Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 18 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Video games: Indie Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the indie task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Jack Manifold (2 participants) Gameplay of World of Warcraft (4 participants) Pokémon Trading Figure Game (1 participant) Buff Technologies (3 participants) Imakuni? (3 participants) Tetr.io (7 participants) Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants) Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (23 participants) Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted) Westballz (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Gardevoir (nom) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) Aperture Desk Job (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The Sims: Livin' Large (nom) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (252) screenshots (9,030) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Article belongs on Misplaced Pages?

Has this individual made enough contributions to merit having a wikipedia article? It seems like this article (at least) sounds like it was written as a self-biography. How does anybody else feel about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.123.14 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This was already addressed at the articles for deletion nomination page. The consensus of the AFD proposal was Keep. if you feel that was incorrect, feel free to make another AFD request; however, it's unlikely to succeed (I've yet to see an article pass an AFD once and then fail later). For now, this article stays. --Locriani (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an autobiography. Personally, I felt that it shouldn't have been kept, but the consensus differed from my view, and that's all good. We can resubmit an article for review, but generally I feel that editors should wait at least six months - that will also give some distance on the current events, which will perhaps give us a clear perspective one way or the other. In the meantime, so long as we do our best to provide broad coverage of the subject, there should be no issues with keeping it. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted. She has not contributed anything noteworthy in gaming. she is an indie developer that has created one game which wasn't even very successful. If we keep this article then any indie dev that has ever published would need a wiki page. Someone nominate this for deletion please. Xander756 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your claims are unsupported and amount to personal attacks on a woman who made international headlines after receiving death threats. She pretty clearly meets WP:BIO at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just going on TV doesn't mean you deserve a Misplaced Pages page and there has been no official proof of any of her threat claims as of yet. Misplaced Pages is a site where things need to be proven and verified. Not for hearsay. Xander756 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The threats have been reported by any number of reliable sources, including major newspapers. She's certainly as notable as retired professional lacrosse players, which seems to be your chief Misplaced Pages interest. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the Controversy section of the page, it mentions supporters of Gamergate are what spread her personal information. Unfortunately, this is incorrect as Gamergate is very active on twitter, anyone can adopt the hashtag and say whatever they want and the more prominent supporters of Gamergate do not allow or condone such actions. Just like those claiming to be feminists act radical and tarnish the Feminist name, so too does Gamergate have it's fringe group tarnishing it's name. It is not fair nor correct to group every feminist with the radicals, it is not fair or correct to group the main group of Gamergate with it's own radicals.

I apologize for the long-winded and roundabout way of asking for the Controversy section to reflect that the fringe group that claim to be supporters are the ones harassing this woman as well as other women in her field. My apologies again and thank you for your time in reading this. Abecrombies (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this because there is no clear proof of who posted the information. The information was posted in a thread on Gamergate on the imageboard 8chan.co by an anonymous user. Here is an image of the thread, with personal information removed: http://marsmar-lord-of-mars.tumblr.com/image/9968435845087.157.218.228 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Gamergate comments in the controversy section seem unnecessary to the article and heavily biased towards supporters of Gamergate, it could be removed and the article would be better without it Nathan905RB (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

Two of Misplaced Pages's main policies are no original research and verifiability, meaning that we write what reliable sources say, and only that. In this case, reliable sources attribute the information postings to "Gamergate supporters", so that's what we do as well.  Sandstein  16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that has actually tied the leaking of her information to Gamergate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.3.33 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Even so, I don't see how the way different media outlets view Gamergate is relevant to the article and I doubt any reliable source has actually tied the leak to Gamergate supporters Nathan905RB (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Said "Reliable sources" are the ones that are at the center of the controversy to begin with and should not be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, in part. The Polygon article reads: "After tweeting that members of the 8chan message board — a refuge for former 4chan posters — and GamerGate supporters had posted her personal information online, Wu ...". This means that Wu, and not Polygon, identified the posters as Gamergate supporters, and I've made that attribution clear in the text.  Sandstein  18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, we're almost there. Now we just need to remove the blurb about how Gamergate is somehow about harassing women and then the article should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan905RB (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You say that across several pages but that's not going to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess a more neutral viewpoint towards Gamergate can't really happen on Misplaced Pages. On topic, I don't see the need for the sentence "an online campaign initially intended to offer criticism of games journalism, but which has since become increasingly associated with the harassment of women in video gaming." You could easily cut it out, change the following sentence from "Anonymous supporters of the campaign then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." to "Anonymous users then posted personal information about her in GamerGate-related discussions, and in October 2014, Wu left her home after receiving threats of violence towards both herself and her husband." and come across as less biased and more neutral and still keep the same message. Especially considering the only person tying Gamergate supporters to the death threats is Wu herself. Nathan905RB (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows what is said in reliable sources, and if those sources are highly negative of the Gamergate campaign and their involvement with Wu being forced from her home then that is how Misplaced Pages will present the information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And none of the mentioned sources have accurately tied Gamergate supporters to the leakage of information, so I don't see why we're taking them seriously. Even though Brianna Wu is a victim, her unwanted involvement in the incident keeps her as a source from being unbiased so I don't think we can just take her word on this. Nathan905RB (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mrs. Wu has stated on several occasions that she was reading a thread on 8chan's /gg/ where they posted her address and other personal details, and then she received the attacking tweets. She is allowed to say what she thinks and we can report on that information as her own personal opinions on the actions. That's how WP:PRIMARYSOURCES works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Than why shouldn't we add two words such as "Wu claims" to the sentence stating that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, instead of just reporting it as a fact? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

