Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Looking to modify the current description of Gab with a more accurate, less biased description. This looks awful on Wikipedia: "Gab is an American microblogging Internet service, known for its mainly far-right user base. The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right."

Try: "Gab is a newly-founded American social media Internet service dedicated to "preserving individual liberty, the freedom of speech, and the free flow of information on the internet.'"

Because your original description makes you look as fanatic as CNN, and why you're not getting another cent from me if this is how you treat people with different points of view. 24.233.173.169 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - No rationale or citation for this. Brigading the article will not change this.--Jorm (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Slander about Dissenter

"It was developed to allow its users to avoid websites' moderation practices, which sometimes involve removal of individual comments or deleting or disabling comment sections altogether." I think this is an inaccurate description. Dissenter is a completely separate comments section, one that simply allows Gabbers to comment on any URL. Many other services (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) offer similar functionality, with Twitter allowing a search of all public tweets that link to a specific URL, just not as straightforward as Dissenter. A better explanation is this: "It was developed to allow its users to comment without registering for accounts on individual sites, which may exclude a comment section, may have a biased moderation team, or may have a stricter comment policy." There are creators and sites that will delete any comment that is not a "yes man" comment, so any opposing views are filtered out. We also see social media sites targeting individuals with opposing, but non-violent, perspectives. This censorship is unhealthy, and it's one of the reasons why Gab exists. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please provide references that support your position. We can talk then. Until then, there will be no changes.--Jorm (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the term "avoid websites' moderation practices" means the exact same thing as "avoid website's censorship". There's a fine line between the two, but it's obvious that Twitter and Facebook are no longer "moderating", and have gone "all in" for censoring it's Users based, not on violations of the Terms of Service, but because of their dissident ideological positions. That's not moderation, that's censorship. However, Jorm is right; we need sources before a real discussion can even happen on this issue. If there are no sources to assert that censorship is censorship, the Article can't say it.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious to you, maybe. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Private websites deciding what they wish to allow and disallow on their site is not "censorship". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. That would normally be true if the "moderation" were applied consistently, however when the "moderation" policies allow some group to violate ToS, and other groups are silenced, that's "censorship". It's the additional component of ignoring their own standards that makes "censorship" a more appropriate word than "moderation". Example, if the ToS said something like "Twitter will suspend any alt-right account that annoys us" and then they did just that, I'd call that "moderation", but IMO as it is now, they have objective-sounding standards on the one hand, but on the other hand they silence speech that conforms to those standards, based on ideology. It's a nuanced distinction, and admittedly weak (meaning most people might not agree, because most people don't "drill down" and think about things like this. It's my opinion, it attempts to be precise, it's the best word choice, and this is an encyclopedia, which to me means it's worth the extra effort to carefully consider these critical word choices, for the benefit of the Reader, etc...Tym Whittier (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixing this article so it stops reading like a hit job

This is a perfectly suitable opening paragraph:

Gab is an American microblogging Internet service, known for its mainly users supporting free speech. Gab is also developing a web browser called Dissenter The microblogging site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.

Just because you can find a quote finding a negative opinion about someone or something doesn't make it reasonable to include it in the opening sentence or every politician's entry would also read like a hit job. This article would still be far from neutral even with my suggested change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetdeet (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Neutrality" does not mean to have no viewpoint. In fact, the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view specifically says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The vast majority of independent, reliable sources that discuss Gab discuss it in the context of its far-right userbase and content, and so this article reflects that. While Gab themselves might prefer the article portray them as a website for "free speech" and all that, that is not how they are described by independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Split conversation about the term "microblogging" to section below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To call ALL 850,000 users (as of a few months ago) "far-right" is what this article is suggesting in the current language of the opening sentence. That doesn't make sense. I'm not saying we need to follow Gab's self-description, but it should carry some weight. I think the best way to know if someone was a white supremacist, for example, is they simply tell you that because real ones never hid it ... as opposed to others suggesting those kinds of labels. In any event, it is simply wrong to suggest the entire user base is "far-right". Deet (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deet deet: The intro says known for its mainly far-right user base (emphasis mine). It does not claim every single user is far-right. Also, Wikipedia absolutely describes people as white supremacists who themselves do not use that label—again, Wikipedia goes by what reliable, independent sources say, not what subjects say about themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me any data showing >50% of the user base is actually "far-right"? Deet (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give you the sources that are in the article (and more, if you really insist) that describe the userbase as "far-right". If anything this article is less harsh than the sourcing in painting all of the users with that brush. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can give you an article from yesterday that describes Wikipedia as "leftist-dominated" with "zealous administrators and editors" (Google: ‘Click-Gap’ Is Facebook’s Latest Tool to Favor Establishment Media) but those opinions do not mean we should change the opening description of Wikipedia's own entry, even though this Wikipedia entry seems to be proving the linked article's description of Wikipedia. Deet (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an article that you couldn't even link to because the source as a whole is not allowed on Wikipedia for being so unreliable. Whereas Gab is repeatedly described as far-right in the majority of reliable sources, and so far as I've seen the ones don't describe that as such only omit the descriptor rather than refute it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please just make it neutral. Gab is not a far-right platform. As a Sanders supporter and Stallman follower I believe freedom of speech is just as important as freedom to read and freedom of thought. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral viewpoint online encyclopedia and I don't care that this comment will go through one ear and right out the other but this article is objectively NOT neutral. 158.140.206.170 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Microblogging

Moved from section above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the term "microblogging", and I liked the Lede better when it was a "social media platform" last month. I remember the big discussion we had a year ago on this question. Not sure how a better description got replaced by a weaker one. Could it be an attempt to diminish Gab's status as a comparable possible replacement for Twitter? Doesn't Gab itself explicitly name Twitter as it's competition? How many microblogs name Twitter or Facebook as their competition? Can someone define both and then differentiate between the two definitions? Was this done before the change? Gab allows you to send private messages. Do "microblogs" allow for this. Gab is also highly conversational, with upvotes and downvotes, etc... Very similar to function as Twitter. What's the best, most commonly "microblogging website", and how similar is it to Gab? Gab has "Groups" where people who share similar interests meet and discuss things. Do "microblogs" have this feature/function? Did someone swoop in and make this change and hope no one would notice? Who's the biggest advocate for this change? I'd like to have a discussion on this because the more I think about it, the less I think that advocate (whoever it is, IDK) has any experience with Gab.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Also, two of the three references given for the 1st sentence explicitly use the term "social media", and the third doesn't even have the word "microblog", so there are no sources for this word/term and change. I won't change it (risky), but someone else should.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Do you mind if I split the conversation about microblogging out into a separate section? It's worth having, but it's not really related to the topic here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and it would make things clearer. My primary gripe is with the use of the term "microblog", and also the process by which it was injected into the Article, as I find no Google Search results that have "Gab" and "microblog" in them. Thanks for asking. LOOK MA! I'm COLLABORATING!Tym Whittier (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like X-Editor changed the short description to say "microblogging service" and added the term to the lead here with the summary "Changed first sentence in the lede a bit to keep things consistent with other social network articles on Wikipedia". I agree that "social network" makes more sense to me, but I'm also not sure I'm really that clear on what a microblogging service is... Maybe they could weigh in with their reasoning for the change? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm puzzled because a brief look at his User Page indicates he's an experienced Editor and yet despite that he's swooped into an Article that's pretty active, made this arbitrary change, without Discussion and (worst) it's a very weak point, in the sense that no one but him, and two Wikipedia Articles (including this one) refers to Gab as a "microblog". I'm new, but I do remember reading something about how other Wikipedia Articles are not "Reliable Sources", so then that leaves "synth", which I understand is done, but only after solid consensus, since it's not directly sourced and effectively "paraphrased", which I recognize is at sometimes necessary. But there virtually all of the RS describes Gab as a "social media" platform/website, which makes X-Editor's action in this Article all the more confusing and I'd wish he's show up and explain himself soon, or failing that, revert to the old way and THEN have the discussion, but this change seems unilateral, unsourced, synth, or even OR. The fact that it was done by an experienced Editor with no previous experience in this Article makes me wonder if his account was hacked.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: The reason why I changed it to say it is an "American microblogging Internet service" was to keep the article consistent with other articles and also because there was a discussion to change it to say that and to remove the "far-right" part of the first sentence, and so I thought a good compromise would be changing it to say it is a microblogging service, but keep the "far-right" part. But now I recognize that most sources, including the ones listed after the first sentence of the lede, don't really say that it is a microblogging service and instead mainly say it is a social media platform and that saying it is a microblogging service is original research. I'm sorry for the mistake I made and i'm sorry for not getting consensus first, but it's very rude of you to assume my account was hacked (it wasn't). Also, it is utterly false that I haven't had any previous experience in editing the article, I've been editing the article for months and have made 158 edits to it. I have also edited this talk page 34 times and have previously started discussions here as well.[1][2] X-Editor (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that it's odd to jump to "his account was hacked". It's not unusual to make an uncontentious change to an article without reaching consensus first—we'd probably never get anything done if every wording tweak required consensus. Now that you've reverted the change, we can discuss (per WP:BRD) and reach a decision—though it seems X-Editor is agreeing with the change back to "social media website". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

After careful consideration and waiting a period of time, I've "reverted" the Lede back to "English-language social media website". If X-Editor wants to defend his change, they can do so here. Tym Whittier (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: They? I'm not a group, I'm just a single person. X-Editor (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Tym is likely using the singular they... GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Antisemitism is a prominent"

"Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content" Really depends on your definition of the word "prominent".

