Jump to content

Talk:Brianna Wu/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Protected edit from 31 July 2015

Please add Category:Victims of cyberbullying to the bottom of the page. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No comments so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Trying to add this article to a deletion discussion. Could someone possibly add the following template?

{{subst:afd1|Depression Quest}}

Thanks! NickCT (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  16:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tense and attribution

  • s/she has received dozens/said she had received dozens/
  • s/deals with law enforcement/said she dealt with law enforcement/
  • s/only attends events in the U.S. with a security detail/said she could only attend US events with security escorting her/

Firstly the tense is incorrect. Secondly looking at the source to check, these are all in Wu's voice (it's an interview) and should be attributed to her. Thirdly the phrase "with a security detail" has possible implications that it is her security details. The interview gives more of an impression that they are event security.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

strong oppose: The Boston Globe asserts this as fact, over the byline of their tech beat writer, That these threats were received and reported to law enforcement has likewise been widely reported in impeccable sources. No sources at all suggest the threats were not received, that they were not reported, or that measures were not taken for the subject's safety and security: we use the interviewr as one of many potential sources because Wikipedia is not a citation farm.. Gamergate boards chatter that these threats weren't made, that some other guys sent them, and that the reports were not filed, These Gamergate talking points might well be BLP violations, no respectable source reports them, and they certainly have no place in the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection Please

We've had multiple rev-del incidents in the 2-3 days since protection expired. We're now semi-protected, but only part of the recent libelous edit-war was done by an IP. Why not go for long-term full-protection and be done with it? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2015

Change "Zoe Quinn" to "Zoë Quinn" under the Gamergate-related harassment section.

(Per Talk:Zoë Quinn#Requested move 9 August 2015 (permalink) and changes like this, Quinn should be called "Zoë", not "Zoe".) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to aded categories to this article

,, but I cannot, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What categories would you like to add? Brustopher (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This should go in the lead

This amount of funding for new emotional tech is very significant.

"She says her company will soon release a new version of Revolution 60, a shoot-'em-up set in outer space, and is seeking $25 million in funding to develop software that will help computers know when we're happy, frustrated, or sad."

www.inc.com/david-whitford/gamergate-women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Not done for now: Please leave a while to let a consensus for this edit develop. When you find a consensus, or if no-one responds in a reasonable amount of time, please reactivate the edit request template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only significant if they actually get funded to create the technology. Anyone can say they're looking for funding. (Similarly, creating the technology is the notable part; the funding itself is interesting, but the achievement is it working). Fleetingshadow (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Clear BLP violations should not be restored. TPO doesn't grant exemptions. The conversation isn't going to lead to improving the article as BLP violations cannot be added. We don't subject Wu to such idle speculation when made by others and for good reason.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Unencylopedic line

In a September 2015 interview, Wu stated that she was "taking a step back" and no longer responding to hateful posts before blocking them. How Wu chooses to use her social media isn't encyclopedic or notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Because her notability is due, in a significant extent, to the vicious online attacks against her, then it follows that her response to those attacks is both encyclopedic and "notable" in this context. I enclose "notable" in quotes because that Wikipedia concept actually applies only to the topic of the article, Brianna Wu, rather than to specific pieces of information about her. We will not help perpetuate the harassment against her by failing to discuss how she has dealt with and responded to that harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And, in point of fact, it has now been discussed in The Washington Post: [1]. <redact> MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal Of Self-Promotion

Regarding Promotional Tone, primarily my attention caught unnecessary self-promotional tones here; Aligning herself with Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn - Noting the creation of a legal defense fund - This quote, "I’m one of the best-known women developers in the world today. That’s a fact." There are sourced materials that Brianna Wu is (or was) a columnist and/or contributor for; The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Huffington Post, The Mary Sue, and Polygon - This is a conflict of interest and suggests influence. Her PDF link for Argentus is a magazine creation website and is convincingly padding her RESUME. Adjustments should be made before a nomination for deletion is renewed. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, nominate the article for deletion, and we'll see how things shake out. After that, however, I request you go over to Muhammad Ali and tag that article for deletion as well; there is an absolute ridiculous amount of self-promotion by that subject (e.g., his claim to being "the greatest" is completely unsourced). Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To beg debate on Muhammad Ali's achievements by comparison to severely-objective claims? Is puerile absurdity. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems like one of the editors to the page discusses this and related articles with the subject. It does seem strange that this hasn't been mentioned before.--Runescrape (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
On further review, MarkBernstein's edits appear to be a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runescrape (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
absurd and despicable, this complaint is also misplaced. AE is that away --> MarkBernstein (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No, you have been in contact with the subject numerous times on Twitter. As your talk page appears to be protected, I have no way to notify you anyway if I wanted to file an AE claim.--Runescrape (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

500/30 restrictions

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

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

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

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

Problems

  • The article links to a small podcast as a citation... and a broken link.
  • "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" - Unsupported by any citations. Please add them or remove the claim.
  • ", then worked as a journalist until [the subject] was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame." - Also unsupported by any citations. Please add them or remove the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runescrape (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, it seems some inconsistencies between reports have surfaced with respect to the subject completing a degree. While Inc. magazine writes "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001 after getting swept up in the excitement surrounding George W. Bush's election as president." However, the Boston Globe, one of the sources cited by this article, claims the subject is "a graduate of the University of Mississippi".--Runescrape (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like if someone added some information about Wu's recent appearance on a SXSW panel about online harassment. E.g. according to the following sources, she "accused social networks of standing by while their platforms were used to spread hate" and explicitly avoided talking or making the panel about Gamergate. [2] [3] Everymorning (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

The NY Times article is dominated by Wu’s remarks: [4] MarkBernstein (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

    • I expect that Xaosflux thought that the "software developer" to whom DHeyward referred above was I, rather than Wu. Among the people speaking in that particular largely-empty room were a member of the US Congress, the recent Democratic candidate for Texas Governor, and every notable Gamergate advocate who was willing to speak on the record; the paucity of audience can hardly be laid at Wu’s feet. I expect Xaosflux was unclear whether DHeyward remains under any notional sanctions or restrictions with regard to me, since this might have broached them, as might DHeyward's sudden interest in finding ways to disparage Martin Fowler, an article whose chief interest to him, not doubt, is that I have edited it. (Fowler’s Refactoring is one of the core texts of current software practice, I've written about it several times in various places, and I happened to be in the audience for Fowler’s famous “gorilla panel” at OOPSLA.) Yes, if remarks made to an empty room are immediately discussed in The New York Times, the BBC, Salon, and the Washington Post, they might perhaps be mentioned in the subject’s article. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No they were not directed at you, rather that the overall take on the SXSW panel is how it has been largely ignored. Nor have I disparaged Fowler in any way. You just used the term "software developer" to describe yourself and Wu so it can hardly be disparaging to use that to describe Fowler. Considering Fowler's own website uses "developer" many times, but "engineer" is not used at all, my edit there is supported by sources and was an attempt to stop edit war over titles. "Software engineer" seems a title you prefer for him but it is not disparaging to use "software developer" unless you think his own website is disparaging him. Your concern is unfounded as my interest in software, "not doubt", is professional. --DHeyward (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Two quick thoughts: first, DHeyward, I have no clue if there are any even 'notional' restrictions that might be implicated here, but I'd suggest discretion is the better part of valor if so. Secondly, Dr. Bernstein, I would honestly like to know your opinion with regard to the edit. The panel(s) at SXSW have certainly received coverage in the notable sources, but I am rather agnostic as to whether there's anything really noteworthy to include in this particular article. What do you think? Thanks both. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it might be somewhat useful to include something like the proposed sentence. It could use some copy editing; I'd suggest: "In 2016, Wu hosted a panel, "Is a safer, saner and civil internet possible?", at South By Southest, in which she accused social media sites of failing to stop users from spreading hate on their platforms.[1] MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The one theme I see in the reliable sources is the panel's anemic attendance, not anything concerning the subject's accusations. The panel does not seem to have been "hosted" by Wu either, I'm not sure which source you found that claimed this.--Runescrape (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Via CBS News: "Brianna Wu, a video game developer who was at the center of Gamergate, hosted a panel called 'Is a safer, saner and civil Internet possible?'" [5] Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears this and other sources do state this. However, SXSW's announcement itself lists her as an "additional speaker invited to join the summit to expand the conversation", so I'm not sure how she could be the host and also an invitee. There might be some meaning of the term "host" I'm unaware of, but I think of the host of a panel as the person who leads and organizes it.--Runescrape (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is why we stick to sources as opposed to engaging in original research. I'm not sure what this all means; it's possible that the SxSW idea of a "summit" includes multiple panels, and they invited Ms. Wu to host this one. It's possible SxSW made a mistake. It's possible news sources made a mistake. It's possible that the news sources made an unjustified leap, such as, hypothetically, "she spoke a lot, so she must be the host." It certainly seems to me based on the reliable sources that we can state she 'hosted' the panel. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please reopen this if you manage to find a consensus on the wording to use. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note inconsistency between sources

