Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Misrepresentation of a source...

... by James J. Lambden in this edit. The text being inserted reads "Another survey of Google employees showed "significant" support for Damore's memo.[1]". The title of the piece is "some googlers support". The poll itself is... made fun of in the piece. For example it says "Later, in what appears to be a group for libertarian-leaning Google employees, Damore asked for feedback, noting that his own libertarianism "influenced a lot of the document."" Basically Damore went to a Liberterian group and asked folks there for support. The edit also completely omits the part where it talks about "Damore's treatise invited derision internally as well."

Overall, the piece is blatantly CRITICAL of Danmore. Yet, somehow, Lambden managed to pretend that it's supportive of him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

While I'm almost loathe to weigh in on something you've written for fear of being called a "Single Purpose Account" again, I'd like to point out relevant sections of the article which would suggest it's more of a balanced piece than outright support or blatantly critical:
"But screenshots of Google's internal forums acquired by WIRED show that Damore found plenty of support from his coworkers. While it's hard to know how representative the views expressed below are of the company at large, they do illustrate that hostility toward Google's diversity efforts is not an isolated incident."
"But the internal discussions that followed Damore's memo and its fallout show Google employees both embracing and advancing its views."
"A few of the memes expressed dismay at both Damore's document and the fact that he found it appropriate to share on a company forum. Many more, however, appeared to signal solidarity with the now fired Googler."
The long and the short of the piece seems to be that opinions are divided, but I think it's misleading to say that the response was "blatantly critical". Likewise, the bit you've now added to the Wiki article about him posting in a libertarian-leaning forum clearly applies solely to him asking for feedback - not on the memes the article refers to. It's less clear whether the libertarian group is also what's referred to by "screenshots of Google's internal forums"; I won't argue the point there due to lack of clarity. -A1Qicks (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You could add template:text-source inline. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
My only objection is to your last point which I believe is a misunderstanding. The text I added (Another survey of Google employees showed "significant" support for Damore's memo) was pulled from the end of the Wired article which says:
  • Still, taken together with a survey of Google employees showing that a significant percentage of employees polled agree with Damore's memo, Google appears to have a vocal contingent of employees who not only dismiss the company's diversity efforts but now appear to be emboldened in their views.
It links to survey results (the only survey results referenced in the article) posted to twitter [1] by "Sonya Mann" who Wired feels is notable. It does show "significant" support as Wired states rather than "a more split response" as we state in our article, so there's a contradiction unless I've misunderstood. And I don't see where it says this survey was distributed to (or only to) "libertarian-leaning Google employees." James J. Lambden (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I was tempering the new revision in line with a more moderate tone that I gleaned from reading the article myself. I can see that the survey itself showed significant support. I was more altering the version of our article that suggested the "survey" was simply the response on the libertarian Google pages. A confusion of what was being cited all round, I think. -A1Qicks (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Understandable. Your edit was an improvement; I think it can be improved further. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/internal-messages-james-damore-google-memo

To get back to the wired survey thing: The survey has the same sort of issues as the Blind poll. It is only of a few hundred people, and it's unclear what kind of people were responding to it. It's worth reading the Twitter thread here by Sonya Mann, which Wired cited. The very next tweet says: To be clear, though, I'm not claiming that the ~278 respondents are representative of Google's entire workforce. A couple of tweets later, she quote-tweets Anil Dash as saying that the survey was promoted by some activists.

I do not know if these things are true, what is happening inside Google and so on. And neither does anyone else. As I said in the section above, if one really wants to include such things, it's best to open an RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article doesn't gauge public support so much as it gauges journalists' support, or private (internal) support so much as executive support. A professional poll would be preferable but in my view almost any poll is a better gauge than what we have. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is presenting executives' positions or journalists' position as some sort of generalized position of Google employees. It can probably be stated that there exists some degree of support for Damore inside Google. This is clear from the Wired article and some other reporting. However, the numbers being thrown about are essentially meaningless. My viewpoint is that it is better to be vaguely right rather than precisely wrong. Some things are simply hard to observe, that's just the way it is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a reasonable argument. A review of the twitter thread (thanks) convinced me to leave the Wired poll out. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll again

As far as the polls goes - both myself and User:Ace Frahm have objected to its inclusion based on the fact that it's unscientific rubbish, it has obvious selection bias and more importantly it's WP:UNDUE and is only mentioned in passing in one borderline reliable source (Business Insider).