For me, "prominent" is more of a visual word regarding the placement and size of an image, so in this respect using that word to describe text that some might describe as "anti-semitic" seems clunky and inelegant, like a mixed metaphor. Example you won't find a lot of "anti-semitism" by browsing to Gab's "Home" page (the most common starting point on any website). Sure it might be there, along with the other 98% of the content, which means it's "not prominent". If Wikipedia wants to offer some moral condemnation to the anti-semitism, I wouldn't object to that (given popular opinion, etc...), but there's "neutral POV" and then there's bad and inelegant wordsmithing used to imply the idea that antisemitism is a large and prominent picture, and not a thought, idea, series of thoughts, that is repeated so often that it takes up the most of the dialogue. In fact, a substantial number of Gab Users are anti-anti-semitic and will block you for anything they perceive as anti-semitic. FYI, there are actual, bona-fide Jews on Gab. Which, as I think about it might be interesting if RS could be found to provide some balance to the "Gab is an anti-semitic website" narrative. In short, the ratio of anti-semites to anti-anti-semites is about 1:1, and neither of them are "prominent". They're all part of a very large mix. Diversity is Gab's strength. I've realized that the consensus in general to shade Gab as "anti-semitic" has already been achieved, but even within that context, there should be limits, if for no other reason than it's simply bad writing, as well as not accurate.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Prominent - highly noticeable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does not address my primary point, that there is a difference between being "visually" noticeable, and being intellectually noticeable by reading text. Your version assumes that it's "noticeable" without looking for anti-semitism. My point is that you have to actually look for it. If there were a large banner at the top of the page that said "Welcome to Gab, We Hate Jews", I'd agree with "prominent".Tym Whittier (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: That's not what our reliable sources say. At Wikipedia, we base our content on what reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

One source uses the word "prominent". I object to the use of the word "prominent", and gave reasons for it. There are other sources and other ways to characterize Gab in the way that you want without the use of this word "prominent". Your response does not mention the word "prominent" and instead talks about something else, which I agree with, but that has nothing to do with my point.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning is based on your own perception of the site, which is not useful here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's cool that you think this, but you're in the minority, and we're not going to rehash this. Again. I suppose it sucks if you use gab and come here and realize that you're hanging out with Nazis and don't want to believe that, but here we are. In Germany, there is a saying: What do you call it when ten people are sitting at a table with a Nazi? Eleven Nazis.--Jorm (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you determine consensus if the conversation doesn't happen? Also, thank you for stating your position so clearly. Are there any Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines that determine when a minority defines the whole group, and when they do not? Example could I apply this line of reasoning to Islam?Tym Whittier (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to teach you how Wikipedia works, Tym. You waste enough editor time as it is with your bad-faith attempts and wiki-lawyering.--Jorm (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club."[3]Tym Whittier (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy enough to wordsmith things if you feel the wording is clunky, but the statement should not be removed. The antisemitism on the site is a prominent topic in multiple reliable sources, so it should be included in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree, or at least acknowledge that I have a valid point, on the idea that the word "prominent" carries a "connotational load" that is primarily visual ("promontory"), that there exists patently, overtly racist websites that have racist images that are featured "prominently", that the metaphor can mislead the Reader to imagine that Gab is visually similar to those sites, and that if they/when they visit Gab themselves they will find a visual representation that is in direct contradiction to how it was (visually) characterized, in the Lede, in this Article? Note I'm not "arguing", I'm attempting to bring full resolution to this question so that I can move on to something else.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This isn't even English.--Jorm (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The question was obviously directed specifically to GorillaWarfare, who has very high reading comprehension skills. Also re: the sniping: Leadership is by Example.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that "prominent" implies anything visual. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Scholars" = Invisible People in Ivory Towers

Gab promotes itself as a vehicle for "free speech"; this self-promotion has been criticized by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide" and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination I don't mind the assertion that single, or multiple academics may have at some time characterized Gab this way; but I think that for this to be included in the Lede requires more detail, meaning the actual name of some noteworthy scholar. Leaving the "scholars" unnamed creates the impression that 1) there is a unified front of "scholars", which I doubt (although it's possible given that in today's current political climate a scholar that might support Gab could lose their job), but also two, it requires a certain amount of faith that this group of scholars were not cherry-picked by a journalist (or NGO, or whoever) with a story (or narrative) to write, and an agenda. I just think there should be some names. Or, as an alternative, the Article could make the general statement in the Lede, and then reconnect to the idea further down the Article with a section titled something like "Reaction to Gab by Scholars" where more detailed information on who they are, and what they said could be made. As it stands right now, it's an ambiguous assertion that means little and has no support in the body of the Article. The Lede is supposed to be a summarization of the whole Article, so this ambiguous, unsupported and free-standing assertion diminishes, rather than improves, the Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• The scholarship, in the form of at least two peer reviewed papers, is literally referenced in the sentence you're quoting. All you have to do is hover your mouse over the reference and the footnote comes up (at least on desktop) allowing you to see the list of authors and has a link to the scholarship. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd seen this study before, have some initial concerns about it, and need some time to think they through before posting them here. Please keep this section "unarchived" until I'm able to post those concerns and initiate a discussion.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The bot auto-archives talk page sections after a period of time elapses and if there are subsequent discussions on the page, but feel free to pull it back out from the archives and onto the talk page again if that happens. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I did not know you could do that (without getting into trouble). There's been some good stuff get archived prematurely IMO, and I didn't know this option existed. Sometimes I think the Discussion Pages are more important in terms of providing information (or at least questions) to the Reader than the Articles themselves.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it should generally be avoided, but if you're going to need a while you can do it. The bot only archives discussions after they've been dormant for ten days, so typically the best thing to do is let them stay in the archive and just provide a link to the archived discussion when you restart an old conversation. I suspect if you try to unarchive old discussions without adding to them much, or just to keep them on the talk page for no other purpose than to have them remain here, you will be reverted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to let the current dispute on the Lede on Dissident being banned run it's course before loading up the cannon on these scholars.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lede

I propose changing the lede to say:

Gab is an American microblogging Internet service, known for its mainly far-right user base and for promoting itself as a vehicle for "free speech".[a][11] The site has been described by media outlets as "extremist friendly"[12] or a "safe haven"[13] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right,[12] while the site has described itself as "an ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online."[14] The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs".[15] It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.[16]

Gab's self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticized by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"[10] and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".[17]

Gab is just as well known for being a vehicle for "free speech" as it is a site with a mainly "far-right" user base. Them being pro-free speech is mentioned in the titles of 4 media outlet articles[4][5][6][7] as well as in the title of a scholarly article[8], which are all sourced in the Wikipedia article. Most of the sources in the Wikipedia article also mention their free speech stance, even if the writers of the articles disagree with their stance or think their stance is "less a principle than a smokescreen."

Most of the sources in the article as well as the ones sourced in the lede, are media outlets saying it is "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right, while gab itself says it is "an ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online." This gives the reader two different perspectives on Gab (one from external sources and one from Gab itself) and lets the reader make up their mind on which one they think most accurately describes Gab, kind of like how the Alex Jones article describes two different perspectives on his political views (one from Alex Jones himself and one from external sources). However, I think it would be better if Gab's perspective was backed up by external sources such as these ones[9][10] rather than their StartEngine page[11], which is a primary source. X-Editor (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, not enough prominence in reliable sources to warrant this in lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating further on the part about reliable sources? X-Editor (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. By my estimation most sources covering Gab will talk about its far-right antisemitic userbase rather than the free speech claims they make. Per WP:DUE, we should focus on what reliable sources talk about most. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