She is not being cited so it isn't her claims on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The papers are citing her, and this article is citing the papers ergo, she is being cited. I'm sure you know this. 'Claimed' and 'alleged' are *wholly* appropriate Metalmunki81 (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You say one post earlier that you can report on the information as her own personal opinions on the actions. How are her own personal opinions on the matter not her claims? Who's claims are they then, if so? Nathan905RB (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

She is not presently cited for anything in the article but if she is cited then all that she says must be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And the way the article is currently written (i.e. The line about Wu having to flee her home because of Gamergate supporters) without adding something about her claiming they're Gamergate supporters makes it sound like it's a factual statement that should be taken at face value without any analysis of her claims. That's exactly my point. Nathan905RB (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason why this article exists it to serve as an easily locatable briefing to anyone wishing to write articles about Brianna Wu, her alleged harassment or its alleged connection to GamerGate. Notice how this page was only created after her alleged harassment took place, and how that information has been a core part of the article since its creation. The sole purpose of this article is to push an agenda (demonisation of GamerGate), which is not in keeping with the stated goals of Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.76.24 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The section, as it stands, meets and exceeds all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for verifiability and no original research. I'm closing this request unless you can provide verifiable sources that meet the community guidelines present at those pages. Unfortunately, your assertions of one thing or another, however true they may be, do not meet these requirements. --Locriani (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear, since this is a matter of some controversy: provide sources that back up your claims, and I'm more than willing to include them as a rebuttal in the controversy section. The 1 link present in this talk discussion does not meet these requirements (nor is it really germane to this discussion). News articles, blog posts, etc. that are not written by yourself are eligible, as I understand the guidelines. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to reopen the request; however, I doubt you'll find anyone willing to modify the article until you can provided sources to back up your claims. --Locriani (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Personal information about her had previously been made public on the Internet by anonymous persons Wu linked to GamerGate" - This looks like an affirmative claim that is actually completely unsubstantiated at this point. It should either be solidly evidenced as is or reworded to reflect the tenuous link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.6.104 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wu posted opinions that are critical of gmaergaters. Wu is then harassed by anonymous people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that the group of people she critiqued would then respond as they only know how to. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof here falls onto Wu, she has no evidence that Gamergate supporters were the ones that actually leaked her information aside from her own word. Considering her negative views towards Gamergate I doubt we can consider her unbiased in this situation. The wording in question needs to be changed to reflect the fact it's only a claim that Gamergate supporters leaked her information, so that the article can be more neutral. Oh, and nice biased response. Nathan905RB (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. It's not our problem if you think that Wu was wrong in her determination that it was Gamergate supporters who were behind the leaked information and the subsequent threat to herself and her husband. If people believe her, and that information is presented in the press, then that is what Misplaced Pages reports on. Unless there are any actual reliable sources saying that the claims that Gamergate is not involved (when Wu said multiple times that she saw her address get posted on 8chan's /gg/ and then the Tweets happened) then there is nothing that should be changed on this article on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate origins

The statement that GamerGate originated for "journalism ethics" is, at best, a contentious claim. The majority of reliable sources tend to depict the alleged ethics concerns as little more than a smokescreen or a thinly-veiled excuse to target Zoe Quinn and others. They tend to use terms such as "ostensibly" and "purportedly" to describe the journalism ethics claims. Since going into a deep dive on that issue is off-topic for this article, I've simply rewritten the section to avoid that debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact that "reliable sources are either colluding with each other, as seen on GameJuornoPros, or have the exact same ideological bias at play, claiming that GamerGate is a "thinly veiled excuse" for anything is, at best, disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.36.87 (talk)

Getting to NBSB's original point, my own feeling is that we should follow WP:WEIGHT. Since there are (at least) two significant views about the topic, both should be represented, the positive and the negative. Most of the sources that discuss Wu seem to be trying to describe GamerGate in the same way, and Misplaced Pages should, as best we can, summarize the predominant views in the sources, in as unbiased a manner as we can manage. In other words, I would support re-adding the phrase about GamerGate's origins being related to journalistic ethics, as it provides a more well-rounded view of the topic, which is what best serves our readers. --Elonka 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to develop phrasing that presents the mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint that the ethics issue is a smokescreen, while perhaps noting that a few fringe sources claim otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The "mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoint" is currently sourced from Polygon, Kotaku, Gawker and The Escapist, All of which are outlets that are at the center of the ethics issue that has been presented and therefor should NOT be considered reliable. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion about those sources is interesting, yet completely irrelevant. The fact that supporters or opponents of a particular POV have criticized particular reliable news sources does not in any way render them unreliable. To do otherwise would give such people a heckler's veto over what sources could be used in an article.