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

What specific edit do you want made? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors should be wary, here as elsewhere, of violating Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons, either inadvertently or delberately. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
We should add the Inc. Magazine source to the article. The unsourced statement "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" should be replaced with a statement which combines the statements from Inc. Magazine and The Boston Globe.--Runescrape (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What specific edit do you want made? In other words: What text do you want changed to what text? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I should rephrase this: The unsourced statement claiming "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism" should be replaced with a statement which combines the interviews from Inc. Magazine and The Boston Globe. The relevant sections to combine would be "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001" from Inc. Magazine and "[the subject is] a graduate of the University of Mississippi" from The Boston Globe.--Runescrape (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And what would be your proposed new statement- as in, what would you type were you to be able to make the edit? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My proposed new statement would be a combination of both aforementioned sections.--Runescrape (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I lament that I cannot implement an edit you are unable to detail. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Type out the combination as you think it should be, Runescrape. Dumuzid (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"While Inc. Magazine reports Mrs. Wu left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001, The Boston Globe described her as a graduate of the University of Mississippi.12." Feel free to adjust this as necessary, but it seems safe enough. It just quotes two sources and notes the discrepancy - for whatever reason - between the two. If any issue arises, the onus is on the sources.--Runescrape (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What if we were to change the sentence from "She later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism, then worked as a journalist until she was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame" to "She later returned to college to continue her studies in investigative journalism, then worked as a journalist until she was inspired by the release of the iPhone to work as a graphical designer and create a videogame." Seems to me to be true no matter which source you credit. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any evidence supporting the claim that the subject worked as a journalist either. In fact, nothing written by the subject shows up in any reliable sources before 2012.--Runescrape (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
See this Guardian article: [6]. "Four years ago, after working in animation, and then journalism, Wu founded a small development studio, Giant Spacekat." That's something. "Working in journalism" doesn't necessarily mean being in a position where your byline winds up under stories. And I'd offer a (hopefully) friendly reminder that we should stick to sources rather than 'evidence,' per WP:OR. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please reopen this request when you manage to come to a consensus on the wording to use. Note that this isn't a rejection of the versions proposed so far - it's just that edit requests should already have consensus before the {{edit protected}} template be used to request that they are carried out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the editors to this article appears to have discussed it with the subject

Talking to people is not a conflict of interest. Any evidence of a real violation of the COI guidelines can be discussed at the COI noticeboard. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (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.

Is this a problem?--Runescrape (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

clarity in sentance over cash reward

In the sentance "She has begun a legal defense fund for women targeted by Gamergate, and the Wu family is offering a $11,000 reward for identifiable information leading to the prosecution of those who have sent her death threats.", "identifiable information" short for "Personally or personal identifiable information" a leagl term, may change corect use bettwen jurisdictions with Personally or personal identifying information. it appears the terms used came form Brianna Wu's quote "The Wu family is offering a reward of $11,000 for identifiable information leading to the prosecution of people sending me death threats." The page should not extrapalate the corect situaltion base of of her non-legaly binding tweet. Because the sentance is not quoting her, I am removeing "identifiable" from "identifiable information" due to a lack of clarity. Also, I am replacing "begun" with "started" because I feel it reads better, feel free to alter that if you disagree.--Blood sliver (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Software Engineer"

I removed this particular job title/occupation as there was no source for this. It seems that via Twitter, in this tweet, Wu herself directed people to undo this edit, alleging that I am some sort of GamerGater, hellbent on undoing her entire career as a software engineer. I do not believe that Twitter can be considered a reliable source. Also, merely from the definition of software engineer, I see no evidence of the educational qualifications required to claim that distinction, regardless of how much programming she did on Revolution 60. --SVTCobra (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The profile of her at The Guardian describes her as "...head of development at Giant Spacekat, a software engineer ..." This interview at First Person Scholar identifies her as a software engineer. So there are secondary sources. You admit that she was a programmer for her game studio, but that she isn't worthy of the term "software engineer" because of her educational background isn't relevant; the definition of software engineer on WP doesn't say anything about any educational requirements and even says that the definition overlaps that of programmers. eaolson (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Software Engineer" does not require any kind of degree, so you can stop with that line of thought.--Jorm (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Each of these are just one-line profiles. Probably because that's what Wu told her interviewers. One also says "feminist warrior", should we include that? In fact, neither Feminism nor feminist is mentioned in the article. Is that an omission?
I am not enough of an expert to know if Wikipedia considers these one-line profiles as a reliable source, but if you restore the title "software engineer" and include these sources as proper citations, I will not revert. Keep in mind, personally I will remain unconvinced. I have seen Wu's Twitter feed after this was cited for quickly reverting my edits. Wu states that she took some computer science classes at age 13 with the exclamation: "It's true". However, the rest of her education and took her in vastly different directions.
I took computer science classes at age 14. I took electives, evening classes, etc. I trace my computer languages back to BASIC, Pascal and through to C++ and SQL. Yet, I wouldn't even dare to describe myself as a programmer, and software engineer would be preposterous.
I take extreme exception to your claim that software engineer is the same as a programmer. Yes, they overlap. Software engineers are more than capable of being programmers, but not vice-versa. Also, while certifications and regulations vary by country, the "engineer" part is a very high standard. I quote from the linked page:
The United States, starting from 2013 offers an NCEES Professional Engineer exam for Software Engineering, thereby allowing Software Engineers to be licensed and recognized.[25] Mandatory licensing is currently still largely debated, and perceived as controversial. In some parts of the US such as Texas, the use of the term Engineer is regulated by law and reserved only for use by individuals who have a Professional Engineer license. The IEEE informs the professional engineer license is not required unless the individual would work for public where health of others could be at risk if the engineer was not fully qualified to required standards by the particular state. Professional engineer licenses are specific to the state that has awarded them, and have to be regularly retaken.
I hope you take my words into consideration before you haphazardly bestow the title "software engineer" on Wu's biography page. Despite what Wu alleges on Twitter, I am not a GamerGater, but I find it worrisome that she can just tweet and have people revert good-faith edits without sources. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you know what "software engineering" actually is. But you guys keep trying to denigrate every accomplishment or comment; it makes you look childish and stupid. --Jorm (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Re "Gamergater" - This label getting thrown around is worrisome. First, since when does WP have any rules disqualifying anyone from editing any article due to political affiliation? (I agree that political affiliation is relevant in that it can point to bias, but any bias should be evident from the editing itself, and dealt with accordingly. That's quite different from treating group affiliation as an automatic disqualifier.) If WP has changed its rules in this regard, please point this out. Second, the charge is not even accurate in this case, making it a rather McCarthyist thing to label somebody, in express violation of WP:AGF. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I've re-added the sourced content. The book is written by an academic and published by a reputable publisher, ABC-CLIO. It clearly meets the required of WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY — Strongjam (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested in why this is an issue, I recommend they read the following [[7]]. And per the opening statement of BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" (emphasis added) --Kyohyi (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Texas's laws are relevant here. — Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You missed the point, I posted that to show why this is an important issue, and that we could be bringing legal problems to the BLP by getting it wrong. The laws he talks about don't just exist in Texas. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Just Texas and Florida, neither of which is relevant here. It's not up to us to determine if she is properly licensed in Massachusetts, which as far as I know does not treat "Software engineer" as a protected title, we just have to follow the sources. I'd note that there are a number of biographies that use the term for people who are not likely licensed. If this is an important BLP issue I'd suggest the discussion should be much broader and probably on a different page.— Strongjam (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
We don't "Just have to follow the sources". Per BLP, we have to adhere to all applicable laws in the united states as well. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Which applicable law is that? Software engineer is not a protected title in Massachusetts, nor is it federally. — Strongjam (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be pushing a position into my mouth that I'm not taking, and I'm not particularly appreciating it. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What applicable law are you referring to? Be specific. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone really needs to get over to the Isambard Kingdom Brunel article. They call him an "engineer" quite a bit, and I see no evidence that he was ever licensed under the Texas statute. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(Off topic, but Is it just me, or does this dude look like a bad-ass? I think I have a new hero.)--Jorm (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what position you're taking. If you're position is we shouldn't use it because it might be a protected title in Massachusetts, then, no, it's not. The licensing body has discussed it (warning PDF), but it is not a protected term. Interestingly that link also says that it's not a protected term in Texas either, only that one can become a licensed software engineer and then call themselves a professional engineer, but software engineers who do not call themselves professional engineers are not mandated to do so. — Strongjam (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What I posted was for informational purposes, that we do need to consider legal implications on BLP's. I posted it because "just following the sources" isn't the minimum standard here, and I haven't made an argument one way or the other regarding any laws being broken. Your reading more into my post than what I said. If it helps you can re-interpret "For anyone interested in why this is an issue" to mean "For anyone interested in why this is important". --Kyohyi (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't logging this article as being under ARBAPDS make sense?