Additionally, User:Connor Behan has pointed out that from the sources presented for the poll by User:Jazi Zilber only ONE could be considered reliable - again, the already mentioned Business Insider. The other sources given were stuff like ageofshitlords.com

Furthermore, User:Kingsindian suggested keeping the poll out per WP:ONUS and that if Lambden and Jazi feel strongly about it, they should start an RfC. Which they haven't done - instead they have commenced with the edit warring.

That's three users against inclusion. On the other side you got Lambden, who hasn't made ANY kind of policy based argument for inclusion, just his usual personal attacks, and Jazi Zilber who thinks it should be included because "ageofshitlords.com" wrote about it. You can maybe throw in User Objective Reason although 1) theirs was a more general remark about polls and 2) it's an account with just a few edits.

So there's obviously no consensus for including it, and as has been pointed out over and over and over again, WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include it to get consensus.

And yes, most of this stupid dispute is occurring simply because Lambden follows me throughout Wikipedia, making revenge-reverts, starting up controversy where there should be none, and pouring gasoline on any fire in near proximity of me. This has gone on for long time and the fact that he's still being allowed to engage in this kind of behavior is explicit evidence about how dysfunctional Wikipedia can be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. And do we need another section about the poll? Start an RfC, I think we should and if I could trust myself to do it properly I would have. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Which part is ridiculous? Please articulate.
The part where myself and Ace Frahm are said to object to the inclusion? Is that ridiculous?
The part where Kingsindian is said to tell you to keep the poll out and points out WP:ONUS to you?
Or the part where the sources provided - "ageofshitlords.com" etc. - are pointed out as non-reliable by Connor Behan?
Please, James, explain which part is "ridiculous" in the above and why?
And it's your job to start an RfC if you want to include it as well as to respect Wikipedia policy which is what WP:ONUS is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: If you would like to propose an acceptable wording which you'd like to include, I can start the RfC for you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. At first glance the existing wording seems to be fine but let me re-read the sources to be certain. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You mean you haven't even read the sentence carefully, yet you've edit warred to restore it by reverting at least six freakin' times??? Why am I not surprised? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
And again. Which part in the above is ridiculous? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The sources [2] [3] [4] go into more detailed analysis than I think is due. To address your concerns about specificity, how about:
A survey by Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app, found slightly more than half of Google employees surveyed disagreed with the decision to fire James Damore. The split was similar among other Silicon Valley companies surveyed.[1][2]
James J. Lambden (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
So in addition to the Daily Caller you managed to find... Breitbart. Are you trying to show that this poll is bullshit?
And you still haven't answered the questions:
Which part of the above statement describing the nature of the discussion is "ridiculous"? Come on, if you can mouth off like that, then you should be able to back it up.
Did you actually bother to read the sentence carefully before reverting six times? Your comment above suggests you didn't. Why did you edit war then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bort, Julie (August 9, 2017). "Over half of Google employees polled say the web giant shouldn't have fired the engineer behind the controversial memo". Business Insider. Retrieved August 12, 2017.
  2. ^ http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/10/survey-most-google-employees-disagreed-with-decision-to-fire-memo-writer/

harassment

For some reason this edit tries to remove key information - that those Google employees who were critical of the memo internally were harassed and doxxed online.

The edit also insist on restoring the crappy poll, despite the discussion above, despite the fact that there is no consensus for inclusion, despite the fact that the person edit warring has made no substantive comments about content in this regard and despite the fact that WP:ONUS is pretty clear on who's suppose to get consensus.

