Talk:David Auerbach

• Note that the first AFD was about an entirely different person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Need new AfD

Still not notable, and nearly unreferenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Previous article was about a Rabbi, this is about a different person. I left a message on his Wikipedia talk page, to ask if there's sources out there, before I AfD. Hopefully he responds. Brustopher (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

This article is presently included under Category:Critics of Wikipedia yet there isn't anything mentioned in the article supporting that. I found one article as a start that we could make mention of.

• Auerbach, David (11 December 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown". Slate.com. Archived from the original on 12 December 2014. Wikipedia is amazing. But it's become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Auerbach, David (5 February 2015). "The Wikipedia Ouroboros". Slate.com. The online encyclopedia chews up and spits out bad facts, and its own policies are letting it happen.

Found 2. Possible consideration for Criticism of Wikipedia. Is anything else worth including? Ranze (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 criticism of Wikipedia by Breitbart

David Auerbach is brought up by Breitbart authors Bokhari and Nash who allege that "left-wing" Wikipedians tried to get him fired after he criticized Wikipedia:

Bokhari, Allum (5 July 2016). "Slate Columnist David Auerbach Criticized Wikipedia. Now Wikipedians Want Him Fired". Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." In reality, it's a bureaucratic mess dominated by a small clique of established editors who exploit their position to bully, smear, and intimidate anyone who challenges their authority. Their latest target is David Auerbach, a highly regarded technology columnist for Slate and a fellow at the New America Foundation. Auerbach has been in the editors' crosshairs ever since he wrote a series of damning exposes of Wikipedia's bureaucratic elite in 2014.

Nash, Charlie. "Wikipedia's Seven Worst Moments". 7. Trying To Get A Tech Journalist Fired For Things He Never Said - The most recent Wikipedia controversy, explained here by Allum Bokhari, involves David Auerbach, a highly regarded technology columnist for Slate, and one of Wikipedia's most effective critics.

The second basically doesn't add anything aside from ranking it as its 7th worst moment. Exploring what is discussed in the first though...

• Bokhari has the text "smear him in public articles" link to [1] ie special:diff/633912150 an edit made 15 November 2014 by User:Auerbachkeller.

  I don't really understand the context, is Bokhari implying that this diff is smearing or that this user is David listing a summary of smearing?

• Bokhari has the text "have his own page deleted" link to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Auerbach_(2nd_nomination) opened 10 April 2016 by ProtonK and closed 19 April 2016 by Sandstein as 'no consensus'.

Bokhari posts this .png image which appears to match with these:

• @wikigamaliel (2 July 2016). "Made the mistake of looking at @AuerbachKeller again. Wonder if @slate and @NewAmerica are aware he uses Twitter as a libel machine" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 3 July 2016 – via Twitter.
• "Hey @slate @NewAmerica Twitter of @AuerbachKeller is a horror show. Pro-Gamergate, pro-Brexit, anti-"SJW". Why not just hire Vox Day?" is visible at the bottom of the above and the top of the below.
• @wikigamaliel (2 July 2016). "Hey @Slate @NewAmerica Matt Bruenig was fired for less than what @AuerbachKeller is up to on Twitter" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 3 July 2016 – via Twitter.

Bokhari appears to relate these to his choice of article title, interpreting them as an attempt to have Slate fire Auerbach. This "7th worst" ranking from Breitbart Tech and coverage seems notable enough to mention somewherer. That is not necessarily to say that I agree with Bokhari's interpretations of data, just that their being observed is a noteworthy thing and we should probably mention the site's coverage of Auerbach. Ranze (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source.LM2000 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If LM2000 (who appears to have eyes glued to Special:Contributions/Ranze, so much for WP:WIKIHOUNDING being against policy) had bothered to read everything I wrote above, I never said it was reliable (I said I didn't necessarily agree with its interpretations) but that Breitbart coverage is noteworthy. Regardless of how accurate what they say is, Breitbart is a notable news source and this shows that additional notable news source coverage. Ranze (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it a better candidate for the "Criticism of Wikipedia" page rather than here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: possibly, sometimes we use the same source on multiple articles though. Ranze (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography. Is this incident notable in Auerbach's career? My feeling is: no, it belongs in the other article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed story

I have been seeing this paragraph repeatedly added and reverted. Firstly, please have some sense of NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Do you think that this paragraph should be the first sentence of his "career" section? This kind of stuff is really distasteful.

Secondly, the paragraph itself is full of weasel words. What does it mean, exactly, to say that Auerbach passed information to Milo to "aid his effort to channel "voices both inside and outside the establishment into a clear narrative about the threat liberal discourse posed to America" and promote the Alt-right in the 2016 election". This is absurdly vague and smearful (is that a word? who cares). Here is what Buzzfeed says:

And the former Slate technology writer David Auerbach, who once began a column “Gamergate must end as soon as possible,” passed along on background information about the love life of Anita Sarkeesian, the GamerGate target; “the goods” about an allegedly racist friend of Arthur Chu, the Jeopardy champion and frequent advocate of social justice causes; and a “hot tip” about harsh anti-harassment tactics implemented by Wikipedia. Bokhari followed up with an article: “Wikipedia Can Now Ban You For What You Do On Other Websites.”

Reached by BuzzFeed News at the same email address, Auerbach said the suggestion that he had written the emails was "untrue."

Auerbach says on Twitter that he was not shown the emails in question. (I am not proposing using Twitter as a source, this is just for background).

If you can't summarize this fairly, and in a tone fit for a BLP, please do everyone a favour and stay away from this page.

Please do not add this paragraph again. I am formally objecting to this paragraph now, and per WP:ONUS, it needs consensus before it can be added. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally an editor who takes the time to read the source. Thank you. @Jorm:, @PeterTheFourth:, @Ammarpad:, @Jim1138: and anyone else who restored this content uncritically, I await your apologies. 107.77.223.157 (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus, in the form of four different editors who have added this information to the page (and now me). BuzzFeed is widely accepted as RS, as has been discussed at RS/N many times. However, the previous version of the paragraph was flawed: it quoted from an unrelated passage, and it should not have been the first paragraph of the career section. However, these are not grounds to exclude the information entirely. And the IP who suggests they have a strong identification with the subject of this article should cease edit-warring, post haste. WWB (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was the first one who opened the discussion here. Since you did not restore the original paragraph, that is a good step. I am glad that you agree with me that the information should not have been mentioned in the original form. The reference to RSN is not important because I did not challenge that: my argument was always based on NPOV and UNDUE. I apologize if that was not clear. Now we can come to how the paragraph ought to be shown, if at all.

The sentence which you quoted is simply saying that Auerbach communicated with Milo. Is that the point? I find it a bit weird that communicating with Milo is supposed to be some kind of career-defining thing, but wtf do I know.

But you didn't summarize the contents of the alleged conversations. Buzzfeed mentioned three different conversations, about Sarkeesian, Arthur Chu and about Wikipedia. The only screenshots they show are about Wikipedia. You have not mentioned the latter two, which seems incomplete to me. Auerbach has written several pieces critical of Wikipedia on Slate. If you want to include this information, the other two should also be mentioned. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We're not obligated to use every detail—as per UNDUE, I don't believe this story should overwhelm the entry. The Sarkeesian exchange was listed first by BuzzFeed, and seems the most significant—not mere communication, but sharing private information about a prominent Gamergate target. (Also, the article does include screen shots of Auerbach's alleged other emails.) As for RS/N, I wasn't referring to anything you said, but rather the IP who seems to be advocating Auerbach's position: this person had called BuzzFeed a "tabloid site" in edit summaries. Apologies for causing confusion. WWB (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I agree with your point, but we are not obligated to use anything at all. This is why I referred to WP:ONUS. What we mention on a Wikipedia BLP page is an editorial decision to be decided by consensus.

What is the argument for mentioning one conversation but not the others? Also, we don't know what "private information" means. Neither Buzzfeed nor the Salon article actually say what information Auerbach was supposed to have sent Milo. Salon uses "purportedly", which just means that they are simply reporting what Buzzfeed said. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The argument is that an exhaustive list is not required to convey the essence of the story, lest it become UNDUE. And BuzzFeed does include the specifics of the alleged email, but it's included as a screen shot—not in the body of the article. WWB (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If one only mentions one part of a story, how can it convey the essence of the story? I actually don't know what the "essence" actually is. Recall that Auerbach has written an article criticizing Wikipedia for the handling of the Gamergate case, which he mentions in the email about the Wikipedia matter. Elaborating a bit: see this Vox article mentions all three things, and specially notes the Wikipedia stuff because Breitbart wrote an article allegedly based on the tip from Auerbach. Again, all of this is simply commentary on the Buzzfeed article, so it's just press feeding off each other.

I wish people would not act on BLP pages on such a short timeline when all the media sources are just quoting one another, but I don't really have hope that it can be implemented on Wikipedia in any reasonable form. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It is probably best for us to dig up secondary sources, and get our emphasis and focus from that. Here's a list of sources that mention Auerbach in relation to the emails:

• Daily Dot. Mention only.
• AV Club: "More surprising than Yiannopoulos’ personal “dog whistle” collection, though, were the identities of some of the people who served as his sources. His status as an “alt-right magnet” positioned him not just as a contact point for overt or outright racists, but also for men in liberal-leaning fields who vented to Yiannopoulos about their feelings of “oppression.” ... Meanwhile, former Slate writer David Auerbach passed Breitbart information about feminist games critic Anita Sarkeesian.
• Vox: "David Auerbach, a former tech reporter for Slate, “passed along on background information about the love life of Anita Sarkeesian, the GamerGate target; ‘the goods’ about an allegedly racist friend of Arthur Chu, the Jeopardy champion and frequent advocate of social justice causes; and a ‘hot tip’ about harsh anti-harassment tactics implemented by Wikipedia.” ... At least two of those tips — Sunderland passing along a Broadly video about the Satanic Temple and abortion rights, and Auerbach’s tip about Wikipedia — turned into Breitbart articles.
• Salon: "Ironically, Auerbach had predicted precisely the forces that would emerge to elevate Yiannopoulos to an international celebrity. Buzzfeed’s story cites screenshots from an email exchange between Auerbach and Yiannopoulos, in which Auerbach purportedly helped Yiannopoulos dig up dirt on a romantic interest of Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian is a renowned writer and critic who has written extensive feminist critiques of popular video games, and who, along with game developer Zoë Quinn, became the subjects of a tortuous and relentless misogynist smear campaign, colloquially known as “Gamergate.” ...and... What makes Auerbach’s purported conversation with Yiannopoulos so curious is that Auerbach had previously defended Sarkeesian and Quinn, and called out the heartless mobs that had abused them. “Not just gaming, not just the Internet, but society itself has a sexism problem, a misogyny problem, a race problem, and a harassment problem,” Auerbach wrote then. Yiannopoulos would, seemingly, have been central to that problem.
• New Statesman: The article also claims that former Slate reporter David Auerbach gave Yiannopoulos information about the love life of Anita Sarkeesian, a GamerGate target, among other stories - Auerbach has said that the claim is "categorically false".
• And perhaps the most in-depth source focusing on Auerbach specifically relative to this story is this coverage by Paste Magazine, which focuses more on the aftermath. Quotes the relevant part of the Buzzfeed story verbatim.

Going over them, most of these sources mention that the contact was about her love life and that Sarkeesian was a Gamergate target (which is important context as to why sending information about her love life to Yiannopoulos would be noteworthy). So those things should probably be mentioned here, if nothing else. One other thing a few of the sources mention (Paste, Salon, and, more obliquely, the AV Club) is that Auerbach's actions here are surprising because they seem to go against his publicly-stated position at the time - that might be worth restoring as well, since they explain part of why this is noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll dispute the claim here that the email allegedly from Auerbach exposed "personal details" or the "love life" of Anita Sarkeesian. Jonathan McIntosh had a professional as well as personal relationship with Sarkeesian, and until several years ago was Feminist Frequency co-producer. Their breakup and McIntosh's leaving FF was common knowledge, not some private information Yiannopoulos received. The reason why this is of interest to anybody has nothing to do with speculation about Sarkeesian's "love life" and everything to do with questions about to what degree Sarkeesian was influenced by Jonathan MacIntosh's far-left and radical feminist ideology. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Aquillion, I would support adding reference to Auerbach's publicly stated position; in response to Iamcuriousblue, perhaps this was known to you and some others, but there's no disputing that he shared details about Sarkeesian's private life with Yiannopoulos—and that's how it's described in sources. WWB (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• We have to go with what the sources say. They say that he shared information about her love life (and that she was a Gamergate target); that's the focus of most coverage. If you want to dispute that summary or add more to it, send letters to the sources I listed asking that they issue corrections or retractions; there's no use arguing over it here unless you have other sources saying otherwise. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is a BLP, if we can demonstrate that the statement about sharing love life is baseless, we needn't correct the sources to throw out the statement. Accuracy is paramount on all Biographies. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously accuracy is paramount, but as an encyclopedia, we determine accuracy solely through the use of reliable sources - an editor's personal musings or conjecture (or simply their bare, uncited assertion that a source is wrong) has no weight here. If there's a disagreement among the sources, we'd have to weigh their relative weight, reliability, and so on and decide how to cover it and which to trust; but if an editor simply feels an otherwise-reliable source is inaccurate, just expressing that opinion on a talk page without sources to back it up isn't enough - you need to find a better source, get the sources you object to to issue a retraction, or something of that nature. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know why you are giving so much weight to a frankly biased editorial comment on the subject of the article. The Buzzfeed source notes the email itself, which is a comment on the relationship between Sarkeesian and McIntosh. This is directly quoted in the article. The Buzzfeed article than editorializes that this is passing along information about the "love life" of Anita Sarkeesian, a questionable claim. Why do you insist on prioritizing Buzzfeed's editorializing over a neutral reporting of the raw facts? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Since you reverted my changes with a summary saying we lacked multiple high-quality sources on account of the other sources citing Buzzfeed themselves: That's not how sourcing works. Every source that passes WP:RS which reports credibly on Buzzfeed's reporting lends their own weight to it (and puts their own reputation on the line by doing so), so we have 3-6 sources depending on which you think are high-quality. The caveat is that we have to consider the tone and weight of all those sources, of course; that's why I surveyed them above to see how they summarized the situation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you clearly have a twisted version of how sourcing is supposed to work. If a source is clearly editorializing about a subject, Wikipedia should not be reporting that editorializing as fact. Last I checked, WP:NPOV is still a working principle, and Wikipedia should be reporting sourced information with the least amount of "spin" that we can. Your idea about sourcing seems to be that Wikipedia should not just reproduce facts from sources, but should echo editorial line and ideology as well.

And really, "love life"???? The sheer silliness of the language should say everything about the low value of the spin Buzzfeed is putting on it.

Let us separate out a few issues here. I will talk about the Wikipedia part in another section, because this section is becoming cluttered with the Sarkeesian issue.

First, there is only one real source here: Buzzfeed. Everyone else is simply quoting them, or giving their own "take" on the issue. That is fine; wide coverage indicates notability.

Second, Buzzfeed actually shows the screenshot of the email which Auerbach purportedly sent. Let's assume for the moment that Auerbach actually sent the email (we already note his denial in the article, so it's not a problem). The email talks about both Mcintosh and Sarkeesian, as well as their professional relationship (his help with videos and research). Buzzfeed's characterization is that it is "Auerbach talking about Sarkeesian's love life", which is true but incomplete.

Now, I do not know how to handle this issue. As I said, all outlets are just quoting each other on this point, but interpretation is obviously important. Auerbach himself is simply issuing a categorical denial, so it's hard to do anything else at this point.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How "true" is it? Auerbach is is talking about the relationship between Sarkeesian and McIntosh, who was Feminist Frequency co-producer. This is a matter of public record. They also happened to be former partners as well. Buzzfeed's spin is that this was a clear invasion of Sarkeesian's private life. That is not, in fact, nearly so clear. There's also the separate matter that Auerbach is so far denying the accusations made by Buzzfeed, and per WP:BLP, that should be given some weight. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Auerbach's denial is noted in the article. Unfortunately, Auerbach is only issuing a blanket denial and is refusing to clarify whether he was talking about the private life or professional life. Therefore, one has to go by interpretation. We say in the article how Buzzfeed interpreted the email (and other news outlets seem to be following their lead, because they find the interpretation plausible). Whether I think Buzzfeed is right or wrong is not relevant here. I already said the Buzzfeed's characterization was incomplete at best.

I don't think arguing here will do anything, because people are simply repeating their points. If you like, I can open an RfC with the two phrasings, and see which one people prefer. However, I would not bet a lot of money on the alternate phrasing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Auerbach's writing on GamerGate [2][3] and subsequent criticism of it [4] would be worth including as context? Artw (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In principle I don't have problems with including Auerbach's comments on Gamergate, but keep in mind that this article is barely more than a stub, and Gamergate is a very small part of what he's written about. One should, therefore, keep in mind UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

also mentioned in this article by Allum Bohari, who is far more complimentary of his work: https://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/ Artw (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting Auerbach fed the "it's about ethics in journalism", when he was actually colluding with Milo (and Sunderland and Bohkari). - 2603:3024:200:300:90A6:9B2F:F656:1BE6 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Auerbach is also quoted in the Columbia Journalism Review article on Gamergate and this Reason article by Cathy Young. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think Kingsindian had it correct, above: This is a biography. Is this incident notable in Auerbach's career? My feeling is: no, it belongs in the other article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The events here span three years of Auerbach's 5(?) year career. Notable to his career as a writer. - 2603:3024:200:300:396B:9808:D21B:4524 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna say yes, pretty notable in his career, possible career defining. Artw (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm given to understand that the appropriate phrase is Cool story, bro! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• 2603, I think there's clearly two different things being discussed. The emails as reported by BuzzFeed are dated Jan 1, 2016; Jan 5, 2016 and March 9, 2016. I am responding to the original post in this section, which is about that report. If sufficient, and sufficient quality, sources exist for documenting Auerbach's commentary on the Gamergate controversy exist, then I support inclusion. "Career defining" is, however, decidedly over-egged. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

http://observer.com/2017/10/milo-yiannopoulos-responds-to-buzzfeed/ Inside the Right-Wing Troll Factory: Milo Yiannopoulos Responds to Buzzfeed But not everyone was insulated. The Buzzfeed story tarnished the reputations of former Slate technology writer David Auerbach, Silicon Valley writer Dan Lyons, and, to a lesser extent, New York Magazine’s Washington Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi. Artw (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/liberal-male-hypocrisy-modern-day-rasputins-and-the_us_59f15934e4b005e782334791 Liberal Male Hypocrisy, Modern Day Rasputins and the Culture of Deceit Earlier this year, however, Mitchell Sunderland, David Auerbach, Adam Grandmaison, Dan Lyons, and others were highlighted in a first-rate expose written by Joseph Bernstein at Buzzfeed. The article exposed numerous male journalists who had developed a cozy relationship and served as consultants for the ultraconservative Breitbart.com media outlet. Artw (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

auerbach and slate

http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/staff/2001/10/slate_s_masthead_who_we_are.html He's not listed as a contributor. - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/10/slates-david-auerbach-alleged-breitbart-ratfink-te.html *former* contributor - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

worth including?

1. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/david-auerbach-problem-with-media.html -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603735/its-easy-to-slip-toxic-language-past-alphabets-toxic-comment-detector/ (since we're listing some of his other articles) -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Meganets book to be published on 30 March 2023

I just added a section on this book based on a pre‑release interview by The Guardian. When the book does indeed surface, there will doubtless be a number of literary reviews that can be used as secondary sources. Just a heads‑up really. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)