I'm just asking because she is now running for US Congress. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Run for Congress comments

I have reverted an addition to this article on the grounds of undue weight; while some mention of her comment may be relevant to a larger section about her Congressional candidacy, the proposed addition was far too lengthy and detailed to be properly weighted given the existing size of the biography. In addition, the creation of an entire subsection to call attention to it does not seem appropriate, and the sourcing is at best partisan. I invite discussion of the material to take place here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It was not added to the 'Run for Congress' section, but rather as a section of its own. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Which is all the worse; creating an entire section for an off-hand tweet mentioned in some right-wing blogs is textbook undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Space tourism and moon rocks ...

I recently tried to add a bit about Wu's comments on this. See this. I don't expect my addition to be perfect, but I wonder why there is no merit to it at all? I submit this for your consideration and comment. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight and not news would seem to apply here; your sourcing for inserting discussion of an off-hand comment on Twitter is a right-wing newspaper and a right-wing blog. We don't need to include everything in a biography that was once mentioned by partisan opponents, particularly a biography as short as this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That's my thinking. There is some limited secondary coverage, but quoting one tweet (which was apparently later deleted) out of context only really makes sense if it's trying imply something without actually saying it. If we cannot explain why we're mentioning something, because in this case it would be too petty and non-neutral, we shouldn't bother at all. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? If the Washington Times is unreliable, then so is the Washington Post. And poof there are not newspapers in Washington DC that can be used as sources. Either way, I did not use the sources for their opinions. I used them to establish a series (yes, a series, not an off-hand tweet) of numbered tweets that Brianna Wu posted. Wu wrote it! Not partisans! ... are you saying that Wikipedia can't include things that Trump said on Twitter just because only CNN and Huffington Post wrote about it???? I welcome a discussion on this. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church and has a well-known right-wing slant; its journalistic credibility is in no way comparable to that of the Washington Post, and thus you have created a false equivalency. Your other source is an overtly-right wing Internet blog platform. If there was discussion of these tweets in mainstream reliable sources, yes, that would be different, but there would still be issues of due and undue weight. As Grayfell said, this appears to be too petty to merit mention in a biography of this size. I am not making judgments about any other articles, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. We're discussing this particular content in this particular biography with these particular sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think The Washington Times is flatly unreliable for all content, but as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In context, this seems too gossipy, and is very unlikely to have any lasting encyclopedic significance based on those sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not a false equivalency. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who also has a slant. The opinions of these sources are irrelevant because they document the tweets. If I were to quote an Internet archive platform for the tweets, I'd be accused of original research. No one is disputing that they happened, not even Brianna Wu. .... As to undue weight, I will say this: you are misinterpreting policy. Yes, it is a viewpoint help by a minority, but it is the viewpoint held by the subject of the article not by outsiders.
You and Greyfell act like she said this in jest. Like it was an inside joke to a friend taken out of context. It really is not. How significant is it really? I don't know ... but it is certainly in the realm of things worth mentioning about a person currently running for office. (and please, please don't make me use Trump as an example again ... I don't like him). Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the Washington Post's editorial stance has to do with anything. I don't think she said this in jest, but not every supposed gaffe of a political candidate belongs based on flimsy sources. Even if the sources are reliable (which I'm cool on, but it's not clear-cut), it's pretty minor, passing WP:FART. One source is an opinion which is more tweet than article, the other is similarly brief and light. There's coverage, but no substance. If this does turn out to be significant, we should wait for sources to more clearly reflect that, per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any benefit to rushing to include this. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no point to any editorial stance on this, Grayfell. None is needed. The fact remains that Wu tweeted these things. And it was not a fart. It was a series of numbered tweets. I am repeating myself at this point. Who are you to judge there's no substance? What kind of sources are you expecting to "reflect" on this? ... (Redacted). Why are you trying to censor this? It is factual that Wu said this! Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have redacted an entirely-unsupported negative statement about a living person from the above post. If you are here to grind an ax about the article subject, you should find some other project to edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

I have contributed to Wu's campaign. kencf0618 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture Problem

I believe there has been some vandalism insofar as the picture labeled "Brianna Wu and Giant Spacekat co-founder Amanda Warner" no longer matches that caption. I can try to fix it (likely tomorrow), but if anyone else has spare time, might be something to look at. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Jorm (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Moon rocks comment

Even mentioning it is undue? It was covered by several news outlets. This page definitely suffers from a pro-Wu bias.—Chowbok ☠ 05:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So far you've only shown that it's mentioned in passing by The Atlantic. Bias ain't nothing to do with it, it's just unencyclopedic who cares kind of material. In a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup. The Atlantic article is interesting, but it's is discussing the comments with tongue in cheek. The title "The Patriarchy Hates the Moon" is a giveaway that this isn't entirely sincere, nor should it be taken literally. Wu's comments are only briefly used in that article to segue between slightly more substantial points. The two tweets are also discussed as a tangent to the main point of the article, and it barely even tries to explain why the comments are significant. It just generously says that it wasn't "exactly true", and says it represents a surprisingly common underlying fear. Big whoop. Grayfell (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's also mentioned by thehill.com and PJ Media (and don't tell me that PJ Media is a biased right-wing source while we're using Huffington Post as a RS in the same article).—Chowbok ☠ 22:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, adding a POV template because others disagreed with you inserting some trivial stuff is not very constructive. In fact it appears to be a WP:POINT violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could give me five minutes after posting the template to post my reasoning before rushing forward with your assumptions of bad faith? Sheesh.—Chowbok ☠ 06:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to improve your sourcing; I've made a few edits to better conform to the source (which explicitly discusses her tweets in the context of a concern about militarization of space), to paraphrase more and rely less on quotes, and to remove the section heading which I find entirely unnecessary and unwarranted for an issue summed up in a couple sentences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Balance

