Talk:Shitty Media Men
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links
[edit]I have seen a lot of random content in the External Links section and in general primary source content is good to see, but I am not sure that the doc belongs. Its really not fair to group alleged rapists with alleged bad lunch dates. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm removing the link to the actual spreadsheet file that this article is about. Even being linked gives undue weight to the actual names. I downloaded it. The list itself says: "DISCLAIMER: This document is only a collection of misconduct allegations and rumors. Take everything with a grain of salt. If you see a man you're friends with, don't freak out. Men accused of physical sexual violence by multiple women are highlighted in red. **You can edit anonymously by logging out of your gmail.** Please never name an accuser, and please never share this document with a man. Please don't remove highlights or names." It lists 72 men; 17 are in red. Those 17 red lines, and many of the others, accuse specific people of felonies or other things that, if untrue, are defamation per se. This is supported by Wikipedia:External links:
- WP:ELOFFICIAL: The subject of the article was never intended to have or be an "official page", and shouldn't be treated like it.
- WP:LINKSTOAVOID #2: It contains unverifiable research, and isn't necessary to link in order to source its own viewpoints, since they are already discussed in reliable secondary sources.
- WP:ELBLP: "In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP."
- It's a straight-up unvetted doxing of living people who aren't necessarily even public figures, and in many cases their current employers, so potentially-toxic that even the list's creator killed it just 12 hours after starting it, when she saw how far it had spread. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 most popular websites, and there is no encyclopedic necessity to link to this list, and there are reliable secondary sources about its attributes, widely available for citation. --Closeapple (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Moira Donegan Page
[edit]Considering the impact, implications, and long-term relevance of this event, it would be nice to have an article with at least some standard information about Donegan, such as her career history in media and any similar stances she's made in the past. Also as of 10/12, a crowdfund has been created for her legal fees, echoing the initial crowdsourcing platform release of the list and the immeasurable reach of the recounted offenses even beyond the industry.