The edit also spuriously removes a pertinent tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The harassment is covered by "safety concerns." Two mild sentences you disprove of in a relatively long article don't merit multiple tags. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
No, no it's not. "Safety concerns" is obviously vague and it purposefully omits the nature of these "safety concerns". It removes HOW these "safety concerns" arose - appearing "on Breitbart News and other conservative, far-right and alt-right websites along with the names of their authors". What you are doing is purposefully and dishonestly trying to remove WHO was doing the harassing (Breitbart, far-right, alt-right) so that the text reads like it could've been anyone. It's the most transparent and obvious POV pushing and the fact that you sit there trying to defend it with a straight face just evidences what kind of editor you are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The source [5] says nothing about the harassment stemming from Breitbart, far-right or alt-right websites. It's fair to say the previous description (which you restored) was unsourced. The current description accurately reflects it. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You're right it's not in that source. It's here. Oh hey, it's Milo! Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
And also here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Also here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
And here and here and here and here and here and a at least half a dozen more sources... enough?
But you're right, the text isn't quite right. Milo Yiannopolous' part in this should be mentioned as well and the info probably deserves a section of its own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I checked the first source: it's a WaPo Opinion piece, not usable. The second source (recode) largely supports the current text. It mentions alt-right (a label it appears we're moving away from using) but not far right and suggests we should mention "harassment." Show which sources support which specific claims and I'll review them further. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. It's not an "Opinion" piece it's "Analysis". Even if it was an opinion piece, it would still be fine with attribution. The second source, recode, says "conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos “posted on his Facebook page the Twitter biographies of eight Google employees who criticized Damore’s post.”" (also mentions Voxday). So shouldn't we mention Yiannopoulos? And I have no idea where you get the idea that we're "moving away from using "alt-right"". You just pulled that out of your nosehole. There are six other sources provided. Please actually bother to participate constructively in the discussion and read'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Analysis and Opinion piece are pretty much the same. Moreover, "safety concerns", however serious, does not equal "harassment". Equating the two is obvious WP:SYNTH. Kleuske (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't the precise validity of every subsection is various news article. The issue is that every part of this story can be (and is) embellished in the various media sources. So, we have endless exaggerations and anti Google stuff in the right wing media, and endless exaggerations etc. in the left wing media. Of course, we can start adding the endless barrage of Pro-Damore/Anti-Google embellishments, AND the endless barrage of Anti-Damore/Pro-SJWs embellishments. Do you want this whole load of nonsense to be included? Every line in this article can be edited to reflect whatever POV one likes. We cannot get drowned in such things, however "important" to both camps. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page

Premeditated Chaos closed this RfC with this statement:

This RfC about sources cited in the memo was sitting on WP:ANRFC, and it's obviously been long enough that it got moved to archive without ever being formally closed. So just for the sake of formally assessing consensus in case it comes up again, I find the consensus in that RfC is clearly in opposition to doing so, both in weight of argument and in sheer amount of !votes. I'm going to remove the link from ANRFC now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Should this page contain the section on "Sources cited in the memo"? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support
Please see my comment below, this is a qualified support in the spirit of "What amount of the memo are we going to present to the reader?" I sadly do not know the best way to handle that part (do we just block quote the whole thing? If so the sources will be present there anyway). I do believe there has been discussion of the sources used (there was a scientific response section at one point, haven't check recently), so I don't know that any OR argument really holds weight in that sense. Arkon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is original research, unless there are reliable sources that specificaly discuss the cited sources within the context of the memo. Minor4th 16:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Grossly undue, original research, and unencyclopedic. The WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY shortcut was set up for exactly this purpose. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not how Wikipedia articles work. We summarize RS|what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This spams the references with tangentially-related sources which don't discuss the memo, some of which are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. FallingGravity 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While is it completely appropriate to park material on the article's Talk page (see "Share material" on this page), it must either be material removed from the article for some reason OR new material that is not ready for prime-time. As mentioned previously, the section you are discussing is original research which would probably be OK if intended for addition to the article (assuming it meets other WP criteria). However, it appears the purpose of your compilation is to prove the veracity of the assertions made by the memo's author. If so, then the section does not belong here. airuditious (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Serves no purpose. The memo writer is not a recognized expert in social psychology altogether, so whatever he read is completely irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- excessive intricate detail. If ppl are interested in the sources used, they can read the document which is widely available. It also looks like a coat rack. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - uh, why? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There are a number of arguments for including the citations: 1) they memo is divided into the text, the sources and the charts, and for completeness we should include the sources 2) the memo does not make sense without reference to them 3) The sources are not easy to summarise without engaging in Original Research (I note many attempts to summarise the memo have been disputed) 4) The sources provide the background argumentation to the memo 5) The Sources are not easy to identify in the original source document (which is linked to) so referring to them by their title and providing a link to them is useful for those who wish to know more about the memo. Some editors may have practical issues which the sources being a long list, and therefore upsetting the narrative. If that is the case then we can include the Sources under Further reading.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - with mods - the cites used have WP:WEIGHT in the discussion above the level of material included here, but I'll suggest a couple mods. First, better than a bare list would be an intro or descriptive paraphrased from cites, with a requirement that the cite includes a list of the actual cites to distinguish it as something about the actual cites. I'd particularly point to Motherboard as prominently covered. Second, this seems part of the Science section, which currently is a rather abrupt sampling of scientists with no obvious explanation of why they're being brought in, so it would solve two problems at one go if the mention of the memo cites is the first paragraph of the that section - as that part of the memo occurred first and is the genesis for the section being a major topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If this were anything else (e.g. a research paper), listing its citations in the WP article would be a mistake. Happy to keep the list here in Talk for the benefit of later editors so that if the article quotes a portion of the memo which directly cites or quotes a source, it's easy to find. De Guerre (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When Wikipedia describes a research paper, it doesn't list the sources cited therein. And there's an "eternal link" to the memo itself – any reader interested in its sources can easily find them. Maproom (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The sources are an essential part of the controversy, such a list is very useful. --Guanatala (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Summoned by bot. There are many articles where we cite, for example, research papers that cite other research papers as their sources for various things. In cases where we choose to use the paper that cites another, do we also cite the other paper? Not in my experience, because all the information we're citing is in the first paper. (Perhaps a more relatable example would be a news article citing another news article.) What makes this any different? Nothing, really. Our readers can look at our sources and look at our sources' sources (assuming they cited their sources, as in the examples above) and so on. If we did this for every article we write, some of our reference sections, especially the ones on our scientific articles, would be much, much longer. — Gestrid (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Comment I'm not a fan of the current "Text of the Memo" section not actually including the....text of the Memo. We might need to start with that section to determine what we want to include or not. Arkon (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Minor4th Its not original research any more than referencing the Balfour Declaration on the Balfour Declaration page is original. Its the primary source. The primary source has created the RS reaction.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sources are not actually even cited; they are merely linked. And there is no notable discussion in secondary sources discussing the underlying sources. Minor4th 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wouldn't this be a candidate for WikiSource? – Athaenara ✉ 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not unless Damore has released the text of the memo under a Wikimedia-friendly free content license. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - FYI that OP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and Question - Am I alone in thinking that this is mostly a pointless conversation until we have the "Text of the Memo" section hashed out? (Sources are in the text of course) I don't want to see this somehow referenced to neuter the text once we get to what I consider to be, the main problem, with this article. Arkon (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a further argument that, by denying the inclusion of the citations, the Wikipedia summary of the memo fundamentally misrepresents the memo.