I realize this article is a target for trolls, but it is clearly overcompensating in the other direction. It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This article has no negatives at all. Sadly, it appears all three of the articles relating to this have not a single point of criticism in them. I'd go and hunt down some reliable sources myself but I don't have the time to do that right now. Can we agree there is a bias problem though? --Tarage (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You are beginning from a poor premise in the idea that there is something wrong with this article having "no negatives," if indeed that is the case. There is no requirement that articles have "negatives," particularly biographies; we only add criticism if it is reliably sourced, relevant, properly weighted and deemed worthy of inclusion by editorial consensus. The question for us to discuss is not are there "negatives," the question is whether anything of significance is missing from the article. I would invite those who think something is missing to propose reliably-sourced additions that they believe address these gaps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a fair point. I should have worded it better. My concern is there is significant criticism that I believe exists, but that may not be reported frequently. Still, I believe that it is enough to at least warrant a mention. I will try to find some reliable sources, but I am open to help in that regard. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, I think there's pretty clearly at least one "negative" — we cite a political expert who opines that Wu's Congressional campaign is likely to fail. I think as we get closer to the election, if her candidacy turns out to seriously contest the seat, we'll find more reliable sources discussing her campaign positions, platform and chances. If not, and it turns out she's tilting at a windmill, there won't be much more to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a negative to me. You can be the most noble of people and still fail at politics. I'm more concerned that there are no rebuttals of her views, which often times run very absolutist. --Tarage (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the article as it stands, I don't see that we discuss "her views" to any significant extent, though. She's not really notable for her opinions about things, is she? We talk about her upbringing, her work, a few brief snippets of her political platform and the harassment incidents. There's nothing that I see in this article that would be "rebuttable," especially given that there doesn't appear to be any outside analysis or criticism of her Congressional campaign platform, which is the closest thing to anything here that would need a "rebuttal." So if we were to add reliably-sourced "rebuttals of her views," we'd first have to add some extensive reliably-sourced discussion of what her views are, if that makes sense. That's what makes these hypotheticals hard. It's difficult to say something belongs or doesn't belong in any given article until everyone has a clear sense of what is being proposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why this [8] was removed? I see a reliable source, thus meeting the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, and I see significant coverage, thus meeting the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a section directly above this one discussing exactly this, as well as another in the talk pages archives. Grayfell (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but the article in The Atlantic, as previously mentioned, strikes me as a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece (it begins "Like most unhappy young men, in my teenage years I went to war with the moon.") That leaves us with a Washington Times article and an iffy mention in the Atlantic. Given that WP:contextmatters, it strikes me as being undue in the grand scheme of things. That's what I see, but reasonable minds can and do differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any actual indication of an issue, just a lot of bloviating about how there is an issue with no specifics. POV template is unnecessary. @Guy Macon: Don't go around jumping into things just to get your rocks off about an apparent vendetta with Jorm in the future. People are trying to build an encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't view a single throwaway comment about a tweet she once made as relevant or duly weighted in this brief biography; it doesn't appear to be a significant part of her life. If it someday becomes a significant part of her life (which I suppose could happen if her Congressional campaign takes off and more reliable sources start looking at her political platform and views), we can always add it then. Otherwise, we're talking about a WP:FART, IMO. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, if we are going to determine that any mention of this belongs in a brief biography, I should think all would agree that a single tweet certainly doesn't merit its own section subheading; we don't call out any of her other platform points in subheadings and to do so would place undue weight on that single tweet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
While not likely to warrant an entire section, one tweet can be just as worthy of inclusion as one quote. We do it for politicians, for example, quite often. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to make the argument that it merits inclusion; I still haven't actually seen anyone make a positive argument for why it should be included; "it exists and is verifiable" is not an argument, it's a statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It merits inclusion because it is something that a lot of our readers will have read about in biased politicized sources, and they depend on Wikipedia to give them an unbiased account. It merits inclusion because it is a controversial opinion expressed by someone who has chosen to be a public figure. The only reason why this is not being treated the way we normally treat controversial views held by public figures is because of gamergate. Sorry, but being involved in gamergate does not give you a free pass to keep controversial opinions that are covered in reliable sources out of your wikipedia BLP.
From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Review of articles urged:
"Review of articles urged"
"The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."
"Passed 12 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)"
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DUE, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You are proclaiming that an opinion is "controversial" without evidence. To what "controversy" are you referring? The proffered sources so far are a right-wing newspaper article and a throwaway mention in an Atlantic essay. Is that your evidence of a "controversy?" Because that doesn't seem like a "controversy" to me, it seems like a WP:FART. YMMV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Clearly arguing with you is a waste of time, so I am going to stop responding now. You are going to object to anything that puts Brianna Wu in a bad light. WP:DUE, is quite clear: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". The view that you can drop rocks from the moon and that they will hit the earth[9] is obviously a minority view, because it violates the laws of physics.[10] Brianna Wu is a prominent adherent of said minority view. Compare the minority view that Comet Hale-Bopp was being trailed by a UFO. Art Bell is a prominent adherent of said minority view. Likewise with Alex Jones and the minority view that the mass shootings at Sandy Hook and Columbine were "staged". No reliable sources agree with Jones or Bell, but we don't exclude mention of those minority views from their BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I am not quite sure if you are responding to me and/or NorthbySouthBaranof. If me, my apologies. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. I have no problem with you or with you disagreeing with me. It is NBSB who i have decided to be a waste of time and not to interact with. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Your first link is to a syndicated republication of the Washington Times article, your second is to someone's personal blog which entirely fails WP:RS. If those are the best sources you can find, I think my point stands clearly made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Guy is right, NorthBySouthBaranof, you and all the regular patrollers of these Gamergate-related bios needs to take a step back and let other people have a say. It's like a broken record and the bias is as plain as day. The very fact that the same little coterie turns up every time rather gives it away.

Literally all I know about Wu is what I have read in this article plus some vague comments made at various noticeboards over a prolonged period. Just knowing that she must be controversial (because of those vague comments) makes it obvious to me that this article is screwed up because ... there is nothing showing. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I can promise you that I, for one, will give your suggestions all the attention they deserve. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
"She must be controversial" because... you say she must be controversial? This is very circular. If she is "controversial," surely you will be able to find and cite published reliable sources that support the existence of a "controversy" around this tweet. So far we have a single article from the Moonie paper, a single throwaway line in an Atlantic essay (which doesn't claim anything is "controversial") and some guy doing math calculations on their personal blog. If these are the sources you are hanging the hat of "controversy" on, there is no there, there. If she is as controversial as you claim, surely you can find reliable sources which state that there actually is a controversy. That is what due weight and WP:BLP demand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't bothered because it means engaging with maintainers of the walled garden like you, PeterTheFourth, Jorm etc. Like I said in the ANI thread, such people tend to use any tactic, including filibustering, to prevent any content that does not show their heroes in a good light. You know she is controversial - don't pretend otherwise. Generally speaking, I can find better things to do with my time here than waste it debating with people who have a clear-cut agenda. It's the Gamergate thing. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

So let me see if I have this straight. Looking at the article currently, the following sources are acceptable and reliable:

  • A journal published by the "University of Waterloo Games Institute"
  • A podcast called The New Disruptors
  • A discontinued Canadian children's magazine
  • The Ringer, some podcast website that doesn't even rate an article on here
  • Wu's own website

The following sources are not acceptable:

