Talk:Stop Watching Us

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zahussen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nature of "Stop Watching Us"

I generally loathe "editorial judgment" on Wikipedia, but with all the references from before or just a few days after the event, it may be necessary to make a judgment call. I think that introducing this article as a "movement" isn't sustainable, based on the OR decision process of looking at the website and seeing that their last news item was from the day of the event. Despite the shared imagery and membership, there is no mention of The Day We Fight Back from the event's site. So I think it is best to say that "Stop Watching Us" was an event, supported by an open letter and PSA, rather than saying it is a movement. Whatever the movement behind this and TDWFB actually is, I don't know what it is. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch!! Upon inspection, you speak wisdom. The site hasn't been updated, so I'm guessing think the 2014 media reports were probably just looking at people holding signs that said "Stop Watching Us" and got sloppy with their identifications. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK text?

• .... that Stop Watching Us, a protest against mass surveillance, was supported by Daniel Ellsberg, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Lawrence Lessig, Wil Wheaton, and others?

Notability and use of self-published/non-RS sources

This article makes extensive use of self-published sources (including the protest's own website) and sources which are not considered RS by Wikipedia (e.g. RIfuture, Truth-out.org, Optin.stopwatching.us. Beforeitsnews.com.). In addition, does this single protest make this event notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

I don't see two of these. Truthout is apparently "regularly defended" on WP:RSN [1]. The Stop Watching Us website is clearly partisan, clearly primary, we might have issues about using it in many contexts, but not when it comes to citing it about what the website itself says!

The protest has been covered in multiple media sources and continues to gather further citations in reference to ongoing events.[2] It well surpasses the GNG for secondary sources independent of the subject, even if we also use a few primary sources in permissible ways. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a regurgitation of an organization's website, especially when it is used to promote its own activities (such as it is here - for example, the list of organizations its website provides certainly does not belong here). As for your claim that "Truthout is apparently regularly defended", there is a single line in the link you cited in which a user makes this claim, but provides no evidence, examples, or arguments to support it. Finally, protests are often covered by the media, but does that mean that every protest deserves its own Wikipedia page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

I've removed a great deal of information from this article. Information sourced to the rifuture blog (blogs are not reliable sources) and promotional material from the organization's website has been removed. The section linking this protest to The Day We Fight Back has been removed entirely - the sources provided do not indicate any link between them. Finally, Stephen Lendman is certainly not a reliable source - surely a better source can be found.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

Removing half the article is not a good thing, especially when it rests on a misinterpretation of WP:OR. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" Looking at the primary source to list who is in the video or who the member organizations are is as easy as it gets, and fully appropriate to do for an article about the video and the coalition itself. I did fix some bad writing I left in one paragraph, and replaced the rifuture blog with a better source. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I should add that "regurgitation" is what encyclopedias do. The question is only whether the list is useful to the article. In practice, I have decided that seeing the member organizations and following their links back to see what their activities are is extremely useful to an understanding of the topic; therefore this fact is important to include, and so I agree with and have somewhat augmented the list. Wnt (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in but I'm having trouble identifying which specific source(s) and content you're disagreeing over / identifying as primary. Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed the point: "Regurgitation" is what encyclopedias do: What Wikipedia does not do is regurgitate promotional information from an organization's own website. In this case, large portions of this article are taken from the organization's website. If people want to view the list of organizations that SWU claims support them, they can do so on the SWU website - repeating here is unnecessary - especially when the SWU website is the only source provided. To put this in perspective - we could copy almost the entire SWU website into this article on the grounds that it is simply descriptive; this is not what Wikipedia is meant for (basing large portions of an article on primary sources is not a good idea). Anyway, the list of organizations has to go - a link to the SWU website that provides this list is sufficient. But I'll try and take a more conservative approach to editing this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

To provide context, similar organizations, such as United for Peace and Justice, do not list all their members - except when their members are cited by third party sources.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

The section on the subsequent protest (The Day We Fight Back) needs to be removed entirely - it is based solely on one non-RS source (written by a controversial blogger on an "alternative" media site) and statements on SWU's own website (which, again, is promotional material). If this section is going to be included, RS sources will be needed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

That's ridiculous. The relationship between Stop Watching Us and The Day We Fight Back is absolutely obvious. Providing a source to make that connection is the Wikipedia way. Whether a research associate working with a think tank or the think tank itself is "controversial" and to be excluded is not up to you to decide -- that is simply saying that sources with your POV are allowed and all others excluded, period! It's a source, it makes a connection we don't even need a source to make, and that connection greatly improves the article by allowing people to view the event in a broader historical context.