By my estimation most sources covering Gab will talk about both. Alex.osheter (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You've constructed it as either/or. "Either it's anti-semitic, or it's free speech, and since it's anti-semitic, it can't be free speech." It can be both. There can be mention that there actually is a legitimate free speech component to Gab, despite the fact that it's "known for...", etc... IMO.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Seconding Peter here. This would mean we validate dogwhistling advertisements as in equal prominence as our reliable sources, when the latter doesn't quite reflect it. Sources that raise the "free speech" tagline are, demonstrably, did not cover the subject in much depth. We already link to their homepage. Pasting their taglines here would not be appropriate. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed with PeterTheFourth and Tsumikiria. The sources that do use the "free speech" descriptor often do so in direct reference to how Gab describes itself, not as an outside observation of the site. Oppose this change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No and he's doing what looks like "bad faith" editing by attempting to shoehorn use of the word "microblogging service" by including it in with a bunch of other stuff, when I've already given a list of reasons why 1) that's not accurate 2) he probably knew it 3) he did it anyways 4) without discussion 5) there's ZERO RS for it 6) "Because it says so in other Wikipedia Articles is WRONG and 7) He knows that too, etc... I could go on, but I'd really rather focus on the Article. The New Guy shouldn't have to quote Wikipedia Policy to people who know better. Leadership is by example.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: The fact that you're acting increasingly rude towards me despite the fact that I admitted to making a terrible mistake just shows that you are acting in bad faith. X-Editor (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: I could be mistaken, but given that X-Editor agreed with your suggestion above to change the terminology back to "social media website" and given that they didn't bold it as a change in this suggested paragraph, I think it may have been a copy-and-paste error and that is not a part of the changes they're suggesting. Please try to assume a little more good faith here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I'll back down. This is why I walk away from this Article for weeks at a time. Tym Whittier (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User talk:X-Editor. Deet (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edited Lede to rephrase banning of dissenter language and added balancing comment from Founder Torba

In April 2019 Dissenter was removed from the Firefox Add-ons website and the Chrome Web Store for what a Mozilla spokesperson said was a violation of their rules against hate speech. Gab founder Andrew Torba said in a statement that Dissenter had been blocked by tech companies that “want to destroy free expression online.”

The original was paraphrased and made more general ("policies"), while the Mozilla spokesman's comment was explicitly detailed, and therefore better. I found nothing from Chrome in the source, and so let Mozilla do the talking. Also for balance I included a quote ("destroy", etc...) from Torba from the same source. "Being bold", "good faith", etc... and prepared for the fallout. Bring it, lol...Tym Whittier (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have undone your change. You change introduces weasel words to soften the statement.--Jorm (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jorm's action. "for what a Mozilla spokesperson said was a violation of their rules against hate speech" seems to imply that it was not a violation, but the spokesperson just said it was, which is not supported by any independent sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You both seem to be missing: 1) two points on the issue of the "claim" aspect, and 2) another is that neither of you mentioned including Torba's response for balance. Point #1 is that the original text is not backed up by the source, leading the Reader to believe that both "Big Tech" companies said it, or the Journalist said it. Neither of them actually said it. My quoted text is what was said, and my edit clarified this, to the benefit of the Reader. The Article was improved. Also to the point of "weasel words", my language is explicitly sourced, vs. the original which was a synthetic and more-ambiguous paraphrase, so to the issue of "weasel" ("some tech companies said something"), the original is more weasel-y and my text is less, by providing more details and verifiable facts. The added kicker regarding a "claim vs actual" violations of terms of service, well we've been down a very long road on this with regard to Gab's "claims" of being free speech vs. whether or not it actually is, and the current consensus has been, and continues to be, that Gab only claims things, while the big tech companies that are in opposition to Gab always report what is actually happening. But an invitation to a discussion where this can be explicitly stated is ignored (see above). Big Tech's claims are always an actual description of what took place, and Gab never does anything but make claims. The Gab community is very large (tens of thousands), which implies that they must be quite delusional to continue to participate in a social media platform that does anything other than what is merely "claimed", while hiding their true nefarious purpose by using their claim of free speech as a metaphoric "shield". Meaning, if we were talking about a handful (5. 50, maybe.) of fringe nutjobs, we could stay consistent with "claim" for everything that Gab says, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people. There's SOMETHING legitimate here; tens of thousands of people demonstrate this every day, with their time investment, their donations as members, and their donations directly to the project, which is on the order of a million dollars. My point is that at some point even a fringe organization reaches a point where some credibility must be afforded by Wikipedia in order to maintain neutrality, and Gab has crossed that point, IMO. But my change had nothing to do with this. That's just simply true. The quote is an explicit copy and paste of what was published by RS, and my arguments regarding "what the Reader might interpret" with regard to word choice, quotes, etc... (such as "prominent") seem to get shot down regularly and consistently. So on this specific question of interpretation (direct quote vs. scare quotes) the consensus here seems to be part of a consistently selective pattern. They're called "scare quotes" if it serves one purpose, and they are direct quotes if it serves another, and there are no quotes (meaning it just IS, with wikipedia's voice), if it serves yet another purpose, and the choice in making an interpretation seems to be based on something other than balance. I leave what that might be to the imagination. To point #2, the fact that Torba's quote was left off when the addition was made, seems unbalanced and biased at the outset. Whoever dropped that quote saw Torba's response in the exact same RS, and chose to not include it for balance. It seems to me that in any other Article, being written by any other group of Editors, this balancing quote would be mandatory and expected. Not here, it seems. Here, the whole edit was reverted, and no discussion to my 2nd point, which is that Torba's response affords a minimum, and necessary level of balance, particularly when you consider that when previous consensus merged Gab and Dissenter together, it limited how much information about Dissenter can be included (given that it must share the same Article space with Gab). This concern was raised in the discussion on merge, and as predicted, here it is. Given that's in the Lede, the need for balance is even more important, since many Readers (particularly those that know more about Gab than the Editors writing the Article, and the Journalists writing the reliable sources) may lose interest and stop reading, which is in direct contradiction of the idea of maintaining Reader interest, unless the consensus is that a Reader's interest is maintained, by casting Gab in as negative light as possible, and selectively interpreting and enforcing standards to achieve this objective. Most Readers I know want to know about both sides of any given controversy. Okay that's what I've got. FIRE!Tym Whittier (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no universe in which I am reading that ranting wall of text.--Jorm (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all summed-up in the first sentence. Here, let me post it just the first sentence, to make it easier for you to read:

"You both seem to be missing: 1) two points on the issue of the "claim" aspect, and 2) another is that neither of you mentioned including Torba's response for balance."Tym Whittier (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

At 792 words, this personal essay is better off sent to the journalists who wrote the cited articles or posted on Dissenter itself rather than on Wikipedia, for which we'd require requisitioning the Summit for this thread to continue. Under no circumstance would this idiosyncratic and bizarre personal soapboxing be displayed alongside our peer-reviewed papers and other reliable sources. You must quit this soapboxing, for you may have crossed the threshold long ago. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is complaining, invective and/or pejorative considered a constructive response to a content concern?Tym Whittier (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Far-right microblogging Internet service is inaccurate.

There is no source that defines Gab as a far-right microblogging service. This is an unsourced claim. Widely popular among the far-right? Sure. But it's not a far-right social network. I've scanned the article for it, and this description is nowhere to be found.

• Gab is a new social network built like a hybrid of Twitter and Reddit -- NYTimes
• Gab is officially politically neutral and relatively close to the mainstream online ecosystem. -- The Verge
• [Gab is] a brand-new social media platform -- Wired
• Gab.ai, a 7-month-old social network -- Mic
• Upstart social network -- Buzzfeed News
• the freewheeling social media platform that has become an online hub for racists, anti-Semites and white nationalists. -- The Washington Post
• the Twitter-like social network -- Gizmodo

I'm also pinging @Tsumikiria:, who offered far-right "based on sources". Care to weigh in? Alex.osheter (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you started this separate section when 1) there is already a discussion section focusing on the use of the term "microblogging", 2) the Article already shows "social media" since I reverted it back, and 3) Unless you are challenging both "far-right" and "microblogging". If you are not challenging microblogging, I think it would be a good idea that you say so explicitly to avoid confusion and the possibility of it getting shoe-horned back in.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherrypicking parts of the sources that don't include "far-right" is not going to work here, sorry. Feel free to peruse the past discussions that have reached the consensus that "far-right" should be included—unless a whole wave of sources describing Gab as something else have appeared and I completely missed it, it's not going to change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you link the sources that do include "far-right"? Alex.osheter (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Do your own homework. Stop wasting other peoples' time.--Jorm (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I did, and presented my findings from the sources in the article. Your comment is neither constructive, nor necessary. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to go through the sources in the article or the conversations in the previous (now-archived) sections about this. The hypothetical wave of sources that describe Gab as something other than far-right do not exist, and so I am not willing to rehash this old, tired argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I did though. I went through the sources in the article and couldn't find what led to the concensus. I read the archived sections, and the sources used. It's not there, I can't find it. Alex.osheter (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It took me ten seconds to find this talk page discussion in the archives. Spend a little more time and I'm sure you'll find others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there's only one source that actually called it a "Far-Right Web Platform". If you want to stick to that source, you can change the whole sentence to "far right web platform". But you can't selectively pick and choose quotes to form a sentence. In general, it's best to stick to a concensus. Most sources, even the ones in your link describe it as a social network, but only one describes it as far right. You can call it 'alt-right', but again, there are only two sources that call it that. There are however, more sources than I can count that refer to it as a social network, and that seems to be a concensus. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The alt-right is part of the far-right. I already changed the short description to describe Gab as a "social media website"—that was already resolved in a past discussion and it seems the short description was simply missed when making the change.