  • The Washington Times
  • The Atlantic

Have I got that right?—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The podcast appears to only be a source for the fact that she appears on that podcast; that's uncontroversial and an acceptable use of a WP:SELFPUB for something about the person themselves. A peer-reviewed academic journal is an extremely high-quality source. I am unaware of the citation to The Ringer but I agree that that source is probably not a high-quality one and we should seek to find something better. (No slight intended to Bill Simmons, but it's a pretty new site with no track record of reliability or fact-checking.)
The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church and is not known for its reliability, balance or fairness. It is a questionable and partisan source, and I would no more sole-source something from it in an article about a liberal than I would sole-source something from Jacobin about a conservative. The Atlantic essay includes a single sentence mentioning the tweet and that's all - it's barely even a passing mention, and certainly does not support any claim of a "controversy" about the tweet. It is nothing more than "someone tweeted something that was wrong," and if every Wikipedia biography listed every tweet by that person that was wrong, we'd have some awful biographies filled with garbage tweets. Thankfully, we are an encyclopedia, not a compendium of bad tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Heck, I just looked at our biographical article on Donald Trump, quite possibly the world's most famous tweeter, and nowhere does it mention the literal hundreds of tweets he has made that are wrong. And that's probably the right decision - I bet I could find a million impeccable reliable sources talking about his tweets, but it really isn't that important or encyclopedic that Donald Trump once tweeted something wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
A better analogy would be Rep. Hank Johnson's comments on Guam, to which we devote a paragraph: Hank Johnson#Comments_on_Guam_tipping_over.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, that too is a WP:FART which certainly doesn't need a paragraph or a subsection heading; the sourcing is one article from The Hill and one from the AJC (both of which non-trivial and which are better sources than anything yet proffered here); but that biography also has the virtues of being a) much longer, hence due weight is more easily reached, and b) is about something actually said in a committee hearing in the House of Representatives by an actual member of Congress, rather than being about a single tweet, since deleted, by a party primary candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, The Hill is a reliable source? So therefore I can readd the moon rocks mention if I also reference this?—Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Chowbok, You seem to be forgetting the basic principle "A source is reliable if I like what it says and unreliable if I don't". It's in our policy WP:POLICIESIJUSTMADEUPTOWINANARGUMENT... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone else's snark aside (Guy made a big show about how he wasn't going to engage with me anymore, a pledge he's already apparently abandoned) yes, I believe The Hill is a reliable source, and if that source had been presented here to begin with, we'd be having a different discussion. It may merit mention - there still needs to be discussion about how we word it and how much weight we place on it, but we actually now have a non-trivial mention in a reliable source. There's now a starting point for discussion rather than hypothetical arguments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The Hill is RS? I'm not convinced. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: The Hill, yes, I think it meets WP:RS in this situation; it's a pretty well-respected political-focused newspaper with a solid reporting reputation. Circulation is small, but it's highly influential, they cover Congress in significant depth and... well, she's running for Congress now, welcome to the big-leagues, so to speak. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There isn't much of a case here for the article falling afoul of any part of WP:NEUTRAL in my opinion, so I've removed the {{POV}} tag. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FBI Investigation

Right now the article says:

"In early 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) closed its investigation of the matter. The FBI had identified four men who sent threats and obtained confessions from two of them. The US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts declined to prosecute, giving no specific reason. Reacting to the report, Wu stated the FBI did not care about the investigation and that she was 'livid' "

Sounds like the FBI determined that a crime was committed and that the US Attorney decided to ignore the crime, doesn't it?

Reading the sources, you get a far different story: They say that the person who send the threats did so because of his belief that Brianna Wu was a "a professional victim who exaggerated the threats" that he send the threats as a joke, and that he agreed to never do it again.[11] Another source[12] says "After more than a year of investigation, the FBI has concluded that nothing criminal occurred during GamerGate, a months-long culture war in the gaming industry that involved death threats and revelations of horrible ethics among video game journalists" and that "Ultimately, the FBI was unable to “identify any subjects or actionable leads” and closed the case". (The source is definitely biased, but so are a lot of the sources used in the article, and the primary documents from the FBI appear to say the same thing).

This is not to say that harassing people is OK. It isn't. But this article has been systematically scrubbed of all negative information, with constant demands for more sourcing if the information is negative and acceptance of any source that is positive.

No mention that she runs a Patreon account where she once earned an average of $3,400 a month (currently $1,230 a month) to "help deal with harassment". [13] No mention of the multiple paid speaking engagements.

No mention that In March 2016, Wu was profiled on the SyFy channel series The Internet Ruined My Life, where she talked about how a man named Jace Connors made death threats against her, forcing her to flee her home. It turns out that Connors (real name Jan Rankowski) is part of a comedy group called Million Dollar Extreme, which Wu knew about as early as February of 2015.[14]

Now I don't give a fig about gamergate, except that I really dislike online harassment. But I also know that at times online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated by those who make money from being harassed. I also support WP:NPOV and opposed any biased editing that thinks that, because someone was harassed, their Wikipedia page should omit any negative information. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of POV pushing from Guy Macon.
  • "systematically scrubbed of all negative information" like what? You need to provide RS.
  • "No mention that she runs a Patreon account where she once earned an average of $3,400 a month (currently $1,230 a month) to "help deal with harassment". [15] No mention of the multiple paid speaking engagements." Not sure how that's negative information. Or relevant.
  • "No mention that In March 2016, Wu was profiled on the SyFy channel series The Internet Ruined My Life, where she talked about how a man named Jace Connors made death threats against her, forcing her to flee her home. It turns out that Connors (real name Jan Rankowski) is part of a comedy group called Million Dollar Extreme, which Wu knew about as early as February of 2015." That's some interesting spin there.
  • "online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated" Oh there's the POV pushing.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "online harassment is overblown and sometimes even fabricated" Oh there's the POV pushing.
  • The thing you're referring to is 1) someone attacking for me, and 2) not allowed on the GGC talk page in particular.
  • how about providing RS for the edits you desire? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware that believing someone "is a professional victim" is an excuse or justification for sending death threats or that they should be treated as a "joke."
I'm not aware of any reliable sources reporting on Wu's Patreon or her speaking engagements and you haven't presented any.
That someone makes death threats as a "hoax" does not lessen the fear involved when someone threatens your life; it's easy to say "just a hoax" after the fact, but it is not a contradiction to discuss something that made you fear for your life even if it later proves to be unfounded. Moreover, your claimed contradiction(?) is WP:SYNTH as no reliable source discusses it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading the sources, you get a far different story: They say that the person who send the threats did so because of his belief that Brianna Wu was a "a professional victim who exaggerated the threats" that he send the threats as a joke, and that he agreed to never do it again. Yes, the apparent perpetrator admitted doing it as a "joke," admitted he had committed a federal crime by sending a threatening communication and pledged never to do it again, a quote which I have added to the article. That's not really a "far different story," is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Chiming in, the concerns raised by the OP do not seem to be grounded in any identifiable Wikipedia policy. The article looks to be in good shape, and presents the facts of the events of the subject's life. I realize this probably isn't to the liking of her critics, but the criticisms are generally found in the realms of the alt-right, this unreliable. This was basically an attempt at synthesis, such as highlighting the subject's Patreon account and speaking engagements, commenting on her harassment, and attempting to draw his own conclusion that there is something disreputable or shady about it. ValarianB (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This is where I fall as well. There certainly is negative information floating around in the aether, but I have yet to see it referenced directly in the reliable sources in such a way that it seems to me to carry due weight. It's not our job to even out the RSes, it's our job to represent them. That's how I feel, anyway! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

bio details

no birth date or place? wouldn't that be standard for a page of the type know is BLP? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

this may help lol - https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/1021176725806419968 --Wikidude10000 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

On a serious note, considering the harassment Wu has faced, the presumption in favor of privacy almost certainly comes into play here. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Harassment has nothing to do with D.O.B the rule you linked. It's for specific cases in which the person objections to their name or D.O.B being made public. The tweet proves that she does not object to that. ShimonChai (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A Wikipedian who uses Twitter should just reach out and ask whether she objects to the DOB being made public. -sche (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Inc. Magazine

[18] David Whitford, "WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army", Inc. April 2015.

Boston Globe 9-15-2015

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/15/the-download-brianna-self-proclaimed-godzilla-tech-feminists/eKoN8TujeD2LJNmjWyD8tJ/story.html

She has started a legal defense fund for women targeted by Gamergate, and the Wu family is offering a $11,000 reward for information leading to the prosecution of those who have sent her death threats This is some time ago now - what happened? - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Or is this another example of subtle POV? Has anyone even seen the accounts or benefited from this alleged fund? - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear what action, if any, is being suggested for improving this article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "subtle POV." If no reliable sources have said anything more about the legal defense fund, we can't say anything more. This talk page is not the place to conduct original research or investigative journalism. If we can't find sources that discuss it in more detail, we'll simply have to leave it at that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem, as some of my recent edits have indicated, is that pretty much all of this sort of thing is what Wu said. There is no independent verification, just parrot-talk by the sources. In this particular instance, though, there is an issue of potential "out-datedness". Is the reward still offered. Was it awarded? Is the defense fund still there? Where did the money (if any) go? The reader is left hanging. and if it cannot be resolved then probably it should be removed. - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There have been no prosecutions, so of course the reward hasn't been given out. I see no reason to remove it, nothing has happened so there is no reason to expect an update. More details on the legal defense fund would be nice, but without a source there isn't much to add. — Strongjam (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but without independent verification there is also little point in retaining it. A source, even if reliable, that merely quotes what Wu said is basically WP:SPS. I'd be interested to know the structure of the fund (crowdsourcing website? some sort of trust?) but we've just got a spiel that seems as vacuous as any claims made by the idiots who were allegedly making her life hell. In fact, most of the Gamergate section is, as I intimated earlier, just reports of what she said. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I meant to add: I don't understand why it is/was a "defense" fund. Surely she would have been on the prosecuting side of the table. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we're confusing two distinct things here. The defense fund for women target by Gamergate, and the $11,000 award. I agree that more information on the defense fund would be helpful, but for the reward, baring either a prosecution or a rescinding of the offer there isn't any reason to expect an update. — Strongjam (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest a simple change in wording to solve the outdatedness problem: "Wu started a legal defense fund for women targeted by Gamergate. As of late 2014, the Wu family is also offering a $11,000 reward for information leading to the prosecution of those who sent the death threats." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Nota bene* I've changed the wording to the above version, with minor tweaks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps that works over the pond but here it reads terribly, sorry. The tense is wrong because it effectively says "as of three years ago, the Wu family is ...". It's the is. Thanks for trying, though. Someone needs to sort out this also. PeterTheFourth doesn't seem to understand the subtleties: it is "controversial" if only because at least two people here have changed it and because we're relying on what is effectively a primary source, ie: Wu herself. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Is is used here with the understanding that the information could change and need to be updated. The past-tense was offering or offered could unduly imply that the reward no longer exists. See Wikipedia:As of. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

bio details

no birth date or place? wouldn't that be standard for a page of the type know is BLP? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

this may help lol - https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/1021176725806419968 --Wikidude10000 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

On a serious note, considering the harassment Wu has faced, the presumption in favor of privacy almost certainly comes into play here. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 05:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Harassment has nothing to do with D.O.B the rule you linked. It's for specific cases in which the person objections to their name or D.O.B being made public. The tweet proves that she does not object to that. ShimonChai (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A Wikipedian who uses Twitter should just reach out and ask whether she objects to the DOB being made public. -sche (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll try.--Jorm (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is Blue America?

What is Blue America? It's a progressive Democratic organization. (Apparently clicking on a Wikipedia link is beyond the prowess of some.) I've cited the source. kencf0618 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw you left a link to Blue America but as you can see, it doesn't go where you think it goes. --SVTCobra 08:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. Turns out it's a corsortium, of which only Crooks and Liars has a Wikipedia article. Interesting. kencf0618 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a good catch. The words "endorse" and "Blue America" do not come up in the interview! "Blue America" is some sort of thermometer of political 'temperature' as best as I can make out. It is all very incoherent. It reads like the transcript of a live radio show. The point is, there is no consortium called Blue America and if you can't tell that from the sources you contribute, maybe you should re-evaluate how you interact with this website. Cheers, --SVTCobra 07:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Grammar improvements being reverted

What policy applies to this Onodonomono? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbwum (talk • contribs) .-- Ponyobons mots 20:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

None. The reverting of your edits was completely unnecessary; we don't need a discussion on comma placement.-- Ponyobons mots 20:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
But the editor appears to be unaware of what the edits could potentially entail. Since this topic is highly controversial and through the frivolous edit history which I hope you're aware of, it is my humble opinion that new editors should familiarize themselves with the subject and ask for consensus on fixes to an article such as this. Maybe this editor was unaware of what this article is about and who, since the severity of this must always be considered even if it seems minor. Onodonomono (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I know who Wu is and yes i can now see what you mean but the execution of it is ridiculous. Can you please tell me how in a million years the BLP policy applies to grammar fixes? The BLP policy which i am familiar with is only meant to be used for sourcing and to prevent libelous comments. How does that apply to grammar? I really wanna know. Thumbwum (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This page has been repeatedly vandalized by individuals who were apart of the Gamergate hate brigade. If you go back into the history, you will see the constant protection cycles and reversions by people who were intentionally violated this page's BLP and vandalizing it. As a premeasure against any potential wrongdoing, it was my opinion to revert the edits as this article is highly contentious. If you went to the talk in the first place, I believe it would of been approved because there is absolutely no wrongdoing against wanting to improve an article. However, since Brianna Wu and related topics must be respected and considered before any contributions are made, it would of been better if you took it to the talk page in the beginning. I went out of hand, which I admit is my fault, but I wanted to be hellbent on ensuring this article does not face any wrongdoing, whether it be intentionally or not. Onodonomono (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes but the policies which you are referring to i believe you are taking out of proportion. Biographies of living persons is meant to be used to prevent libelous claims and tabloid sources being added and presented as fact. You were referring to grammar as BLP which does not make sense under that definition. Were the words and fixes slanderous against Wu? No because they were obviously not and you tried to take that to a higher level and make a claim for disruption. There was nothing wrong with the editing and i dont see why consensus would even be needed. If it was bad someone else would of reverted it only once and not break the 3 revert rule by a lot. Onodonomono (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The grammar editing was not a BLP violation on what you were referring to. If you could prove where it says that i would appreciate that. Thumbwum (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The biographies of living persons policy is in place to prevent libelous claims from being added, which I mentioned earlier, but you went on and tried to make it in a case of it not being applicable without it being taken to the talk. A claim for disruption was appropriate since we both broke the 3 revert rule, but you should of went to the talk first instead of carrying on. Onodonomono (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see how grammar improvements have the BLP policy applied to it. I mentioned in my edit summaries that it does not state that anywhere on it, so why was the reversion a BLP issue? Consensus over grammar changes seems like an extreme opinion to have, i don't see how it could possibly apply when i made a specific claim that i was not disrupting. Thumbwum (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
In my previous message I described how the BLP policy is applied to this article and how it is in place to prevent any libelous claims against Wu or potentially topics discussed here. Do you understand that the level this article is at in terms of sourcing requirement and editing consideration? Their even exists a banner that says specific viewpoints were meant to be recruited to this article due to the level of issues it used to have. The way i saw it, me applying BLP to the reverting of your edits would of stopped any potential thwarting of the integrity of this article. I admit that it was the wrong move to make as I did not initially know if you understood what this article is about and who it entails. Onodonomono (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Can we please restate the question because you are rambling off and not being clear on what you want to tell me. I want to know this:
  • Why do you believe the BLP policy applies to grammar fixes, if it does not impact a source?
  • How would it be "libelous" to fix issues not present at the core of the article?
  • Do you personally believe consensus is needed on small fixes to an article, no matter what the topic is, because that defeats the whole point of Wikipedia.
Thumbwum (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Why do you believe the BLP policy applies to grammar fixes, if it does not impact a source?
I initially tried to convey to you that this article is under sanctions due to it being highly contentious. I initially did not understand the purpose of your immediate edit. I assumed that it may of had something to do with her biography, but I recognized that you wanted to try and improve it. I was unsure if it should of stayed, due to this article being constantly monitored for potential issues like this. I reverted because I believed that it was a BLP issue no matter if it was a small improvement to the quality of this article, as I assume all edits on this article must be reviewed first by other editors either by consensus or discussion such as this. I initially believed it was disruptive and you were disregarding the BLP policy for this article.
  • How would it be "libelous" to fix issues not present at the core of the article?
When I reverted your edits, I was under the immediate assumption that something related to the BLP was changed, and I wanted to make sure nothing wrong or libelous was added. I went with that belief and believe it fundamentally impacted the core of this article, with me later realizing that you were trying to make grammatical improvements. I went under the notion that consensus would be required first, because I believed that all content on this article must adhere to BLP, even English grammar. Your edits were not libelous as I see now, but I wanted to ensure that the community would agree if it was an improvement first and not something that could undermine the integrity of the article.
  • Do you personally believe consensus is needed on small fixes to an article, no matter what the topic is, because that defeats the whole point of Wikipedia.
I believe that consensus must always be considered for every controversial change, however in my head, it must be mandatory to have consensus applied first. If it was to a different article not related to a highly contested figure, maybe not. I was under the assumption that all content related to these sanctioned topics need consensus for basically everything, no matter how big or small, and I can see what you mean on it defeating the point of Wikipedia. However, this article has been the target of a near-decade worth of disruption and discussion related to various things. Because of that, I believe that everything should of been considered, even if it is a small improvement, but no your edits were not wrong. Onodonomono (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
When I reverted your edits, I was under the immediate assumption that something related to the BLP was changed, and I wanted to make sure nothing wrong or libelous was added. I went with that belief and believe it fundamentally impacted the core of this article, with me later realizing that you were trying to make grammatical improvements. – wait. Did you even look at the diff to see what you were reverting? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Onodonomono, I really don't understand. Thumbwum's edit consisted of two dots, three commas, a tense change, and removal of two redundant words. You don't even seem to have an objection to the edit itself. So I'm baffled as to why you felt it necessary to revert it. Thumbwum shouldn't have continued to reinstate it, but I can't see any reason to contest such a minor edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As a premeasure against any potential wrongdoing, it was my opinion to revert the edits as this article is highly contentious. [...] I wanted to be hellbent on ensuring this article does not face any wrongdoing, whether it be intentionally or not.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm rubbing my eyes in disbelief at a 14(!)RR war over punctuation. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Same here. I don't understand! Tails Wx 21:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
information Note: Onodonomono got WP:NOTHERE'd. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Both editors have been indeffed. This was blatant trolling and point-making. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 June 2023

File:Brianna Wu next to Motorcycle (cropped).jpg was removed from the infobox during the latest LTA attack and hasn't been restored. Can an admin please re-add it to the infobox? — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2023

Several requests, so I'm numbering them in case it makes it easier to process:

  1. Please change Wu also cited opposition to then-President to Wu also cited opposition to then-president per MOS:JOBTITLE.
  2. Please change dropped from (the Moon) have power of 100s of nuclear bombs to dropped from [the Moon] have power of 100s of nuclear bombs, in line with MOS:BRACKET.
  3. Please change Professor Thomas Whalen of Boston University commented that the South Boston 8th district is traditionally conservative and Lynch is native to the area and has strong ties to labor unions, but thought recent years of changing dynamics could help Wu to Professor Thomas Whalen of Boston University said that, while the labor union-connected Lynch was native to South Boston's traditionally conservative 8th district, recent years of changing demographics could help Wu for reasons of flow and precision. (source: [19], which is already cited in the article after the following sentence).
  4. Please change In 2020, she co-founded Rebellion PAC, a political action committee with a focus on running advertisements in support of progressive electoral candidates, alongside Cenk Uygur. to In 2020, she and Cenk Uygur co-founded Rebellion PAC, a political action committee with a focus on running advertisements in opposition to Donald Trump and in support of progressive get-out-the-vote efforts for flow and better source-text agreement. (Source: [20], which is already cited in the article in that sentence).
  5. Please change In August 2021, The Washington Post noted to In August 2021, The Washington Post reported; let's use an alternative to "noted" in line with MOS:SAID.
  6. Please strike On July 22, 2019, she was interviewed by the Crooks and Liars contributor Howie Klein and the accompanying citation. This is something that clearly passes WP:V, but it seems to only be cited to a primary source and it seems a bit odd weight-wise.
  7. Please change As a result of the harassment, Wu said that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to Wu said that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the harassment, keeping the existing citation. It seems better flow-wise and makes "as a result of the harassment" modify "was diagnosed with" rather than "said".
  8. Please strike The title of her retrospective piece for Marie Claire in October 2018 sums up her political philosophy: "I Ran for Congress. I Lost. I'm Persisting. Quitting Is Not an Option in the Trump Era." and the accompanying citation. This appears to be WP:OR in the BLP, as the source cited (i.e. the retrospective piece written by Wu) doesn't actually make reference to the title as if it were representative of her political philosophy.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done DanCherek (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Space tweet

The article currently quotes Wu's tweet as "Rocks dropped from [the Moon] have power of 100s of nuclear bombs". The source, on the other hand, reports that the tweet was "Is it absolutely true that a large rock fired into Earth from the moon using propellants would be more powerful and 100s of nuclear weapons". This seems it should either be corrected or not put in quotation marks? DanCherek (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think paraphrasing the tweet would work. The quoted tweet from the source is a bit long and it's easy enough to convey the gist of the tweet without quoting it in its entirety. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@DanCherek: The Atlantic gives the quote as Rocks dropped from there have power of 100s of nuclear bombs, unless I'm misreading the source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't know why I only looked at The Hill article yesterday. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Another edit request

Please change She noted on a WGBH-TV panel that "For whatever to On a WGBH-TV palen, Wu said, "for whatever. General grammar fixes and better adherence to MOS:SAID. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done DanCherek (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you DanCherek. Also, would you please change When asked, neither Twitch, the DNC nor the Pew Research Center were aware of anyone having had done such previously to When asked, neither Twitch, the DNC, nor the Pew Research Center were aware of anyone having had done such previously. Serial commas are typically used in American English, and the article subject is American. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, added. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet another edit request

The first three sentences of the "career" section (i.e. up to and including but never graduated) should be forked out and moved into a new section called "Early life and education". These are not part of Wu's career, and biographies tend to have some sort of early life section anyway, so I think that doing this will be better for the article's general organization. This section should be placed below the lead and above the existing "career" section. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done DanCherek (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Update CTOP talk notice

The current custom talk page notice on the top on the talk page regarding CTOP restrictions hasn't been updated from the old "discretionary sanctions" to current "contentious topics".

I propose the following change (highlighted in bold by me) from

This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who...

to

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page; any editor who....

The new wording is based {{Template:Contentious topics/talk notice}}.