I further note that the section you removed was sourced to Time and The New York Times, among others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations 16, 17, 18 and 20 are all from aforementioned sites and source 19 is from a report that only allowed somebody from one side of the issue to talk, And 15 is clearly biased against the issue. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, personal opinions that sources are biased does not render them invalid or otherwise unusable. Otherwise, anyone could say any source is biased and we'd have no sources at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

— Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy, Ars Technica.

— The Gaming Industry Could Stop Gamergate — But It Won’t, Re/code.

— The game industry’s top trade group just spoke out against Gamergate, Washington Post.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First Link: Multiple things wrong with the origins of Gamergate, supports an obvious bias against Gamergate, and implies that you can just ignore the #NotYourShield hashtag and other movements just because they started on 4chan. The IRC chat screencaps themselves don't really prove much in terms of the movement itself being "misogynist", and I don't know how seriously we can take them considering they are coming from Zoe Quinn herself.

Second Link: Again, supports an obvious bias against gamergate, labels harassment that pro-GG supporters have been getting as just a political move, implies that Gamergate doesn't support the open letter made by a group of game developers, reports the skewed statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women (the actual ratio of men to women in people that play games for a significant amount of time every week is 7 to 1), and the article itself just takes Anita's word on the death threats being Gamergate affiliated, even though Anita herself has posted no evidence to back up this claim.

Third Link: Most unbiased of the three links (that's not really saying much though), still purports the statistic that nearly 50% of gamers are women, tries to make Gamergate out to be a movement that is "looking to squash the voices of women at all costs", uses Anecdotal evidence to try to say that Gamergate has pushed women developers out of the industry, and again tries to make Gamergate out to be a "a vehicle to lash out against women in the gaming industry" without any real proof.

None of these links do much to "prove" that Gamergate is a thinly veiled excuse to harass women in video games Nathan905RB (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it strange that wikipedia seems to have no problem with being absolutely biased when it comes to #gamergate. Credible sources or not, if those sources do nothing but follow the lead of the very same organizations like Kotaku that #gamergate goes up against. The action of a few angry individuals can certainly not be equaled with a movement supported by thousands of people. Brianna Wu states that #gamergate has been attacking people for years, when it only exists for a few months. She claims that the whole #gamergate movement is behind the attack on her, just because she was on a #gamergate related thread before the attacks started. Wu has an agenda that has nothing to do with gamergate and she's just using the alleged attack by #gamergate to get publicity for her cause to change video games according to her wishes, whether you see those wishes as positive or not. Watch this interview with her, it's all there for everyone to see and hear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAssDie-yng (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Die-yng, it's important here to avoid personal attacks, and in this case I think it is also prudent to avoid the appearance of personal attacks. Please limit your discussion to improving the article -- what Brianna Wu may or may not believe, or may or may not have said, is irrelevant unless it is reported in reliable sources. If, for example, the New York Times reports that "Brianna Wu states that GG has been attacking people since 2001," then that might be pertinent to the article. But your assertion of what you think you heard, or what you think someone told you they heard, is not in Misplaced Pages terms a reliable source. Note, too, that since this article concerns Gamergate, it falls under the special sanctions that apply to that topic, and your persistent reposting of unsubstantiated claims may lead to action by any administrator. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reviews by random users on a random website should not be included in this wiki, the information is not relevant and is strictly opinion of nobody in particular.

" One reviewer on Pocket Gamer called it intelligent and "hugely entertaining". Another cited some issues with pacing and a heavily linear storyline, but overall found it "enjoyable and compelling"

should all be removed. Fill In Blanko (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather disingenuously, you make it sound as if these were anonymous reviews by users on websites, when in reality it is a review written by a staffer on a notable gaming website. Nothing will be removed on this basis of this post. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This line needs editing, it's kind of a mess.

" Her father had grown up in the small town of D'Lo, Mississippi, then joined the U.S. Navy to get a medical degree, and upon returning to Mississippi, opened his own clinic, and then with his wife, a series of other small entrepreneurial businesses, so Brianna was exposed at an early age to a dynamic environment of small businesses and the computers to run them."

Run on sentence, needs to be reworded.

Image

In this edit, User:Sandstein reverted my addition of this image of Brianna Wu to the article infobox, with the comment "Sadly not a useful image, as one doesn't really see her face". Now, while it is correct that the image doesn't show her face very well, and one that did would be better; it is, however, the best free image we have, and as such is a whole lot better than nothing. It does show part of her face, and that she is Caucasian (which, with her last name, might surprise some), pale, rather thin, has long brown straight hair, and wears dresses; all that might not be enough to unambiguously identify her, but it would certainly serve to distinguish between her and most other people (which can be quite useful for example); and it shows her contributing to a notable charity event, demonstrating that she is a charitable type and at least a minor celebrity of sorts. As such, I think it is certainly worth the amount of space in the article which it would occupy, and should still be there until we get a better image. Please discuss. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No image is better than a bad image, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, part of our manual of style: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." This very poor image is not how we expect a person's biographical article to be illustrated - we instead expect something similar to a conventional portrait. We should avoid using this borderline-useless image. What's visually pertinent about a person is her face, used to identify her, not individual factoids such as her ethnicity or choice of dress or that she attends charity venues.  Sandstein  16:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