It is notable that Gizmodo’s original publication of the memo was the text only, and they omitted the citations and the charts. This was commented on by some critics:

“As Gizmodo’s post gained momentum, a common objection to it was that Damore makes statements without backing them up with evidence. As it turns out, he did —there are at least 27 links embedded in the original memo that back up his statements, along with 2 charts. But Gizmodo didn’t publish those in its post which it marketed as including the ‘Full 10-Page’ memo. Why? It noted the omissions in a small note at the bottom most people missed. The effect: all chances of sparking a meaningful debate based on controversial statements backed by evidence vanished in favor of a flame-throwing debate backed by feelings.” See https://medium.com/@100millionbooks/2-things-about-that-google-memo-75d3dcd29cc5

Gizmodo quickly updated the memo and added the citations and charts because by omitting them they were supporting a view of the memo that it was a screed. By omitting the citations we face the same dangers.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Gizmodo has NOT fixed and their "screed" article still does not include the links etc. check for yourself. Unless they disingenuously did it in a subsequent piece, in which case I will be polite and avoid using some choice words to describe them Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Motherboard however, published the full memo with links/charts. here is the link for it if someone wishes to add inside the article. [6]. Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • - Comment

Arguments against the inclusion of the sources fall into these categories: 1) That it is original research 2) That is provides undue weight 3) That it is unenclyopedic 4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia 5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

I shall address each argument in turn. 1) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist/

This is not what I am proposing. I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. In fact to deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, as it consists of the text, the citations and the charts.

2) Undue weight – Wikipedia states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

Thus this charge is incorrect. Once again, I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. To deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, and fundamentally corrupts the primary source. It is Undue weight not to include the sources.

3) That it is unenclyopedic. I have read the section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content None of the advice suggests that citations to a primary source should not be included.

4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia. This arguments demonstrates confusion in the mind of the editors. The citations are not RS, they are part of the primary source under discussion in the article.

5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

As stated above the Sources are not easy to identify in the original source document (which is linked to) so referring to them by their title and providing a link to them is useful for those who wish to know more about the memo. Some editors may have practical issues which the sources being a long list, and therefore upsetting the narrative. If that is the case then we can include the Sources under Further reading.