Are you trying to claim that we cannot describe Gab both as "far-right" and as a "social network" because one source says it's a "far right web platform"? Wikipedia articles are not written as a collection of direct quotes, and "social network" and "web platform" are not mutually exclusive terms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite of what I'm claiming. If you're going to call it far-right, and base your entire intro on that one article - might as well quote it in full. But of course we won't do that. In cases where you have 5-6 sources calling it a social media platform / social network and only one calling it a "far right web platform", I think it's best to stick to the concensus in the sources. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. I'd be willing to match the short description to the current lead, though, if that's what you're after: "social media website known for its mainly far-right user base". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's exactly how sourcing works on Wikipedia. By focusing on one article instead of the 5 others (perhaps even more), you're giving undue weight to that one article. The source is reliable, but it holds a minority definition of the subject (it's the only one that defines it as such). Alex.osheter (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You should take your concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. You don't know what "undue weight" is, and you're trying to wikilawyer your bad ideas into being in the article. They will not be. You don't seem to grasp the inevitability of your failure. --Jorm (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Truth of the matter is only one source defines it as far-right. Period. That's a statement of fact. You can put words in my mouth, and assume stuff about me but I've reviewed every link that has been shared on the topic, and I've read the concensus discussion. Your hostility doesn't change that fact and is unwarranted. If you have nothing productive to say, don't comment. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point I can't tell what you're arguing against. I've offered to change the short description to "social media website known for its mainly far-right user base", does that not address your concerns? Or are you objecting to the inclusion of the term "far-right" in any form?? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No no, not at all. I was arguing the sourcing. Your newest edit "Gab is an English-language social media website known for its mainly far-right user base" is perfect IMO. Changing the short description to match the lead would be good idea as well. I still wish the NPR source wasn't there, because as stated in another section, it's basing its assumption on NYTimes. But it's a fair compromise. Thank you! @GorillaWarfare: Alex.osheter (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what were you arguing against before?? I have no idea what your concern was, if that edit (swapping the place of "mainly") resolved it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Goddammit. I'm too tired. @GorillaWarfare:, I owe you an apology. In the two sections we were discussing, I've had two main issues - One regarding circular sourcing, and one regarding phrasing in the short description. This one is about the short description, and your suggestion to make it similar to the lead would resolve this issue. I'm terribly sorry for wasting your time, and I should probably go get some sleep. Please change the short description per your offer so archive this section. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay... I'm still a little confused about what we were apparently discussing and not discussing, but I've made the change and am glad we came to an agreement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps I should try to work on getting my point across better. The discussion got sidetracked, but my initial complaint was that there were no sources which warrant labeling it a far-right microblogging service, because I couldn't find enough sources that define it as such (far-right implies it's for far-right users, and microblogging is mentioned nowhere). My suggestion was switching to a more agreeable definition that is shared by most reliable sources (they all list is as a social network/platform or a variation thereof, with each adding "BUT..(far-right/extremist/white nationalist/etc)"). Although there aren't plenty of sources that say its userbase is "mainly" far right (in fact, there's a scholarly source that directly analyzed the userbase and came to a similar, but slightly different conclusion - mostly conservative and male), it's technically a more correct definition because it is supported by sources. Accuracy matters. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So, at the end of the day Alex, what's your point? What's your thesis here? Are you still advocating change, and if so to what? I agree with a lot of what you say (process, background, etc..), but not necessarily your conclusion. I'm comfortable with "known for it's far-right users" because that's an open acknowledgement that what RS (aka "mass media") reports may be different than what the general public, or Gab's Users think. And it's a fair statement. What something is, and what it's "known for" can be two radically different things. If you are good with "known for far-right", we can hopefully archive this section and clean the place up a bit. There are other worlds than this.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe Alex has already said they're happy with this section being archived. I was just going to leave it for the bot to tidy up when the time elapses. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting review of some sources

This article seems to be suffering from Circular reporting and overall bad sourcing. There are several sources in this article that quote each other, these sources should be considered as one source.

Let's examine the very first line of the article: Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its mainly far-right user base. The sources for this claim are NYTimes, The Verge and NPR. However, only NYTimes and The Verge make this claim. The NPR article is quoting NYTimes. The Verge uses weasel words (see: WP:WEASEL) "Social network Gab.ai, known as an anything-goes haven for the far-right." and shouldn't be included in this claim at all unless it states by whom. As an aside, NYTimes doesn't make this claim this either, it just claims Gab is a digital safe space for the far-right, which doesn't necessarily mean it's known as mainly far-right user base. But that's a different discussion.

It'd be great if we could review the sources in this article for similar instances. Alex.osheter (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The NPR article makes the claim outside of the NYT quote. As for WP:WEASEL, that is a guideline for words to avoid when writing Wikipedia articles, not a guideline to do with external sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The NPR article most certainly does not make this claim. The second claim is describing the hashtag as appealing to the far right and those who have been banned from Twitter and Facebook Alex.osheter (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same NPR article? The one titled "Feeling Sidelined By Mainstream Social Media, Far-Right Users Jump To Gab"? Because it's right there in the title... Unless you're specifically disputing the inclusion of "mainly"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm mostly disputing the use of circular reporting. 'Far-Right Users Jump To Gab' is not a case for "known for" nor a case for "mainly". No journalist can know about mainly, and known for uses circular reporting. A better source would be one actually already in the article, which looked into the active users on the site. It's not some journo's opinion, it's an actual scholarly article that quantifies how many users there are. "We also show that the majority of Gab users are conservative, male, and Caucasian. Gab is also crowded by extremist users." Alex.osheter (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled in a cite from elsewhere in the article, which states quite clearly However, unlike Twitter, its user base mainly consists of people on the far right, many of whom joined after being banned from mainstream networks such as Facebook and Twitter. I've also undone your attempt to reword the sentence from "website known for its mainly far-right user base" to "website known mainly for its far-right user base". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! Then make that the source for that claim. This does not however detract from the fact I stated about circular sourcing. I suggest removing these three sources and replacing them with the one you found. Can we agree on that? Keep in mind however, your source does say "mainly" in regards to the userbase - not the notability. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No. We do not agree on that.--Jorm (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought about making the change, but honestly I can't stretch AGF that far. It seems like an attempt to allow others to later come in and claim that "far-right" is only supported by one source, and given your attempts to whitewash this page (and now others) of their connection with the far right I can't AGF that far. It is not circular sourcing to say both that Gab is known for its far-right userbase, and that its userbase is mainly far right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach a WP:COMPROMISE, meet me halfway. Your source is good, and backs up the claim made in the article. I have no reason to object to it. As for people assuming others will come in and claim "far-right" is only supported by one source, don't worry - CTRL+F "far-right" reveals plenty of results in plenty of contexts. In this specific context (EDIT: mainly far-right user base) it is only supported by one source. As for the other page, I'll message you on your talk page and we'll discuss that issue separately. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no "meeting you halfway" nor is there a "compromise". You are asking - and being tendentious about it - for us to go against the sourcing and policy because, as near as I can tell, you don't want to think you're associating with Nazi sympathizers. This is not going to happen. We are not going to whitewash the article for you. People have been trying to do this kind of message massaging for years here - decades, even - and it hasn't worked. You can stop with your efforts as you won't succeed.--Jorm (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is turning into #Far-right microblogging Internet service is inaccurate.. No one is asking you to go against the sourcing, I'm asking you to fix the sourcing. My initial point was the sources are circular and quoting each other. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One source (NPR) does quote a sentence from one of the other sources we're using. That does not make the entire source a duplicate, or unacceptable as a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO it does. I'm sorry. You can see from my history I will concede when I'm wrong. Here specifically, this isn't the case. Suggestion: Replace the NPR source with the Guardian one, which specifically is quoted as saying "mainly" and isn't a duplicate. Let the sources speak for themselves, no need to interpret what you think they meant. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have a policy you can point to that says a source which quotes a different news organization is unacceptable, please provide it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an equally valid argument that Epik's "connections" are with people who value and/or require "free speech". Also your comment seems to indicate that you are concerned with what someone else might do to the Article at some point in the future, so it is necessary to maintain the status quo as a defense against that unknown future. I don't support the proposed change (at least not now), but I question the means by which you advocate the Article stays the same. Not sure, but editing the Article today based on what someone else might do tomorrow seems a little "out there" to me, and goes towards the idea that Editors do not own Articles. Please keep in mind I'm still learning here.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind I've moved your comment to make chronology a little less confusing. I was considering making the change to try to satisfy Alex, but realized it would be weakening the sourcing—that's what I was referring to when discussing the potential future change. I think it's reasonable to avoid weakening the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Cleaning up some OR

@Tsumikiria: @Jorm:

This part:

The site has been described as "extremist friendly"^[9] or a "safe haven"^[10] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.^[9]

reads NYTimes described it as an extremist friendly site for [...], and Mic described it as a safe haven for [...] -- Which is not true.

