Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 6 April 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Jeong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Madrigal, Alexis C. (August 7, 2018). "Misplaced Pages, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality". The Atlantic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Jeong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: speedy keep, 7 August 2018, see discussion. speedy no consensus, 4 August 2018, see discussion. relist, 4 August 2018, see DRV. speedy keep, 4 August 2018, see discussion.

Proposal: remove paraphrased NYT statement

The whole paragraph about the hiring controversy is textbook recentism, in my opinion. There seemed to be little appetite for caution and long-term reflection during August's mad editing frenzy, but now I hope we can consider some tightening of the prose. For example, I suggest we remove the statement: The Times said it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

As I've stated before, this just reads like PR boilerplate, just the sort of statement we'd expect any employer to make in the face of such a (manufactured) controversy. Are we expecting the Times to say either a.) they didn't care about a tech writer's social-media history, or b.) they did condone their new hire making fun of white people? I don't see how this adds to a meaningful understanding of Jeong's life and career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because it's "boilerplate" (or any other WP:IDLI reason) doesn't mean we shouldn't include the reaction by the most important party to the controversy (which, btw, is not manufactured and your repeated characterization of it as such is bordering on WP:REHASH), other than Jeong. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And what does the reaction by the Times tell us about the subject of this article, namely one Sarah Jeong? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mostly that the other party in the controversy agrees it was poor judgement to post things like that. Also the Times reaction is heavily covered by almost every RS when talking about the situation. It would be a disservice to our readers not to include a common thread in most RS. PackMecEng (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the quality of anyone's judgement, so if that's what you mean, all the more reason to omit this information. Whether the Times "agrees it was poor judgement" appears to be your own interpretation of the source. Another one, equally likely in my view, is that they're covering their own asses. In any case, it doesn't tell us anything about Jeong herself.

There are lots of common threads in the sources that we haven't replicated in the article – directly quoting Jeong's tweets, for example. When the sources are all news outlets, exercising that kind of discretion is vital, because Misplaced Pages is not a news source, and such details are often out of proportion to their overall importance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've answered these objections. If there are no others, I propose removing the text as described above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  Done —08:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yet another example of Sangdeboeuf serving as both judge, jury, and "executioner" (as in, executes changes w/o consensus). WP:RECENTISM is a policy about how much space to dedicate to particular events, not a Swiss-army knife to selectively remove certain viewpoints and statements that you disagree with or frame the subject in a way you don't like. I'm restoring the content, as you don't have consensus to implement this proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you perhaps find a less assholeish way to engage? Your message is hyper-personalized and contains no content. --JBL (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a process issue here, and I'm commenting on it. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you could raise it without calling names. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the sentence related to the NYT-reaction since its recent re-addition violated the applicable DS (see this discussion for a lengthier explanation behind that judgment). That said, the removal of the NYT reaction on March 22nd, at best enjoyed a weak-consensus through silence and so it would be good to discuss the issue on its content (as opposed to procedural) merits to decide if its inclusion or exclusion is preferred. Pinging @Sangdeboeuf, Wumbolo, PackMecEng, Joel B. Lewis, and Wikieditor19920: to make them aware of the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment The notion that Sangdeboeuf's proposal had any sort of "weak consensus" is patently false. SDB made the proposal in December, and two editors disagreed - indicating consensus against the removal. Two months later, SDB returned to the discussion and proceeded to make the same exact changes that had already been objected to. Without the DS sanctions, this would just be another bold edit, but the sanctions require talk page consensus for any such change. You said that WP:SILENCE implies that the lack new objections means consensus has been reached, but the policy says just the opposite: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. SDB did not "answer" or address the concerns of the two (now three) dissenting editors in any substantive way, and the fact that SDB's unilateral removal of the content went unchallenged in the article for two weeks - likely because few editors watch this page - is irrelevant, because they did not gain talk page consensus in the first place.

I'll also note the irony in the fact that the very reason that these "procedural" issues are even relevant is because of the discretionary sanctions that you applied, and which, in my opinion, have long outlived their usefulness. Disallowing bold changes to an article in perpetuity without an extremely compelling reason is, IMHO, in direct contradiction to the spirit Misplaced Pages as an open-source encyclopedia and inhibits the process for improving articles. If you would be willing to lift this unnecessarily stringent DS, then we'd be far more able to dedicate most of the discussion to content rather than procedure.

Lastly, as for the actual merit of the content itself, inclusion is clearly warranted by policy. The controversy involved both her tweets and the New York Times' decision to bring her onto its editorial board. Their viewpoint is pertinent to the subject matter and should be afforded space in the article per WP:DUE based on the fact that we have numerous reliable sources covering it. SDB's assertion that somehow WP:NOTNEWS presents a basis for excluding this line is a mistaken, as this policy prohibits original or routine reporting - not substantial secondary coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Verge editors' statement

For the sake of clarity, I suggest changing:

Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy.

to the following:

Editors at The Verge defended Jeong by saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context, and comparing Jeong's experience to that of the women who were targets of harassment during the Gamergate controversy.

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't like it. Both sources say The Verge was referring to the harassment itself, not to how Jeong experienced it. R2 (bleep) 21:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to The Washington Post, Many said both and Jeong’s experiences were reminiscent of #Gamergate ... But some organizations are wising up ... Jeong’s current employer, the technology site the Verge, issued a vigorous defense of her. I think we can assume that The Verge is meant to be included in the "many said" part. And Jeong certainly experienced the harassment directed at her. I think this version is clearer than just referring vaguely to "the episode". Any other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

And The Independent says, The senior writer had been the victim of a Gamergate-style campaign designed to 'divide and conquer by forcing newsrooms to disavow their colleagues', suggested. That's a clear reference to Jeong's experience of being a victim of harassment. Is not as if the harassment itself exists in some ethereal realm separate from human experience. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right on the WaPo source, but the Independent source is explicitly talking about the style of the campaign where it refers to Gamergate. R2 (bleep) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

They're talking about both. The phrase had been the victim clearly refers to Jeong herself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really buying it and it seems like extra verbiage with no benefit. R2 (bleep) 08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, which part are you not buying? Do you have other ideas for making the prose clearer? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying that the The Verge was talking solely about Jeong's experience when it referred to Gamergate, and I don't understand how the current wording is unclear. R2 (bleep) 19:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Whose experience besides Jeong's would they be talking about? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The wording is vague because the episode could refer to almost anything – the harassment against Jeong, the outcry against the Times, or even Jeong's tweets themselves. Without more context, I think we need to specify exactly who The Verge is saying was the recipient of GamerGate-style harassment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've answered the objections to the suggested wording. If there are no further ones, I propose making the change as described above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  Done —08:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above, I see that you replied to the objections, but you did not address them in any substantive way or succeed in building consensus. You just reinserted your preferred version word-for-word after waiting until no one was watching, in direct contradiction to the DS laid out in the advisory note on the page. And perhaps most importantly, your summary of Verge's commentary is completely inaccurate. Verge said:

But as the editors of The Verge, we want to be clear: this abusive backlash is dishonest and outrageous. The trolls engaged in this campaign are using the same tactics that exploded during Gamergate, and they have been employed in recent years by even broader audiences amid a rise in hostility toward journalists.

The comparison was drawn between the tactics of the supposed "online trolls" in the two instances, they said nothing of her "experience." I agree with R2's assessment and oppose the wording you've unilaterally inserted into the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to file an WP:AE complaint against me if you think I've violated the discretionary sanctions (which you appear to think are absurd anyway). Returning to content issues, both the Washington Post and The Independent sources I quoted seem to refer to Jeong's experience. You also haven't addressed the ambiguity issue I raised. But since there's apparently no consensus, should we open an RfC to get the community's input? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the DS on this page are ridiculous, but I will abide by them until they are altered, and I expect you to do the same. But let's review the sequence of events: 1) You suggested a substantial rewording to a sentence 2) that was opposed by another editor, 3) you then returned later and independently decided that you'd "answered" the objections and proceeded to make the changes anyway. Do you honestly believe what you're attempting isn't 100% transparent, and do you really want me to have to make that case on WP:AE? I don't think you do. And to my earlier point, neither of the sources say anything about Jeong's "experience." An RfC would be a waste of time; there's no support for it in the sources, and you're plainly just trying to force in editorializing language that portrays the subject sympathetically. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, WP:AGF much? Also, when The Verge says that "a widespread campaign of harassment has targeted Verge reporter Sarah Jeong ... she has since received an unrelenting stream of abuse", how are they not referring to Jeong's experience? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to WP:AGF, but I don't like how you're just systematically dismissing other editors' concerns. Everyone can get a little zealous when they want to see an article a certain way, but this one is under a strict set of sanctions. (Striking—I think the sanctions on this page are inappropriate.) The Verge piece was comparing the behavior of the "online trolls" (I'm not entirely satisfied with this terminology, but whatever) between the two controversies: "GamerGate" and the alleged harassment of Jeong. They said nothing about her "experience," and, IMO, the wording you're suggesting does not reflect what the source wrote. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that because they don't specifically use the word "experience", they aren't talking about her experience? Who do you think experienced being "targeted" and "received ... abuse"? Also, "alleged" harassment? All the sources we're dealing with mention it as a fact, plus plenty more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The comparison by the Verge editors was a comment on the conduct of the harassers, not Jeong's perspective. You're trying to extrapolate something that they didn't say. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So when they say Jeong was targeted by "a widespread campaign of harassment" and "received an unrelenting stream of abuse", and three sentences later say, "The trolls engaged in this campaign are using the same tactics that exploded during Gamergate", you don't think that they're drawing an implicit comparison between Jeong's experience of harassment and what other women experienced during GamerGate? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No. If they wanted to relate something about Jeong's experience, they would've stated it directly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And yet, according to The Independent, "Editors at The Verge, an online tech magazine, denounced what they called 'disingenuous' criticism of Ms Jeong ... The senior writer had been the victim of a Gamergate-style campaign ... they suggested". How is this not referring to Jeong's experience being the victim of the trolls' actions? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post also explicitly refers to Jeong's "experience", as quoted above, so the statement neither of the sources say anything about Jeong's 'experience' is simply false. I don't see any other arguments for reverting based on these secondary sources. Unless Ahrtoodeetoo or Wikieditor19920 have anything to add, I propose restoring the wording I added on March 22, which I think solves the ambiguity of referring to the harassment simply as the "episode". Any other suggestions are also welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post are not the editors at Verge. You're trying to attribute what source B said to source A, which is just sloppy and not how to write an article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect; WaPo is a secondary source offering their own interpretation and evaluation of what The Verge said, and they attribute the idea to The Verge. When the WaPo article says, Many said both and Jeong’s experiences were reminiscent of #Gamergate and shortly afterward Jeong’s current employer, the technology site the Verge, issued a vigorous defense of her, they seem to be saying that Jeong's employer was one of those who connected Jeong's experiences to GamerGate, as The Independent also does. Do you dispute this? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Category

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.

No category:racism in the United States on this page? {— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4163:AD00:52D:509E:B37D:9310 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Cover story at Willamette Week

Jeong was interviewed for the cover story at Willamette Week. I added some information, but it was removed as WP:PRIMARY. I wouldn't call it primary, it was mentioned in the introduction to the interview: "Four years ago, Jeong described the internet as a trash heap. Now she says the disinformation clogging up cyberspace in 2019 is more like nuclear waste—like the spent fuel rods stored in a Nevada mountain." That obviously implies that Jeong is critical of the spread of misinformation on the Internet (compare with experience at the fundamentalist high school).

Jeong's comments about regulating Facebook are more nuanced. Her opinion is obvious from the answers to "Do you agree that tech giants should be broken up?" and "How would you break up a big company like Facebook or Google?" The significance of these opinions is highlighted above the interview: "She enjoys one of the most prominent perches in America to witness the growing backlash against Facebook and its fellow big-tech companies. It's hard to keep up. In March, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for the breakup of Facebook, Google and Amazon. The techlash has started—and Jeong saw much of this coming. Before her talk, WW sat down with her to discuss her work, digital threats to democracy, and whether Facebook is destroying America.". As an alternative, maybe we should state Jeong's predictions about the big companies, or the legal issues they are facing. Sangdeboeuf, would this be a secondary source? FWIW, I wouldn't call Jeong's speech at TechfestNW a "trivial factoid"; I'm pretty sure it will gain coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 20:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's great; once it gains true secondary-source coverage, I'd agree with including it. But a Misplaced Pages bio should not be a comprehensive list of speaking engagements. She's also spoken at Harvard University, at Yale in 2015 and again in 2019, and, according to the lead image, Portland's XOXO Festival. None of these facts alone tell us anything about Jeong as a person; listing them would just look like promotion.

As for Jeong's stance on big tech companies, what we're looking for are sources that interpret and evaluate her statements in some kind of context. The Shepard piece seems to just paraphrase Jeong. There's certainly an argument to be made that she is a qualified expert on the subject, but if we're writing about Jeong herself, then an interview where she states her views is still a primary source for those views.

I agree there could be some useful material regarding online disinformation, but I'm not sure "critical" is the right word, since it implies a specific target of criticism Would that be the tech companies? Fake news purveyors? The Internet itself? "Warning" might be more appropriate, but that's just an interpretation, so we're back to the need for a real secondary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Jeong has now given the speech. Here's a ref: . wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

The discretionary sanctions prohibiting bold edits to this page are absurd at this point in time. This is a low-traffic article that has received little continuing coverage—the requirement that all editors must obtain "consensus" for any edits to the tweets section is a) difficult and unreasonable to consistently enforce b) places an unnecessary impediment before editors seeking to make improvements to the article. This is precisely the opposite of what DS sanctions should be imposed for; limiting edits to editors with extended confirmation is appropriate, but the additional layer is absolutely overkill. There is no reason that this article should have sanctions which essentially lock in one iteration. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think if you want DS lifted, you should make a request on WP:AN. Liz 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have been quite sympathetic to an appeal for lifting the discretionary sanction as no-longer-needed, were it not for the editing history of the last few hours. Cannot support such an action at the moment given that editors are still willing to edit-war and name-call over what are pretty minor variations in phrasing. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement is to be expected on somewhat contentious BLPs, but we can all act like grown-ups. I think that at least downgrading the page to WP:1RR and removing the DS on the section on her tweets would give everyone a lot more breathing room to improve the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I, as the admin who placed the particular discretionary sanction, am not comfortable lifting/modifying it at the moment WP:AN or WP:AE would be the right venue to appeal them. Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Women writers articles
• Low-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press