Can editors please let me know their reaction to this, and ideally address the arguments. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • On point 3, when editors talk about whether or not it's okay to reference primary sources, they are usually talking about primary sources on the topic of the article. That is not what is proposed here. Wikipedia is not an annotated text. De Guerre (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand, could you expand? The citations are part of the memo, and are therefore integral to the primary source, which is the source of the topic of the article.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Keith Johnston - (fm RSN) - I think the various objections are somewhat OK with saying the memo was used sources, and to link to something that has the memo text including those sources ... but object to them being specifically put verbatim as the article. As I said earlier, there are other items with lesser WP:WEIGHT than the ones actually in the memo, but I'd suggest that just listing sources - or the just listing competing sources - does not make for an understanding of why the article is showing all those blurbettes. I don't think the Primary or Secondary as described by WP:PSTS is involved much, as mostly I see the article showing what are peoples personal and hence primary opinion rather than a secondary review of the anothers work or a tertiary overview of all things written about the topic. I think a better alternative would be to start the "Scientific reaction" section with an introductory mention that the memo included links to a number of scientific sources, with cite(s) to an article which says that and which lists the sources -- as that would explain somewhat why there is a 'scientific' section, and listing the sources I take as a minimum bar to show it is seriously covering the sources. In particular, I pointed to the Motherboard article as a prominent part of the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett thank you for a most illuminating and helpful intervention. I concur and will edit.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, only Markbassett put it more succinctly. De Guerre (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rearranged the reaction section.

  1. I changed the text of only one passage I think. If there's more than that, it was unintentional.
  2. I changed "Scientific views" to "Analysis of the science"
  3. I created a "Concerns about sexism" (maybe not the best title), but it collects a bunch of related passages.
  4. I think the "Other" section can be divided into "Social issues" or "Ideology issues" and "Other"
  5. I merged the lawsuit into the legal section
  6. Probably can drop the "Reaction" header and promote the sub headings.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky - "Analysis" section doesn't have any analysis so -- perhaps "expert commentary" ?

Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Expert commentary perhaps, but there is a lot of expert analysis (e.g. science shows this, but that doesn't mean X). And I think the analysis is the salient point, not mere "commentary". -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Blind (Bling?) poll

I have added the Bling poll before

This is a widely reported poll. Highly relevant, as Google policing of its workforce expressions is part of the story.

Here is the piece that Volunteer Marek wishes to remove.

A Bling poll showed that 56% of Google employees surveyed disagreed with the decision to fire James Damore and 44% agreed with it. Other tech workers have shown similarly split views, depending on the company.[1]

He unilaterally removed this piece twice. WITHOUT discussing in talk. Without providing any reasonable argument. and never waiting for consensus. Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's "widely reported" let's see these "wide reports". Sources please. And I'm the ONLY one who's tried to discuss the poll. YOU're the one who hasn't bothered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Here are some news reports. they also explain the method and how pervasive this kind of poll is.
This is NOT the newspaper online box poll. It is an app that has a sensible polling system, with verification that people work at the company etc. etc.
news sources [7] [8][9][10] Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would only call one of those sources reliable. Connor Behan (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Uh.... ageofshitlords.com? Fucking seriously??? That right there is the perfect reason why we DON'T include the poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sad that you ignored businessinsider, etc 2604:2000:6999:1200:CCC7:2B26:E5EA:570D (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
And it is an ONLINE, unscientific, nonsense poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@YechezkelZilber: Just a point on the inclusion/removal of the poll. Here the Wikipedia policy of WP:ONUS is relevant: just because something is verifiable does not mean it has to be included, and the responsibility for getting consensus is on the person who wishes to include content, not the one who wishes to remove it. Therefore, it is up to you to get consensus for inclusion. I suggest discussion, and if necessary, an RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bort, Julie (August 9, 2017). "Over half of Google employees polled say the web giant shouldn't have fired the engineer behind the controversial memo". Business Insider. Retrieved August 12, 2017.
Google itself users bling polls regularly to get feedback, it's completely standard within companies, there's no such thing as a "scientific poll" to be conducted internally. Self selection bias it's not possible to remove. Our clearly is relevant Objective Reason (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Objective Reason: Do you have a reference for that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Sure, just as a correction the poll in question is from "Blind" there is no "bling app" Trieu, Rosa. "How Businesses Are Using Anonymous Blind App To Change Work Culture". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-08-15. -- Objective Reason (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. If we include it that should be mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Does the Forbes article mention this memo? No? Then who cares? How do you know this is "the same kind of poll"? This is textbook example of WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I immediately deleted the poll statement myself the moment I read it and the source, as any sensible thinker can see it has numerous problems.
The statement fails to inform our readers that TWO kinds of self-selection bias are happening. Only people who use this particular app can take the poll, and of those, only people who take the poll are included in the result. But the statement misleads our readers into thinking a MAJORITY(!!!), 56%, of ALL google employees disagree with google's assessment of Damore's position, a state of affairs that is not supported by this doubly-biased poll.

There are glaringly obvious problems:

  1. Self-selection bias to only users of an obscure chat app
  2. Of those, a self-selection bias of only the users who saw the poll inside that app and took it
  3. There's no way to verify the chat app's users aren't sock-puppets, non-employees, or ex-employees, such as James Damore himself.
  4. Even if ALL of the chat app survey takers are real google employees, that's only 247 of 72,053 who think Damore shouldn't have been fired. That's a measly ~0.34% of all google employees, a sample too small to draw a conclusion about what the rest of them actually think.
  5. Poll was only about the firing of Damore, not about whether or not other chat app users agree with his views. A worthwhile statement in our article would make that point clear, as presumably even fewer poll-takers would agree with him
  6. Statement placed inside this article fails to inform our readers that these bias problems make this chat app poll worthless as a source of knowledge.
  7. Since the poll is worthless as knowledge source, it doesn't belong inside the article, wasting our reader's time and energy. The poll itself has no other independent reason to be mentioned here.
  8. Claiming the poll is "widely reported" does not make it so. I haven't seen it referred to anywhere else but inside this very wikipedia article edit that we're busy deleting right here.


The unsupported claim of "Wide reporting" does not magically transform a bad, twice-biased poll into a worthy wikipedia source. If the existence of a worthless poll somehow becomes part of the relevant subject of an article, the wikipedia editor who includes it still has a powerful burden to HIGHLIGHT to our readers that the poll is bogus, regardless of what other effects it has had out there in the real world.

I can't believe we're even having a talk page section on this. Delete the statement about the Blind chat app poll. It disinforms our readers and isn't relevant to the subject because the bias inside it makes it a harmful anti-knowledge source.

18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple arguments here do not stand.
  1. The said poll service is widely used by tech companies to have an idea about employee opinions, it is NOT an obscure father-less joke. You can learn this by perusing the various news links about Bling (use Google) and the links provided above and elsewhere in this entry.
  2. Given that many take those polls seriously, (*again go try Googling it), it stands to reason that they do verify and fix for the most obvious problems. I find it highly unlikely that they will allow every anonymous user to sign in as a Google employee.
  3. The sample % relative to Total Google employees is irrelevant. 400 people answering a yes/no poll is highly significant. Albeit, of course the sampling error and other biases do exist. But the 247 number used in the argument is clear nonsense (to say politely). Statisticians have things to say about the issue.....
  4. Yes it is about the firing. The text added said clearly "disagreed with Google decision so fire Damore". Simple comprehension of the text is enough not to be mistaken. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Blind DOES verify company work place [11]Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
1. No, no it's not. You just made that up.
2. Prove that "many take" THIS poll - this poll right here not some other poll - seriously. Sources. Please. I don't care what YOU think is "highly unlikely" or not. Neither does Wikipedia. It's original research. I want to see the sources.
3. "400 people answering a yes/no poll is highly significant" Only true if it's a random sample. Which it is not. And if there's sampling bias then the small sample size means the poll is shit.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Leave it included. The current language explaining Blind is fine. If a more scientific poll is conducted we should include that as well but we don't require scientific polls. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, and you were the one who was just running around screaming about how the fact that it can be sourced is not sufficient for inclusion. Do you even try to pretend? And yeah, we require scientific polls. We don't publish random bullshit. There's a whole portion of the internet which will be happy to accommodate that. Perhaps you should stick to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Stop with the personal attacks. And yeah, we require scientific polls Can you point me to the policy that explains that? I think that would settle this debate but I couldn't find one when I searched. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Not making personal attacks. Critizing your behavior. Not the same thing. You were in fact running around proclaiming that sourcing isn't sufficient to include something when that something was something you "just liked". Now you are doing the exact opposite. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should consider not doing it.
And yeah we require scientific polls. You know why? Because not-scientific-polls are non-scientific. And that makes them unencyclopedic unless the poll in question is for some reason itself notable. So, can we please stop playing games here? Since you are basically admitting that this is a non-scientific crappy poll (yet want to include it anyway)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the sources provided for this poll are idiotic crap like "ageofshitlords.com" (seriously, a user above actually provided that pretending that this was a reliable source above!) pretty much proves that this is exactly the kind of nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that edit-warring over the Blind poll has resumed, just after protection expired. I suggest the following. Keep the poll out for now, per WP:ONUS. People who wish to include it can open an RfC. I can open the RfC for you if you want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's sort of a minimal starting point, although I got to say that I'm ecstatic to learn what kind of brand new throw away accounts will show up to any new RfC on this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No objection to an RfC but I believe it was there and stable (as stable as a new article can be) before it was removed, so I would say keep it in per WP:BRD. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no such thing as privileging the "stable" version on Wikipedia, especially on new articles. You're making up lame excuses for your continued edit warring. On the other hand we do have WP:ONUS. You also haven't even bothered to articulate a reason for your restoring of this ridiculous poll - unlike myself or Ace_Frahm, who have provided rationales based on both common sense and policy. I got to say it again Lambden. You're only picking this fight cuz you're engaged in a WP:HARASSMENT campaign against me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There are several cogent arguments in the discussion above. You should review them. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What, like the fact that the poll was discussed in that reliable source ageofshitlords.com? No, there actually are no cogent arguments in the discussion above, certainly none from you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Only ageofshitlords or are there multiple, reliable sources? Be honest now. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's see, in addition to ageofshitlords we have, as provided by Jazi Zilber... the Daily Caller. I guess they took a break from making instructional videos on how to run over protesters like the guy in Charlottesville did, to offer their opinion. Or the Daily Wire, another garbage source. The only thing that comes close to being reliable is BusinessInsider which is borderline and where it's mentioned in passing. So no, there are no "multiple, reliable sources". And this has already been pointed out by other users above. There is your honesty. Now, stop being a lying pickle.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Daily Caller is fine. That's two, i.e. "multiple." James J. Lambden (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Daily Caller is not fine. Don't be ridiculous. It's a junk source which publishes videos about how to mow down protesters with a car. And oh yeah, fake news too. Like genuine fake news. And if you meant "two" you should've said "two" instead of trying to pull one over on everyone with this "multiple".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: WP:BRD is just an essay. Typically, on newish articles, there is no "stable" version to restore to. So it's best to keep things out if they are in dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That will be news to the dozen editors who reverted me citing WP:BRD! But good to know, thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that you know, can you show some good faith and self-revert? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Guess not. Guess good faith is too much to ask for. Anyway, there's obviously no consensus for inclusion and WP:ONUS applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
When you follow me from this article to three different articles to blindly revert, call me a harasser, a stalker and a creep over and over, you don't get to whine about "good faith." Try behaving in a way that would earn it, like restricting your comments to content improvement. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Quit projecting Lambden. Your strategy of "I'm going to accuse VM of everything I've been doing to muddle the issue" might be cute but it's also transparent.
And let me point out one more time that in this discussion you are the only one who has completely failed to address the content issue. I mean, YechezkelZilber at least tried to pass of ageofshitlords.com as a reliable source. Which is disruptive BS but at least it's content related disruptive BS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
VM: Address the content arguments or edit elsewhere. I will not facilitate incivility. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have addressed the content repeatedly. You have not. Instead you accused me of dishonesty ("Be honest now") in the same breath as making false statements yourself ("multiple, reliable sources"). Your only contribution to this discussion has been some incoherent and untrue (as far as they can be parsed) claims about "stable version", which is NOT any kind of Wikipedia policy, is not true, and is inapplicable to new articles. And then the usual personal attacks - with a new twist, you falsely accusing me of stuff you have been doing for awhile now - followed. Then the phony passive-aggressive schtick, then the condescension, then the aggressive-agressive incivility, followed by more condescension and personal attack. In other words, yours has been the textbook example of how NOT to act on an article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hat please? James J. Lambden (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim Edward

I undid an edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber&diff=799835677&oldid=799796974 The removed bit was a supported by the removed RS. Not sure why it was removed. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it was a move.
FallingGravity you also, removed ref: Citation|last=The Rubin Report|title=Fired Google Engineer James Damore (LIVE)|date=September 7, 2017|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8%7Caccessdate=September 9, 2017
Pease explain. (Not that I like youtube as RS.) -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The ref was apparently an artifact from an attempt to criticize Jim Edward's description of the memo as "anti-diversity". Previously, the article cherry-picked this word from the Business Insider article and rebutted it with an hour and a half video interview. This seemed to violate WP:SYNTH, so I rewrote it to focus on Jim's arguments, and then I moved it to the appropriate section. FallingGravity 06:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Stefan Molyneux in article

Consensus is "no" --Jayron32 12:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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.