Or alternatively, [extremist friendly] / [save haven for ...]. Which is also not true. This is OR. The author combined "alt-right" from Mic and "neo-nazis and white supremacists" (white nationalists, btw) from NYT. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is perfectly fine and acceptable, especially given the grammar of the sentence. I oppose your change.--Jorm (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when is OR acceptable on Wikipedia? Alex.osheter (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't OR. Your personal objection to what is written on the sources should be addressed to the sources, not us. And as other people have already replied to your comments, you must underline/strike your addition and removals. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll definitely do that in future edits. As for what you said, it's wrong. That was not written in the sources, that's the point I'm trying to make. Someone spliced two articles and combined them into one ambiguous statement. This is not my personal objection, that is a statement of fact. The sources are very unambiguous, and state two very different things. One calls it "extremist friendly" (and in a different section ), the other calls it a "safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists", and "a magnet for the alt-right". Splicing the two into one statement is OR. It should clearly be presented as two different statements by two different authors. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Both conclusions are supported by the sources. I fail to see how WP:OR applies here, or how splitting them into different statements would change WP:OR at all. SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To clear up confusion, I have no problem with the sources reaching these conclusions. They're reliable sources, and that's what they say. The problem is, this article doesn't quote the sources individually. It combines them to make a new statement, which is WP:OR. Can you clarify what you mean by "both conclusions"? Because I feel like maybe I'm not explaining the problem correctly. Alex.osheter (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not original research and I think you should go back to Wikipedia school and learn what original research actually is rather than wasting everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, you're being unnecessarily hostile. Instead, perhaps explain why you think it's not original research? Here's a direct quote from WP:SYN : "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research".

NYT - Gab, an Extremist-Friendly Site

NYT - Gab, a two-year-old social network that bills itself as a “free speech” alternative to those platforms, and that has become a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists.

MIC - Gab.ai [...] has developed a notorious reputation as a magnet for the alt-right and a safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists.

Article - the site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.

Either quote them IN FULL as two separate sources, or pick one. You can't combine the two sources into one. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation would require someone to parse the sentence as "the site has been described as 'extremist friendly' for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right", which makes no sense. There is no issue with the sentence, nor is it OR in any form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to combine it like that. My ideal suggestion is: "the site has been described as 'extremist friendly' by the New York Times, and 'a safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists' by MIC.

Alternatively, "According to the New York Times, the site has become 'a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists'".

Or, "According to MIC, the site has become a 'safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists'.

Or if you want to focus on the safe haven, "The site has been described by various sources as a haven for many groups, namely white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists by The New York Times or banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists by MIC".

Or just focus on white nationalists, since both sources make this claim. My point is, there's an infinite number of ways to phrase this without it being OR. The current version is a mash of two sources and is OR. Why do you think it's not? Alex.osheter (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Alex.osheter (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The reasonable (but, IMO, unacceptably wordy to use verbatim) interpretation of the sentence is "The site has been described as "extremist friendly" [and has been described as] a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right." There is no OR there, and it is fully supported by sources. I do not agree with your suggested change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you not agree with my suggested change? It quotes the sources as accurately as possible and removes any OR doubts. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There are no OR doubts, except according to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly there is a "far-right" presence on Gab, and also that is one of the things Gab is "known for", however my issue is whether or not "far-right" is the first adjective that should be used in the first sentence of the Lede. Gab is "known", at least by it's Users, for many other things. Whether or not there is RS to support this is the question. I assume there is some nuance to Alex.osheter's position that I do not yet understand, on whether or not the term "far-right" should be used, where, and how.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but every time Gab attracts RS coverage, it is because its users did some horrible things. Maybe you could try to convince Gab's users to do otherwise. But until then, I see that pattern isn't changing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You wouldn't include a line about terrorism in the Lede for the Article on Islam using that same reasoning, would you? Also I note with interest that no one holds Facebook and Twitter responsible, every time one of their Users does "something horrible". There are other reasons why the Media might over-report the relationship between Gab and a very small number of people who have done horrible things, who happened to be Users of Gab, other than what you seem to think the explanation is, which appears to be "Gab Users do horrible things" vs. "Some Gab Users have done horrible things".Tym Whittier (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

How Gab's users know the site is not relevant to the Wikipedia article—what is relevant is how the site is described by independent, reliable sources, and that's what the "far-right" language is echoing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Article uses slur in the lead paragraph.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gab is an English-language social media website known for its mainly far-right user base. The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven"for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.(emphasis added).

The term extremist is a slur and should be avoided under WP:NPOV. The English Wikipedia states about the term extremism: "The term is usually meant to be pejorative. However, it may also be used in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense." Extremist is mentioned as a word to be avoided under WP:LABEL. The article of style recommends, should the word be used at all, to use an in-text citation, i.e. The New York Times calls the sites users extremists.

The cited article is using the term as a prejorative and not in an academic sense. In another paragraph of the same article they call Gab users "internet scoundrels with views "clearly considered too toxic for the mainstream could congregate and converse freely."

The article already tells us what kinds of people use gab: "neo-nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right". Adding the term extremist provides little new information but does sully the article's neutrality. There is no place for this kind of language in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6004:2c00::1 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by sources, and per sources, the site is friendly to those who advocate extreme measures or views. Reliable sources will use whatever language they feel is appropriate to describe a topic, and we have no control over that. We are not interested in artificially downplaying how something is described just because it is unflattering. Whitewashing this simple fact would, ironically, be a from of censorship (or at least political correctness). Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing slurs from articles is not artifically downplaying unflattering information. The word "extremist" is simply a slur. You can call them, as the article does, factual terms like neo-nazis or white supremacists, but calling them extremists without an in-text citation is a violation of WP:NPOV. Removing the term extremist is not censorship - the article already tells us what kinds of people use Gab in a purely factual way. The use of the word extremist is superfluous. Per the sources, the site's users are also "scoundrels" and their views are "toxic." These words offer as much value as the word extremist.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More viewpoints needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Other than neutrality in the language, this article in my opinion is suffering from a very contemporary, western "left" viewpoint. Most sources, often all sources making a claim, are "left" or "far-left" organizations which may constitute an imbalance in perspective. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Arguing that mainstream publications represent "left or far-left organizations" is questionable. At any rate, the onus is on you to demonstrate it as being so. Making blanket generalization is not enough. El_C 06:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing questionable about indicating the leaning of mainstream media organization; they are for the most part well-documented and easily sourced. As for onus, is there a broader discussion area for this? It seems more or less common sense that if we write an article about a product/project, including phrases like 'The site has been described as "extremist friendly"' in the very first line of the article is highly controversial. It's sourced only by a left-wing organization and no other thoughts or opinions on the matter are presented. It's just clearly an extremist-friendly site, the end. It seems to me these kinds of inflammatory statements, outside of a "controversy" or "reception" section are what have the burden, but I'm new at this so be forgiving. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times is not a "leftist organization." El_C 07:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd ask to see your source that the New York Times is not a left-biased organization, as I find many independent claims it is, including by current high-ranking staff members, and find nowhere ranking it as unbiased or right-wing. Even if it were right-wing, my point more or less stands, I believe. It's a highly inflammatory claim to make on the first line of an article, based on a single source. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not here to prove a negative, but it can also be seen as centrist. And it is reliable enough to make that claim, yes. El_C 08:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It can be seen as centrist if we ignore all the majority of appropriate sources which claim it is left-leaning, which I believe is against the spirit of how non-biased information is meant to work. I'm not making a claim that they are not reliable; I'm saying that for extremely inflammatory claims to be put on the first line of an article, it should probably have more than one source, and if it for some reason absolutely must be there, we should probably not be using an organizations real or imagined enemies. This conversation can grow to be fairly long, but I suppose I would ask, why is the onus on me to prove why an inflammatory statement based on one source shouldn't be in the first line of an article about a website? Isn't that backwards? Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to learn more about how Wikipedia works, and take your grievances to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you feel that the New York Times is not a reliable source. I'm going to close this thread.--Jorm (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and the fact that there are way more reliable "left-wing sources" and "mainstream sources" talking about Gab than reliable "right-wing sources" and "alternative media sources" talking about Gab only makes the article less neutral. X-Editor (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is diminished by WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm not sure it was worth un-archiving the discussion just for that. El_C 23:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've retracted my statement. X-Editor (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I was able to persuade you. I've reclosed the discussion. El_C 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

Given this seems to be a controversial page I've refrained from direct editing. Neutrality: Nearly this entire article is heavily pushing a one-sided political message. I can barely figure out what Gab is from reading this article other than it's dangerous, scary and right-wing and everyone hates it, and everyone that works there are horrible people. Nearly the entire article is this way but for brevity look at the lede. Facebook's lede:

• Facebook, Inc. is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. It is considered one of the Big Four technology companies along with Amazon, Apple, and Google.[8][9]

On Facebook this very moment are hundreds of hate groups (literally "I hate X" groups), and many "hate people." Yet as a neutral article I would expect to find this kind of information in a controversies section, for example. The lede for Adolf Hitler:

• Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He rose to power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and later Führer in 1934.[a] During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust.