As for United for Peace and Justice, that group has 1,300 members, making it difficult to fit them in an article format. That doesn't mean that a separate article List of organizational members of United for Peace and Justice wouldn't be a good idea. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST isn't a policy, nor is it a good idea. Most of what should be in Wikipedia isn't here yet. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperionsteel pretty much across the board. We need to focus not only on what appears "useful" (stated better perhaps as "informative") from a particular editor's point of view but also on relevant policies, namely NPV and NOR. For example, we can't make a connection between SWU and TDWFB without sourcing; doing otherwise would be WP:SYNTH. Also, please review WP:ABOUTSELF, namely, that self-published sources by the subject of the article that are unduly self-serving absolutely cannot be used. We have to be particularly careful about this policy when the subject of an article is a nascent advocacy organization that is trying to attract attention to itself. We have a duty to avoid not only WP:PROMOTION but also the appearance of promotion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The "source" doesn't make any connection between SWU and TDWFE. Rather, you are making that connection through WP:SYNTH. Second, I certainly never claimed that "sources with [my] POV are allowed and all others excluded." Rather, I pointed out that citations in Wikipedia are based on WP:Reliable Sources, and information taken from blogs and conspiracy theorists is not considered RS (this is what you clearly do not understand). Anything on the internet can be a "source" but that doesn't mean it's a reliable source. Likewise, information based on self-published sources (in the case the organization's website) is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, especially in this case where it is being used to promote (WP:PROMOTION) the topic (i.e. listing every organization that SWU claims supports it based solely on its website). Wikipedia is not the place to simply copy information from SWU's website, no is Wikipedia the place to conduct original research into the "broader historical context" of other protest movements.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Update: I see that you have provided two links with note that SWU was followed by TDWFB. Chronologically, this is certainly correct (SWU was held in October 2013 and TDWFB was held in February 2014). Unfortunately, neither of these sources state that some of the same organizations involved in SWU were present in TDWFB (only SWU's website makes this claim). Your attempt to make this claim by synthesizing information taken from SWU's website and these articles is original research. Also, and I repeat myself, bloggers like Stephen Lendman are certainly not reliable sources - (editorial: if Lendman is the only source you can provide, I'd almost consider that an embarrassment). Based on my own research, I've found that some reliable sources have covered this protest (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/photos-day-world-january-17-gallery-1.1583294?pmSlide=3] (slide 4 of 9) and [3] but make no mention of Stop Watching Us. Likewise, in the 25 pictures (some duplicates) provided here [4] there is not a single picture showing anyone from Stop Watching US (although Code Pink is very prominent).

Again, listing every organization that SWU claims supports it, based solely on its website, is both WP:Promotion and unnecessary - a link to the website is sufficient.

Oh, and one more thing I pointed out earlier: [5] appears to be a dead link (or is at least malfunctioning).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Ok. I've removed the list of supporting organizations copied from the SWU website - a link to the website is sufficient, it doesn't need to be repeated here (repeating it here is probably WP:Promotion). Regarding the last section, I've removed the original research which noted that some organizations involved with SWU also participated in TDWFB and I've clarified the sources on which this section is sourced.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

First off, assume good faith here. It's probably not promotion. Half the list is also recreated in the VentureBeat article linked, indicating that it's the sort of significant information that you'd publish in a news article, which is an even lower bar than inclusion in an encyclopedia. You can argue about how reliable a source that is or the editorial merit of including a large list of supporters, but it's a bit hyperbolic to just assume that it's promotional.

