Talk:Kathy Sierra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why?

As someone approaching this knowing nothing about it, it seems to me that there should be some mention as to WHY she was singled out for this abuse. The linked articles do not seem to cover the topic either. I imagine that I will find it with some googling, but if this topical entry is to be useful in the future it should explain a bit. -- milovoo 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, she wasn't singled out for anything. She got mocked as part of series of mocking marketers and net-celebrities (which ended up going too far, but not to what the yellow journalism would have). Much of the media coverage is simply mythology, that has little to do with reality. But it's not worth my time to have a big edit war over it. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is longer version of the story, look the part "The Ridiculous MeanKids.org and Bob's Yer Uncle Websites" and here is another --Zache 13:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Using term 'allegations' with harassment (subpage)

I archived discussion mainly between Edward G. Nilges and Seth Finkelstein to own subpage because it is pretty long. --Zache 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Archive: /Using term 'allegations' with harassment

Broken cite to BBC article

I found the section on the online harasment controversy to be rather confusingly worded, and so I made some stylistic revisions. I also added a bit more information, such as why the Guardian article and the joint statement with Locke were relevant.

In the process I seem to have broken the citation of the BBC article somehow. I'm not an experienced enough Wikipede to know how to fix this at first glance - can someone with such experience give it a shot? Arkaaito (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Edit Recommended, Especially the "mean kids" section

Orig version of Cancelled appearance at O'Reilly ETech conference and online harassment section (14:33, 23 July 2008), which is discussed here. --Zache (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that focusing most of the attention in this article on a single event, which is itself clouded in a sort of murky haze of innuendo and accusation, does not make a good Wikipedia article. It's important to include a reference to the event, yes, because this was a defining, public event. However, the rest of Kathy Sierra's life seems to be shunted aside in favor of just this one event; an event that will lessen in importance as time progresses.

I don't want to make any edits myself since I'm familiar with all the involved parties and my neutrality could be questioned. However I find it a shame that a Wikipedia entry for a prominent woman in technology is focused more on her being a victim than on her many, and continuing, accomplishments in her field of expertise.

Shelleyp (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in theory. But in practice, I'd say it's not going to happen without a big editing fight and some support from a powerful Wikipedia admin. The jargon of Wikipedia in fact has expressions for concepts like "article which is unbalanced due to sensational news coverage". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And the attempt to do this in the last few weeks has resulted in the article ending up more non-NPOV than before! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV-tag

I added NPOV-tag. Main probelm still is that there is only Kathy Sierras point of view about threatening stuff, Other side is that they were mocking up people, which is rude, but not making threats (and afaik surely not making physical threats). --Zache (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, think of the Net as a mob. In a mob, individuals who tease and mock targets of mob anger can be legally held responsible for the actions of OTHER, more extreme mob members under the rules for "incitement". And the Net IS a mob since its a crowd of people acting in many cases anonymously.

If someone in a mob makes a joke about a person's race, and the crowd takes up the joke as a racist chant, and the victim dies, I believe the law recognizes a new entity: the mob action, a form of conspiracy. Here, the "good old boys" who were "just havin' fun" are responsible along with the cross burners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.105.98 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs NPOV'ing along the lines you describe. I've just been hesitant to get into a time-consuming edit-war over it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Zache, I'm not sure what you mean by "mocking up people," so I can't respond to that, but keep in mind that:

1. This is an article about Kathy, so of course it should have her pov.
2. Other people's views (sourced, of course) shouldn't be included without attribution, but currently, there are no names of those who made the "alleged" threats. I honestly don't think that it helps to open that can of worms. Sure, you can get a bunch of people to say that they didn't threaten her (I didn't, you didn't, Seth didn't, etc.) but the article as it is now doesn't claim we did. If we add specific names, does that really make it more neutral?
3. The NY Times said (in their August 2008 article, linked) that Kathy had received death threats. If you have more recent information, or a better source, add it. But just saying "afaik surely not making physical threats" doesn't change that a WP:RS disagrees with you, and by WP's rules, that's what actually matters.

If you've got sourced, reliable, third-party information, add it to the article. Or if you think it might be contentious, bring it here. But just saying that you think that no real threats were made doesn't help the article any. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of the initial reporting on the topic simply echoed her accusations uncritically, especially when vectored by A-list bloggers. Some later reporting is more accurate. But now it's being used as something of a media shorthand, regardless of the reality in specific. For a well-researched examination, see, my own column -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Seth, I did read your column. IMO, it's a good article, although I found it to be less about the events themselves and more about the blogosphere's reaction to the events. And while I find that to be an interesting topic, it's not the topic of this article.

As I said, I don't know how people's names could be added to this piece and make it more neutral (given WP's policies). Personally, I don't think that it's possible.

If anyone wants to take a stab at changing the section to how they'd like to see it, go for it here on the talk page if you want feedback. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all necessary to add people's names. But now the article echoes her account undisputed, when it was in fact heavily disputed (to put it mildly). For example "due to threatening blog posts" could be "due to blog posts she perceived as threatening, but the makers claimed were mere mockery" (not saying that would be the best sentence, it's just off the top of my head). The overall summary voice avoids naming names. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wired and sfgate articles are also good ones to read. The changes what i would like to suggest is

• Adding some background info what whole thing was about
• that noose picture with it's comments wasn't meant to be as death threat. Generally Unclebobism/Meankids wasnt meant to be as threats, but noose stuff is relevant because authors comments can be sourced from wired. It was also main example of death threats in Kathy Sierras original blog post and after BBC in mainstream media.
• If section doesn't grow too long there should be also some text that there were also larger issue about how bloggers should do fact checking before they relay information. This one can be sourced from Seth's article(?).

Next thing is just that I correct my starting comment, in Kathy's original and now deleted blog entry was mentioned with example that there were also some shitty emails and comments to her own blog which were threats. --Zache (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While you can say that a picture of her with a noose and a statement that "The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size" are "mere mockery" and weren't "meant to be as death threat," the average person would (and rightfully, imo) perceive them as physically threatening (and per the Wired link, that's not even the worst of it).

Let's take a step back: while the article could say that at least some of those involved claim they didn't mean to be threatening, what does that add to tell us more about Kathy—which is the point of the article, yes? And without lengthening that section such that it (again) takes over the article to the point where it sounds like it's the only interesting thing she's ever been involved in? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the problem of pressing emotional buttons. If material is taken out of context - as was done quite egregiously - then it's easy to wave a bloody shirt around (recall the New Yorker Obama cover for a particularly hard case). Exactly that sort of inflaming the mob is why trial-by-A-list-bloggers is a very bad idea. That being said, I would actually be fine with dumping the whole incident, as best for her, the accused, and in a way, Wikipedia. But failing that, it should be true (not simply sourced), since the inaccurate versions are still echoing around the media. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing it would go too far: I ended up at this article because I read something elsewhere referring to this incident, but didn't know anything about it, so googled "Kathy Sierra" and expected the wikipedia link to give me at least a basic outline. After lots of reading I have a rough sketch of what the story was, albeit more from this talk page than from the main page. It clearly was an important incident, in the history of blogging, so the incident deserves mention: it might possibly be better told as part of a page on the history of blogging, so that this page can simply link to that and not be dominated by it. That then leaves this page very bare: either it should say more about what Kathy has done or it should simply go away as not note-worthy enough (aside from the one incident, documented elsewhere). Eddy 84.215.6.188 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdent again...

How's about this:

Online harassment

content here removed by Zache

And then cut the 3rd graf entirely? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

---

EDIT THIS START

In March 2007, Sierra engaged to ongoing debate between some prominent us bloggers in result that she was noted in a site dedicated to bad-taste humor and mocking prominent bloggers. Debate escalated to mainstream when Sierra cancelled her appearance at the O'Reilly ETech conference in San Diego after a spate of emails, blog posts, and blog comments which she feeled as threats. One included an image of Sierra next to a noose, and another said, "The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size." She wrote: "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."

After that most of involved people clarified that they didn't mean threat or harm to Sierra. However after reports of the cancellation made the news, the support and pressure on Kathy increased by people who weren't involved in original debate, including a false account of her career being posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

EDIT THIS END

---

My attempt for a new version --Zache (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's still taking it out of context. For example, consider an alternative phrasing "In a site dedicated to bad-taste humor and mocking prominent bloggers, her Head First series was harshly parodied by showing her head next to a noose. She viewed this as a physical threat. In the subsequent thread deriding her worth, she extracted a sentence etc, as a danger to her safety". See the different impression, in the context? Your version makes it sound menacing and ominous, whereas the reality was extremely rude and horribly mean, but nowhere near a true death threat. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We've now got:

• she extracted one blog post (containing a picture, and a comment on that picture) out of context, or
• As Wired wrote, "The most direct threats were posted to Sierra's own blog"—which means that it wasn't just one sentence, and it wasn't out of context.

[btw, I can't say as I'm thrilled with your differentiation between "my version" and "the reality," especially when I'm the one using sourced info.]

Again, my perception is that you and Zache want to include something about A-list bloggers and their media influence, and blogger fact-checking, and blogger over-reaction. But I don't think they fit into this article without making it less about Kathy and more about the effect on other people of one particular incident in Kathy's life (if there was a separate article like that, I'd like to see it include something about online misogyny and GIFT, too). But this isn't that article. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's say I think that for discussion purposes, it's important to understand that this was an incident of trial-by-A-lister, though I'm not really advocating putting that into the article per se. That's why many of the sources are inaccurate, because they just echoed what the A-listers said. I'm not arguing the article should discuss that. But for this talk page, in terms of truth-not-verifiability (note I know I've inverted the slogan), I think it's a key point. Again, I wouldn't mind dumping the whole incident, under a sensitivity to all parties rationale. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

About the difference between "my reality" and what "can be sourced". At the time i was fast enough to check what was in Unclebobism and Meankids before they was gone and my opinion is based on that. In example if i remember right that noose picture was illustration of blogentry which topic was how Kathy's book sucked (and whole thing was maybe posted as response to Kathys engagement to Hunt vs Locke debate?). "The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size" was one sentence in longer comment in that thread and referred to the picture of the starting entry. Comment itself wasn't about Kathy, but more like that topic is boring. Of course this is from memory and can't be really trusted and even less it can be reffed, but point is that things are context relevant. --Zache (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actual quote, taken out of context

Here is the actual quote, it can be found buried in headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/04/death_threats_a.html (remember, trial-by-A-lister, this isn't echoed from on-high):

Here is my entire post that Kathy so handily clipped out of, you tell me if this is a threat to her and keep in mind, I'm speaking to a different Kathy!

1. Joey Says:

March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Darn, I ruined so many posts today ALL OVER THE WORLD! Something is wrong with being retired and realizing you had a long, hard day!

Do any of you twits hang out in chat rooms (non-twitter;) anyplace? I need to kick back and talk to actually enjoyable people instead of the twerps I was with today. Don’t ask: basically, it ended up that they wanted …. M O N E Y trying to sell, you guessed it: H A P P I N E S S.

Why didn’t they get it the first time when I said “retired”? That usually is followed by “fixed income”.

…And then my baggy pants fell down at the meat market.

The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her own neck size ;)

REMINDER: THE ABOVE IS A QUOTE and not a new threat of any sort. It is an attempt to establish context. If you still want to kill me, fine, where do I go? TELL ME, where do you want to kill me at? I'm tired of this. I'll jump off a bridge, name it. What do I have to do to show you Kathy is playing a game with you?

Posted by: Joey | Mar 26, 2007 10:14:23 PM

-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one thing at a time...

• Zache, you deleted most of my draft, including what Seth was responding to. Please don't do that. Here's what I wrote:

How's about this:

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra cancelled her appearance at the O'Reilly ETech conference in San Diego after a spate of emails, blog posts, and blog comments which she saw as threats. One included an image of Sierra next to a noose, and another said, "The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size." She wrote: "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."

After reports of the cancellation made the news, the pressure on Kathy increased, including a false account of her career being posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

And then cut the 3rd graf entirely?

• Based on the above responses, here's a modified version:

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra cancelled her appearance at the O'Reilly ETech conference in San Diego after a spate of emails, blog posts, and blog comments which she found threatening, including direct threats posted as comments to her blog.[ref Wired article] She wrote: "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."

After reports of the cancellation made the news, the pressure on Kathy increased, including a false account of her career being posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

• Seth, if you notice, the new version contains nothing at all about Joey. Nothing whatsoever. So can we stop bringing him (and trials-by-A-listers) up now? None of that is in the article, and none of it should be (imo).
• Zache, unless you wrote an article about Kathy that qualifies as a WP:RS, your recollections (and mine!) are irrelevant to WP.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

background of event can be reffed from sfgate. That only two persons remained unindentified (sifee, rev ed=Alan Herrell?) and two other "threatening" post authors contacted to sierra can be reffed from wired. Jeneane Sessum, Frank Paynter and Chris Locke point of view can be reffed from different places. That is pretty much all that people who were named in Kathy Sierras original blogposts. --Zache (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra engaged to ongoing online debate between prominent US bloggers started by Tara Hunt and Chris Locke and was noted in debate related sites Meankids and it's successor unclebobism. [ref sfgate] After a spate of blog posts and comments, which she found threatening, including direct threats posted as comments to her blog Sierra canceled her appearance at the O'Reilly ETech conference in San Diego [ref Wired article] She wrote: "I have canceled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same."

After reports of the cancellation made the news, the pressure on Kathy increased, including a false account of her career being posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

To clarify situation on April 2 Sierra and Locke, one of authors of Meankids and Unclebobism, published joint statement on the recent events. [ref Sierra-Locke-statement]. Locke also criticized that Sierra didn't made any distinction between more serious threats that were made on Sierra's site and the less threatening posts on his sites, when there wasn't no known linkage between them. [ref sfgate]

next try. --Zache (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that draft to be confusing as all get out. There's no definition of "Meankids" or "unclebobism". You've got Locke's criticism of Kathy, but there's no context as to what it is he's responding to, nor is there anything about her perception of the issues in turn. The average person coming to this page won't know anything about these events (and that'll be even more the case as time goes on), so it needs to be intelligible by someone who doesn't already know the background. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra engaged to ongoing online debate between prominent US bloggers started by Tara Hunt and Chris Locke and was noted in debate related sites Meankids and it's successor Unclebobism. [ref sfgate] Sites were dedicated to bad-taste humor and mocking prominent bloggers. After a spate of blog posts and comments, which she found threatening, including direct threats posted as comments to her blog Sierra canceled her appearance at the O'Reilly ETech conference in San Diego [ref Wired article]

Sierra blogged about death threats, how they affected her life and called for general change to the attitude which tolerates harassments in internet. In her writing she also linked the authors of Meankids and Unclebobism to the threats. Locke, one author of those sites, said that the stuff that got posted against Sierra was despicable, but criticized that Sierra connected two non related events; death threats that were made on Sierra's site and the less threatening image manipulation on his sites and made them look like homicidal stalker killers. [ref sfgate] To clarify situation on April 2 Sierra and Locke published joint statement on the events. [ref Sierra-Locke-statement].

After reports of the cancellation made the news, the pressure on Kathy increased, including a false account of her career being posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

Ok, thanks and new attempt --Zache (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave this a week off partly because I was hoping that Seth would contribute a draft, and partly because I wanted to get a fresh look at it. Nothing from Seth, and looking at this anew, my opinion hasn't changed any—it all (imo) brings up more questions than it answers. And most of all, I don't see how your version tells me more about Kathy than mine does.

What do you think about taking this over to WP:3O? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being remiss - I'm hesitant to propose a draft myself, since it'll be significant work, and I worry it'll just lead to a lot of wrangling since the politics are so incendiary. It's really difficult to find the right balance between accuracy and sensitivity. A good NPOV account of the incident basically has to deal with the mob aspects, and that large parts of the retelling are at best dubious. Any way you slice that, it's a difficult matter. I even have to devote a lot of thought as to how to word these comments, since I can just imagine a poorly phrased little snippet being taken out of context and used to attack me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, "A good NPOV account of the incident basically has to deal with the mob aspects"—I think that that, right there, sums up our disagreement. You think that it has to, and I think that this article can skip it entirely. Reading back through this talk page, I find that I agree most with Shelleyp when she wrote:

It seems to me that focusing most of the attention in this article on a single event, which is itself clouded in a sort of murky haze of innuendo and accusation, does not make a good Wikipedia article. It's important to include a reference to the event, yes, because this was a defining, public event. However, the rest of Kathy Sierra's life seems to be shunted aside in favor of just this one event; an event that will lessen in importance as time progresses.... I find it a shame that a Wikipedia entry for a prominent woman in technology is focused more on her being a victim than on her many, and continuing, accomplishments in her field of expertise.

Yes, WP should mention it. But it doesn't need to go into depth, it doesn't need to have a detailed background (readers can follow the references if they want), it doesn't need to cover non-Kathy related fallout, and it most particularly doesn't need "he said-she said". Let's keep it short and simple, and people can follow the citations if they want more info.

What do y'all think needs to be added to my draft to make it work? Or should we go to WP:3O? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with what Shelley wrote above. Which is why I say I'd be fine with cutting it out entirely (though again, I suspect that wouldn't hold, given media status the incident has taken on). But once the camel's nose is under the tent, it seems to me necessary to explain it's a big beast. I think the problem with that draft is here: "a spate of emails, blog posts, and blog comments which she found threatening, including direct threats posted as comments" - if one actually reads her post analytically, frankly, it's apparently structured to be a hit-piece on her critics. But the volatile, button-pressing, aspects prevent people from seeing that. It tars them as threatening and facilitating violence, by conflating obnoxious anonymous "FOAD" trolls with the meankids crew, who have a lot of mud thrown at them by name. Phrasing as in that draft perpetuates that wrongness. I'd say NPOV - even simple fairness - requires that if such implications are made, the denials and evidence against the accusations be mentioned. That's what Locke was getting at in his statement (note, he said this, not me) "I think her response, as it pertains to anything I personally wrote, was unjustified — but highly effective — character assassination. As a result, I’m sure I’ll be explaining for years to come that I’m not really an ax murderer and child molester. Nice work." Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the NPOV issue myself, as no names (of either people or blogs) are given (outside Kathy) and no statements are attributed to anyone but her. It's only 96 words, and I don't think that it should be much longer than that. Here's another shot at an even shorter one:

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra cancelled her upcoming Etech appearance after a series of emails, and blog posts and comments which she found threatening, including direct threats in comments to her blog. She wrote: "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same."

Following news reports of the cancellation, a false account of her career was posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

This one's only 75 words. What do you think should be cut to make it closer to NPOV? Dori (Talk • Contribs)

I guess that if we are leaving just three lines saying that she is person who is afraid to go outside her yard doesn't tell anything useful about Kathy. More seriously, when i read your draft i have still feeling that Kathy was helpless victim of crazy stalker killers. But She just wasn't helpless (and blog text where was quoted wasn't about being helpless either) and whole thing wasn't about stalker killers.

About [[WP:3O]: No, i don't feel that we need that and i am happy to seek short and simple version if there is good refs. --Zache (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment

In March 2007, Sierra wrote a long blog entry detailing a variety of incidents which she put together as having harassed and threatened her, and accused several prominent bloggers of involvement in violent misogyny. They strongly denied her interpretations. Sierra cancelled an upcoming Etech appearance. The incident was widely reported and remains controversial.

My attempt. Just a draft. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations of harassment" is edit war trigger and it doesn't stay. Also comments left to Kathy's own blog by random troll were clearly meant as harassments, so "online harassment" is better title. Other suggestions. Moving ETech to start would be timely more accurate... in example: "In March 2007, Sierra cancelled an upcoming Etech appearance, because she feeled that her life was threatened. Sierra wrote a long blog...." --Zache (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere now... How about this:

Online harassment

In March 2007, Sierra cancelled her upcoming Etech appearance after she felt threatened by a series of emails, blog posts and blog comments, including direct threats in comments to her blog. She wrote: "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same."

The cancellation was widely reported in both online and mainstream media; following those stories, a false account of her career was posted online, along with her address and Social Security number.

I think that "They strongly denied her interpretations" is just the "he-said-she-said" that I think we want to avoid. And "The incident ... remains controversial" -- got a cite for that? It's worth (imo) going to Google News, putting in this search and seeing the result. According to that timeline, it's all over. Time for us to do a good short summary and wrap this thing up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wired articles title: Kathy Sierra Case: Few Clues, Little Evidence, Much Controversy, so i guess that we can use term that it WAS controversial. Btw problem here is that it was she-said-he-said thing and there newer was any single truth. There just was multiple overlapping themes from point one (aka kathy's blog post) in example: 1.) Kathy's feeling to be threatened and her point that it is idea of a threat makes the damage, not that if the threat is real or not (ref computerworld); 2.) Kathy's accusations against prominent bloggers, their answers and what can be reffed as happened actually; 3.) General talk about cyber bullying with following world wide support for Kathy and proposal of Code of Conduct. (this we have dropped out)

And Kathy had perfectly valid points in some parts, but she was also wrong in some other parts (like accusing Locke for the death threats), but your version draft just says that Kathy feeled threatened and was scared as hell and after that were in public there was more harassments, which is pretty much saying that she was pure victim and nothing else. --Zache (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem saying it was controversial; my objection was to saying it "remains controversial." I think the fuss has died down, and Google's timeline appears to substantiate that.

As to "saying that she was pure victim and nothing else"—you don't really want to go the "she was asking for it" route, do you?

So far as the controversy itself, there are no WP:RS with a verifiable timeline that everyone agrees upon. And without that, anything we do is WP:OR or "he-said-she-said." Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, i should have been more accurate. I didn't mean that she was asking for it, but that she wasn't bystander and both harassment against her and her response to that, which targeted to Locke and others on purpose, were both unfair events. Kathy clarified it too after couple days. (check the links) Of course we could not or should not use those links as refs, but is there something which we doesn't agree in SFGate's article ? That SFGate's article anyway covers well enough what happened for our short summary. Though you are maybe right that it goes to she-said-he-said text, but i am failing to see why it would be bad thing. --Zache (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There's two issues here, as I see it:

1. The problem with "he-said-she-said" is that everyone thinks that some particular side should get the last word. Once you go down that road, it becomes "he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said..." and so on, forever. When it's not even necessary here, why start? (fwiw, Chris Locke's article links to their joint statement, but doesn't mention Kathy otherwise).
2. As to how it all started: "It's not clear what provoked such a vitriolic response to Sierra. She attributes it to comments she made a year ago in support of bloggers' rights to delete comments on their own blogs." Wired; "In Sierra's case, no one is clear about why she would be singled out for such particularly nasty threats." SFGate; "[she] told Computerworld in an interview yesterday that she has no idea what particular post or topic might have prompted the threats." Salon. Or in other words: I don't think it's possible to state here (keeping in mind WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR) how this whole thing started. It's better to keep it simple, point to sources, and let interested readers make their own decisions. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But repeating Kathy Sierra's POV only is no solution. All allegations are not automatically true. Giving only her accusations is "she said" without even one countervailing "he said". FYI, the article you're citing are misguided to the extent they did not have the background information and were repeating her sensationalistic story without analysis. Note we're getting back to trial-by-A-lister, since almost by definition an A-lister will have the media echoing their story. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For Dori

1. About he-said-she-said; It didn't continued forever and it calmed down to that what was said in joint statement.
2. Not any singe event, or who, but the context: The incident has its roots in a dispute that started online last month when Tara Hunt, a tech activist from San Francisco, posted on her blog about the importance of having a "higher purpose" in Web work. A wide-ranging discussion ensued, centered on some posts by Chris Locke, who had achieved some fame in Internet marketing circles as co-author of a 1999 book, "The Cluetrain Manifesto," which touts the notion that the Internet is taking over the business world. Locke, Hunt and others then engaged in a debate, which spilled over to other blogs. Hunt accused Locke and his cohorts of behaving "like the mean kids in high school," and Locke then started a critical Web site called meankids.org. Another meankids.org participant wrote about it, and Sierra defended Hunt on his Web site, almost daring people to come after her instead. On Saturday, meankids.org went down, and a new site, unclebobism.com, went up. It featured a digitally altered photo of Sierra being strangled in women's panties and included graphic and sexually violent comments. Unclebobism.com was also taken down right away. , SFGate. --Zache (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment & NPOV

Seth has the point on his edit. Article is not neutral when there is just Kathy's point of view. There is other POVs also like those who were named on Kathys orginal blogentry, but also writed what happened.

Note from Kathy Sierra: Seth F, author of the Guardian piece and several edits to the wikipedia entry, does NOT represent a NPOV. Well before the MeanKids event, Seth F expressed his dislike of me and strong disagreement with me, repeatedly, through comments on numerous blogs. I have no doubt that Seth has always believed his opinion to be neutral and that he was able to put his personal feelings aside, but I hardly see how this is possible (for anyone, not just Seth). In addition, Seth F has been accused himself of "being a stalker" and harassment [small refactor- SF] and I have strong reason to believe that this also may color his judgement toward people who are associated with any accusation of harassment. I believe that Seth is using my Wikipedia entry (and most blogs that have discussed this incident) to further an agenda/opinion he has been writing about long before the MeanKids event. I am not suggesting he should not have expressed his opinion, but... that's what blogs are for. Using my Wikipedia page and claiming to reflect a neutral POV seems extraordinarily inappropriate. I know of no person who can have such an emotionally-charged, personal prior agenda (not to mention stated dislike for the person) and still remain... neutral. -Kathy Sierra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.21 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that my experiences with false and malicious accusations have made me sensitive to the need to thoroughly examine any such inflammatory charges, and not engage in uncritical mob behavior. I believe that qualifies me more, not less, to keep an article in line with Wikipedia policies about neutrality and sensitivity to living people. In terms of journalism, I thoroughly investigated the events here, communicating with several of the accused parties. I found that the full context often contradicted Kathy Sierra's charges, and the rush to jump on a controversy often overlooked exonerating evidence. That is good journalism, which should not be a disqualification -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I respect journalism, wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for independent investigations. We can only include what is universally agreed upon as fact and is readily cite-able. Lythic (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there would be precious little that can be included about the incident, as not much about it is "universally agreed upon as fact". Note, the sub-topic is not Wikipedia as a forum for independent investigation, but a reliable source which is readily cite-able, my article "Accusations of sex and violence were bound to grab the headlines" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind this part of Wikipedia policy (my emphasis) "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings". Several people were accused of extremely defamatory charges. That's an area of policy which should not be subjected to logical paradox games! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Sierra is the only person here named in this article. Unless we decide to name the "harassers", I don't see how we can protect a large and varied group of anonymous posters from defamatory accusations. However, your accusations against Ms. Sierra appear to fall into this category. Wikipedia is a source for information, not a place to settle personal scores. Lythic (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But several other people are readily identifiable. There is a reason one person involved wrote "I'm sure I'll be explaining for years to come that I'm not really an ax murderer and child molester". Note I agree with you completely, "Wikipedia is a source for information, not a place to settle personal scores", so let us apply that to the proper sensitivity regarding such serious accusations as are here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And what was able to see at the time (from googles cache, because blogs were allready deleted) Meankids/Unclebobism-blogs, the quotes in Kathys blog were out of context and my opinnion was that quoted texts weren't deaththreats, just unpolite/distasteful. Anyhow, deaththreats were the reason why it got the public on BBC etc etc. Dirty pictures and naughty words would not be the news, even when they are from assholes.

This is the reason why i think that there should be some distinction between death threats from anonymous person to her own blog and with Meankids/Unclebobism people which were commenting on public. Also there isn't any known connection between those two, except Kathys blogentry --Zache 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what you're saying. The BBC reported it, so they're our source. The point of the story was that women online seem to attract particularly critical and abusive comments, as well as stalking and harassment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact people are slanders and tasteless in public don't make them more palatable, or less ludicrous, than people who do make death threats anonymously. At least for me. They belong in jail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.218.91 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

See my _Guardian_ column for an examination of the case - http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2059836,00.html . I don't want to put this in myself due to WP:COI -- Seth Finkelstein 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Seth. It would be good to add something from it, but I'm finding it hard to sum up what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In brief: The accused deserve a defense. An accusation is not necessarily true. And the BBC article is not very good because it was working off very incomplete information, much more has surfaced since then. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point does the sheer volume of responses from Seth make it apparent that he cannot be neutral about this issue? Seriously, it looks like he has left about a dozen comments, so it's fairly obvious he has little to no objectivity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.8.45 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Harassment source: Weev

[1] says Weev was the primary instigator of the harassment against Sierra. EllenCT (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)