The lede of Gab:

• Gab is an English-language social media website known for its mainly far-right user base.[9] The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[10] or a "safe haven"[11] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10] The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs".[12] In financial filings, Gab stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.[13]

Looking at these three ledes, I get the idea that Facebook is a company which I will need to read more about to understand, Hitler was a person who I will need to read more about to understand, and Gab is some kind of dangerous far-right entity which I am discouraged from reading more about. This tells me the article is politicized and currently needs neutrality improvements. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which necessitates citing specific examples, not merely your general impression. El_C 06:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

As an example, I just clicked a random reference.

Claim: "The site primarily attracts far-right or alt-right users who have been banned or suspended from other services"

Reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/29/banned-from-twitter-this-site-promises-you-can-say-whatever-you-want/

All uses of the word "right" in the article (summarized points):

• Alt-right calls Twitter bans "the purge"
• Some alt-right users became more popular on Gab after the purge
• Facebook censors alt-right-friendly sites like Breitbart
• Torba says "Anyone is free to join, not just the alt-right and conservatives.
• Despite Torba’s insisting not just for alt-right, the Post feels its user base will be unkind to new members they disagree with. (in other words those who are alt-right may be unkind to those who aren't).
• Torba agreed that Gab’s current audience skewed heavily toward the right, but he argued that the growth of Gab was more of a reflection of an “establishment vs. normal everyday American people movement.”
• AltRight is one of 10 trending tags listed
• Talking about a post someone made about looking out for media spies
• Torba and Sanduja asked, over the course of our phone call, for patience to prove that Gab can prove that it is designed to be something more than the alt-right version of Twitter
• Site has growing right-wing base, which values the trust in Gab

Where is the claim "The site primarily attracts far-right or alt-right users who have been banned or suspended?" I feel this article needs to be worked on by dispassionate actors; it's in my opinion politicized beyond my interest in the subject, which is based solely on wanting to correct what I consider to be slanted articles. Diaozhadelaowai (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple sources to that claim, such as "The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space" (The New York Times). El_C 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just throw this in for a perspective on "political" bias. It's more sophisticated than what some may assume. Those people may assume that the Article "describes" Gab (and coincidentally aligns with their political perspective), however I assert that it actually serves neither Wikipedia's interests, nor whatever political interests there may be. Rather than describing, it exemplifies, which 1) is an important distinction to make, and 2) something everyone should be aware of. While confirmation bias may exist in all the RS, and so therefore in this Article, there are other confirmation bias(es) that are not sourced, literal or under the control of anyone, and yet they exist, are powerful, and growing. Editors should be aware of "unintended consequences". Average readers come to this Article and are stunned by the "truth", but worse, sometimes the are NOT stunned. The interpretation of the Reader (i.e. "framing") trumps everything, and is transcendent.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually have a point that can be addressed? Because you're totally not convincing. --Jorm (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The article is very well sourced and accurately uses those sources to describe Gab. That aligns very well with Wikipedia's mission. I don't believe it has a neutrality problem. Rivselis (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Article as a whole lacks NPOV; it is a hit piece

This article should be replaced with objective information from reliable sources. Of course it is easy to find antagonistic sources by partisans in the cultural war and cite them. But Gab is essentially a freedom of speech site, not a site devoted to the far right. To be sure persons who are politically incorrect are likely to end up their because of the intolerance of Twitter. The article also contains factual error & is out of date. You cannot post videos on Gab now. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC))

Please provide reliable sources for your assertions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions later in the history section that GabTV is now inactive. X-Editor (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC))

@PeacePeace: Can you post the reliable sources you'd like to see represented in this article? In the meantime I'll sniff around to see if there are any more recent ones since I last actively worked on this article, it has been a while. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Is There Any Legitimacy to Gab's "Free Speech" Claim?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think answering this question may serve to provide a more-solid foundation for future editing decisions and actions. Last night I did some research looking for any RS that supports the idea that Gab's (and it's Users) claim that there is some legitimate claim that Gab is about free speech (without scare quotes), and could not find any. But that may also be a reflection on my inadequate skills as a researcher. This Article, in it's current form, is consistent with all of the RS that I've found, which says it's not. The "free speech" claim is a "shield", or a pretext etc... to anti-semitism, racism, (ad nauseum list of pejoratives). The primary "nub" of the issue, IMO, is whether or not "hate speech" as a recently manufactured concept is still free speech. If the Editor's consensus is "No", that will go a long way towards resolving any desire on the part of minority/IP Editors to attempt to influence the Article to include that perspective. Achieving explicitly-stated consensus on this will also provide an easy and convenient way of addressing IP Editor's concerns when they have problems reconciling their own "personal perception" of Gab to the manner in which is is characterized in this Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Last night I did some research looking for any RS that supports the idea that Gab's (and it's Users) claim that there is some legitimate claim that Gab is about free speech (without scare quotes), and could not find any." I believe you answered your own question and this section can be closed.--Jorm (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. I'm looking for explicit consensus that can be referred to later. This is the second time you seem to want to avoid a discussion to achieve consensus on a critical point.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We already had consensus. You don't have to beat dead horses. This is your problem in a nutshell. You waste everyone's time with shit like this and you know it. There's no discussion to be had because this is what the reliable sources say. This is how Wikipedia works. We were done with it a long time ago.--Jorm (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm: Your post above responding to Tym Whittier is very likely violating Section 1A, Section 1C, and Section 1D of WP:CIVIL. Section 1A says that you shouldn't exhibit "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" towards other editors, Section 1C says that you shouldn't exhibit "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" towards other editors, and Section 1D says that you shouldn't exhibit "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")" towards other editors, and judging by your post above, you seem to be doing that by saying to Tym that "This is your problem in a nutshell. You waste everyone's time with shit like this and you know it." You also said in a previous discussion that his opinion on CNN's credibility, particularly their credibility when it comes to covering Gab, "doesn't mean shit." You also seem to be assuming bad faith towards Tym by saying that he knows he's wasting people's time with discussions on this talk page in your post above, yet you have provided no concrete evidence that this is the case. X-Editor (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please demonstrate in the Discussion History where consensus on this question was explicitly established. I've looked, and could not find it. Tym Whittier (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• 1)The sheer amount of text walls Tym Whittier posted onto this page - most of which aren't constructive content discussions but rather loaded questions that resemble breach experiments - fulfills a hallmark of sealioning and lobbying. 2) In most developed countries, speech that advocate for discriminatory violence and genocide - such as content hosted by Gab - are indictable crimes. Even if Gab's policy truly resemble the First Amendment as it is advertised, America's stance on hate speech situation is rather unusual and has been routinely criticized. This is why we can't speak in objective wikivoice that Gab is free speech, because in most countries, that would be laughable. This thread can be closed. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"The sheer amount of text walls Tym Whittier posted onto this page..."[Stoop to Ridicule] Also, which "countries"? China? Should Wikipedia contort it's Articles in accordance with the standards of speech as defined by countries like China?Tym Whittier (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I talked about hate speech laws in developed countries and you talk about China? Let's talk about democracy and focusing on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, shall we? No. Stop the usual bad-faith argument, please. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I find it ironic you accuse him of bad faith argument after doing the exact thing, what hypocrism. Free speech is unrestricted speech. Which means no one defines it or regulates it. Hate speech has to be regulated by somebody, so whatever's hate will be defined be whoever is. Third Reich would most likely label anti-nazi and pro-jewish as hateful. Either way, enough about that. To address OP: Why don't you go to Gab, register there and most radical Left-Wing opinions? That's the only real way you're gonna be sure. When it comes to actual evidence (ie. reputable sources) no source to my knowledge provides any information about blockades or otherwise not following their policy in regards to free speech. Also See: WP:CHALLENGE and WP:NPOV. I mean ffs, look at their profile. Literally advertises himself as ANTIFA and other political movements (which is labelled a terrorist organization by US law enforcement agencies). They have no place in here and any edit they make is by default partial, since they express their views explicitly and edit without and sources. Further editing in this article by Tsukimira, especially disruptive editing will be reported to WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konecat (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think the above question needs further debate and can be closed; it has already been answered on this Talk Page and by the references in the article. There are just too many Tier 1 RS that are saying pretty strong/unpleasant things about Gab and its mission (I have posted an FT reference below from March 2019). At a certain point, you have to trust the main RS and avoid over-analyzing them, or you just end up in WP:OR territory. Britishfinance (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Characterize Dissenter as a "Shadow Layer"?

"By attaching a shadow layer, visible only to those logged into the network, anyone who has downloaded the Dissenter extension is able to “comment” — even where comments are disabled or heavily moderated."[12] I think this works, using the idea of a "shadow" which evokes the dark, evil white supremacists on Gab/Dissenter, along with the idea that it can be thought of as a "layer" that exists. It's not really accurate in technical terms (as I understand them), but the idea of a "parallel layer" is commonly used to characterize Dissenter. It also mentions that the ability to comment subverts content restrictions on the website/URL, all in one sentence.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the source say?--Jorm (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to italicize the extracted text from the source. Fixed now.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources says "shadow layer". You know we'll stay with that language. Why did you open this thread? --Jorm (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The word "shadow" does not appear in the Article even once.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So the text you italicized isn't in the text? Why did you say it was? You know what, never mind. I don't care. You're just tendentious. Don't bother responding.--Jorm (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. The italicized text is in the cited source, and the word "shadow" does not appear in the Wikipedia Article. Also, I could respond to the pejoratives with pejoratives, but I won't. We should be "collegial" and work together to build consensus and improve the article. One of the biggest mistakes I've made since I started taking this seriously is to assume that because other and more experienced Editors said certain things, that meant that the "culture" allowed for it. It doesn't. It was wrong when I did it, and it's wrong when you do it too. However, when you do it, it invites other and less-experienced editors to do the same thing, which (on a larger scale) ultimately results in a loss of potential talent for Wikipedia, because those new Editors either get discouraged and go away, or they end up in trouble and get banned. I assume you don't do this on purpose, to achieve this very thing. But that's the natural, and predictable end-result. I've read somewhere that experienced elements within the Wikipedia organization have at least some concern for a dwindling number of Editors, relative to it's expansive growth. It's just a matter of time before someone makes the decision that "Don't bite the newcomers" is a policy that may require some special, extra attention and possible enforcement. My suggestion to Doug Weller was to give Editors with less than "x" number of days/months a special color in their signature, so that everyone would know who they are dealing with, so that they couldn't later conflate qualities like "tendentiousness" with "inexperience" or "ignorance", sometimes in a delibarate attempt at driving off those that oppose their POV.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to read this wall of text, and I don't think anyone else will, either.--Jorm (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's okay. Maybe it will get read by someone else, at some point in the future, during something like an "Administrative Review", or whatever. One day, I realized EVERYTHING is recorded on Wikipedia. Also I note that while I could have done a better job of expressing what the quoted, italicized quote was, where it came from, etc... an experienced Editor that cared to look could have easily figured it out. I was given the impression that your only purpose being here was to "shoot down" whatever proposal I made, without bothering to even look into it. And while it might not get adopted, I still think it's worth considering. And so, despite making edits to clarify so that the proposal could be easily understood to someone that cared to know, it still results in you (apparently) not even understanding it, with the "Tl;Dr" response which you've done before. That's starting to feel a bit "tendentious" to me. I suppose I could start recording the at least 3 different times you've done this, but I won't because I genuinely want to work with you, and have posted a message to your "Talk" page to that effect, which as I recall you also said you weren't going to read. So let's dispense with all of that, and the history and animosity, and start collaborating constructively in order to improve the article.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You would serve your purpose a whole lot better if you would learn about things like "paragraph breaks" and "shorter sentences."--Jorm (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Either you post actionable edit proposals, backed by a brief but clear rationale supported by a source, or you shut up. Talk pages are Wikipedia property, not forums to post your disapproval of sources. You may use Dissenter to your heart's content for that, but not here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Since consensus was achieved, I went ahead and made the change. Thanks for the lesson in "being bold".Tym Whittier (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FT Article on Gab/Dissenter

• Does Gab’s new plugin encourage free speech or simply feed the trolls?, Financial Times (March 2019)

This article is already well referenced so I didn't want to just pile-on another RS, however, I do think the Financial Times is a great global Tier 1 RS for WP.
I will leave to the main editors of this article to decide whether it is useful to add and where. :) Britishfinance (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The posted link above goes to FT's "pay" page, but I arrive at the article by doing a Google search of the text "Does Gab’s new plugin encourage free speech or simply feed the trolls?"Tym Whittier (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Extract from the above source: "...but there are glimpses of a commentariat whose objective is to challenge the extremes"Tym Whittier (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

But it also says: "Nonetheless, much horror still lurks on Dissenter — including hateful and anti-Semitic opinions that need challenging" (and more). Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

True, but hasn't the "horror" of Gab/Dissenter been beaten into the dirt enough already? At some point, it's overkill, and evidence of a strong desire to condemn, possibly for ideological/political reasons. From the Reader's perspective, this "over the top" POV from the Article can have an "uninteded consequence", either making Readers curious and provoking them to go find out the exact nature of this "horror", or (as we see in numerous postings from anonymous IP Editors), it becomes a statement about the Editors that work on the Article. But, if you want to include the "horror" aspect, I'm okay with it. I just like the hint that there might be something to Gab/Dissenter besides the horror, i.e. the "commentariat". I don't think adding yet another iteration of how horrible it is, is going to make any difference to the Article anyways. This is what the consensus seems to want, so I'm "going with it".Tym Whittier (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've now added the main gist of that new FT article to the Dissenter section of this wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Further reading: Cornell University document on Gab

@Softlavender: In this edit I forgot to add the text "Further reading". I apologize on that count. Anyhow it's typical for Wikipedia articles to have a list of further reading about a topic. A Cornell University-hosted study would be beneficial for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: I found that the PDF article text is already used as a source in the article. Therefore what I'm going is attaching the profile page to the citation. That way the archive.is page at http://archive.is/ZeHNs will indicate it's linked from ENwiki. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize that https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05287 was already linked as well, but instead through a template instead of as plaintext. That's why it didn't show up on the archive.is list. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, if this article is later cited multiple times, it may make sense to make a separate "References" section linking to the main article and with the inline citations being page numbers. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not worth it for an article whose body text spans only 6.5 pages. Anyone can use the search function or Control+F if they want to zoom to a particular statement. Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If the same document is cited multiple times just with different page numbers, it leaves the references section a bit more bloated than it needs to be. "So-so-andso et al, p. XXXX" is a lot cleaner, IMO. (If a book is not about the subject and is only having a single page or so cited, the full citation can be in the ref tags)

Also IMO 6.5 pages can be relatively long, especially for people who are not accustomed to reading so much.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Page numbers for each citation are not necessary, for the reasons I mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view some journal articles 6.5 pages should have pagecites as the text can be quite dense. Not every Wikipedia editor is accustomed to reading articles of that type (there are editors from non-academic backgrounds) so they may need help quickly locating proof of the claims. This particular document is well-signposted and doesn't seem that dense, so maybe for this particular one it could be debatable whether to include pagecites. I would still do it if I was writing the article but this particular article could be done without specific page votes.

Also control F is not good enough if the document's text doesn't register on the search or if the source text of the document is worded significantly differently (or if the vocabulary differs significantly) from the text written in the Wikipedia article. Some people are also impatient or have short attention spans (or they just don't have a lot of time!), so they may conclude its' not there if they can't quickly find it. That's why I like to include comments, notes and quotes in some citations, so people can more easily find the source text. In this case it may be that the article text is straightforward and can be more easily found with control F.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: Since some readers may have dyslexia, I wonder if giving page numbers with relatively shorter/less dense/signposted documents could help them find content quicker than if they did not have dyslexia... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ars Technia not a reliable source for the App Store claim

The Ars article, which talks about Gab's second rejection from the App Store, is not reliable for the App Store claim because it got the info from a Breitbart article (I cannot link to the Breitbart article here due to restrictions) they linked to when making the claim in the article that Gab was rejected again from the App Store. Breitbart is not considered an RS on Wikipedia and was deprecated in this RfC, which is why I proposed using this Inc.com source instead for the claim, but since there are concerns that Inc.com is unreliable, I've decided to take this discussion to the talk page. The Ars article also doesn't say the revised version of the app blocked porn by default. @Jorm:, why do you think Inc.com is unreliable? X-Editor (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not overly concerned about the sourcing when I reverted you so much as the way you softened the language, which is a thing you tend to do.--Jorm (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm: Maybe you should've clarified on that. How about saying "On January 21, 2017, a revised version of the Gab app was rejected from the App Store due to violating Apple's rules on hate speech." instead? X-Editor (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That's less clear and less fully logical, since the reason the first app was rejected was because of pornography. Also, we do not need so many dates, and especially so many full dates. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The Ars source doesn't say the revised app blocked porn by default, saying so would violate WP:OR. Also, I'm pretty sure there's no guideline against having so many full dates in an article. X-Editor (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mention Ars. You are using the Inc. article as your citation and it does say that the second app was altered to censor porn. If you don't realize that dates are clutter unless relevant and/or necessary, then you have a lot to learn as an encyclopedia writer and editor. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: How about saying "In January 2017, a revised version of the Gab app that blocked pornography by default was also rejected for violating Apple's rules on hate speech." instead? X-Editor (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Just leave the sentence exactly as it currently is and change the citation. Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I've changed the citation, but what's wrong with adding a date? You haven't cited any guidelines that say you can't have too many dates. Also, whether or not dates are "relevant and/or necessary" is completely subjective. X-Editor (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Note of fair warning

• Note: Fair warning: X-Editor, you have made hundreds of edits to this article, most of them POV promotionalism of Gab and/or Torba. You have repeatedly ignored WP:BRD and edit-warred to retain your POV edits instead of obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. You are clearly a POV single-purpose account engaging in tendentious editing, and if you continue along this path, you will very likely be either banned from this article and its talkpage, or blocked from editing – possibly longterm. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: You've made the claim that most of my edits are "POV promotionalism" without any evidence. I am also not a single purpose account, I have edited hundreds of other articles that have nothing to do with Gab and out of all the 5,757 edits that I have made, only 3.6% or 208 have been edits to the Gab article. I started editing Wikipedia all the way back in April 2018, many months before I even knew about Gab. I am sorry for violating WP:BRD and for edit-warring and I will make sure to get consensus for any disputed changes I make to the article. X-Editor (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A single-purpose account does not mean "edits only one article". Your diversionary edits into other articles outside your range of far-right subjects do not fool anybody; that's a common defensive ploy. It would likely only take one report to an administrator's noticeboard to get you banned from this article, and you are lucky that no one has filed a report so far. If you continue to make edits to this article quoting Torba, removing or altering negative material, or promoting Gab's positions, you will more than likely be reported for tendentious and POV editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender:Why is "quoting Torba" wrong if the quote is reliably sourced?Tym Whittier (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender:Still wondering if this is some sort of rule, or policy, for this Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

X-Editor and others had been warned repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a PR site for Torba, his statements, or his views. X-Editor had agreed to stop quoting Torba but continued to do that. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The Wikipedia page on single purpose accounts says the following "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles" As you can see from my top edited articles, I have edited many articles that don't even mention the far-right, including the Nintendo Switch, the Wii, Everipedia, LookSmart, PewDiePie vs T-Series, Pets.com, PewDiePie, Beddit, Gamevice, List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple, Fitness Boxing, Ping-O-Tronic, FindArticles, The Walper Hotel, Nintendo Switch Online, AirPower (hardware), Concert Properties, Sam Kazemian, Hello (company), YouTuber, Reggie Fils-Aimé, DuckDuckGo and the list goes on. I am clearly interested in edited many different articles that cover a variety of subjects, including technology, the Internet, Youtube, Youtubers, Internet events, Video games, video game consoles, companies, internet search engines and more. Also, can you provide actual evidence to support your claim that I have been "promoting Gab's positions" and that most of my edits are "POV promotionalism"? As for quoting Torba, I'll stop doing that and only alter and/or remove negative material after I get consensus here on the talk page. X-Editor (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

X-Editor, my notice was a word to the wise. You can choose to heed my advice, or not. The point is, there is now a substantial record that you have been warned. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• X-Editor you are still quoting Torba [13], still adding misinformation [14], still removing or changing sources without explanation [15], [16], still adding unnecessary clutter to the article [17], [18], [19], still editing promotionally [20], still edit-warring [21], and still failing to use edit summaries [22], [23]. Every single edit you make has to be carefully checked by an experienced editor, and is usually reverted or massively corrected. This is your final warning. I advise you to voluntarily absent yourself from this article before you are officially topic banned from it. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for providing evidence to support your claims this time, and yes, I will stop editing this article. X-Editor (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: If you meant to ping Softlavender, I think you've accidentally pinged yourself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Sorry about that. I've changed the ping. X-Editor (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: You promised to stop editing this article on 4 June but you still continued to edit on 8 June (that edit was reverted as "disruptive"). Please stand up to your promise and stop editing. 96.74.225.201 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@96.74.225.201: All I did was rearrange the citations to be in the correct order and I don't see how that's disruptive, but okay then. X-Editor (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Thank you for acknowledging my comment. I just wanted to remind you of your promise to "stop editing this article". 96.74.225.201 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@96.74.225.201: No problem. X-Editor (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Change "Reception" section's title to "Media Opinions"

The word "Reception" implies how something new is recieved. Instead this section is filled with the uniformly negative Journalist opinions of Gab, one of which was published in 2019, and Gab has been around for over 2 years and is no longer "new", so at least this opinion does not fit the sections now-reverted title "Reception". Further @Tsumikiria: deleted 874 byes of reliably sourced content written by respected Journalist Chadwick Moore as being a "conspiracy theory", without discussion on either of these reverts. The net effect of both of these reverts is to have a title that does not accurately describe the content within the section, and a respected Journalist being dismissed by a single Editor as a conspiracy theorist. Smear campaigns actually happen, and when a respected Journalist working for a reliable source says that one is, or has been, taken place, I do not believe a single Editor can unilaterally make the deletion without discussion, and question the reasons for both of these reverts.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen. The common term for such sections is "Reception". It will be what we use.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 "Reception" is the common term. Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "reception" is the commonly accepted title for those sections on Wikipedia.

With regards to Moore, his article is claiming some sort of broad conspiracy to smear Gab, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. At best, it's an opinion piece lacking any evidence to back up his claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He stated it explicitly, and did not "claim" it. Your "scrutiny" and analysis is OR. About half of the entire Article is Journalist "opinion", and it's almost uniform in it's condemnation castigation of Gab, to the extent that the Article feels stilted, preachy and ideologically orthodox. Like someone is going to be punished if they attempt to vary from some sort of predetermined narrative. This reliably sourced statement is the only "opinion" that is at variance with the mandated narrative. The least the Article could do is accurately label the opinions of Journalists as "the opinions of Journalists", and possibly even include a minority perspective. There's a big difference between the encyclopedia "reflecting mainstream perspectives" (or whatever the correct language is), and scrubbing away any evidence that there's something else going on besides the mandated narrative.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Claiming a conspiracy requires more than just an opinion, though. You don't have to like that people think Gab is an awful site, but we're not going to slap in any random conspiracy theory to provide a false "balance." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think Chadwick Moore would be widely considered "respected" E.g. [24] [25], and he has been working with other controversial characters such as Milo Yiannopoulos [26]; this is not an RS that could be used in this article I'm afraid? Britishfinance (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

27 June 2019 Reverts: "person accused vs. perpetrator", "allegedly" and "comment" vs. comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018, as Robert Gregory Bowers, the perpetrator of the massacre, allegedly posted a message indicating an immediate intent to harm before the shooting; Bowers had a history of making extreme, antisemitic postings on Gab.

...via an overlay visible only to those logged into Dissenter or using the extension, users are able to "comment" even where comments are disabled or heavily moderated.

@Tsumikiria: reverted three edits I made, which I would consider to be fairly basic edits to get the Article to conform with Wikipedia Policy. Given that Bowers has been accused, but not convicted of a crime, it's my understanding that WP:BLPCRIME says they are to be referred to as (the) "accused" (and not "perpetrator"), and words like "allegedly" are used to indicate the lack of a conviction. Also, the 3rd revert restored scare quotes around the word "comment", that seemed to exist for no other reason than to delegitimize a "comment" made on one platform (Dissenter), vs. a comment made on another (i.e. "Dissenter doesn't have REAL comments. That's just hate speech masquerading as legitimate comments.)" Assuming this isn't some manifestation of an ideological desire have the encyclopedia make Bowers appear to be convicted even before he's stood trial, and/or to diminish the legitimacy of comments on Dissenter to people who read the encyclopedia, and also assuming that Tsumikiria is a proficient, competent Editor that edits in "good faith", I'm curious to know what the reason is for both of these reverts, as the "black letter law" of Wikipedia policy seems pretty clear to me on this. Also note I did not add "allegedly" to the statement that Bowers made "extreme, antisemitic postings on Gab", because that's Constitutionally protected, and therefore legal speech.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your concerns have been addressed. The proper terminology is "suspect," or in this case, "sole suspect," consistent with Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The posting of the message in Gab is reliably sourced and I don't believe it's in dispute that he wrote it. R2 (bleep) 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Posting a message that indicates an "immediate intent to harm" is a crime, and so is therefore covered by the same policy. I've added "allegedly".Tym Whittier (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.