Given that the linked VentureBeat article lists about 40 of the supporting organizations, I don't think there's much of an argument that it's WP:OR, since once you have half of them confirmed, it doesn't seem unreasonable to use a primary source to flesh out the list. I can see why the huge list of organizations might not be appropriate here, though. I think at the very least the "short list" of big names is appropriate there - EFF, Mozilla, etc. I think it's likely that we can find a truncated version of the list in a few other reliable sources to give us an idea of what to include on the "short list".0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 06:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Two responses:

• First, I didn't read Hyperionsteel's reference to WP:PROMOTION to be an AGF violation. It's impossible to know the true reasons for most editor's contributions, nor do they matter. When we talk about avoiding promotion, we're really talking about avoiding the appearance and effects of promotion. Content can be inherently promotional whether intended that way or not. We have to be particularly careful about this when the subject of an article is a nascent advocacy organization that is trying to attract attention to itself.
• Second, your substantive argument is undermined by the unreliability of the VentureBeat source. This is a technology blog/news site (somewhere in a gray area) that does employ professional journalists; however, the author of this particular source (John Kostsier] isn't one of them. Instead, his title is "Head of Product" and [his background is in technology management. In addition the source itself appears promotional, making no attempt at providing balanced coverage and including "StopWatching.us will be holding a call today to discuss the new initiative, recent revelations, and a coordinated response." In light of this the fact that VentureBeat lists some of the supporting organization actually provides further evidence that inclusion of the list in our article is also promotional.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of assuming good faith is that you don't know why someone did something, and so when there's no strong evidence the presumption is in favor of good faith. I don't think it was obviously promotional, so I was reading the WP:PROMOTIONAL references as insinuating that this was a POV addition, which I don't think it was.

As for the second part, that's a bit ridiculous. The VentureBeat article may have been written by someone who is a supporter of the organization, but it's hardly an advertisement. I don't understand why the quoted section is so clearly an advertisement. That reads like an announcement of an event to me. Given that it's clearly not a flier for the event, it still goes to the significance of listing some of the backers, since there's an audience for it. That said, I thought I made clear in my original post that I was in support of keeping a truncated list, anyway, and that even that I'm OK with waiting on another reliable source reporting on it. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 07:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I still fail to see why a link to SWU website which lists the organizations is sufficient. As I have pointed out, other Wikipedia articles on similar movements do not copy massive lists of their members taken from their website. Not to get technical, but the VentureBeat article is slightly confusing - the article states that 85 organizations comprise SWU, but the list of signatories of the petition at the bottom has only 37 members. (Is the petition different from SWU membership?) However, I think your idea that the "big names" such as EFF and Mozilla could be cited in a truncated list is certainly worth pursuing. In fact, the venturebeat article does list the more significant members: "Reddit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, the Mozilla foundation, the World Wide Web Foundation, and the American Library Association." In fact, I'll prepare this immediately for the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind, I changed the indentation of your post for formatting reasons. I got the impression that the VentureBeat article listed 37 of the 85 for reasons of space, and they prioritized the biggest names in the text, followed by smaller names in the list and the smallest names were truncated entirely. As an encyclopedia, we can be more complete than that if we so choose. My point was that the VentureBeat article goes to the significance of the list itself, since assuming the VentureBeat article is a reliable source and it's a news piece, if the information is valuable enough to be listed in a news piece, it's likely that it's valuable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.

That said, I'm not really in favor of including the whole list. While I think we may be justified in including it should we choose (I think I'd like to see at least one more source with a list of 10+ supporters before we did so), it doesn't seem necessary, unless a large fraction of the names are independently notable and big players in the industry, in which case the participation of each member of the list would be inherently notable anyway. Doesn't seem like that's the case, so I think the truncated list with the biggest players like Mozilla, EFF, Reddit, etc. is a good compromise. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 07:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See below.

