Alright, now I'm outright pissed at BLP standards

[GethN7]

I have to admit I was a bit annoyed over the Bruce Jenner nonsense on Wikipedia, but at least they have the decency (for now) to cite his original name alongside his new one as Caitlyn Jenner.

FYI, if Jenner wants to be referred to as a woman now, so long as the surgery and name change are legal, fine by me.

However, I must admit I find their stance hypocritical when applied to Brianna Wu (aka John Walker Flynt)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =666212212

Here's my objection reproduced in full in case my objections disappear down the memory hole:

First off, as to Gamergate, I'm going to admit up front I'm sympathetic to the pro-side (as noted on my personal blog), but my opinions in that regard have no bearing on my objections to this article's content. My objections are that the biographical information is false. Brianna Wu was born John Walker Flynt, and while I accept Brianna Wu as the legally changed name and do not dispute that, I believe there should be a citation to that effect and that that name is no longer used due to have undergone sex-change surgery and having legally become a woman, another fact I noticed is missing from this article.

Why this information is suppressed, I do not know, but if Wikipedia is to have integrity as an encyclopedia, then this information should be presented, if only as a biographical reference. GethN7 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As can be seen, I clearly admit my bias up front, my objections have nothing to do with it, and I'm merely requesting information that could be objectively proven by public record be displayed in the interests of accuracy. As for my Gamergate sympathies, I find the entire article to be a whitewash, but since I know having that changed is fruitless, the bare minimum I'd like to see is a little freaking honesty as far as information that can be objectively proven.

Maybe I'm just horribly naive, but I just want, at bare minimum, to see a site that calls itself an encyclopedia to cite information that can be determined by public record, and while I don't have the time or energy to dig that up, my objections were that such information was apparently suppressed in favor of bias towards Wu's fiction of having been born female, and while I don't know who is in favor of backing up said fiction, I find maintaining it makes Wikipedia lose integrity as a trusted source.

[iii]

I just want, at bare minimum, to see a site that calls itself an encyclopedia to cite information that can be determined by public record.

Is that a general principle that you believe in, or are you just adopting the position on the basis of your frustrated attempts at changing the content of the Brianna Wu article?

[GethN7]

I just want, at bare minimum, to see a site that calls itself an encyclopedia to cite information that can be determined by public record.

Is that a general principle that you believe in, or are you just adopting the position on the basis of your frustrated attempts at changing the content of the Brianna Wu article?

General principle. I have never attempted to edit that article before on any Wikipedia account, and I posted that talk page message before attempting to do so.

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Bruce Jenner was objectively recorded in countless history books as being male in the 1976 Olympics, and trying to pretend he was always Caitlyn is outright bullshit, unless people want to attempt Orwellian retconning of the past and replace all history books, videos, and public records to change objective fact.

I believe all people should be held to the same standard irrespective of whether such truth is uncomfortable, because encyclopedias should be trusted to deliver fact.

I did not weigh in on the Gamergate related material because I know I have a bias and have no desire to poison the well of my attempts at being objective, but DNA and birth certificates do not lie, and such records should be found and used to show someone had a sex change.

I have no issue with Wu being a transwoman, but I do have issue with people trying to disguise that fact. If it is considered a crime to hide your status of transgenderism with a sexual partner, it should also be considered an act of deceit to hide such facts if you are considered a celebrity of any shade under public scrutiny.

[sparkzilla]

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Are you new to Wikipedia? There is, and never has been a consistent BLP policy. In fact it's impossible on the current site. The current system is made up of ambiguous BLP rules that are arbitrarily applied on a page-by-page basis depending on the strength of the "owners" of a particular page.

On another level the problem is caused by the confusion between the site's roles as an encyclopedia and a news archive. Because there is no clear boundary, news-based items that should be included (a sex change for example) are removed due to "notability" or "undue weight" concerns, or many other factors, but mainly depending on the POV and strength of the page "owners".

These ambiguities accrue power to powerful users and admins, so they won't change any time soon.

[Ihatemyusername]

So you believe Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people as trans (or as anything else for that matter)?

[GethN7]

So you believe Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people as trans (or as anything else for that matter)?

If evidence exists within public view, yes, especially if you are a celebrity.

Wu claims to speak for feminism, and while that is legitimate position regardless of your gender identity, the public has a right to know Wu is a transwoman, as that has a bearing on the motive, intent, and reception of their views, and should be covered if applicable.

If you are not in the public eye, then no, that information should not be callously exposed. Once you are in the public spotlight, your life will be and should be examined with a magnifying glass as far as is legally permissable, and that information should be sharable on places like Wikipedia because the public has a right to know.

[sparkzilla]

So you believe Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people as trans (or as anything else for that matter)?

He's not advocating that. He's asking for a consistent standard.

As to "outing" in general, if the person's sex change has already been reported in news media, a news archive takes no moral stance on recording it. What happens on a so-called encyclopedia is a matter of who has the strongest POV.

[GethN7]

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Are you new to Wikipedia? There is, and never has been a consistent BLP policy. In fact it's impossible on the current site. The current system is made up of ambiguous BLP rules that are arbitrarily applied on a page-by-page basis depending on the strength of the "owners" of a particular page.

On another level the problem is caused by the confusion between the site's roles as an encyclopedia and a news archive. Because there is no clear boundary, news-based items that should be included (a sex change for example) are removed due to "notability" or "undue weight" concerns, or many other factors, but mainly depending on the POV and strength of the page "owners".

These ambiguities accrue power to powerful users and admins, so they won't change any time soon.

I concede I'm new to the intricacies of the BLP process, so point taken.

[Ihatemyusername]

So you believe Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people as trans (or as anything else for that matter)?

He's not advocating that. He's asking for a consistent standard.

As to "outing" in general, if the person's sex change has already been reported in news media, a news archive takes no moral stance on recording it. What happens on a so-called encyclopedia is a matter of who has the strongest POV.

But from what I can gather he is. Wu's alleged sex change hasn't been reported in the news media one bit (if you exclude Breitbart, which Wikipedia does). This is about as textbook as it can get when it comes to outing someone as trans.

[GethN7]

So you believe Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people as trans (or as anything else for that matter)?

He's not advocating that. He's asking for a consistent standard.

As to "outing" in general, if the person's sex change has already been reported in news media, a news archive takes no moral stance on recording it. What happens on a so-called encyclopedia is a matter of who has the strongest POV.

But from what I can gather he is. Wu's alleged sex change hasn't been reported in the news media one bit (if you exclude Breitbart, which Wikipedia does). This is about as textbook as it can get when it comes to outing someone as trans.

I saw your message on my Wikipedia talk page. No worries, I have zero desire to attempt further editing there on that topic. Regardless, my point stands that we don't need to hide information that has public relevance since it has bearing on their public views and positions.

Besides, as you put it, Wikipedia's mind is made up, attempting change would be fruitless.

[sparkzilla]

But from what I can gather he is. Wu's alleged sex change hasn't been reported in the news media one bit (if you exclude Breitbart, which Wikipedia does). This is about as textbook as it can get when it comes to outing someone as trans.

What you are saying is that because Breitbart outed her, then Wikipedia should not. That's you pushing your point of view. You are trying to "protect" someone who has already been outed, whose outing is republished on a simple Google search and all across the web.

Wikipedia, as a news archive, should take no moral stance on re-recording her gender change. But Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, allows POV pushers to even disallow entire news media, even when they contain factual information, because those media do not suit their POV. Even if Breitbart outs her it does not change the facts. You may think it's good that Breitbart is disallowed, but what about on other pages? What media and facts are not allowed because the POV pushers on those pages don't want them?

I hope you realize how messed up that is, and how it destroys any claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.

[Midsize Jake]

...and while I don't have the time or energy to dig that up...

Well, exactly. You do have the time and energy to dig that up, it's just not there to be dug up - because the mainstream media hasn't covered it for some reason. However, in your defense, I doubt anyone could look at the evidence that's been presented (albeit on rather dubious websites) and not agree that Ms. Wu was born male.

...DNA and birth certificates do not lie, and such records should be found and used...

Ah, but these are not "public records." DNA tests (or do you want actual DNA sequences?) in particular are not public records, even for criminals for whom they might actually exist. As to whether or not they should be "used" if "found," I don't think there's a law against it, but the media would still want corroborating documentation, possibly even with some assurances on chain-of-custody, since (being documents) that information can be altered and faked. (Though probably not in this case.)

Sadly, Mr. Geth, I fear I must conclude - in the absence of contradictory evidence - that you're at least slightly more interested in spreading the word about Ms. Wu's transgendered status than you are in obtaining consistency in Wikipedia's treatment of transgendered BLP victims. I would agree, though, that in this case it would be better if Ms. Wu were more open and honest about this stuff (again, assuming it's all true).

[GethN7]

But from what I can gather he is. Wu's alleged sex change hasn't been reported in the news media one bit (if you exclude Breitbart, which Wikipedia does). This is about as textbook as it can get when it comes to outing someone as trans.

What you are saying is that because Breitbart outed her, then Wikipedia should not. That's you pushing your point of view. You are trying to "protect" someone who has already been outed, whose outing is republished on a simple Google search and all across the web.

Wikipedia, as a news archive, should take no moral stance on re-recording her gender change. But Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, allows POV pushers to even disallow entire news media, even when they contain factual information, because those media do not suit their POV. Even if Breitbart outs her it does not change the facts. You may think it's good that Breitbart is disallowed, but what about on other pages? What media and facts are not allowed because the POV pushers on those pages don't want them?

I hope you realize how messed up that is, and how it destroys any claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.

I couldn't agree more.

[greybeard]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

[GethN7]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

Since they've elected to have an article, I feel if you can't cite all facts, positive and negative, and let objectivity be your standard, then the article is nothing more than a whitewash that doesn't deserve to be up in any event.

I'm not opposed to anyone of celebrity (Wu is, even if I personally feel most of that is due to astroturfing and attention whoring) having an encyclopedia article anywhere, but if you want to have NPOV, censoring objective fact based on not wanting to offend people is an abomination.

[Midsize Jake]

I hope you realize how messed up that is, and how it destroys any claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.

I think you have to start with the assumption that such claims are completely specious, if not absurd on their face, and once you've done that, the rest is just damage control.

I've been observing them very closely for a long time now, and absolutely nothing I've seen has shaken my belief that it's better for them to leave things out, or even be just-plain-wrong, than it would be for them to just throw anything in there whatsoever regardless of source-reputability. WP:RS is probably the one thing keeping them from being sued, prosecuted, and legislated out of existence. I'm as much of a "Hasten the Day" believer as anyone, but that doesn't mean innocent people should have to suffer, etc., etc. (And privacy still means something to some of us, I might add.)

[Ihatemyusername]

I saw your message on my Wikipedia talk page. No worries, I have zero desire to attempt further editing there on that topic. Regardless, my point stands that we don't need to hide information that has public relevance since it has bearing on their public views and positions.

Besides, as you put it, Wikipedia's mind is made up, attempting change would be fruitless.

I don't think that's right at all. I'm fairly certain every living person with an article on Wikipedia probably has some secret or another that's had a large effect on their life which hasn't been covered in news sources. The sort of system your proposing, would encourage digging through public records to find stuff to shit people over, while inserting it into what would likely be the top google search result for their name. I fail to see how this is in any way ok, especially given the at times violent troubles trans people face in society.

To give a somewhat hyperbolic example: would you consider it acceptable to out someone as gay on Wikipedia if they were living in a country where homosexuality was illegal?

What you are saying is that because Breitbart outed her, then Wikipedia should not. That's you pushing your point of view. You are trying to "protect" someone who has already been outed, whose "outing" is republished on a simple Google search and all across the web.

Wikipedia, as a news archive, should take no moral stance on re-recording her gender change. But Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, allows POV pushers to even disallow entire news media, even when they contain factual information, because those media do not suit their POV. Even if Breitbart outs her it does not change the facts. You may think it's good that Breitbart is disallowed, but what about on other pages? What media and facts are not allowed because the POV pushers on those pages don't want them?

I hope you realize how messed up that is, and how it destroys any claim that Wikipedia is unbiased.

If you have safesearch enabled (thereby hiding Encyclopedia Dramatica) no mentions of Wu being trans can be found on the first page of google results. Wikipedia is (for me at least) the second result that comes up. I do think it's important to protect people from the vitriol and abuse they could be exposed to from being exposed as trans against their will, and I don't think that's an entirely controversial opinion to hold.

I'm no Breitbart expert, but from what I can see Breitbart being disallowed was a good move. They seem to mess up big time quite a lot. Also outing someone as trans for no good reason is (ironically given the Gamergate context) a deeply unethical thing for a journalist to do.

[GethN7]

I saw your message on my Wikipedia talk page. No worries, I have zero desire to attempt further editing there on that topic. Regardless, my point stands that we don't need to hide information that has public relevance since it has bearing on their public views and positions.

Besides, as you put it, Wikipedia's mind is made up, attempting change would be fruitless.

I don't think that's right at all. I'm fairly certain every living person with an article on Wikipedia probably has some secret or another that's had a large effect on their life which hasn't been covered in news sources. The sort of system your proposing, would encourage digging through public records to find stuff to shit people over, while inserting it into what would likely be the top google search result for their name. I fail to see how this is in any way ok, especially given the at times violent troubles trans people face in society.

To give a somewhat hyperbolic example: would you consider it acceptable to out someone as gay on Wikipedia if they were living in a country where homosexuality was illegal?

In the interest of someone's safety, I can see where that argument fits, but in this case, the worst consequence is public embarrassment, not life threatening circumstance, and I don't see how it's justifiable to hide fact just so someone can save face.

Besides, Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn) has been responsible for someone's death, and while that seems to be glossed over in recent day, it's still true, and I would not leave that information out of public scrutiny just to prevent damage to Jenner's reputation since truth should be sovereign in a NPOV environment, embarrassing though it is.

Again, I'm not going to get anywhere near those articles to attempt changing things, I just came here to express my misgivings.

[Vigilant]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[SB_Johnny]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

Since they've elected to have an article, I feel if you can't cite all facts, positive and negative, and let objectivity be your standard, then the article is nothing more than a whitewash that doesn't deserve to be up in any event.

I'm not opposed to anyone of celebrity (Wu is, even if I personally feel most of that is due to astroturfing and attention whoring) having an encyclopedia article anywhere, but if you want to have NPOV, censoring objective fact based on not wanting to offend people is an abomination.

You are clearly swimming in waters that are beyond your depth. Please re-read greybeard's comment and then consider whether your response had anything to do with his point.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yup. What did greybeard win?

[GethN7]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

Since they've elected to have an article, I feel if you can't cite all facts, positive and negative, and let objectivity be your standard, then the article is nothing more than a whitewash that doesn't deserve to be up in any event.

I'm not opposed to anyone of celebrity (Wu is, even if I personally feel most of that is due to astroturfing and attention whoring) having an encyclopedia article anywhere, but if you want to have NPOV, censoring objective fact based on not wanting to offend people is an abomination.

You are clearly swimming in waters that are beyond your depth. Please re-read greybeard's comment and then consider whether your response had anything to do with his point.

You may be correct on the waters beyond my depth comment.

[thekohser]

When you can tell the thread will be of no interest to you, within 14 seconds of reading into the first post!

[When pigs fly]

Geth,

You're more likely to piss into the wind and stay dry then get Johhny Walker added to the article. I agree that it shouldn't be added, but also agree that the article should go into the dustbin.

[sparkzilla]

If you have safesearch enabled (thereby hiding Encyclopedia Dramatica) no mentions of Wu being trans can be found on the first page of google results. Wikipedia is (for me at least) the second result that comes up. I do think it's important to protect people from the vitriol and abuse they could be exposed to from being exposed as trans against their will, and I don't think that's an entirely controversial opinion to hold.

That's not your decision to make. The decision was already made by Brietbart.com.

I'm no Breitbart expert, but from what I can see Breitbart being disallowed was a good move. They seem to mess up big time quite a lot.

Whether they mess up "quite a lot" is unimportant. Is the information factual or not?

Also outing someone as trans for no good reason is (ironically given the Gamergate context) a deeply unethical thing for a journalist to do.

But that's not your decision. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't magically stuff it back in.

Both of those decisions (to "protect" people and to disallow factual information from a source you personally don't like) are you pushing your point of view. She has already been outed. The fact of her being a trans is out on the web already. What you are actually doing is using Wikipedia as a tool to "protect" someone.

Some people could claim that trying to include the Breitbart article is also POV pushing, because "it's an important part of the debate Wu is part of". But that's also false. The fact that she is trans is just a fact. That news that should be recorded anyway without any moral judgement.

I guess you haven't thought of the real harm here -- that to the reader. You are acting as a censor to factual information. The reader suffers because they are not aware of the fact. At least if the fact is known, it can be evaluated. What you want to do is hide the fact first, so that no-one can decide. It's censorship plain and simple. All censors claim they are protecting someone or other. Your attempts to control the facts damage the reader, and give no protection to the subject.

That said, I don't blame you. Wikipedia's article-based system and ambiguous rules are the cause of these issues. You are simply playing a game that has badly written rules.

[GethN7]

Geth,

You're more likely to piss into the wind and stay dry then get Johhny Walker added to the article. I agree that it shouldn't be added, but also agree that the article should go into the dustbin.

That's fair criticism, you very well may be right on both counts.

I guess you haven't thought of the real harm here -- that to the reader. You are acting as a censor to factual information. The reader suffers because they are not aware of the fact. At least if the fact is known, it can be evaluated. What you want to do is hide the fact first, so that no-one can decide. It's censorship plain and simple. All censors claim they are protecting someone or other. Your attempts to control the facts damage the reader, and give no protection to the subject.

That said, I don't blame you. Wikipedia's article-based system and ambiguous rules are the cause of these issues. You are simply playing a game that has badly written rules.

I support this position myself, I appreciate your eloquence in expressing this, sparkzilla.

UPDATE: Since Wikipedia won't do the right thing, I made my own article for Wu:

https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/Brianna_Wu

Also, at the risk of sounding smug, I love the fact that, as a troper, we're not ball and chained by Wikipedia's notability rules.

[Vigilant]

Here's a simple standard -- Brianna Wu shouldn't have a biography on Wikipedia at all, nor should about 80%+ of the other minimally-notable living people there. It's an area that's rife for abuse, as we've seen. It's one thing if you want to run "WikiGossip", but an actual encyclopedia would never contain such an article.

Since they've elected to have an article, I feel if you can't cite all facts, positive and negative, and let objectivity be your standard, then the article is nothing more than a whitewash that doesn't deserve to be up in any event.

I'm not opposed to anyone of celebrity (Wu is, even if I personally feel most of that is due to astroturfing and attention whoring) having an encyclopedia article anywhere, but if you want to have NPOV, censoring objective fact based on not wanting to offend people is an abomination.

You are clearly swimming in waters that are beyond your depth. Please re-read greybeard's comment and then consider whether your response had anything to do with his point.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yup. What did greybeard win?

Let's see what we've got for our lucky winner!!
Envelope please... It's ... Permanent Exile!


What do we have for our runner up?
Two Permanent Exiles!!

[sparkzilla]

UPDATE: Since Wikipedia won't do the right thing, I made my own article for Wu:

https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/Brianna_Wu

Also, at the risk of sounding smug, I love the fact that, as a troper, we're not ball and chained by Wikipedia's notability rules.

It's still the wrong software to do this kind of work. Wikis are built for bias. If AlltheTropes had a large community there is no doubt that, as a wiki-based system, it would have the same issues as Wikipedia. In any case, it's a bit unnecessary to mention someone's transgendered status in an article about tropes.

May I humbly suggest you use a dedicated news archive system such as my site Newslines. I have started the ball rolling:

http://newslines.org/brianna-wu/

For an example of how the page can turn out, have a look at http://newslines.og/emma-sulkowicz/ which is the only unbiased overview of the events surrounding Ms Sulkowicz's "mattress" protest. Compare our site to the Wikipedia page Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) (T-H-L), to see how biased and ineffective Wikipedia is when it comes to recording news.

[GethN7]

UPDATE: Since Wikipedia won't do the right thing, I made my own article for Wu:

https://allthetropes.orain.org/wiki/Brianna_Wu

Also, at the risk of sounding smug, I love the fact that, as a troper, we're not ball and chained by Wikipedia's notability rules.

It's still the wrong software to do this kind of work. Wikis are built for bias. If AlltheTropes had a large community there is no doubt that, as a wiki-based system, it would have the same issues as Wikipedia. In any case, it's a bit unnecessary to mention someone's transgendered status in an article about tropes.

May I humbly suggest you use a dedicated news archive system such as my site Newslines. I have started the ball rolling:

http://newslines.org/brianna-wu/

For an example of how the page can turn out, have a look at http://newslines.og/emma-sulkowicz/ which is the only unbiased overview of the events surrounding Ms Sulkowicz's "mattress" protest. Compare our site to the Wikipedia page Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) (T-H-L), to see how biased and ineffective Wikipedia is when it comes to recording news.

Our site is pretty small so far, but I see your point, thanks for the link to Newslines, looks like an interesting service you've set up, hopefully I can contribute something meaningful to it soon, making an account now.

Also, there is another reason why I mentioned that little factoid. TV Tropes, the community we splintered from, has adopted Wikipedia's BLP ideology to the point they are drinking the same koolaid, and I'd rather oppose that with every fiber of my being, as, to this point in time, does our userbase.

Also, there is a tropes based reason for mentioning Wu's transgendered status: Wu's work is touted as feminist empowering and women positive, but having sampled it for myself, it relies on cliche stereotypes, offputting and sexualized designs counter to the ideology behind its development, and that doesn't even begin to cover its game design flaws, which are numerous.

Since the game was designed by someone with a strong ideological stance behind their work (feminist empowerment), it deserves mentioning IMO that the woman who designed it was born male, so their ideas on feminism may be an "eye of the beholder" perspective, which may result in differing views of the finished media, especially since, if you go by Wikipedia's bias, Wu was born female and so we're supposed to take Wu's feminist values that allegedly influenced the work at face value.

In short, I want all the facts to be presented about the author and their work insofar as it may have influenced the work itself so people can better judge for themselves if the message behind its production is indeed as it was intended to be portrayed through the work itself. All the YMMV and subjective material, will, of course, be covered in the relevant areas.

Also, I compared Wikipedia's article to your own on Emma Sulkowicz, and wow, Wikipedia's version is an outright shillpiece in the subject's favor.

[Randy from Boise]

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Correct.


RfB

[When pigs fly]

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Correct.


RfB

Unless you are attacking BLP's the house disproves of, then slander away

[iii]

It should also be considered an act of deceit to hide such facts if you are considered a celebrity of any shade under public scrutiny.

"Any shade"? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of shades. Why, some might even think you are a shade.

In any case, the wise ones who already commented in this thread are right: Wikipedia is no place to host this "biography". I'm not sure anywhere is a good place to host a "biography" for such a person, but as this is a Wikipedia criticism site, I think we can leave it up to other venues to argue about that.

[GethN7]

It should also be considered an act of deceit to hide such facts if you are considered a celebrity of any shade under public scrutiny.

"Any shade"? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of shades. Why, some might even think you are a shade.

In any case, the wise ones who already commented in this thread are right: Wikipedia is no place to host this "biography". I'm not sure anywhere is a good place to host a "biography" for such a person, but as this is a Wikipedia criticism site, I think we can leave it up to other venues to argue about that.

That's mostly likely true, but since it appeared on Wikipedia and it's (sadly) the go to source for the unwashed on most topics, the least they could do is be honest.

Also, I just checked, yup, my objections DID disappear down the memory hole, with the revisions suppressed.

Thanks Wikipedia, you just confirmed my lost faith in you.

[Cla68]

It's true that the standards are applied inconsistently across WP. I wrote a blog post on one way to win if you're on the losing side of one of these battles. If you decide to follow it, DO NOT hint at it publicly on this site (WP's cabals watch this site like hawks) or anywhere else.

[GethN7]

It's true that the standards are applied inconsistently across WP. I wrote a blog post on one way to win if you're on the losing side of one of these battles. If you decide to follow it, DO NOT hint at it publicly on this site (WP's cabals watch this site like hawks) or anywhere else.

I'm not even going to try, Wikipedia's BLP integrity is a rotting corpse that no necromancy is gonna help, so I wrote this:

http://gethn7.blogspot.com/2015/06/cong ... elped.html

tl;dr: I've been highly sympathetic to pro-Gamergate, now I'm an open and full supporter, and I have Wikipedia to thank for making me realize just how much the anti-GG side is willing to control information to suit their bullshit narratives, especially since they seem to have a firm grip on Wikipedia, one place I thought relatively safe from their deceitful nonsense..

[Cla68]

It's true that the standards are applied inconsistently across WP. I wrote a blog post on one way to win if you're on the losing side of one of these battles. If you decide to follow it, DO NOT hint at it publicly on this site (WP's cabals watch this site like hawks) or anywhere else.

I'm not even going to try, Wikipedia's BLP integrity is a rotting corpse that no necromancy is gonna help, so I wrote this:

http://gethn7.blogspot.com/2015/06/cong ... elped.html

tl;dr: I've been highly sympathetic to pro-Gamergate, now I'm an open and full supporter, and I have Wikipedia to thank for making me realize just how much the anti-GG side is willing to control information to suit their bullshit narratives, especially since they seem to have a firm grip on Wikipedia, one place I thought relatively safe from their deceitful nonsense..

That's one thing the activists in WP don't seem to get, is that by controlling certain topics in WP, it makes it more likely that people who notice what they're doing will be curious to know more about the controversy, and then end up getting converted by the other side.

[Randy from Boise]

The answer I got confirms a suspicion I've had for awhile: The BLP policy has been corrupted by those with agendas to safeguard reputations to the point of whitewash.

Correct.


RfB

Unless you are attacking BLP's the house disproves of, then slander away

Also correct.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

It's true that the standards are applied inconsistently across WP. I wrote a blog post on one way to win if you're on the losing side of one of these battles. If you decide to follow it, DO NOT hint at it publicly on this site (WP's cabals watch this site like hawks) or anywhere else.

I'm not even going to try, Wikipedia's BLP integrity is a rotting corpse that no necromancy is gonna help, so I wrote this:

http://gethn7.blogspot.com/2015/06/cong ... elped.html

tl;dr: I've been highly sympathetic to pro-Gamergate, now I'm an open and full supporter, and I have Wikipedia to thank for making me realize just how much the anti-GG side is willing to control information to suit their bullshit narratives, especially since they seem to have a firm grip on Wikipedia, one place I thought relatively safe from their deceitful nonsense..

That's one thing the activists in WP don't seem to get, is that by controlling certain topics in WP, it makes it more likely that people who notice what they're doing will be curious to know more about the controversy, and then end up getting converted by the other side.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. The anti-GG people are such deceitful, intellectually dishonest grifters and apologists that I'm rooting for them to stew on their PC juices. The libertarian pro-GG people, while not my team, at least impress me for believing in something and fighting against the odds for their perspective. Give me YouTube's Jordan Owen over the anti-GG crew any day of the week...

RfB

[Ihatemyusername]

That said, I don't blame you. Wikipedia's article-based system and ambiguous rules are the cause of these issues. You are simply playing a game that has badly written rules.

I actually partially agree with you on this. Wikipedia's BLP rules are a bit on the extreme side, and occasionally I find myself wondering if I'm making an edit because I genuinely think it's important to do or just because it meets some obscure part of BLP policy I don't actually care about. BUT (and this is a big but) I dont believe this is the case at all here.

Whether they mess up "quite a lot" is unimportant. Is the information factual or not?

The fact that they do mess up is important, especially when their mess ups tend to occur during smear pieces about living people (which is what the article about Wu was). I have no clue whether it's factual or not, and believe it's none of my business and irrelevant. This is private sexual information which has received minimal coverage and which the person in question wants to keep quiet about. If Breitbart (or any other news source for that matter) had published a single article accusing a living person of being secretly gay, or secretly fond of the dirty sanchez, would you think that appropriate material to emblazon on their wikipedia article?

But that's not your decision. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't magically stuff it back in.

But I can. If it doesn't even make the front page of her google results then the genie's hardly out.

I guess you haven't thought of the real harm here -- that to the reader. You are acting as a censor to factual information. The reader suffers because they are not aware of the fact. At least if the fact is known, it can be evaluated. What you want to do is hide the fact first, so that no-one can decide. It's censorship plain and simple. All censors claim they are protecting someone or other. Your attempts to control the facts damage the reader, and give no protection to the subject.

If a reader finds themselves seriously suffering as the result of not knowing what's inside the trousers of some small time iOS developer, I would suggest they reassess their priorities in life. In one survey around 35% of trans people reported facing some form of violence as a result of their gender identity, around half of young transgender people have attempted suicide. Using wikipedia to needlessly out a trans person and excacerbate their life problems is highly innapropriate. Also note that anything remotely notable Wu has done with her life has happened after her alleged transition. If protecting the welfare of trans people by hiding irrelevant salacious pieces of information makes someone an evil censor, then I guess I'm an evil censor.

Both of those decisions (to "protect" people and to disallow factual information from a source you personally don't like) are you pushing your point of view. She has already been outed. The fact of her being a trans is out on the web already. What you are actually doing is using Wikipedia as a tool to "protect" someone.

Some people could claim that trying to include the Breitbart article is also POV pushing, because "it's an important part of the debate Wu is part of". But that's also false. The fact that she is trans is just a fact. That news that should be recorded anyway without any moral judgement.

I disagree that enforcing strict BLP standards is POV pushing. The best evidence I can think of this is rational wiki's Gamergate article. The article is evidently far more anti-GG than wikipedia's article. But if any paragaph of it were posted on wikipedia it would end up being oversighted to hell and back, and the person who did so would end up being topic banned for extreme BLP violations (mostly against Zoe Quinn, but also some against Gjoni). While obviously there are some NPOV issues with the Gamergate article, the strict BLP standards are not the source of them.

[GethN7]

I disagree that enforcing strict BLP standards is POV pushing. The best evidence I can think of this is rational wiki's Gamergate article. The article is evidently far more anti-GG than wikipedia's article. But if any paragaph of it were posted on wikipedia it would end up being oversighted to hell and back, and the person who did so would end up being topic banned for extreme BLP violations (mostly against Zoe Quinn, but also some against Gjoni). While obviously there are some NPOV issues with the Gamergate article, the strict BLP standards are not the source of them.

I can agree with this part at least. RW's article is basically dominated by Ryulong, who is such a shameless anti-GG fanatic Wikipedia had no choice but to ban him because his prejudice was so manifest even his own allies couldn't shield him from the backlash.

The rest of your argument fails to be convincing. Wu is an ardent feminist, but was born male, now female due to a sex change, but Wikipedia's article makes it sound as if Wu was born female, and since Wu's public views and positions depend on that fiction being preserved, telling the truth, unpleasant though it might be, would cause Wu obvious embarrassment amongst ideological allies, which is understandable.

What I don't get is why Wikipedia is complicit in covering up the truth if adds a new dimension to the facts and can be adequately sourced, unless there is a vested interest in shielding Wu and those who might interpret Wu's views from certain interpretations.

Also, the arguments about accusations are, to be crass, horseshit. In this case, it's proven fact, though most of the sources have been thrown out by Wikipedia's standards and the remaining acceptable sources have been censored, so given the preponderance of evidence, I can only conclude there is an ideological motivation for this suppression of information.

Again, I've no interest in trying to change Wikipedia's mind, and I've gotten the hint any attempt to change things there will just end badly for me, so I've chosen to leave a battlefield that's already been mine-fielded to hell and back and which I've already received several warning shots not to attempt breaching.

However, that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to not warn others about that minefield and the people who laid the mines so long as I'm nowhere near the source of the minefield.

[Vigilant]

I disagree that enforcing strict BLP standards is POV pushing. The best evidence I can think of this is rational wiki's Gamergate article. The article is evidently far more anti-GG than wikipedia's article. But if any paragaph of it were posted on wikipedia it would end up being oversighted to hell and back, and the person who did so would end up being topic banned for extreme BLP violations (mostly against Zoe Quinn, but also some against Gjoni). While obviously there are some NPOV issues with the Gamergate article, the strict BLP standards are not the source of them.

I can agree with this part at least. RW's article is basically dominated by Ryulong, who is such a shameless anti-GG fanatic Wikipedia had no choice but to ban him because his prejudice was so manifest even his own allies couldn't shield him from the backlash.

The rest of your argument fails to be convincing. Wu is an ardent feminist, but was born male, now female due to a sex change, but Wikipedia's article makes it sound as if Wu was born female, and since Wu's public views and positions depend on that fiction being preserved, telling the truth, unpleasant though it might be, would cause Wu obvious embarrassment amongst ideological allies, which is understandable.

What I don't get is why Wikipedia is complicit in covering up the truth if adds a new dimension to the facts and can be adequately sourced, unless there is a vested interest in shielding Wu and those who might interpret Wu's views from certain interpretations.

Also, the arguments about accusations are, to be crass, horseshit. In this case, it's proven fact, though most of the sources have been thrown out by Wikipedia's standards and the remaining acceptable sources have been censored, so given the preponderance of evidence, I can only conclude there is an ideological motivation for this suppression of information.

Again, I've no interest in trying to change Wikipedia's mind, and I've gotten the hint any attempt to change things there will just end badly for me, so I've chosen to leave a battlefield that's already been mine-fielded to hell and back and which I've already received several warning shots not to attempt breaching.

However, that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to not warn others about that minefield and the people who laid the mines so long as I'm nowhere near the source of the minefield.

There's really no fiction there unless it's a polite fiction.

Nobody who's looked at Wu's pictures would be convinced of the charade.
Hands, hips, facial structure, Adam's apple.
Anybody who is paying even the slightest bit of attention is not fooled.

[When pigs fly]

Larry Flynt looks pleased

[greybeard]

Anybody who is paying even the slightest bit of attention is not fooled.

I understand and appreciate your point, but for others, it is important to emphasize: Trans people are not trying to "fool" anyone -- they're trans. It's new to many of us, but then, we're all capable of learning new things, right?

To the OP: stop getting your knickers in a knot about it. How people self-identify is their business, and this woman doesn't need a pseudo-encyclopedia article about her, and least of all about her transition.

[Vigilant]

Anybody who is paying even the slightest bit of attention is not fooled.

I understand and appreciate your point, but for others, it is important to emphasize: Trans people are not trying to "fool" anyone -- they're trans. It's new to many of us, but then, we're all capable of learning new things, right?

To the OP: stop getting your knickers in a knot about it. How people self-identify is their business, and this woman doesn't need a pseudo-encyclopedia article about her, and least of all about her transition.

This was in response to Wu's claim that they are able to 'pass' easily.
I really don't care what she does with her life or what bits she has or plays with.
She makes some fairly obviously false statements that I object to.

[sparkzilla]

Ihatemyusername: You are simply a POV pusher for this issue. You are using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your agenda to "protect trans" people. The only reason the Wikipedia page does not have this information on it is because it is currently controlled by people with the same POV as you. in other words, mob rule. Imagine all that suppressed information across Wikipedia, all the people like you hiding information, and you'll see how utterly damaged the project is.

If Breitbart (or any other news source for that matter) had published a single article accusing a living person of being secretly gay, or secretly fond of the dirty sanchez, would you think that appropriate material to emblazon on their wikipedia article?

Yes, it's appropriate is it is a factor in their public life. For example, a politician who is against gay marriage, but secretly meets men in bathrooms; or one who pays a bribe to keep sexual abuse quiet. In this case, Brietbart has brought to light an interesting and newsworthy point: Is Wu's gender switch important when discussing sexism against women in the gaming industry? It's certainly newsworthy (suitable for a news archive), but is it encyclopedic (suitable for an encyclopedia)? I would say yes because the encyclopedia article is about Wu's gender-based advocacy.

There's also some newsworthiness about why this information is being suppressed, both by Gamergate people, and by Wikipedia (a possible WO blog post). I noticed that the external references I checked that her gender change was deliberately not mentioned, which means that it is an important factor to some people.

You are not an "evil censor", you are something far worse: a well-meaning one. You actually believe that you have a right to deny me access to information about someone that might help me understand something that is happening in the word. You talk protection, but it sounds like fear and control to me. Now the information is out, I can make my own decisions. Whether I choose not to care, or think it's absurd, or think it's great that at least someone is standing up, or some other reaction, it's my decision not yours.

[GethN7]

Anybody who is paying even the slightest bit of attention is not fooled.

I understand and appreciate your point, but for others, it is important to emphasize: Trans people are not trying to "fool" anyone -- they're trans. It's new to many of us, but then, we're all capable of learning new things, right?

To the OP: stop getting your knickers in a knot about it. How people self-identify is their business, and this woman doesn't need a pseudo-encyclopedia article about her, and least of all about her transition.

Alright, fair enough, you sold me that said article doesn't need to exist, I just wish Wikipedia used your logic.

[Midsize Jake]

What I don't get is why Wikipedia is complicit in covering up the truth if adds a new dimension to the facts and can be adequately sourced, unless there is a vested interest in shielding Wu and those who might interpret Wu's views from certain interpretations.

You are not an "evil censor", you are something far worse: a well-meaning one. You actually believe that you have a right to deny me access to information about someone that might help me understand something that is happening in the word.

Oh for fuck's sake. Please, please repeat after me:

YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SOURCES.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SOURCES.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SOURCES.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SOURCES!



Get the adequate sources, then maybe you won't be wasting the board's time with this crap. Breitbart.com isn't even close to adequate, it's a propaganda arm, it's full of lies and distortions, and it's hopelessly unprofessional in virtually every respect. It doesn't even bear the pretense of journalistic standards; it's utterly absurd to think it could be usable even in a Wikipedia article, much less something that would appear in an actual encyclopedia. Hell, why don't you just use CPUSA.com as a source too, while you're at it? Oh, right, I guess they wouldn't agree with you.

[sparkzilla]

Shouting doesn't make you right. Trying to deny facts that are relevant to the topic, simply because you do not like the source, is POV pushing/ censorship.

[Midsize Jake]

Shouting doesn't make you right. Trying to deny facts that are relevant to the topic, simply because you do not like the source, is POV pushing/ censorship.

I'm not denying facts, and whether or not I "like" the source is utterly irrelevant. I'm simply telling you that Breitbart.com is not a reputable, reliable source for anything - news, encyclopedia, toilet paper, anything. It's a tissue of lies. And beyond them, you have what, blogs, 4chan threads, and Encyclopedia Dramatica? Yeah, that's just great!

You need a better source, it's as simple as that.

[GethN7]

Shouting doesn't make you right. Trying to deny facts that are relevant to the topic, simply because you do not like the source, is POV pushing/ censorship.

I'm not denying facts, and whether or not I "like" the source is utterly irrelevant. I'm simply telling you that Breitbart.com is not a reputable, reliable source for anything - news, encyclopedia, toilet paper, anything. It's a tissue of lies. And beyond them, you have what, blogs, 4chan threads, and Encyclopedia Dramatica? Yeah, that's just great!

You need a better source, it's as simple as that.

Actually, he may be right here on this, I'll give him that.

The fact any information to support what is obviously from a questionable source being corroborated and used instead is an opportunity Wikipedia seems intent on ignoring in favor of pushing a false narrative is most likely a more salient concern here.

Wikipedia chooses to use reliable secondary sources like a news organization to verify information, and like any reputable journalism organization (since they are in that business due to their methodology), it would behoove them to do everything they can to find corroboration for certain facts instead of omitting them and allowing a narrative based on an unsaid yet obvious falsehood.

And that should apply to every BLP, not just this one, though I am sure, much like the case cited in my OP, this standard is not applied in a uniform fashion and has led to certain BLPs being used more as propaganda than as news.

[When pigs fly]

Shouting doesn't make you right. Trying to deny facts that are relevant to the topic, simply because you do not like the source, is POV pushing/ censorship.

I'm not denying facts, and whether or not I "like" the source is utterly irrelevant. I'm simply telling you that Breitbart.com is not a reputable, reliable source for anything - news, encyclopedia, toilet paper, anything. It's a tissue of lies. And beyond them, you have what, blogs, 4chan threads, and Encyclopedia Dramatica? Yeah, that's just great!

You need a better source, it's as simple as that.

I'm not going to argue in favor of Briebart, but I've seen POV editors question conservative sources like the Washington Times as being unreliable. I've seen someone claim MSNBC was reliable, and in the same thread claim FoxNews as being unreliable. In the minds of the stridently POV, reliability is primarily determined if the source agrees with the narrative they are pushing.