E-mail

I wonder if any RS reported her "Dickhead" email? I'm not sure if this is considered normal behaviour on Twitter as it is a medium I haven't taken to, but it might be considered significant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Oops, yes . Apparently it's an "Amazing Response". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Yes, it's an "amazing response" because it was sent in reply to someone who sent her a sexist, harassing e-mail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So she sent a sexist harassing email back. I can understand why she would do that. I am still surprised it counts as "incredible". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

I see no harassment in the subject’s email, nor any reason to think it notable. Writing for Huggington Post, Nina Bahadur thought the reply was "incredible". I don’t really understand why we’re discussing it.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No one was "forcing" you to discuss it! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Sourcing?

North, I'd like to politely request sourcing for the 'Pro-Gamergate chanboard' 8chan. It's fine if what's what you state, that it's impeccably sourced. I'd just like to know which sources you're talking about. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This, this, this, this, this, this and this, for starters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Funding for her first startup

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brianna_Wu&diff=634088125&oldid=634069157

This was a very minor edit, yet it was reverted twice for two different reasons, the first being that a person's own tweets are not a reliable source. I cited proper BLP sourcing and restored the edit, and then was told it was trivial info, even though it was important enough for the subject to declare publicly. Now the entire sentence about funding has been removed. My edit was hardly WP:BOLD; I will not be defending it on that basis. Why has the entire sentence about funding been removed? Why was it there before? Is there anything else that should be added or removed? I'd like to add info on her previous careers in journalism and fundraising, but if I'm going to be reverted for using the subject as a source it would be a futile effort. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the source of her funds is a matter of significant interest in reliable secondary sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is; she herself thought so. You haven't addressed why you removed the entire sentence. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

She is not a secondary reliable source. What I am asking you is, is there any evidence that the amount of funding or source is a matter of significant interest such that it was discussed by someone besides her? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is filled every day with messages that are inconsequential to all: famously, "I ate a cheese sandwich.” And many, many Twitter messages are of interest to a very limited circle. I was mistaken about reliability, but here you answer NorthBySouthBaranof's concern regarding WP:UNDUE or perhaps WP:N by asserting that an isolated Tweet demonstrates this. It's not clear to me whether wikipedia typically discloses the extent of family and friends investments in startups; can you cite some other examples? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an allowable WP:BLPSELFPUB, but I think that the whole "she raised..." part should be omitted, leaving only "At the age of 19, she established a small animation studio". Neither the amount of funds nor their source strikes me as particularly noteworthy, this is an unexceptional sum and source of funds for this sort of business venture.  Sandstein  23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the intent here was to take a dig at how much (or how little, depending on one's perspective) Wu has raised, by using a primary source to note how much her family donated vs. how much the public donated. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not the editor who added "she raised $250k at age 19 to start a studio". Your attribution of intent should be directed at that editor. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary attribution of intent should be avoided at all costs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

As someone who publicly puts themselves on a platform of self-made success, I think it's significant to note for anyone reading this particular Wiki page. Not everyone is going to get 200k from their parents to start a business. That said, if you think it unimportant, I'd question the significance of having the article at all, but I'm not sure that's a thread you want to pull at Metalmunki81 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic consistency

We have styled "GamerGate" here, but the WP article is "GamerGate Controversy", so perhaps using "GamerGate Controversy partisans" or something similar wherever "GamerGate" is used to refer to the group would be more consistent. Ideally, "GamerGate" would refer to the group, and "controversy" would be a subsection of an article with that title, but I'm not going over there. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, can we discuss the topic of this section and not unrelated parts? How shall we style the references? The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" being primarily anonymous, having no official membership, no leadership, no official positions, not even any notable spokespeople is anyone who posts under the tag #gamergate. We have an article about the controversy that those postings caused when the harassment and death threats became public and people took notice. i am not sure why you think the naming and focus of one article poses any binding impact upon the content of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Threats

Just a note, but as per the reliable sources, the existence of the threats is not a question of her tweeting something. Polygon: Game developer Brianna Wu, head of development at Boston-based Giant Spacekat, fled her home after receiving a series of specific, violent threats directed at her and her family on Twitter last night. Police confirmed they are actively investigating the threats. PBS NewsHour: Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public. The Boston Globe: That’s when the harassment began — a frightening online campaign threatening rape and death that forced Wu to flee her Arlington home. In the process, she became the latest of several female targets across the country — the second in the Boston area — as well as a symbol of the sexism that some say is roiling the $21.25 billion gaming industry in the United States. As such, I have reverted to the previous wording for that section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is offtopic for this section but I will respond to you here anyway. You are claiming she DID NOT tweet she had been threatened? There's no doubt about that, her tweets reporting the threats are sourced for anyone to read, as are the threats. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That she used a particular social media platform to discuss the threats is not relevant. The sources report, as fact, that the threats occurred. Therefore, we report, as fact, that the threats occurred. Your wording transforms the statement in an unacceptable manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You moved this to a new section. Revert it or I will, you are not going to make my comment look like I am babbling. Be neat and show your work. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly are we saying that she was "forced" to leave her home? The threats may have led her to leave her home. But the threats did not "force" her to leave her home. I have received death threats. My friends have received death threats. We have not left our homes. Some people may leave their homes when they receive death threats, but that doesn't mean they were "forced." The vast majority of death threats are unfounded. Moreover, there isn't really any evidence that she actually left her home. Video interviews inside her house showed that she was in the same location before and after claiming that she left her home. There are videos of her inside her home before she claims to have received death threats. Then, there are several videos inside her home immediately after, and long after, (in various increments of time) she claims to have left her home. Clearly there is not any evidence other than her own assertion that she left her home, and there is some circumstantial evidence that she did not leave her home. Most importantly, "forced" is an inappropriate word to use. "Led her to leave her home" makes more sense. "Force" implies some kind of intentional coercion. You might say "termites forced me to leave my home," but it would be more appropriate to say "termites caused me to leave my home." The word "forced" is inherently bias. It implies that people were sending death threats to try to get her to leave her home, which is probably not true. I would also like to add that "widely attributed to GamerGate supporters" is not very well reinforced by just two sources. These sources *attribute* the threats to GamerGate supporters, but they do not prove it. The same level of evidence could be found for those who attribute the threats to trolls. After this sentence, it would be appropriate to add "Others attribute the threats to third-party trolls," and then add several sources which attribute the threats to trolls. After all, there is no more evidence that they are GG supporters than there is that they are trolls. The sources suggesting they are GamerGate supporters are not evidentiary. They are editorial. You can't say that the GG supporter claim fits, but the troll claim doesn't fit. Both claims come from opinion, not from evidence. This is heavily biased. Saying only that they have been widely attributed to GG supporters leaves out the vast majority of commentators who have actually attributed the death threats to trolls. Neither side has ANY evidence to back up their argument. Using the word "attributed" is in and of itself a little confusing. Many readers don't bother reading sources. They come to wiki so they can get a quick summary. Including such a biased sentence, and no counterargument, even though both sides have the same level of evidence is just ridiculous. It shows the amount of bias present on this article. You really have no argument to undermine me. There are hundreds of sources who attribute the death threats to trolls. "Attribution" in both cases refers to an opinion. The sources given, who attribute the death threats to GG supporters, are just opinions. I can attribute it to the flying spaghetti monster too, and that is just as valid a claim, because it is not based on any evidence. I would really love to see an argument against this. There should be room for the other side. Claiming that it's only been attributed to GG supporters is spurious and insidious. That's an intentional mischaracterization of the actual opinions on the issue. Especially when your sources include blogs. An op-ed in a reputable publication might be slightly more credible than a tweet, but if there is no evidence to support the claim, it's still just a statement of opinion. I don't care if it's printed in the NY Times or on Twitter. It's an opinion. Allowing opinions as sources for an attribution is fine, as long as the opposite opinions and the opposite attribution are published as well. But in this case, they are not. The only information on whodunnit on this page is directly biased. If the sources were based on actual evidence, then I would say "fine." But we are talking about attributions based on opinion. Both sides of the discussion are making different attributions, based on the same level of evidence: none. So allowing one side a special privilege to publish itself is incredibly biased and intellectually dishonest. If you can't come up with an argument for why the attribution to trolls should be left out, despite the much larger number of supporters of this claim, and you aren't going to change the article, then you should be ashamed of yourself. It doesn't matter what your opinion on the matter is. I don't even have an opinion myself. The fact is that we don't know where those death threats came from, so to only include one biased opinion should be infuriating to anyone who values journalistic integrity, intellectual honesty, academic freedom, and, well, the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.253.22 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We summarize what the reliable sources say. It is that simple. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, by the way. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Works section

The notability of those articles don't stand on their own, and they don't seem relevant to the article at hand. Seems like the whole section should go per WP:NOTLINK. It would be one thing to have a list of games but it's just the one and it's covered in other sections. Boughttwo (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by The Truthiness

Today TheTruthiness (talk · contribs) made this edit changing the phrase "forcing Wu to flee her home" to "causing Wu to flee her home." The edit summary was "POV, she wasn't literally forced from her home- she chose to leave in response to them".

I checked both sources cited:

• PBS: "Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public."
• Boston Globe: "That’s when the harassment began — a frightening online campaign threatening rape and death that forced Wu to flee her Arlington home."

Our text does not say Wu was literally forced from her home; we don't imply that a bulldozer smashed through a wall and pushed her out of the building, or whatever that would mean. The word "forced" in this context means to place someone in such fear for the life and limb of themselves and their family that they do not feel that it would be safe to remain. That's how the news sources use it, it's plain English, and we use it too.