Some of the "organizations" cited by SWU don't even have a webpage, so their significance (if not their existence) is certainly questionable. If we can agree that the participants list can be limited to the companies cited as big players in the VentureBeat article, I think that will be an acceptable compromise, at least until additional source are found.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

(edit conflict) 0x0077BE, I'm troubled by your response on multiple levels. First, a source doesn't have to be explicit advertising to be promotional in nature, hence "advertising" and "promotion" being separate items in that section of WP:NOT. A promotional source is exactly that, one appearing to promote the subject more than to provide some independent, reliable information. An "announcement of an event" (your words) is exactly that. You "announce" an event with this type of positive language if you want to "promote" it. Second, the VentureBeat source need not be promotional to be unreliable. It's still just a blog post written by a non-journalist. And to be clear, I support the inclusion of language about specific supporters as long as it's reliably sourced (and complies with other policies and guidelines, of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• See http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130611/10103523406/86-companies-groups-ask-congress-to-put-end-to-abusive-nsa-spying.shtml (86 names, I think), http://www.techgatherer.com/stop-watching-us-brings-85-organizations-together-to-demand-truth-and-transparency-on-prism/ (40 names), http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2013/jun/11/nsa-prism-scandal-russia-would-consider-edward-snowden-asylum-claim-live-coverage (35 names). As the lists of names are non-overlapping, one can recover very nearly the entire original list from its second-hand copies --- an exercise few but Wikipedians would consider!

• Meanwhile, I'd like to hear the explanation for your "compromise". You've taken a source with a list of 37 names and one with some conversational discussion of names in the context of "bringing the left and right together", and delivered 11 names, excluding even some like FreedomWorks that occur in all three sources listed. I should be frank and say that I get the feeling that you have a pre-programmed notion of which organizations are "really important" that you took in with your mother's milk, what was playing on the radio that day, and now you want to impose this built-in bias that is beyond all question or self-reflection into the article itself. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

At the time, we did not have the additional sources with extra names and had only the VentureBeat article. As you can see from above, the suggestion for the inclusion was that the VentureBeat article had a "short list" in the main body of the text followed by a list of 37 names. I'll have to look at the new sources you've provided about news agencies providing lists. If they are reliable news sources listing a significant fraction of the full list as part of independent coverage of the event, then I believe my original points stand that this is a strong point establishing the significance of the full list. I don't think it's OR to use the full list from the web site when a large fraction is corroborated by independent sources and there is no reason to believe that the web site is inflating its membership, it's just down to the significance of the inclusion of the list at this point, in my mind.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed several of the sources as clearly unreliable, including the VentureBeat source (which we went over above) and a re-post of the same source. Now I believe some of the supporters lack reliable sourcing, so they should be removed. Meanwhile we have a neutrality/balance/relative notability issue here. At the very least any supporting organization that doesn't have its own article (or at least doesn't satisfy WP:GNG) doesn't merit inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that's appropriate. VentureBeat is not so unreliable as to not be a reliable source of information, nor - might I add - would I consider the SWU website to be such. I'm willing to not contest the idea that VentureBeat cannot establish the notability of the list, but that's a far cry from saying that it is not an independent source of the information therein. It is still an organization with a reputation for factual accuracy to maintain.

Regarding the removal of anything without an article, I think that's applying a bit of a mixed standard. The hierarchy I see for inclusion is that 1. for each organization that is large enough or notable enough that its political activities are inherently notable, then it deserves inclusion even with no sources that include it as part of a greater list (so long as its participation is sourced), 2. if independent reliable sources display a significant fraction of the list, particularly non-overlapping portions, I would suggest that this establishes the notability of the entire list, as I think that it is valid to consider that an encyclopedia would contain a more complete list than a news article. 3. list items that are mentioned even in sources such as VentureBeat or the SWU website can be taken as factually inaccurate, even if their conflict of interest in displaying the full list would inherently disqualify them as an independent source for the notability of such a list. I don't think that a curated version of the list is necessary if #2 and #3 are valid, and #1 is irrelevant if #2 and #3 are valid, so where exactly do you stand on points #2 and #3. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to take the (threshold) VentureBeat issue at the moment so as not to muddy the water. WP:RS is about reliability of factual information, not about notability. The VentureBeat post is not a reliable source for the reasons I stated, namely, that it was a promotional blog post by someone other than a professional journalist. If you go back through the WP:RSN archives you'll see a couple of comments saying VentureBeat articles were reliable, but only because they were written by professional journalists. Your assertion that this source is "not so unreliable" is not supported by any policy- or guideline-based arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that assessment, but I hardly think that it "muddies the waters" to address my actual points, given that if we agree about my assessments of notability, then even the SWU website is sufficient to establish the simple factual assertion about who participated. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard of whether something actually has its own article is irrelevant. We all know Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of worthy topics. What's more, the number of links there that are blue has been substantially increased by my own efforts in creating redirects, for example, from the organization to the article about its founder that mentions it. But above all -- WP:Notability applies to creating articles, not creating entries on a list. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, I just meant to address one argument at a time to make sure everything gets aired out. Verifiability of content requires reliable sourcing. Put two unreliable sources together and you don't magically get verifiable content. You still haven't addressed the reliability of VentureBeat. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the three sources you cited:

• [6] - which is a blog whose content is based on reader submissions and the editorial staff's picks (not the most RS or mainstream source)
• [7] - this is simply a copy of the VentureBeat article (even the same picture is used) [8] - so its not really an additional source.
• [9] - this is not part of a guardian article - rather, it is a twitter posting from someone named (h/t: @attackerman). I don't know what you consider a reliable/mainstream source, but a Twitter posting is certainly not one (Too bad Mr. @attackerman didn't provide his first name).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

@attackerman is the verified twitter account of Spencer Ackerman, national security editor of the Guardian. I haven't evaluated the quality of the sources myself yet, but I thought I'd mention that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A journalist's twitter feed isn't a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to know the identity of Mr. @attackerman. Even so, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:SOCIALMEDIA both state that self-published sources such as social networking sites can only be used as sources for information about themselves, so its value here is still questionable at best (especially since this tweet appears to be a rehash of SWU's website).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

I'm actually a bit confused about the format of that Guardian "article". The top of it looks like an article, but the rest looks like a liveblog or something. Is this a standard thing for the Guardian? I think that the (h/t @attackerman) reference does not indicate that this came from Ackerman's twitter feed, but rather that Scott Ackerman told whoever the author is supposed to be about the list. This is clearly not self-published and it's much too long to be a tweet, so he's just attributing that he got the information from Ackerman. That said, whatever this is, it doesn't look like a news article, so I'm going to guess it's not notable. I agree on the quality of the other two sources, so unless we have some reliable sources for the notability of the list, a culled list seems to be the way to go at the moment. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd propose we go with the truncated list of organizations that the VentureBeat and Guardian articles saw fit to mention within their articles (not just in lists). Unfortunately, if we do try to implement this idea, WNT will probably make further derogatory comments about Colostrum and wireless transmissions.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

I see no need to speculate on that. I think the three of us seem to be in agreement. Let's hear Wnt's arguments before proceeding and maybe give it some time for others to comment. Also, this subsection is getting a bit long. Maybe we should break it up a bit? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Colostrum isn't milk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite: Colostrum is a form of milk produced by the mammary glands of mammals (including humans) in late pregnancy and during the first few days after delivery (until it eventually changes into Breast Milk).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Arrrrgh. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a week. I notified Wnt on his talk page that we were waiting on his input and he doesn't seem to see it that way, so I say we go ahead and pull the trigger. Hyperionsteel - I think you had a list more or less ready to go, do you want to implement? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We've waited long enough.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

My Response to Wnt's false accusations

Wnt, clearly you didn't read the articles before you wrote this diatribe. The reason I cited the 11 names in question was because VentureBeat and the Guardian cited them individually within the article (not simply in a list at the bottom). My motivation for doing this was the result of an idea proposed by 0x0077BE for a truncated list, for which I decided to make an attempt to implement. Thus, your accusation that I have "a pre-programmed notion of which organizations are really important" which I somehow acquired through "mother's milk" or the "radio" is false, as is your claim that I have some secret desire "to impose this built-in bias that is beyond all question or self-reflection into the article itself." If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have realized that it is VentureBeat and the Guardian that deemed these 11 names to be big players (thus it is their mother's milk or radio habits on which this list was based). I assumed that you would actually taken a look as too why I included these names before engaging in your rant about my supposed intentions (and for the record, I don't drink milk and I rarely listen to the radio), but clearly this is too much to expect from you. Whether your failure to properly review these articles upon which I based my proposal was the result of laziness or simply incompetence, I suggest that you be more careful about this in the future in order to avoid further embarrassing yourself.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Recruitment template

I think that the "recruitment" template at the top is incredibly inappropriate, given that Wnt merely notified WikiProject Mass surveillance (one of the two WikiProjects that this article is listed under) that a dispute was going on, in perfectly neutral language. Can we go ahead and remove that, as it really seems misleading. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 07:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I dispute this assessment of the notice. More to the point, the harm is what, exactly? The tag merely alerts new contributors to the possibility of canvassing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clearly designed to paint people who came over as a result of the neutral notice as POV editors and thus discount the points they're making. At the very least, it's an attempt to discredit Wnt as a POV canvasser.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the rationale is simply that I went to the Wikiproject, perhaps you would consider adding it to the Wikiproject banner itself? Or perhaps to the general template all the Wikiprojects use. Note that contrary to the comment about "possibility" above, it says "there have been attempts..." Usually I see this on articles where a media commentator has asked people to set the record straight, not when someone tries to get a third opinion for an edit war. Wnt (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I was quite up-front that my complaint was not about you going to the Wikiproject. Rather, it was about the combination of your non-neutral language, your suspicious timing, and your choice of a partisan audience. I cannot speak to what you usually see. In response to 0x0077BE, I'm not trying to discount anyone's views, just to alert fellow editors to the presence of canvassing to reduce the impact of votestacking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

While I did use the word "designed", I think the counter-point to your suggestion that it's doing no harm still stands in that such a template does serve to bias people who will read this and assume that there was a consensus view that canvassing occurred, despite the fact that Hyperionsteel seems to have been staying out of this discussion, and that my (in my opinion) neutral point of view (note that my first contact with this article was in response to your suggestion of canvassing and I stuck around to discuss the points, not the other way around) is that this was not canvassing. In fact, your unilateral addition even serves to undermine my position as a neutral party, thus insulating the template from removal.

You yourself admitted that the forum was appropriate for a notice, and I think most people will agree that if it's non-neutral at all, it's only barely so. Wnt has plausibly contested the timing issue and I see no reason to disbelieve him, so I really don't see any remaining reason to leave the template in place. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have consensus that this was in fact canvassing, nor do we have consensus that it wasn't canvassing. In light of this the tag is indeed misleading, as it says "there have been attempts..." I'll change this to say there may have been attempts and to direct editors to this discussion so they may decide for themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Damage to last section

I don't get the point of the edits to the last section here. You remove sources, cite the SOPA comparison to only one of the two sources cited that both made it, and copy-edit the quote I gave from a direct quote into the defective text protesters outside the Justice Department were described by one website as "Hundreds of Stop Watching Us activists", wore "STOP SPYING glasses" and held sign stating "Stop Spying on Us", "Big Brother In Chief" "Obama = Tyranny."

I've been a bit awkward in writing this section, and I'm sure I can improve it, but I see no benefit to any of the changes made in this edit. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the point of removing the reference and its accompanying sentence was that it may be considered WP:SYNTH without an accompanying reference which actually ties the EFF's participation in both events together. Seems like a borderline case to me, as the removed reference clearly indicates that the two protests are related and does establish EFF's presence at at least The Day We Fight Back. The only way I can interpret that as being OR is if there's some possibility that the EFF supported the two protests for entirely unrelated reasons, which it seems pretty obvious that it did not.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the sources were removed because they were unreliable. Without reliable sourcing associating the two organizations, the appropriate way to connect them in our article is in the "See also" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made three edits to the last paragraph. First, I've noted that Digital Trends magazine is the source of the comparison between these three protests and separate protests against the SOPA. Second, I've removed the original research which notes that certain organizations that participated in SWU subsequently participated in a subsequent protest - the articles cited do not indicate this - rather, it is wNT's only analysis and synthesis of separate articles that is used to make this statement. Finally, I've re-added the unreliable source tag to the last reference - why? because I would argue that a single opinion piece from an "alternative" news website, written by a conspiracy theorist, is not a reliable source for factual information, especially since the mainstream sources that have covered this protest make no mention of SWU members attending and none of the picture they have taken show any protesters carrying SWU signs.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

I agree that the last source is unreliable. It appears to be written more like a blog post than like a piece of journalism and the author is an activist, not a journalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave it in for the time being, on the condition that the unreliable source tag be added.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC))