompany; This is inexact to the News Syndicate, BreitBart.com - If one sources the journalist himself or his blog, one may argue legitimacy. As stated, the discussion remains pending. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is Breitbart not a reliable source? It certainly has political bias, but so does The Boston Globe. Whether or not Breitbart is reliable is besides the point, what is reliable is the email from the attorney - Breitbart used that email in their report. It's not Breitbart being reliable that is the point, it's the email in question, which was verified and then used in the Breitbart report. The source is verified, Breitbart was simply the only site to run the story. I cited Breitbart because it cited a primary source, which is more useful rather than linking the primary source itself.
In regards to a Boston Globe piece saying that reports were made to the Arlington Police Department, which report do you refer?
This report on the PAX East incident states that the Boston Police Department were of one threatening Tweet, but deemed it non credible
A Boston Police Department spokesman said Saturday evening that police were aware of the threatening tweet, but deemed it “not credible.”
“We work very closely with this event,” Lieutenant Michael McCarthy said. “We have officers on scene and will respond to any credible threats.”
I have not seen anything in the articles which confirm she received that many threats. The Congresswoman for Brianna Wu, Katherine Clarke said that the FBI was disappointing in regards to taking GamerGate seriously.
The congresswoman states that Brianna Wu reached out to her, but she has no confirmation on whether Wu received dozens of threats in the space of a few months, which is what the Wiki claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditor55 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You have repeated questions acknowledged more than once. You're near violation of vandalism. If you would comment here I will converse in detail on your request. I don't wish to allow TALK to be restricted nor semi-restricted because of a misunderstanding. --j0eg0d (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus to support the proposed change wasn't achieved, as explained in my notes at the bottom of this discussion. Zad6811:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The statement in the article is As of February 2015, she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period, and is sourced to the Venture beat article[1]. The venture beat articles words it as Wu disclosed that she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period. The VentureBeat article is used multiple times so its wording is as authoritative as any other source.
Proposed change to reflect the source: As of February 2015, she disclosed that she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period,. It's a neutral and source based change and avoids judgmental language. --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment We can add a higher-quality source and avoid any wording that might seem to cast doubt on the existence of the threats. We should re-word to avoid the 'As of' wording, and properly change the VentureBeat cite to a {{cite interview}}. I'd suggest something more like this:
Wu has received dozens of death threats attributed to Gamergate.[2] During a February 2015 interview she told VentureBeat that she deals with law enforcement at least one day a week, and only attends events in the U.S. with a security detail, but notes that because of the harassment "I’m one of the best-known women developers in the world today. That’s a fact. What’s funny to me is that by attacking me so viciously, they’re helping give me the visibility to usher in the very game industry they’re terrified about."[3]Strongjam (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the main issue with that is that both sources attribute it to Wu. BG does it with a quote shortly after stating it. Venture Beat uses it to keep the attribution without a quote. They are stylistic differences that are often seen in the news. I like "disclosed" because it doesn't cast doubt and it doesn't conflict with either source. BG would require the entire quote by Wu to accurately reflect the statement. --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But they don't. They immediately follow it with a quote to show where their source came from. It's a style difference. Without a neutral word like "disclose," there will always be trolls fighting over "claims" or police reports or whatever else is only known to Wu. The quote from BG is “I’ve had 48 death threats now in six months,” Wu said in an interview Friday. “To stand up to GamerGate, that’s my choice. I can’t make that choice for the women I work with.” and it supports "dozens." That's a style difference. This is a "pull" technique used in many news articles. Read any news article and it's used pervasively to make a statement The BG article can be used, but there is no reason why the full quote would be excluded and you're back to words like "claims" or worse. "disclosed" avoids it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
But they do. Just because they also quote Wu doesn't mean they didn't assert it. They plainly assert it. So should we. I suggest you take this up with the editor of the Boston Globe if you want to know what they did to fact-check their article. Also, using "disclosed" just reeks of dog-whistle politics. — Strongjam (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course they fact check it. So does our existing source. It consists of "How mnay death threats did you receive, Brianna?" There is nothing wrong with that style of fact checking. Whatever dog-whistle you hear is of your own device. This language shuts down the attempts of using WP:CLAIM words which seems to have always attracted editors to add "claim." Venture Beat used it precisely because it's neutral in every way. BG's style is to quote the source after the statement. It is much better to have a neutral attribution than to constantly battle "claim" and other words. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
strongly oppose. the claim the poster states is unsupported is in fact fully supported in the Boston Globe source cited in the section above as the requester is fully aware.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The sources say what happened. Casting aspersions by insinuating that she lied is not what we are here to do.--Jorm (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never claimed it was unsupported nor that she lied. Please stop casting aspersions. Saying she disclosed threats she received is neither unsupported nor casting doubt and it's reported in every single source through various styles. --DHeyward (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The only purpose of this language change is so that people can claim that she was lying or faking it or whatever. Language like "disclosed" implies that she said it and no one checked up on it. The sources say pretty clearly that it happened and we should stay with that. This kind of language quibbling is pointless.--Jorm (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's the language used in the source we have in the article (Venture Beat). Exact word and no one gave any thought to not using the source. It implies neither lying or faking except in your imagination. All the sources obviously rely on disclosure as do the police reports. The source in the article uses it to avoid a quote reference. The Boston Globe uses a quote reference to back up its assertion. This language takes away the accusatory language like "claims." There is no way we should be presuming or speculating whether anyone followed up with anything more than what the source reports. BG quotes her for the number. All the sources report what she disclosed and that's not a bad word nor does it cast doubt. It's up to 50 in the last interview and each subsequent interview has more as she relates them. Using a neutral word ends this silly battle and keeps the trolling down from all sides. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
strongly oppose. Already discussed. She received many threats; many sources have reported that. We will report it, too. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose We summarize what the full range of reliable sources say. No reliable sources contest the fact that she has received a large number of vicious death threats. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
APPROVE The request is perfectly reasonable. It neither detracts nor leans towards one view or another. The wording is both neutral & professional to standard. I sincerely don't enjoy tongue-in-cheek phrases such as "has received dozens of death threats", you may as well use "a whole bunch" ... It's novice. The opposition is arguing "sourcing" because of some assumed "intent"; This is basic grammar, quit bickering.
If I wish to point out each problem with current "sources" - Such as: The Isometric Podcasts where Brianna Wu is a host - Polygon, Argentus, The Magazine, XOJane, The Mary Sue, Bustle & The Washington Post; THESE ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BECAUSE BRIANNA WU WRITES FOR EACH ONE OF THEM.
The claim about 8Chan and the /GG/ board is false; /GG/ belongs to the GNAA; An Internet-trolling organization that has nothing to do with #gamergate. One could tear down this entire article piece by piece, but this is merely ONE SIMPLE REQUEST FOR REWORDING ... I suggest approving the change. --j0eg0d (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a source for this outlandish claim that Brianna Wu is employed by all of Polygon/Vox Media, The Washington Post, The Magazine, Bustle and The Mary Sue. Merely having writing once published in a particular media outlet does not mean that outlet has a "conflict of interest" in any sense recognized by Wikipedia. Also, you could probably do with less bold and all-caps shouting. Highlime (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
She is not a staff reporter for the Washington Post and also not for the Boston Weekly. If Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton write an opinion piece for the Washington Post, I can assure you that does not rule out all future use of that newspaper as a reliable source regarding those two politicians. Please stop pushing the Gamergate POV here with your bold caps. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
HighlimeCullen328 You've side-stepped the topic completely by interpreting what I posted. This is the focus; "The request is perfectly reasonable. It neither detracts nor leans towards one view or another. The wording is both neutral & professional to standard". Do not make assumptions of my intentions as an adversarial situation. You're attempting to disrupt editors from working together in a cooperative. It is not appreciated ... Yet, in civility of your requests - The source to "outlandish claims" is evident in the WIKI page:
Wu, Brianna (2012). "SMOFs and Con Chairs: Ignore Videogames at Your Own Peril" (PDF). Argentus.
Wu, Brianna (April 11, 2013). "Choose your character: Faced with change, an all-female indie dev team evolves to a higher form". The Magazine.
Wu, Brianna (April 24, 2014). "Why GitHub's unconvincing investigation harms women in games development". The Mary Sue.
Wu, Brianna (July 22, 2014). "Opinion: No skin thick enough: The daily harassment of women in the game industry". Polygon.
Wu, Brianna (October 16, 2014). "It happened to me: I've been forced out of my home and am living in constant fear because of relentless death threats from Gamergate". xoJane.