Maybe I can change it by myself per WP:BOLD? Stylez995 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done lizthegrey (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had to undo this lizthegrey. The message that you replaced with the standard template was actually a custom one, because this article has, or had (not sure how the goldlock effects this) additional restrictions on it beyond being a contentious topic. Specifically the article was subject to WP:1RR and WP:30/500, and the talk page was also subject to 30/500. Unfortunately the standard template that {{MOS-TW}} derives doesn't support the custom restrictions, and also includes text stating that the article content contains info on one or more trans women, which doesn't seem to be the case? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I did just make the smaller update suggested by Stylez995 however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, huh, I, uh, thought the article already cited https://transethics.org/2016/01/06/trans-gaming-brianna-wu-on-gamer-culture-harassment-and-caitlyn-jenner/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2ug4jt/brianna_wu_why_i_dont_respond_when_gamergate/ etc with regard to Brianna, but apparently not. lizthegrey (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please strike In July 2013 Giant Spacekat ran a Kickstarter campaign to fund a Windows release of the game in addition to the iOS version. The fundraiser brought in $12,728, over 250% of the original $5,000 goal. Although the estimated delivery was August 2014, the Windows version was not released until September 2016.‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]. This is a BLP, that content is uncited, and WP:GOLDLOCK says that administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people (emphasis mine). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not be melodramatic, it is just a passage about video game sales and delivery, not something that needs immediate edit-thru-protection. But really, the rash of vandalism was dealt with days ago, why is this even still fully protected? Zaathras (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The vandalism began immediately after the full protection expired—we're talking seconds—and continued uninterrupted until the article was protected again. This article has been the target of individuals from very unsavory corners of the internet who would be more than willing to game their way to extended confirmed to doxx and harass Wu here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Is that pending changes system still an option? Would be better than disallowing regular editors from making routine changes. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It is, but you can't combine it with other protection levels. So those of us who have the pending changes reviewer permission could potentially get overwhelmed by a deluge of edits, particularly BLP violations that might require RD2/3 or oversight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Courcelles what do you think about lowering to extended confirmed protection? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There's also the issue of collateral damage - the person(s) gaming ECP to vandalise this particular article also tend to use the window of time before they're banned to vandalise other related ECP articles. Since this article was set to full protection, the vandalism on related articles has largely stopped since the vandal in question seems to be primarily interested in targeting this article, and is less inclined to game the system just to vandalise related ECP articles. lizthegrey (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
It's a shame that there's no easy way in the MediaWiki software to allow a list of known good/safe editors to edit a page through a goldlock without requiring them to be an admin. You could in theory create a special role though, one that isn't automatically granted like auto and extended confirmed, and a corresponding protection level below goldlock. But that seems overkill for an issue that might only be affecting a single article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
PC on,y stops non autoconfirmed accounts, which would be meaningless here. And three accounts this year have gamed ECP, yes, Extended Confirmed, to post material that required oversight. So, no… I almost think deletion would be a better option than dropping the protection level. Courcelles (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd favor implementing RTH's suggested edit. In addition to it being unsourced, I'm just not finding quality sources that cover the re-release of Revolution 60 at all, let alone the timing and funding specifics. We're going into more detail here than the game's article does. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter controversy

Is Times Now World considered an acceptable source? I probed WP:RSPSOURCES and couldn't find anything on it.

There hasn't been much reporting on Wu at all for the past few years, but there's a singular article (it's generally rare for internet controversies to receive widespread media attention in the first place) by Times Now World on a controversy regarding her using transphobic slurs to demean people's appearances on a Twitter group chat.

[21]

Just a single article by a not-so-reputable source is probably insufficient for a mention in the article, but I think it's worth discussing.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's repeatedly been found in RSN to be reliable on general topics, with caveat of being biased towards the BJP on Indian politics and promoting the Love jihad conspiracy theory[2]. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Republic TV and Times Now Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#List of Reliable Sources for instance but it has the worst name for searching RSN haha.
But I don't think this is material enough to include, it's a only barely reliable source reporting on an issue no other outlets have covered. I'd be much more curious to see the take of Pink News, Them.us, etc on this issue. lizthegrey (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll request for an admin to add it to the article if more outlets cover it- the events in question did definitively happen and she has admitted to sending the messages in concern, just that it was taken out of context and that she isn't transphobic for the language she used. But generally speaking most celebrity cancellations don't get a lot of reliable source coverage so I wouldn't count on it happening.
HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lee, Dave (13 March 2016). "SXSW 2016: Little impact from isolated online abuse summit". BBC News. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  2. ^ Farokhi, Zeinab (2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. pp. 226–239. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1.

Edit request (small grammar fix)

In § Early life and education, please change "studying journalism and political science and wrote for The Daily Mississippian" to "studying journalism and political science and writing for The Daily Mississippian" (emphasis added only to show change). Thank you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
No problem; thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Issues with the article text

I can't edit this page, though I'm not entirely sure why from the talk page notice, so I figured I'd bring this up here. Do we really need to mention the two podcasts in the second paragraph of the career section? They have zero coverage from what I can see and neither mention is sourced to anything other than the podcasts' own sites. Does anybody think they should remain? XeCyranium (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum the mention of rocks being dropped from the moon being as powerful as nuclear bombs(?) seems to be completely misquoted from what is written in the The Hill piece. XeCyranium (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
And as another addendum the forecasting of her potential performance in the election seems unnecessary, given it took place 6 years ago. XeCyranium (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I probably should have titled this as something else at this point but the mention of "Congressional" in the paragraph that starts by referring to her twitch channel shouldn't be capitalized. XeCyranium (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This text passage "were aware of anyone having had done such previously" is obviously incorrect grammar. XeCyranium (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Finally this text "She differs from certain elements of Warren's proposal, citing privacy concerns." seems remarkably uninformative, given it doesn't tell the reader which elements of the proposal are disagreed with. XeCyranium (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the category Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections to Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections. Thanks! Y2hyaXM (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (2)

Please change the passage "were aware of anyone having had done such previously" to "were aware of anyone having previously done so". XeCyranium (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request (3)

Please change "raise awareness for her Congressional campaign" to "raise awareness for her congressional campaign". XeCyranium (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Why this page is fully protected?

Why is this page fully protected? It's currently the only article (not a redirect) that is indefinitely fully protected. I haven't found any particular reason for this. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Because the page has been a troll-magnet for quite a while. A particularly dumb edit war over grammar, of all things, and whether anyone should be an expert on the subject herself to even be qualified to edit simple grammar mistakes (or something), was the last straw. [Here is where it is archived]. Protection was downgraded to a few months, until a troll tried to dox her ({see here]).CRBoyer 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Finally i understand. Thanks! InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 6/11/2024

I am not a participant here, just an admin trying to clear a backlog. Would one of the regulars please have a look at the edit request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#Brianna Wu to correct a couple of sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 16:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 7/7

Hello, please change the category Category:Candidates in the 2018 United States elections to Category:Candidates in the 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. Thanks! Y2hyaXM (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

−
while the labor union-connected Lynch was native to South Boston's traditionally conservative 8th district
+
while the labor union-connected Lynch was native to South Boston's traditionally conservative 8th District

Consistency with the earlier capitalization of "8th District" seen in the article as "Wu moved to the 8th District in order to challenge the incumbent Lynch.", seen under the 2018 congressional bid sub-section of the Career section. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The first mention is "She challenged Rep. Stephen F. Lynch of the 8th district" with district lowercase, and the article is Massachusetts's 8th congressional district. I think it would make more sense to go for consistently lowercase than consistently uppercase. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done, now consistently lowercase. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Early life edit request

There is a reasonable edit request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Would one of the regulars here please respond to it? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done here. Left guide (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: expand archive.today URL

Hi, please convert https://archive.ph/ek0sE --> https://archive.today/20170112175046/http://www.inc.com/magazine/201504/david-whitford/gamergate-why-would-anyone-want-to-kill-brianna-wu.html

We should not have URL shortening on enwiki for security. Thanks! -- GreenC 18:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: combine refs

There are two sets of duplicate refs:

  • #5 and #39
  • #9 and #34

These should be combined. Thanks! -- GreenC 18:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brianna_Wu/Archive_2&oldid=1257815614"