I've reverted the edit. --TS 23:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fully endorse this. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• No merit at all to watering it down to "causing". Tarc (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support this as well. We summarize what the reliable sources say. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Image question

Just a question. Are those images fair use or do we have a release from the individual who holds copyright to use said images? I cannot conduct this search currently, but this was one of the issues with Zoe Quinn's article for a bit (prior to receipt of fair use authorization). Tivanir2 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they are cropped from a Video on YouTube, the video is CC licensed. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to ask Brianna Wu for a picture of her to replace these images? You can barely see her face in either of them. GamerPro64 03:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning for the question, here's one for you. Is it a good idea to ask a person who has been the subject of virulent online attacks to release a free image with a license deliberately intended to permit reuse and alteration? Given what has happened even to copyrighted images related to the women involved, I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario in which such images would not be abused. Risker (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Largely agreed with Risker here. I mean, we can ask, but it's not like people combining her photos and, well, photoshop, is an improbable experience. I'm male and subject to far less abusive attention online and it's happened to me many a time. Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the kind of people who produce harassment shoops give a damn about copyright law.

Peter 05:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point that photos will be manipulated. But we have a picture of Zoe Quinn on Misplaced Pages, who also has had words said about her too. It's not the best pic but I find it to be decent for the time being. And I do agree with Peter that some people on the internet don't care about copyright anyhow. GamerPro64 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter: almost certainly not! Their hosting providers, however, if US-based, most certainly do. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I did the cropping and uploading here. Sure, please do ask the subject for a better photo, but know that the average response rate for this sort of thing (asking an article subject for their pic) is 10% in 3 months. I've done a number of these. :-) When/if you do ask, make sure to ask that the pic be (1) one they have the rights to, most often by being the photographer, or explicitly asking the photographer to release the rights, NOT just some pic they look good in but that was taken by someone else that they can't reach right now (2) released under a free licence, generally http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, NOT "permission to use on Misplaced Pages". You'll then need to forward that release to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (and wait some weeks for the OTRS there to stamp it). --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Operation: Wu-Pocalypse

I hadn't seen this material included, the edits in the history being nondescript. At the very least it's a disturbingly notable new chapter in the sustained GamerGate harassment of Brianna Wu; it merits inclusion.

http://internet.gawker.com/the-psychopaths-of-gamergate-are-all-thats-left-and-th-1683271908

http://jezebel.com/a-man-is-making-bizarre-terrifying-youtube-videos-abou-1683221832

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYPC-YMdJFI

kencf0618 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kencf0618 thanks for coming here. I think that adding links to this particular article is best discussed in advance. I had done a bit of WikiGnome work to improve a citation, which was then subsequently removed. As I know things have been contentious with this article, I wanted to ask for others' comments, as I had reverted the edits. I believe one of the URLs had been the very one that I put into a citation format. I think that arriving at a consensus here on what links to include & how to include them would help avoid continual reversion or even war-editing. We especially want to avoid the later! Peaceray (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A police report has been filed, but I guess we'll have to see if this affair generates more substantial citations. kencf0618 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think if this was actually an organized campaign, it might be noteworthy. But, right now, this "operation" is just what Jace Conners calls his harassment of Wu and his wild conspiracy theories. If it snowballs into something more, I can see an argument for inclusion. But in the context of all of the Wu critics that exist, he is just a particularly eccentric and loud voice. Liz 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, it's an exemplary example of the insanity she has to deal with. kencf0618 (talk)

I spent a day reading up on Connors. It's such a bizarre fantasy in his mind, I almost think he is a troll, albeit, one that is almost conducting performance art. Liz 02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to be to GamerGate what Stephen Colbert was to Fox News. He's just doing it so badly most people can't tell. Rhoark (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

"She cofounded..." sentence is just bad. You don't found a studio alongside another person: that suggests you create it and plonk it down next to where they are sitting on the street. You might found it with someone, or possibly "along with" someone (though that's informal) — but not "alongside", which suggests physical position. 86.179.191.90 (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 February 2015

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Brianna Wu. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

1) "forcing Wu to leave her home." this implies that somebody forced her. moreover, there is some serious evidence that she never left her home. when she was claiming to be "on the run," she was conducting video interviews with mainstream media from the same computer in the same house. this image is widely available on the internet. you can view it at her article on encyclopedia brittanica. 2) "this has been widely attributed to gamergate supporters." it's fine to list some examples of people claiming it's gamergate supporters, but there is no evidence for this. the police and the FBI have no knowledge of the people who made the threats. indeed there is not even any evidence confirming that any of these threats exist, except for the threats made from the "death to brianna" account. that account may or may not be real. it could have even been made by wu herself. now, what i'm saying is that all of this is speculation. i'm not claiming that wu made the account herself — i'm saying that it's speculation. that kind of speculation is exactly the same as the people speculating that the threats were made by gamergate supporters. is it possible that they were gamergate supporters? yes. is it possible that they weren't? yes. this is wikipedia. you can't just say something like "widely attributed to ______" as if it's fact. even the word "attributed" implies that it has been proven. it should say "this has been widely claimed to be the work of gamergate supporters." it should also say "but it has also been widely claimed to be the work of 3rd party trolls, or even brianna wu's supporters herself." see where i'm going with this? there is no evidence in either direction. myself and others have tried for months to get these two changes put in. i can't speak for everybody, but i am not even a supporter of gamergate. i know very little about it. i am an academic, however, and i have heard the argument and i believe that there is simply no evidence to attribute these threats to ANYONE. giving only brianna wu's side a platform for their claims is not just biased, it's not just unfair, it's intellectual dishonesty. this website is supposed to be about facts and evidence. when you say "this has been widely attributed to gamergate supporters," and then cite this claim with other claims and opinions, that's dishonest. to use the word "attributed" is to imply that somebody has proven it. when we talk about romeo and juliet, we say that it's a work of fiction attributed to william shakespeare. why? because there is evidence to support the conclusion that william shakespeare wrote romeo and juliet. there is not, however, any evidence to suggest that gamergate supporters sent death threats to brianna wu. indeed, my acquaintances who have followed gamergate since its inception did not even know who brianna wu was until after she appeared in interviews claiming to be a victim of harassment and death threats. so how can someone "attribute" these threats to gamergate supporters, without any evidence? that means it's an opinion. a claim. not an attribution. if you want to use the word "attributed," fine. but you have to give equal space to the vast number of people who don't attribute the threats to gamergate, but who attribute the threats to trolls. otherwise you are peddling biased information to uninformed parties, who are the people most likely to read an article about brianna wu. people who already know there is not any evidence to attribute it to anyone are the same people who already know a lot about brianna wu, and aren't going to read a wiki article about her. so this article is most likely to reach people whose opinions are easily swayed, which means putting biased information in the article and presenting it as fact can be harmful to the pursuit of the truth. most wikipedia users do not read the sources. they will see this sentence "widely attributed to gamergate supporters," and assume that it's true, that it has been proven, and not bother to click the sources. if they clicked the sources they would see that the sources have based their conclusion entirely on opinion. but they aren't going to click the sources, because they assume that a biased opinion would get deleted from wikipedia, especially on a protected page. catch my drift? if you're going to allow biased opinions into the article, and present the sources as factual reinforcement, then you have to allow the dissenting opinion. wikipedia is not op-editorial. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. encyclopedias do not allow opinionated material, period. but since it's wikipedia i'll cut you guys some slack. i love wikipedia and donate almost yearly. i own wikipedia clothing. i have learned an incredible wealth of knowledge from wikipedia. and there are many others like me, who will falsely "learn" that brianna wu was forced to flee her home because of death threats from gamergate supporters. what they should be "learning," is that brianna wu CLAIMED to flee her home because of ALLEGED death threats from an unknown source, who has been ALLEGED to be gamergate supporters without evidence. you want to peddle this attribution as fact? fine, but peddle the other attribution as fact as well. there are two dissenting opinions on this issue, and neither one has ANY evidence to back it up. that means each should be presented equally, or none should be presented. it would be fine if the attribution sentence were deleted entirely. but i think deleting something is less productive than adding something. i don't want to censor an opinion just because it lacks fact. but if opinion is allowed, then every opinion of note should be allowed. if christianity should be a religion, then so should the flying spaghetti monster — they are supported by equal evidence: zero. so i won't suggest you censor the opinion that gamergate supporters threatened brianna wu. indeed, it could be true. but either one of two things should happen: 1) emphasis should be added on the "COULD be true" part, or 2) a sentence should be added, suggesting attribution to 3rd party trolls. if necessary i can find you 15 or more sources attributing the death threats to 3rd party trolls. indeed there are more people, as far as i can tell, who believe the threats were sent my trolls, than who believe the threats were sent by fervent gamergaters. if it's a matter of sources, i can easily find more sources, of equal merit, to reinforce my claim, than are listed to reinforce the attribution already written. these claims are from the boston globe and PBS newshour. i can find more claims from the mainstream media, or from independent journalists, commenters, etc. indeed the credibility of the source simply does not matter when the claim is presented without evidence. in other words, it doesn't matter whether the king is advocating for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, or a peasant is advocating for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. they are of equal merit because they contain no evidence. i don't care whether the president himself claims that brianna wu was threatened by gamergaters. it's a CLAIM. if there is no evidence for it, then it is just as valid as a claim coming from an anonymous poster on the internet. you can't use opinions as sources unless you are going to make room for other opinions. if this article were not protected, i could simply add my opinion, and it would carry equal weight to the alternate opinion, because they are both not based on facts or evidence. i don't complain about the lack of alternate opinions on non-protected articles, because people will only post their opinions if they are worthwhile. nobody goes on barry bond's wikipedia page to claim that he had vitiligo on his penis. why? because it's not worthwhile to even bother. in fact, it's likely that nobody has even thought of doing such a thing until this very day when i thought of it. but that is the same thing as claiming that the threats were "attributed to gamergate supporters." it's an opinion. "citation needed" is not an invitation to provide even more opinion. you don't use opinion as a source for your opinion. it doesn't make any sense. if we're allowing opinion into wikipedia, then you cannot ban alternative opinions. you cannot sponsor a single OPINION on wikipedia. it's against the basic principles of wikipedia. you can sponsor a set of facts over a set of opinions, because wikipedia is inherently based in the scientific method. those are wikipedia's principles. sources are not a toy or a vessel for your opinions, nor are they a vessel for MY opinions. but if you're going to allow opinion-based sources to be used by people to present a political or social agenda, then you have an obligation to allow the rest of us to play by the same rules. it's extremely unethical to allow opinion to be presented as fact in the first place. as i have already said, "attributed" followed by sources gives the implication that it's factual and reinforced by evidence. the average reader is not going to take the time to read the sources and find out that it's not actually been "attributed to," but rather it's been "blamed on without evidence." this is misleading and dishonest. it should not say "attributed" at all, and it should not be using news articles with the claims of one person, who has no evidence to support her claims, as a source. either the "sources" should be removed, or "attributed" should be changed to "claimed" and so on. if you are not willing to present the opinion for what it is, an opinion, then you should allow us to present our opinion too. so far, you have not even allowed us to assert our opinions as mere opinions. you have not even allowed us to say "others have claimed that the threats came from third-party trolls," let alone to say "others have attributed the threats to third-party trolls." it's one thing to present an opinion as fact. it's another thing to refuse to allow other opinions to even be presented as opinions. for the sake of academic fairness, you really should be allowing us to say "others have attributed the threats to third-party trolls" and provide our equally opinionated sources. but you won't even let us present a mere claim as an opinion, unlike the existing claim which is presented as fact. do you not find that incredibly unfair? as i said, giving us equal space and equal consideration should be a no-brainer, for the sake of academic fairness. but for the sake of academic honesty? the whole opinion should be reworded, and its "sources" removed as they are not sources, but rather opinions. if those are primary sources, then i will just type up a blog post peddling the opposite opinion, and use it as a source myself. do you see how a claim, especially a contemporary claim, does not have credibility without evidence, and thus cannot seriously be considered a source? there should be zero opinion on wikipedia as it stands, but that's an insurmountable obstacle because there simply isn't evidence for so many things that we might normally accept as true. that does not mean that opinion should be presented as fact. the word "attributed" should be removed at once, and replaced with an ACCURATE depiction of the claims regarding these alleged death threats, most of which have still not been shown to the public. indeed the only one we have seen looks more like satire or trolling to me than it looks like a credible death threat, worthy of enough fear to cause one to leave her home. especially taken in the light of very strong evidence that she never left her home, and absolutely zero evidence that she DID leave her home, other than her own claim? i cannot see how an academic or an intellectual could stomach presenting her opinion about the identity of her harassers in an academic encyclopedia at all, let alone as if it were a fact.

in summary, this extremely important sentence needs to be 1) modified to clarify that it is based entirely on opinion and claims, not on any evidence, 2) stripped of the word "attributed" as it very strongly implies factual or evidenced information, 3) juxtaposed with the alternate claim, agreed upon by probably greater numbers than mrs. wu's claim is.

i have heard quite a lot from friends of mine, including a wiki editor-volunteer, who have all tried to change this page to remove the false implications and biased "information" contained within it. they express extreme frustration that their favorite educational website, which they long assumed to have a sort of justice regarding evidence, opinion, facts, and lies, has given in to outright misinformation, and what some might literally refer to as propaganda. hearing these stories, i am quite shocked and offended myself. i have decided to give wikipedia a chance to correct this nepotistic and fraudulent behavior before i go public with this story and the screenshots i and my peers have taken. it will truly be a sad thing should i come to see this request ignored or rejected, on the basis of political opinions or fears of reprisal, considering how much we have collectively paid to keep wikipedia free for people worldwide to read at their discretion. i have long considered wikipedia a beacon of hope in a commercialized world that seeks to squeeze the funds out of people who are just trying to seek an education, including severely disadvantaged youth who cannot afford $200 textbooks, and who depend on wikipedia maintaining a factual, judicious environment. misinformation is quickly dealt with on virtually every wikipedia page, including the pages of extremely obscure figures and things. yet with this, it seems that wikipedia's editors adhere so strongly to a political agenda that they are willing to ignore their obligation to the truth, however inconvenient it may be, in order to publish a false or baseless narrative. if this situation were mirrored on a page of a more controversial, or more famous person, it would probably never happen in the first place, and if it did wikipedia would have hell to pay in the media. i strongly recommend you fix these severe errors, if not for the sake of academic honesty and fairness, then because i will publish the evidence of your nepotism not only on my personal blog, not only in gamergate forums, but literally everywhere i can find an audience. why is this such a big deal to me? it doesn't matter what the situation is, nepotism is a big deal, and on wikipedia? it is an absolute nightmare for those of us who have not only trusted wikipedia with our own minds, but with our money as well. again, i hope you make the right choice. give the people a reason to donate, not a reason to boycott... whether they support gamergate or not, nobody except the polarized extreme adherents to brianna wu's narrative are in favor of censorship, misinformation, and academic bias.

thanks for your time and goodbye! 68.4.253.22 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class video game articles
• Low-importance video game articles
• Start-Class indie game articles
• Indie video game task force articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests