Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Other alt-right and conservative media personalities,"

This is clearly an association fallacy, an appeal to emotion, and therefore a NPOV violation. You wouldn't say "Other Nazi and Liberal media personalities" now would you? Either rewrite this section to make it NPOV or use one phrase to describe all people involved. Also, this information is unsourced (it does not appear in the article). Rip-Saw (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I have attempted to make this change but it was undone by editors who do not see it that way. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral. Use of the term "alt-right" as a pejorative has lost it's stigma, IMO, and to a great extent it doesn't even exist anymore. So including it with the word "Conservatives" doesn't have the same "zing" that it might have had in 2016. My primary objection to it's use (if I had one) is that it conveys a certain lack of political sophistication on the part of the person (or Article) that uses it, i.e. "non-encyclopedic", as well as "obsolete".2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2018

safe haven" for Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and members of the alt-right. This is so so wrong. I speak as a 73-year-old retired nurse who has never been involved in politics and only did so because of the lies upon lies I saw in the MSM. Just read the lies last wek about Tommy Robinson, that he has bought a £1 million house. He hasnt, he BOUGHT a plot many years ago an has BUILT a house on it and rented houses while he did so. Also that he is getting £1million for speaking in USA. Again that is lies. He has been invited & has had his airfare & accommodation paid for. The UK media especially th BBC are LIARS 2A02:C7F:9803:3500:F014:B6CA:1DC3:3876 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right" in lede

Violates WP:NPOV. Editors keep prioritizing their own editorials ahead of well-sourced objective reporting. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the "well-sourced objective reporting" in this case? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in any reliable sources you could provide that disagree with 'far-right'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in any sources you could provide that says Gab is in fact a 'far-right' network. It has far-right users, as many sources point out, but none of these sources identify Andrew Torba, its founder, as being far-right, or the company itself as being far-right. The company permits far-right opinion, as indeed it allows all opinion of any kind that's allowed by the First Amendment. It is a leap to go from "this site tolerates far-right opinion" to "this is a far right social network."

On multiple occasions, including your most recent revert of my attempt to make this article more neutral, you've chosen to ignore sources which describe the site as a pro-free speech site first which happens to permit these far-right opinions. See this edit you reverted. Those citations contradict the proposition that Gab is a "far right" site. Deleting the citations doesn't mean they don't exist. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

there is no arguing with these people. Just be thankful the little propaganda ministers aren't pushing neo-nazi in the lede. It's hilarious that a youtube video from over a year ago is a source for it being far-right. Well here's sourced youtube video, from today, declaring it not far-right. <redacted> Oh wait, youtube videos shouldn't be seen as a source. And for good reason. I now patiently wait for my edit to be reversed, and for there to be a "very serious™ and "reliable™" reason why Gab is definitely and without question, politically aligned with National Socialists and Fascists. (ideologies that almost always oppose free speech) 2601:982:4200:A6C:4D27:B556:CEF0:1571 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Youtube link; not a place for promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I note your sources. You've provided headlines, not links. Summarizing headlines do not prove that this is a "far-right" platform. There's a dispute, per this reverted edit and others, as to whether this is a far-right site. I provided references showing it's a free speech site.

The site itself denies that it's alt-right. There are sources that agree with the site's own view of itself. There is no reason why this view shouldn't be represented and why the "far-right" description should be accepted as fact. The way to resolve the dispute in a consensus fashion is to say it is "described as an alt right site and described as a free speech site" rather than to say unequivocally and against consensus that it's "definitely a far-right site." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations or advertising. You've provided many sources which mention free speech, but virtually all them, as has already been discussed in tedious detail, emphasize the far-right nature of the site. I haven't seen any reliable sources which agree that the site is "free speech" without a boatload of qualifiers. Gab's PR is irrelevant, and even your own sources are skeptical of this spin. The number of sources defining the site as far-right way has ballooned with the recent shooting, but this isn't a new thing. "Free speech" has always been a tactic to court the far-right, by Torba's own admission. Why do you think so many of these sources put free speech in scarequotes? Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No offense but this argument is rampant WP:SPECULATION. The articles mention free speech, period. We do not know why the authors chose to put the term in quotation marks where they chose to do so. It may be for emphasis, for example. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious. We do not ignore context. This has already been explained multiple times. The article already explains the site's self-description. Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your explanation and believe, given your problematic history with similar topics on your talk page (Ben Shapiro, Antifa in particular) that your perspective is tinged by bias. You are choosing to ignore good, objectively sourced information that contradicts your viewpoint. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Please see:

• Anti-Semitic posts deleted from 'alt-right social network' following Microsoft crackdown -- The Telegraph
• Gab, Far-Right Web Platform Favored by Pittsburgh Shooter, Attacks Critics and Appeals to Donald Trump -- Newsweek
• On Gab, an Extremist-Friendly Site, Pittsburgh Shooting Suspect Aired ... York Times
• Alt-right website Gab attracts Bolsonaro supporters in Brazil -- Danbury News Times

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: I provided references showing it's a free speech site, "far-right" and "free speech" are not mutually exclusive. The platform is best known as the hangout of the far-right. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Best known?" Hard to prove that/that's editorializing, particularly given the sources that show it's a free speech network rather than a far right network. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So when dozens of sources describe a site as far-right, it's time for nuance and subtly. When some of those same sites use the term "free speech" as context for explaining why it's far-right, subtly becomes "editorializing". Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

When sites use free speech you don't ignore the "free speech" description, you give it equal treatment. See this NPR piece from today as an example of how to do it right: "a small social networking site that prides itself on providing a platform for free speech — but has become a gathering point for far-right users... As NPR's Alina Selyukh reported last year, 'many members of the far right and others who feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook' have gravitated toward Gab, with its promise of few restrictions on speech." That's fair, evenhanded language. Why can't we replicate it in this article? Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that source. So what does it say? The source says that the far-right has gravitated to Gab, which it specifically identifies as a "gathering point for far-right users", because it "prides itself on providing a platform for free speech". These two things are not disconnected. The only uses of the term "free speech" are in the headlines (which don't count?) and in comments attributed to Gab or Torba. If you want to summarize this source, you need to summarize the whole thing, not just the parts that you like. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to what you're saying, "free speech" appears twice in the body in the article, not zero. One of them is a quote from Torba. The other (and the first) is the lede of the article. The article also discusses the site's community standards in detail as the reason that alt-righters use the site.

The way to reflect that in prose is "It is a free speech site. As a result, far-right users use it because they don't get censored." That is what the NPR article says. Not, "it is a far right site. It also has a free speech policy." There are few sources more reliable than NPR. This is the view this Wikipedia article should reflect. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Read my comments again. I said it appears in the headline and in comments attributed to Gab/Torba. The lede usage is attributed to Gab itself, as context makes clear.

If this is now about "censorship", we need to evaluate sources all over again. Not every instance of someone being kicked off a platform should be called "censorship". Did Gab censor Weev? Did they censor the Synagogue shooter? Are they censoring spammers? This approach is loaded and inflammatory.

Which sources are saying this is about "censorship"? The NPR source only uses the term when quoting Gab's own material. Introducing this into the lede would absolutely require multiple reliable sources presenting this as a defining trait. Some sources discuss this, but that's not enough. Torba would certainly like us mention censorship, but reliable sources do not, apparently, accept that it's that simple. We are not trying to cram as many possible details as we can into the lede. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about cramming details in, it's about being accurate. TBQH if we replaced the second paragraph of this article's lede with the NPR lede word for word it would be an improvement. "Gab is a small social networking site that prides itself on providing a platform for free speech — but has become a gathering point for far-right users. Many members of the far right and others who feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook' have gravitated toward Gab, with its promise of few restrictions on speech." That would be perfect and is far superior to the current wording. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that non-ethnonationalist views are suppressed or censored on Gab? Would that not be the most objective way to determine if the *site* itself is far Right? If it does not meet that criteria, it would be more accurate to describe it as a site patronized by or popular among the far Right, which is what has actually been substantiated thus far. DsouzaSohan (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@DsouzaSohan: We are not responsible for substantiating what reliable sources say. We do not do original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence of any viewpoints being suppressed or censored on gab unless it's a doxing or a criminal threat. The site's admin states that all views are welcome regardless of their political orientation. See here. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that the "empty vessel" of a web site (or social media platform) can be called "right wing" just because a disproportionate number of it's Users are "right wing" needs to be discussed. Do the characteristics of it's Members determine the characteristics the platform? If so, how is that determination made, and by whom? There is nothing about Gab that explicitly encourages one political ideology over another, yet anyone that reads that Article might assume the platform's "branding" (logos, etc...) is littered with swastikas, 1488's, etc... There ARE explicitly "Nazi" websites, where non-"right wing" members are discouraged or prevented from participating (such as the "Daily Stormer"), and Gab is nothing like that. This Article does not differentiate between an explicitly "Right Wing" website, and a (more or less) "neutral" website where a disproportionately larger demographic of "right wingers" assemble, and practice free speech. If the majority of it's Users are "Left Wing, could Twitter be called a "Left Wing" platform? Finally I would ask Editors who believe that a neutral platform can be characterized by the ideology of it's Members, how many Nazi "apples" does it take to spoil the whole bushel? 50%? 10? 1? With the current fury of the Mid-Term elections raging, I do not believe that the "reliable sources" can be relied upon. This is a situation where common sense Editors using common sense should be aware of the "external" situation and maintain wikipedia's neutral and balanced perspective.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a "trailing indicator" of notability, meaning that other sources must be discussing the organisation as an "alt-right" platform, which is what is going on at the moment. Also the website is in the news outside of the USA talking about how it is being cut off by major organisations, see here: [1] SportingFlyer talk 03:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't that "other sources must be discussing the organisation as an "alt-right" platform." That I think everyone understands. It is that yet other sources describe Gab as a "free speech" platform, and that the free speech moderation policy is what leads critics to label it as a "haven for the alt-right." The issue with the article as it presently stands is that it does not adequately reflect both sides of that discussion. As indeed all of my comments on this talk page for the last week (see above) have argued. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A new source, friends! "Gab, the white supremacist sanctuary...". Hmm. Don't know why people are calling it far-right! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The sourced article you just gave us uses the term "far right" exactly once in relation to Gab:

"But the platform’s history is tied to the white supremacists and other far-right figures who joined in its first months and have contributed to Gab’s growth."

Note the phrase "far right figures" refers to the Users of Gab, and not to Gab itself. Again I restate my "empty vessel" metaphor and again I ask the question "Is it fair to characterize the entire social media platform based on the actions of one, or a minority of it's Users (if someone wants to find another criminal who happened to use Gab), or the character (extremist, right-wing political views) of a minority of it's Users (about 5%, according to the sources that I've seen here, so far)?"

Also note the phrase "history is tied to" (other far-right figures) means that Gab is tied to "far right figures". It does not say that Gab is "far right". And it is only Gab's history that is tied to the "far right", and not Gab in it's entirety. My point is that this is the only statement that supports your assertion (that Gab is "far right"), and it does not say what you think it says.

Further, while you seem to think your source supports the idea (as a general characterization) that Gab is "far right", "white supremacist", "extreme", etc..., I would like you to consider this from your sourced article:

"Torba’s updates have kept Gab’s users in the loop on the drama: Gab’s chief technology officer Ekrem Büyükkaya announced Sunday that he was stepping down because the “attacks from the American press have been relentless for two years now and have taken a toll on me personally.”

In case you don't know, former Gab CTO and Founder Ekrem Büyükkaya is "...a Muslim of Kurdish origin..." who recently quit, not because of all the "White Supremacy", "far right" "extremism", but instead because the "attacks from the American press have been relentless for two years now and have taken a toll on me personally." Not the racists, the white supremacists or the extremists on Gab. Attacks from the American Press caused him to quit, and it's your own source that says this. But somehow you think this is a source that supports the idea that a small minority of Users on an "empty vessel" social media platform is what best characterizes that social media platform. This situation is much more complex than some Editors seem to perceive.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

request an addition

Can the following line be added to the introduction?

As of October 29, 2018, Gab has been taken offline, pending relocation to a new hosting site. MarkAQuinn (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree except maybe "Gab has taken itself offline, pending relocation to a new hosting provider." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Define "offline". To my perception, "offline" means "totally gone". As of 9:53 a.m., this recently updated message appears:

"Gab has spent the past 48 hours proudly working with the DOJ and FBI to bring justice to an alleged terrorist. Because of the data we provided, they now have plenty of evidence for their case. In the midst of this Gab has been no-platformed by essential internet infrastructure providers at every level. We are the most censored, smeared, and no-platformed startup in history, which means we are a threat to the media and to the Silicon Valley Oligarchy.

Gab isn’t going anywhere.

It doesn’t matter what you write. It doesn’t matter what the sophist talking heads say on TV. It doesn’t matter what verified nobodies say on Twitter. We have plenty of options, resources, and support. We will exercise every possible avenue to keep Gab online and defend free speech and individual liberty for all people.

You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech they disagree with to interfere in a US election.

The internet is not reality. TV is not reality. 80% of normal everyday people agree with Gab and support free expression and liberty. The online outrage mob and mainstream media spin machine are the minority opinion. People are waking up, so please keep pointing the finger at a social network instead of pointing the finger at the alleged shooter who holds sole responsibility for his actions.

No-platform us all you want. Ban us all you want. Smear us all you want.

You can’t stop an idea.

As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely.

Andrew Torba, CEO Gab.com"

Also, "offline" sounds more "involuntary", and with it's current "status message" it seems more like they "shut it down", so maybe "shut down" would be a better, more accurate word choice. I copied and pasted this directly from gab.com, and have taken a screen shot if anyone wants to see it or use it. The current message is different, and longer than the one from about 12 hours ago (which I do not have).2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As of 6:05 pm today, the above, italicized message is still live at gab.com. While I agree that something needed to be done quickly to reflect the change in Gab's status, substantive discussion on the use of the word "offline" (vs. "shut down", or something else) has not happened. I think this discussion should continue.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 29 October 2018

One single instance of 'Torka' to be changed to 'Torba'. (Name was mispelled, ctrl + f for location) 2A02:1811:C0C:8900:1586:5CBF:C91:203F (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I raised this issue in another section, along with a 2nd and more serious issue, where an Editor has replaced the word "companies" taken from the headline of the source article, and replaced it with the word "investors", which conveys meaning that is exactly the opposite of what the sourced Article said. The sourced Article explicitly states that, rather than severing ties with Gab, they are actually trying to invest in Gab, despite it's current problems. Meaning that, while "Big Tech" is trying to shut Gab down, average people ("investors") are trying to support Gab with their money. This is a gross error (vs. a "typo"), and may have been deliberate vandalism. Could you please look into this, and make the appropriate corrections? Also, as a general aside, the "David vs. Goliath" (small, 6 person company vs. large, multinational corporations operating in a coordinated manner) aspect of this story is being completely ignored by this Article, despite source material that supports it.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories

The company was founded in Austin, Texas, but is now in Philadelphia. The article is currently in 2 Austin categories, but not in their Philadelphia counterparts. Pleade add these categories. 37.26.148.236 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really like the location of Gab's, (or any other online service's) geographical location being in the Lede. While it might be relevant to a brick and mortar business, an online business is software, meaning ethereal. Gab is located wherever my computer is located. It's just not the 1st thing that should be mentioned in the Lede. It feels clunky, unwieldy and 1990's-ish. It also feels formatted, and amateurish, like a High School Essay, vs. professionally written Article.

But what compels me to post is the additional information of where Gab used to be located, and this is the part that crosses the line. I regard the Lede as precious. A very limited space within which (in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, or whatever), the Reader is supposed to be "invited" to read further. This aspect of Wikipedia is one of the qualities I care most about, and so whenever I read a clunky, uninviting Lede, that says a bunch of uninteresting things, I think about what all the inviting and interesting things that Lede DIDN'T say. It's a wasted opportunity to bring someone interested in a topic (in this case, Gab) into the body of an Article, where they might learn something. Conversely, a "burdened" Lede has the exact opposite effect of driving them away. Point: Does Gab's former business location HAVE to be in the Lede? Second Point: Isn't there something more interesting that the Lede COULD be saying?2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Drafting lede to WP:NPOV

I propose the following language for the lede:

Gab is a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based social networking service formerly based in Austin, Texas. It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech, although critics describe Gab as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right. It allows its users to read and write messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs". The site also offers multimedia functionality.

Why?

...The issue with the current lede is that it insinuates that the site is designed for the alt-right and white supremacists. There are two problems with this. First, much of what is offered to show this is op-ed content - particularly the Vice and CNBC pieces. None of the sources offered to demonstrate that assertion actually show that the site is aimed at or exclusively for the alt-right actually demonstrate that. Second, I offer four sources - Newsweek, Washington Times, Gizmodo, and Yahoo News - which are reliable and which indicate that there is more to the "free speech" side of the discussion than other editors, in particular Grayfell, are willing to admit. It also fails to touch on the fact that much of the controversy around Gab relates to the tug-of-war between free speech on the one hand and moderation on the other, with secondary sources such as the BBC and primary sources such as Google both showing that Gab stands alone among similar tech companies in possessing this zero-moderation policy.

Unless anyone can provide specific reasons why these four sources are somehow deficient or do not add proper context to this article I intend to update the article with this language. I am open to suggestions for better language or sources. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Since we have already provided reasons these edits are not appropriate, you should think twice before issuing an implied ultimatum. You may disagree with our reasons, but that doesn't make them invalid. You do not get to limit this discussion by requiring that we only objection on your terms. A reliable source is only reliable in context.

Neither the CNBC article nor the Vice article are opinions. They are merely two of many sources which document Gab's reputation and user-base.

"Critics" is a WP:WEASEL term. It's not just undefined "critics" who describe Gab as a platform for the alt-right, it's virtually every single reliable source which investigates it. Replacing "critics" with "outside observers" or "experts" would be exactly as accurate and much more neutral. Implying that it's "Critics" vs. "free speech" is pretty blatantly misrepresenting this as false equivalence. We do not have some sources saying one thing and others saying something different. We have sources in agreement that the site is populated with alt-right and conspiracy theory content far above and beyond most other social media sites. Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, like it or not, and when reliable sources say a thing over and over, we don't cast doubt on that just because one company, or some editors, disagree.

Nowhere does the article say that the site was designed for the alt-right, but does say, correctly, that the site provides a platform to the alt-right. Further, according to reliable, non-opinion sources, it is primarily known as a platform for the alt-right and similar fringe groups. The occasional kitten memes or confused libertarians do not invalidate this, and as far as I can see the article doesn't imply that every single contributor must be a white supremacist.

So using the term although as a connection falsely implies that "alt-right" and "free speech" are somehow incompatible or opposed. This is editorializing, as reliable, non-opinion sources do not claim that the site's stated mission of advocating for free speech is incompatible with being a platform for the alt-right, etc. Even Torba admits that the site's popularity among the alt-right is no accident, since the site welcomes people who have been kicked-off of other platforms for their ideas. The current lead already says that it's purported mission is to advocate for free speech, which we all seem to agree on. The current lede also states that it has been identified as a platform for the alt-right and white supremacists. If reliable sources do not state as a fact that these two things are incompatible, neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Grayfell. The current lede does not insinuate the site is designed for the alt-right. The only sentence at issue here is "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." I don't mind rewriting this sentence, but it's already very neutral compared to what could be written as a synthesis of the sources quoted. I don't actually recommend any changes. SportingFlyer talk 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

SportingFlyer I agree it's neutral but it's not telling the full story, only half of it. I detail below.

Grayfell:

1) "You do not get to limit this discussion by requiring that we only objection on your terms." I'm asking you to object to the sources. If you can't object to the quality of the sources, please explain why this article - being part of an encyclopedia - should not include and account for the viewpoint those sources represent.

2) The CNBC piece is clearly an opinion source. Vice is also known to have a "slight to moderate" left bias. The only source offered for the "alt-right" assertion which could be considered neutral is the Times of Israel piece.

3) Point taken re: platform. Instead of "critics" then "others" or other language.

4) "reliable, non-opinion sources do not claim that the site's stated mission of advocating for free speech is incompatible with being a platform for the alt-right, etc." ...but it has been described as both a platform for free speech and a platform for the alt-right. The new, objective, reliable sources I have introduced which you are unable to object to all state that it is a free speech platform and aims to be such. Not including the "free speech" component because you want to keep the "alt-right" front and center is also editorializing. The current wording of the article emphasizes alt-right and de-emphasizes free speech. I am trying to create balance.

5) "If reliable sources do not state as a fact that these two things are incompatible, neither should Wikipedia." You're asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether they are incompatible, the question is what the service actually is. That is disputed. The service itself argues it is a free speech haven. Critics call it an alt-right haven. See BBC "Free Speech Haven or Alt-Right Safe Space?", [[The Hill] describes the site as a "free speech alternative" to Twitter (link), as did the Newsweek, Yahoo/Huffpo, Washington Times and Gizmodo pieces.

The current lede says "It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech...Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." That's half correct. It is true that Gab promotes itself as supporting free speech. It is also true that Gab has been described by neutral third persons as a platform for free speech, which happens to be the view the company provides, and by other neutral third persons as a platform for the alt right. Generally the people who give it one description are not inclined to give it the other description. I've now provided numerous reliable, neutral, third party sources that show Gab has been described by persons other than itself as a free speech platform. It is high time those sources and the views they express were represented fairly in the lede. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The free speech bit is in the lede. It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech. You have just admitted neutral sources describe the company either as promoting free speech OR as a platform for the alt-right. Both of those views can co-exist in the lede, and actually must coexist in the lede per WP:NPOV. Calling one "critics" is not neutral. There is no problem here. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree we can drop the word critics. However there is a difference between saying "the company promotes itself as a free speech platform + third parties call it alt right" and "the company promotes itself as a free speech platform + third parties call it a free speech platform or alt right." The first version is prejudicial to the company by making it seem like independent sources don't buy the free speech narrative. The second version is fairer. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree with you, and we are here to state facts, not to promote a company in its best light, but I have no problem if you want to add other third-parry sources after the "promotes itself as a free speech platform" sentence. SportingFlyer talk 02:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

"Gab is a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based social networking service formerly based in Austin, Texas.[1][2] Gab promotes itself and has been described as a "free speech alternative to Twitter"[3][4][5][6][Plus BBC and The Hill, so [7] [8] too]. It has also been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right. It allows its users to read and write messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs". The site also offers multimedia functionality." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with this reasoning, although it's a step in the right direction. Not every aspect of this site is a defining characteristic. So let's go through which reliable sources say it's a free speech platform and evaluate for WP:DUE:

• The BBC source doesn't say this. It phrases this as an unanswered question as a rhetorical device, and quotes Torba's claims that it is about free speech. This has already been established.
• The Hill article says Gab.ai, a “free speech” alternative to Twitter, does not enforce any form of “community standard.” The use of quotation marks cannot be ignored. Who is being quoted? Presumably it is Gab itself, which is again, already established. The paragraph contextualizes Gab as being filled with conspiracy theories and says If bad speech drives out good in the absence of community standards, most people will not use the platform. The paragraph is the only mention of Gab in the source. What is this source, judged by itself, saying about Gab?
• The Newsweek source is explicitly about The conflict over Gab’s credibility as a “free speech” website... This is about the site's hosting problems and their banning of weev. Again, it uses quotes and cites PR from the site itself. It's a complicated issue which is clearly not taken at face value by the source. It also directly and repeatedly compares Gab to Daily Stormer, and not favorably. They are not calling Daily Stormer a free speech platform (nobody is calling it that) they are saying that hosting the site is a free speech issue. This may be true, but is a very different thing.
• The Gizmodo source is more plausible. I think a case could be made that, like the Newsweek one, it's about the site's infrequent censorship, not about it's free speech, but the context does support the "free speech" description: But while Gab might claim to be the most active site that lets users write whatever they hell they want, it’s still a website. Websites have guidelines, and guidelines are made to be enforced. Gab’s rules are fairly unsurprising: No doxxing, revenge porn, credible threats, spam, or selling drugs or weapons. So far, it’s already banned three users—and the long waiting list means a banned user can’t immediately return. I reject the idea that we have to take tongue-in-cheek description at face value. We stick to sources, but we don't have to play stupid to obvious sarcasm or irony. The Gizmodo article uses scare-quotes around "censorship" and describes Gab's contempraries as clamoring to be the Most Free for free speech absolutists. Like I said, we have to pay attention to context. It's also worth noting that this was January 2017, and both the site, and its coverage, has changed since then. This is a problem with many of the article's sources, but that's a separate issue.
• If you're concerned about bias, citing an opinion from Washington Times is pretty silly, but regardless, it would only belong with attribution, as already mentioned.
• The Yahoo article is also about the Weev incident, like the Newsweek one. It quotes a Gab exec as claiming it's about free speech, and says the site's hosting difficulties raise "questions" about free speech online, but this all seems far too abstract when taken out of context.
• The Huffington Post article is a republication of the Yahoo article. They are functionally the exact same source.
• If I had a nickel for every time someone tried to use mediabiasfactcheck on a talk page... well, I'd have a few bucks at least. Even if that site were reliable, which I do not accept, the "bias" of a site isn't the issue. It's possible for left, right, or center sources to be reliable. Regardless, the Vice article very clearly attributes the free speech claims to Gab and nobody else. The source also cites the conference paper discussed earlier, which is useful. It quotes from the paper's summary: "while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its Alt-right users hide". The pretty clearly summarizes the underlying issue, and it the sources were stronger, I would propose including that quote in this article.

Did I miss any? Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, and agree we're getting somewhere. Let me chew on your comments and will come back in a few days. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I've restored far-right to the lede, and I think we need to add the recent events including PayPal's banning and loosing their provider. Note that being a free speech site and far-right are not contradictory. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The controversy escalated rather quickly - I support this generally. SportingFlyer talk 09:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And, no surprise, it's gone so the first para just presents GAB's views, with others relegated to the second paragraph. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of intervening changes to the second paragraph. I have tried to ensure that the viewpoints are all contained in the second paragraph, with undisputed information only in the first. I disagree that the term "far-right" belongs in the lede. Simply because a number of the site's users are far-right does not make it a far-right site. The references reflect the two-sided nature of the debate about Gab and who uses it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This page appears to be somewhat controversial. I do not wish to add more controversy but to at least add balance. I too disagree that the term far-right belongs in the first paragraph, and a bit more objectivity should be inserted to compensate for the obvious emotional reactions Gab apparently produces in some editors. I have (naively) attempted to add two pieces of information. First addition was to the first paragraph that clarified Gab's stated purpose as 'free speech' rather than simply regurgitated what some press reports have labelled it as 'alt-right haven'. The second addition (actually made first) was to add a reference to the email sent to Gab users reiterating Gab's policy against violence or inciting violence. I found a copy of the email posted on Medium and cited it there but this was felt to be 'unreliable' despite the fact that none other than NPR used the same reference ( see https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste ). As if to confirm the conservative claims of liberal bias, my additions were immediately reversed without plausible reason. One claim was 'false reference' which was absurd. Another labelled my additions or reversal of reversals 'vandalism'. I leave the history log to the viewers' honest review. As a new Wiki editor, I apologize in advance for any faux pas or lack of fancy markup Dell Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by DellAnderson (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No bias here, but Medium is not a WP:RS. SportingFlyer talk 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad that you have no bias, but how else do we explain the clear anti-Gab tone of this entire Gab Wiki page? So what if Medium is not considered a fully WP:RS? Does that make information the email Gab members (such as myself) received any less true than claims that Gab is purely an Alt-Right platform? Does all news need to be laundered by the Washington Post / NYT / San Francisco Chronicle to be considered a WP:RS? What if it was just a book published by some human author? Could we cite it then? If so, we have a real problem and Wikipedia will lose relevance. I am asking seriously, not to cause argument but to add illumination. Do all Wikipedia pages really have no statements on them without WP:RS citations? If so, I must have hallucinated quite a few things I read on WP over the years. When news is breaking fast, even the major media seem to have questionable ability to elicit real from fake news. However, in the case of Gab no one has even attempted to claim that the email received by Gab members did not occur - they have only critiqued my use of Medium as a convenient reference for the text in that email. Using the WP:RS criterion, no email notification whatsoever will ever be mentioned on WP. Is that the goal? --DellAnderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by DellAnderson (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as Medium are generally assumed to be unreliable. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Also I believe interest in this article has surged in the past couple days due to the tragedy, but there was already an ongoing discussion about how to maintain the WP:NPOV of the article. Considering the article is now news, it's going to be much harder to do now unfortunately... SportingFlyer talk 02:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

DellAnderson, please see Help:Signature.

There are multiple issues here. Yes, generally, all information added to articles should be sourced. Sometimes, for non-controversial things, sources have not been added yet, but the idea is still that it should be added eventually. Wikipedia also strongly favors third-party sources when available.

The first time the email was added, it had no verifiable source at all. The Medium link does resolve that.

Reliability isn't the only concern. I accept that the Medium page is from Gab, and that the email was sent to users. Context matters, and for this very specific context, Gab is a reliable source for Gab. That does not mean the information must be included.

Not every piece of information which can be sourced belongs in an article. The article already explains that Gab denounced violence and handed the information to the authorities. Why repeat it? Most websites send out emails to their users frequently, so why does this email matter?

As has already been mentioned, Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, so why are we using a primary source to include redundant information? If independent sources don't seem to think this is worth mentioning, why should Wikipedia? Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. And I am glad that we agree that Gab is a reliable source for Gab and that the Medium page is from Gab. So that leaves us to discuss whether the WP:NPOV requires that we mention the content of the email sent to uses October 28, 2018 following the Synagogue tragedy. You state that the article explains that Gab denounced violence and handed information to the authorities, why repeat it? Are you referring to the Wikipedia article or to the email/Medium statement? If the former, I find only brief mention of sharing information with the authorities, and the word "violence" is only used three times in the Wikipedia article, two of those times had negative bias against the company (mention of Google and PayPal dropping service). The third mention of violence was a rather bland statement of Gab's policy and did not reflect the tone of the recent email sent to Gab users and published on Medium strongly rejecting violence or incitation to violence of any kind and outlining in some detail Gab's voluntary cooperation with authorities regarding the suspect shooter's account on Gab. You are correct that the WP article does briefly mention Gab's actions regarding the shooter in the Synagogue shooting section, but in such a way that it is easily overwhelmed by negative bias statements such as "despite backlash" & "investors cut ties". These Wikipedia phrases imply that the company was formed specifically to promote Far Right agenda. Do we have any solid WP:RS for that?

Style and tone matter, and it is impossible to get it perfectly, but it seems clear from the strong efforts to block references to the full Gab statement/email and the introductory paragraph labeling Gab as a "far right American Social Network" are both inaccurate and intentionally biased against the company. Senator Hayakawa's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa ) book "Language in Thought and Action) has a lot to say about the importance of looking at topics from a different perspective and avoiding terminology loaded with unnecessary connotations.

The topic of how to represent a company claiming to promote free speech is perhaps more important than just the company's reputation. It has implications for the viability and definition of free speech and its relevance in a democracy.

One of the editors who reversed one of my edits claimed that my changing the first paragraph to state that Gab was formed as a free speech alternative to Twitter falsely implied that Twitter was not a free speech platform. His/Her implication was that Twitter really is a free speech platform. This is a key issue in this entire discussion which some commenters have addressed above and others ignored, but must be addressed head on.

Twitter and Facebook have been accused (and even acknowledged in some cases) shadowbanning. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning ) Do we have any such evidence of shadow banning on Gab? More specifically has there been any Gab shadowbanning of liberal or Left wing viewpoints? If not, how can we honestly state that Gab is an Alt-Right platform rather than simply a free speech platform where many Alt Right persons banned on more liberal media have found refuge? This may seem like a minor distinction, but it is critically important to those who support free speech. And yes, I appreciate the argument that free speech and Alt Right platform are NOT mutually incompatible, but it is not clear how a "pure" free speech platform would differ from Gab. In other words, is it possible to have a free speech platform and not be smeared with the "Alt-Right" label? A truly WP:NPOV would acknowledge that Gab is doing everything it can to be free speech for all viewpoints rather than tar-and-feather it for allowing free speech with the inevitable collection of criminals.

The Gab email was especially relevant to the recent Synagogue shooting because it reminded readers that both Facebook (which streamed live murder) and Twitter (which ignored violent threats of the alleged bomber https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/28/twitter-apologizes-for-ignoring-apparent-threat-in-tweet/amp/ ) have had online criminal behavior yet both Facebook and Twitter continue to have wide spread financial support, while Gab is deplatformed, presumably because it is perceived as inclusive of conservative viewpoints. While the marketplace is free to have such bias, it need not be regurgitated as fact on WP. Nor should alternate viewpoints of Gab be repeatedly suppressed.

For example, the first sentence states "Gab is a far right[5][6][7][8] American social networking service[1][7][9], created as an alternative to Twitter which promotes itself as supporting free speech"

Grammatically, the sentence is poorly written (the phrase 'which promotes itself as supporting free speech) is ambiguous in reference: Gab or Twitter? Secondly, the statement "Gab is a far right..." is misleading (as has been discussed ad nauseum above yet without rational resolution.

The bias is clear. WP:NPOV is absent. How can we address it? For example, there was at least one compromise on this talk page that seemed perfectly acceptable which presented factual statements about Gab in the first sentence without unwarranted negative connotations, yet they were rejected. The reasons offered were as bias filled as the statement itself.

The omission of the email (which we both accepted) is relevant context to the Synagogue shooting section as it is not only timely but frames Gab's response more accurately than the negative bias implied by the statements that remain. Can we consider including some form of reference to it or Gab's clearly stated opposition to violence?

This is clearly not a settled topic and will be difficult to resolve if fellow editors cannot step outside their viewpoint.

DellAnderson (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is an article with a much more neutral point of view (surprising since Vox is usually Leftist). While Gab has attracted users on the Right who have been kicked off other platforms, the Gab site itself is apolitical. Fnordware (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

While Gab might not outright ban left-leaning individuals, its downvote function enables its users to drive people they don't like out of the platfrom. Why do you think women are driven off the platfrom in the first place? This is the definiton of an echo chamber.

Twitter cannot be called an alt-right platfrom because it shows effort in actively combating alt-right users spewing speech based on racial and sexual hatred. This effort is never shown on Gab. In fact Torba himself stated that all froms of offensive racial and sexual speech is "free speech" and are welcomed on the platform. Well. All free speech shall take consequences. As a result Gab's most followed users are entirely composed of alt-right figureheads and Neo-nazi fascists. This directly reflect that, Gab is a de facto platfrom of the alt-right. The article should accurately show Gab's current userbase and should not be whitewashed. Tsumikiria (T/C) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that the downvote feature was removed in Spring 2017. I agree downvoting would tend to lead to an echo chamber, but downvoting itself is not inherently Left or Right. If the Wikipedia article had a source that opined Gab.com was an echo chamber, it could be included. The standard that "Twitter cannot be called an alt-right platfrom because it shows effort in actively combating alt-right users" is unreasonable. You are saying Gab is guilty by association, guilty for what they HAVEN'T done. You clearly have a non-neutral point of view about Gab.com and the Right, alt-Right, etc., and of course that is fine. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a Neutral Point of View and this one does not. Fnordware (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Gab, not Twitter. Yeah, Twitter does have hate speech which goes largely ignored. We have many articles on Twitter.

The phrase "free-speech platform" keeps coming up in this talk page. I don't know what calling the site a free-speech platform is supposed to tell readers. It sounds nice, but means different things to different people, so it's not very useful for an encyclopedia. Anyway, if sources say a site if X, than Wikipedia will say it's X. If Gab is identified for what they intentionally haven't done, so be it. Gab may say the site's politically agnostic, but companies say lots of things. We're interested in how reliable sources describe the site. Even before the shooting, the consistent thread among sources was the site's embrace of it's alt-right users. The Vox source repeatedly emphasizes this, also. Even if that's not a fair summary, it's really hard to deny this is what sources are saying. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible source, maybe future article

Reason Magazine - Gab Dumped by Tech Companies Over Synagogue Shooter Posts but Twitter, Facebook, and Other Social-Media Giants Get a Pass https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/29/gab-shuts-down-after-synagogue-shooting

D.Creish (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a non-WP:RS which also appears to fail WP:NPOV, I would not include it in the article. SportingFlyer talk 23:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This source has an image with hammer and sickles and logos of other tech giants photoshopped together. It virtually screams conserative bias. Not recommendable as a source. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

...the magazine's contributors included Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Szasz and Thomas Sowell.[[2]]

Those are some credible and heavy-duty contributors. They just happen to be conservative.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's, at best, a WP:NEWSBLOG. Even if you feel that Reason's non-blog sections would pass WP:RS, that one definitely doesn't. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. The magazine has a circulation of around 50,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.

It's solidly a "monthly magazine" that was founded in 1968.

"Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander"

Not saying it's "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, however I am saying it's reliability has not been "debunked" by the previous statements. You'll have to do more research, and actually prove the point.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This assumes all sources are reliable until they are "debunked," when in fact the opposite is true - if you think this is a WP:RS, you'll have to argue for it. SportingFlyer talk 01:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry my hasty comment caused confusion. Reason is indeed a respected magazine but the short blog post I linked is interesting but marginal. I meant to suggest we watch, in case it develops into a fuller article. D.Creish (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I get the general idea that a "blog post" has less credibility than a full-on magazine article. Does the author's credibility enter into the equation? Is this author credible, and if so, does her credibility allow us to use content from her blog post?Tym Whittier (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)