Wu, Brianna (October 20, 2014). "Rape and death threats are terrorizing female gamers. Why haven't men in tech spoken out?". The Washington Post.
Wu, Brianna (February 11, 2015). "I'm Brianna Wu, And I'm Risking My Life Standing Up To GamerGate". Bustle.
True Cullen238; Anyone can write an opinion piece for a newspaper or media website because it is "an opinion". But Brianna Wu wrote articles for these very outlets. It suggests influence no matter how large or small. This information is absolutely relevant to the subject matter. But it was not my focus. You're outrage has forced an extended dialogue that I never wanted. My subjective was to clearly establish that DHeyward's request for rewording is minute by comparison. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It isnt in the article. The lead is "Brianna Wu is an American video game developer.", but given the evidence of the widespread and frequency of her commentary that you have cogently collected, there is evidence that the lead should be "Brianna Wu is an American video game developer and pundit discussing internet harassment." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom12:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I am unaware of anyone who thinks it is a conflict of interest of any type for someone who is a victim of harassment to speak about harassment - do you have any sources that would support your claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom22:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do I need to provide a source for a Wikipedia behavioral guideline? I've already indicated the issue thoroughly. I provided a URL to underline conflict of interest per request. I've made the proper recommendation before notifying Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard COIN for sanction. The (COI) seems evident within the article, but it's still in request stage and it doesn't involve every link -only the websites she has a known connection with. Frankly, I fail to understand this staunch diatribe whenever I've ascertained a conclusion? It's eristic - unnecessarily made controversial. --j0eg0d (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
That is merely a collection of selected works, and not sources being used to make claims. It's not uncommon to see a list of selected works in an artists biography. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
But I repeat myself; having opinion columns published in a particular publication does not in any way create a "conflict of interest" with that publication, nor does it render that publication's prior or subsequent reporting on that person unreliable in any way. I defy you to find a reliable source on journalistic ethics which states otherwise. The very purpose of opinion-editorial columns is to permit a wide array of diverse voices to appear in a publication. The current wording is well-supported by numerous reliable sources. Highlime (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
But I repeat myself; "Anyone can write an opinion piece for a newspaper or media website because it is "an opinion". But Brianna Wu wrote articles for these very outlets. It suggests influence no matter how large or small. This information is absolutely relevant to the subject matter. But it was not my focus. You're outrage has forced an extended dialogue that I never wanted. My subjective was to clearly establish that DHeyward's request for rewording is minute by comparison. --j0eg0d"--j0eg0d (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Request Close: there is no chance that this request will gain anything like a consensus. It's now being used for political grandstanding and for casting aspersions on the subject, neither of which is a suitable use for the talk page. In any case, further discussion of this request will not benefit the project as it is clear the specific proposal will not find a consensus. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a close of this thread would be advisable. But in the mean time, until it is closed, I request a reliable source from J0eg0d that states that Brianna Wu is a paid reporter for the Washington Post and that her paid employment there creates any type of conflict of interest. That ought to be easy to provide for someone so dedicated to journalistic ethics. Lacking such evidence, I recommend that the editor either withdraw the accusation or withdraw from editing this article. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes because the only possible conflict of interested is a paid conflict of interest. Weak argument and weak suggestion - withdraw or cease editing - he's under no obligation to do either and it's inappropriate of you to mislead new editors. 208.167.254.15 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Having been the only even potential type of "evidence" cited, your position is "less than weak". And in its implications, it's bordering on BLP violation. I suggest that you withdraw it to establish that you are in fact here in good faith. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom14:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
To quote TRPoD, "I suggest that you withdraw it to establish that you are in fact here in good faith. -- TRPOD" is disregarding CIVILITY and it appears to be threatening. Additionally Cullen328's continual attempts to manipulate for an off-topic debate. The discussion was never about Brianna Wu's influence, the focus (as continually repeated) is DHeyward's proposal. I see such misdirection the same as vandalism - Both tactics offer no rebuttal, attention or conclusives in any way. Why are you involving yourselves in petitions when you forcible interrupt the appeal? It's unappreciated. I hope Zad68 recognizes this disruptive behavior. --j0eg0d (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
^Bray, Hiawatha (March 8, 2015). "Brianna Wu makes stand at PAX East". Boston Globe. Retrieved May 26, 2015. Brianna Wu ... has received dozens of death threats from a shadowy movement called GamerGate
Again, Jorm you have made an accusation without any support. I've asked you to retract your above aspersions as well as this one. Comment on content, not editors. Your issue appears to be with VentureBeat, not me. Unlike others, I have not ventured into the weeds. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Per closure request: Current assessment is that there's no consensus for the proposed change. Arguments for the change are that it would bring the article content closer in line with the VentureBeat source; arguments against are that there are other good sources that don't qualify the statement like VB does so the qualifier isn't necessary in the Wikipedia article. Unless new, strong and convincing arguments are brought in support of the proposed change, I'll close this request as no consensus a bit later.
There is a side tangent essentially accusing sources of misconduct by overstating Wu's claims in exchange for content from her, or otherwise being subject to her "influence"... This is quite a claim, but it doesn't appear on target of the original content change suggestion, and if someone wants to pursue it, they need to tie it to a content change suggestion and maybe take it to WP:RSN. Zad6816:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
The following discussion 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.
Withdrawn for now.. Looks like the images are CC-BY 4.0, I'm going to check about getting them undeleted first. — Strongjam (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Done until the deleted images are restored. I remember reading in an earlier thread that these images were explicitly confirmed as CC-released by Wu, so I assume undeletion is just a matter of documenting that. Sandstein 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. These images are explicitly confirmed as CC-released by Wu, on her page, http://www.briannawu.net/#/photos/ where she posts all these photos and writes "Rights granted by photographer Shannon Grant. All of these images are released to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. They may be used for any purpose, commercial or personal. The specific legal language may be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode ".... but Commons admins apparently don't accept that, probably because she is not Shannon Grant. Since Commons would accept an email from Grant forwarded by Wu, the distinction between that and a statement by Wu that Grant grants the rights seems flimsy, but apparently sufficient. So if you could put back the shadowy screenshots for the meanwhile, that would be best. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it fascinating how this particular subject is consistently obstructed (this is at least the second instance) In providing good pictures of herself. One might almost think some people benefited from having bad pictures of the subject. Oh, wait. 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Er ... MarkBernstein, I hope you don't mean me? I mean, I'm proud that I made a picture she likes and everything, but I do recognize that the ones she submitted are better, and would prefer those. --GRuban (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No, -GRuban, not you as far as I know. But he 4chan/Fox News gang seem always litigating to get the worst possible image. And somehow, commons keeps finding far-fetched rationales to comply. Hint: pick up the phone, call the company, get the permissions you need. If she were a right-wing hack, that would have been done months ago, sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, copyright is a fairly serious issue of us, and making sure that a photo really has been released under a proper license - and therefore properly respects the photographer's rights - is important. It can feel like deliberate obstruction, and maybe there is some of it in this case, but it isn't an unusual situation, even if in this case it does feel a bit like sticking bureaucratic hoops in the way. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't find it unusual to delete an image because there wasn't proof that the image was released by the copyright holder. But maybe there is more going on - I just don't see that it is necessarily the case. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Images are deleted all the time on Commons. The solution is not to upload them to Commons which is a collection if idiotic policies that steal "Monkey selfies" and delete released content. Keep them on WP which has broader fair use rules (and isn't run by the asylum). --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sandstein, GRuban, Bilby, DHeyward, and Strongjam: If you want to know where the trouble was, see the link above. I fixed the license / source (using wayback machine for good measure) and of course restored the two files. That should do it for now and the future.
I hope DHeyward isn't too discourage to upload on Commons. Eligible media from here will be transferred to Commons at some point anyway. Just make sure that all the information is given so there are no misunderstandings. And remember: We are only humans, even on Commons.
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.
Protected edit request on 25 May 2015
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Gamergate-related harassment section, add the below source after this statement As of February 2015, she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period,
<ref>{{cite news |last=Bray |first=Hiawatha |url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/08/brianna-appears-pax-east-videogame-convention/hEzlyb5ggIf03vKycUa2aL/story.html |title=Brianna Wu makes stand at PAX East |work=[[Boston Globe]] |date=March 8, 2015 |accessdate=May 25, 2015 }}</ref>
“I’ve had 48 death threats now in six months,” Wu said in an interview Friday. “To stand up to GamerGate, that’s my choice. I can’t make that choice for the women I work with.”
The key word is Wu said: this is what the source states, Wu's allegations. They don't confirm she's received that many; hence why I have yet to be given a valid explanation to as why the page doesn't say Wu alleges she received dozens of threats or something along those lines.
In addition to this, the same article states:
A Boston Police Department spokesman said Saturday evening that police were aware of the threatening tweet, but deemed it “not credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditor55 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The source plainly states the Arlington video game developer who has received dozens of death threats from a shadowy movement called GamerGate. Not "alleged", not "claimed", no weasel words. It directly supports the statement where I've asked for it to be added. — Strongjam (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This is just continuing the discussion above about Wikipedians investigating the reliable sources to see if they did their due diligence or just took Wu's word on her death threats. Unfortunately, besides this being original research, we don't have access to the notes of the reporters and journalists who wrote about this case and we don't know what research they put in to verify the reports. We have to go with what the reliable sources say, not second-guess what kind of homework that the journalists put into these articles. LizRead!Talk!01:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The VentureBeat article for source 5 says Wu disclosed that she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period. It's the opposite of OR to accurately describe what was written. This isn't written in the voice of the RS, it's the voice of the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment There is no genuine confusion. In my opinion, some people are feigning confusion as part of their determined ongoing attempts to undermine Brianna Wu's credibility. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It Was A Request A petition was posed to reword the article, then countered by errant Wikihounding toward a "semi-protected status". Polite solicitation must not be met with obstructive caterwauling WP Forum. I suggest collapsing argumentatives by discretion and expel exchanges abstaining resolution or not offering directive. The key issue for me is an "unsigned" post seeking deliberation --j0eg0d (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
J0eg0d -- with all due respect, and I don't mean this as criticism, but I think you would do well to eschew obfuscation. As a wise person once said, "brevity is the soul of wit." But to each his or her own when it comes to the aesthetics of style. Dumuzid (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm unable to recognize where I've caused confusion? Considering the repeated dialogue and enticed arguments, I've tried rectifying a situation rather than manipulate conference.--j0eg0d (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
J0eg0d -- You've done nothing wrong, and again, this is not criticism, merely a suggestion you may take or leave as you see fit. I think your prose would be more powerful if it were mere more simple and direct at times. Sesquipedalianism quickly loses its impact if used as a steady diet rather than for occasional emphasis. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Support wording as "Wu disclosed that she has received X number of threats over Y months" as that is how it's attributed in the interview. "Disclosed" is a neutral descriptor chosen by the journalist to attribute the number. It is not the publications number or the police number and "disclosed" properly places the source. Otherwise it should be a quote from Wu as she is the only possible source. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's requesting an additional source, rather than changing the wording of something. Would you like me to make a section for you? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not correct. Our article says As of February 2015, she has received dozens of death threats over a five-month period, deals with law enforcement at least one day a week, and only attends events in the U.S. with a security detail, but notes that because of the harassment "I’m one of the best-known women developers in the world today. That’s a fact. What’s funny to me is that by attacking me so viciously, they’re helping give me the visibility to usher in the very game industry they’re terrified about.. The VentureBeat source clearly qualifies it with "Wu disclosed." Please read the source. We are not accurately depicting its attribution. Rather, we are stating it in WP's voice as fact when the source does no such thing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The current edit request you are posting in is requesting an additional source, not requesting changing the wording of something. I'm not interested in listening to you attempt to debate, just reminding you of the purpose of the request. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I support the rewording and would prefer the assertions in quotes. The current article reads like a resume as-is. --j0eg0d (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A primer on newspapers. Newspapers always provide primary sourcing for assertions -- "Wu said," or "according to a senior White House source." This attribution is not necessarily nor often the only source for an assertion, which newspapers and magazines will typically confirm through additional authorities. The stated source is typically the most authoritative source who will confirm the fact for the record, or the one whose quote is most interesting or clear. Thus, no doubt whatsoever is to be placed on this assertion because of its attribution to Wu; the paper would, in the routine course of affairs, have sought and received confirmation from the local police department and other independent sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised how controversial this is (maybe I shouldn't be.) The Boston Globe plainly states, in their own voice, that Wu has received dozens of death threats. Yes, there are other places where they attribute statements to Wu, but in this case it's a pretty straight-forward statement of fact "A defiant Brianna Wu, the Arlington video game developer who has received dozens of death threats from a shadowy movement called GamerGate, safely kept her vow to appear at the convention." — Strongjam (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit protected request result: Not done please only use this template after you've reached consensus, not before. Zad6817:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Strongjam I'm not going to give you a "must do" or "must not do" rule here but it's probably prudent in this subject area to propose something and give it... I don't know... like 24 hours before moving forward. (If this turns into editors saying "Zad68 said we have to wait 24 hours and you only waited 23:57 so I'm taking you to ANI" or "I waited 24 hours and 17 minutes so it must have consensus and you can't revert me." I'll be very sad.) Zad6817:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: In case you've not done so, I'd love for you to skim the whole of this section, and perhaps the section that immediately precedes it. In my view, what we see is a concerted effort to insinuate that the subject of this article has committed crimes -- fraud, perhaps perjury, making a false statement to law enforcement officers -- with which she has not in fact been charged. The discussion is itself a BLP violation, though perhaps not one of the spectacular sexual violations which have led to so many trips to AN/I and AE in the past eight months. I need not remind you that Gamergate’s stated goal is to punish female software developers; suggesting without a hint of reliable support that they invented their reported harassment is precisely the sort of effectual punishment that has made Gamergate so dangerous. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein I don't see any non-redacted comment above that's a clearly actionable BLP violation, so I have no actions I need to take here at this time. Zad68 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Actually I found what appeared to be one more BLP violation and redacted it. Zad6818:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So.... It's OK to deny inclusion of a reliably published source that specifically and unequivocally validates that Wu has been the subject of harassment so that the talk page can continually filled with insistent yammering that "There is no source in the article that validates her harassment!" repeated over and over on the page to push the the implication "it's merely her playing professional victim" ? AND its OK as below even go so far as to push for changing the wording of the article to make that the implication that Wikipedia presents to the world? especially when one is fully aware of the existence of the source that validates the current word- and that is NOT BLP violation? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
i am terribly confused. People are ranting the content of the article is not specifically supported by the source!!!!!!!11!!11!. A source is provided that clearly supports the content. People keep ranting. One would think they are not actually motivated by having the article accurately represent the sources. (reworded per request) Please identify what your actual grievance was. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Brianna Wu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Having had a discussion and there being no policy or content based rationale presented for not instituting the source that verifies the claims in the article, and having a discussion and determining there is no consensus to change the content of the article, there appears to be no reason to delay in placing the source in the article as suggested. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Support per both this being the best way to clear up alleged confusion, and that any objections to it were not policy based. A reminder: consensus does not mean a vote, and if you don't want this source added you should come up with reasons why the source shouldn't be added (not with reasons why the article is wrong elsewhere.) PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. This seems clear cut. After rereading the entire discussion, it is clear that the dissenting voices raise no policy argument at all and indeed have no objection to the edit, but are merely seeking fresh opportunities to use Wikipedia to harass the subject of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It is assumed that the reader knows what Gamergate means. No explanation is given for what the controversy is about or anything. Shouldn't there be at least a sentence of background or something? Handpolk (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Others may have a problem with that wording, I don't know, but that's fine with me. Just gives people context. Handpolk (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually that internal link might be better going to Gamergate controversy. The article you have it going to doesn't really explain why Gamergate started at all and itself may leave people confused. Handpolk (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've seen people talking about tweets being used as reliable sources before especially in relation to tweets made by the person themselves so may I suggest a section documenting the immense hardship and harassment Ms Wu faced even before Gamergate, by her own admission.[1]Dwarvenhobble (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy. Usually best when only used for rather mundane details to flesh out a biography (e.g. year of birth.) If this hasn't received any WP:SECONDARY sourcing best just to leave it out. — Strongjam (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Boston Magazine, here, does have a quote from Quinn where she says that Gjoni posted his attack on her to several websites to several websites with a history of harassing her (which eventually formed the core of what would become the Quinnspiracy and later Gamergate); some history on how Gamergate was started by people who had a history of harassing Quinn and gradually expanded to other targets might be worth a sentence or two. But most of that history is better covered on the article for Gamergate itself, since it's more about the history of Gamergate and its origins than about Quinn specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You say it shouldn't be alleged due to sources, however none of the sources cited offer proof that she had received dozens of threats as of February 2015.
Those sources link to articles of Brianna Wu claiming that she received that many threats, they offer no verification to as whether she actually received them or whether it was members of #GamerGate who sent them. Those sources should be cited for platforms to which she made the claim, which was subsequently reported by outlets covering her alleged experiences.
In regards to the Ohio Attorney claiming that Wu had wasted time and resources, that has been reported upon:
Thus, the appropriate edit would be An Ohio attorney alleged that Wu wasted time and resources or something along those lines. The source from Breitbart given is simply repeating a claim made by the Attorney, just as Wu has claimed her threats are authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditor55 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is not a reliable source, and the state's attorney's letter is a primary source; we can't use either. The Boston Globe, in its original coverage, confirmed reports were made to the Arlington MA police department, and so there's no question for the general matter. We also have public statements from Wu’s US Congresswoman that indicate reports were filed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is it said that Breitbart is not a reliable source? It's used as a reference in many places on Wikipedia except apparently where you disagree with it. The attorney's letter has only been covered in a secondary source in Breitbart, and is clearly important enough for inclusion at least as a counter-point to The Boston Globe and the Congresswoman's statements. Weedwacker (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart's most notable claim to fame is its REPEATED false reporting of "scandals". In potentially contentious claims about living people we require the HIGHEST standards and do not allow those sources with no standards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom19:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That is your personal POV, not Wikipedia policy. WP:BLPSOURCES doesn't say there's more than one tier to what constitutes a "reliable source". If Breitbart is considered a reliable source elsewhere on Wikipedia (which it appears to be), then it is reliable for ALL articles- not just on the ones you're not passionate about. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You maybe didnt read the introduction? "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. " or from the section that you linked "adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."? or the title of the section directly below that "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" ? you could try there for starters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom01:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure that's the policy you intended to link? I can't see anything along the lines of what you're saying in that policy. A direct quote might help my understanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Brietbart is not an WP:RS. As for your assertion that if it is considered a reliable source elsewhere on Wikipedia (which it appears to be), then it is reliable for ALL articles, that's not true. The context of how a source is used is important. — Strongjam (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
{THERE IS NO VIOLATION}
The issue concerns the wording, "the Attorney claiming that Wu had wasted time and resources" used in de facto terms. In lieu of the article's title; We can make mention of Prosecutor's email, but it is the interpretation of said email which comes into question. There remains a surfeit of "matter-of-fact" conclusives about Brianna Wu's proclivities. Allocating a "ground for belief" is not part of the Wikipedia stance ... Wikipedia does not amass evidence to illustrate an outcome. --j0eg0d (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
{SITE REASON FOR REDACTION}
VIABLE SOURCES: Community consensus notes BreitBart as a Global News Syndicate, distinctive & essential to several Wikipedia articles. I will state that the preconceptions in BreitBart denunciations may require dispute resolution, but this isn't practical for a TALK page. The assumptions "contentious material" or "poorly sourced" is personal subjection certainly adhere to "gossip rags" such as Gawker, Kotaku, The Mary Sue ... etc. Reliable Sources is 5 year old comments & opinions - not specifically towards BreitBart, but the journalistic integrity of certain authors. In reading the source, Journalist Allum Bokhari's article introduces Brianna Wu impartially, neither negating nor promoting her. It's admissible, but it's also my own personal conjecture.--j0eg0d (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If The Mary Sue can be used as a source in the article, so can Breitbart. The obvious bias from users such as MarkBernstein make this article a glaring example of the failures of wikipedia. Djgranados (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see you've been away a while, but apparently following my edits anyway. thanks! The community has discussed Breit art and decided it cannot normally be considered a reliable source. I'm sure you can find other reliable sources for vital facts of interest to our readers. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit protected
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
No one was "forcing" you to discuss it! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done The license is not specific enough. The Twitter link makes it clear that she wants these to be Wikipedia-usable, but she only says "All are in the Creative Commons", not which Creative Commons license applies. That is important because there are CC licenses that are incompatible with Wikipedia, and there are important differences among those which are compatible. Additional confusion because here she says "public domain", which is something else again. Maybe you can ask her to specify the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, which is the most commonly used on Wikipedia Commons. Sandstein 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Done Since nobody opposes, although the motorcycle image isn't an ideal lead image, we normally prefer conventional headshots without sunglasses. Sandstein 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