Should Stefan Molyneux be described as alt-right in this article? Indicate Yes or No with reasons. 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment: I have no opinion either way. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Reject: His article attributes the description and neither source it's attributed to gives him more than a passing mention. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but attributed — "Alt-right" doesn't appear to be "near-universal," but it certainly appears to be widespread; here it is in New York, here in USA Today, here in The Next Web, here in Fast Company, etc. I don't find any sources which explicitly reject the claim. So I would propose "video blogger Stefan Molyneux, who has been widely described in the media as part of the alt-right.[citations here]." Other sources describe him in related terms such as "far-right", "anti-feminist" and the like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think requiring sources that contradict the description is a reasonable standard. If we had 10 sources for a subject and 2 described him as "controversial" that would mean we'd need two that describe him as "non-controversial", which is extremely unlikely even if the subject is non-controversial.
I think a better standard would be: of the sources that describe him in detail what descriptors do the majority share (i.e. wide agreement.) James J. Lambden (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
By that standard, the correct decision is Yes. He's a marginal figure, not widely covered by the mainstream but those that mention him call him alt-right. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - here are some additional sources:
seems like this is how RS describe him, particularly in the context of the Google memo, which is what's most applicable here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - per Fyddlestix and NorthBySouthBaranof. Sourcing is strong, but I would not be averse to attribution. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - it's important context, and reflects the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No per the discussion above , I'll also copy/paste my objections from above:
This is most certainly a BLP violation. Alt-right is such a contentious label, it should only be used when there is clear evidence to support the claim, preferably a self admission. It should not have been restored with such flimsy sourcing. I don't see a wide agreement among reliable sources to describe Molyneux as Alt-Right. This seems to be an "anyone I disagree is Alt-right" situation. I don't really care for the guy either, I actually despise most of his views, but I don't see any evidence to support calling him alt-right, neither does the sources support such inclusion. Because as I said, for contentious labels such as this, we need a wide agreement from the sources.Darwinian Ape talk 04:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No' as he does not self identify as such. This term is very new, ill defined, and used by liberal media in a liberal fashion to attack many right of center right wing BLPs as a LABEL. Will we be using alt-right in five years? Will it mean the same thing? Best to stick to better defined terms that are not used as an attack label.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The issue is never whether he self-identifies as such but whether he is described as such in reliable sources. And he is. Also, all that nonsense about "liberal media in a liberal fashion to attack" basically indicates this !vote can be safely discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
He is described in some sources as such. Mother Jones might a RS, it doesn't mean we have to copy their labels on a BLP. NYT is definitely a RS - doesn't mean we have to take their editorial line. Separate facts - from editorializing (which occurs in factual reporting - which gives tone). When dealing with a term that is used as an attack label (and this is what this is being used as in the past year) - we should require across the board sourcing. In this context - if you have WSJ or National Review calling him alt-right (and all the left of center in tow) - fine. Likewise if communist or Sharia-law operative were used as an attack label (as they both were) - wait for this to be used by the left - it wouldn't mean much, in terms of our labeling, if NR calls someone a communist. If Mother Jones calls someone a communist (with all the right of center in tow) - then - it's time to embrace it.... And if the BLP self-identifies as X - with a clear statement by him reported as RS (that doesn't require parsing dog whistles - clear English I'm a X) - then we don't have a BLP issue or an editorializing issue (we would have to check this wasn't said in jest or as a hoax - per reporting in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No' "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." "Alt-right" is definitely such "value-laden label" since it is directly associated with "white supremacy" in it's own WikiPedia article and "white supremacy" is called "a racist ideology" in its article and thus this would be violation of WP:LABEL unless done with in-text attribution. In-text attribution would be too wordy for this article and should be done in Stefan's own article. In this article it's better to call him a podcaster as that has much more relevancy to the interview itself. Also I would like to kindly ask Volunteer Marek to stop throwing around spurious accusations about me and other users participating in this discussion. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No' - "the alt-right's Stefan Molyneux" suggests actual membership of some group. I would use "podcaster"; even "right-wing podcaster" would be better. Alt-right is too much of a general accusatory term to pin down specific ideals - and it's not immediately relevant to the context. -A1Qicks (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No. I don't understand other Wikipedians's obsession with labels. Anyone can easily click on Molyneux's article if they wish to learn more about him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that both User:A1Qicks and User:Keyakakushi46 are single purpose accounts with fewer than 50 edits. The latter appears to have been created solely to brigade this vote and talk page, the former looks like a straight up sleeper account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I already asked you nicely stop the spurious accusations. Just because this is the only talk page that I've properly participated in so far does not mean that the account is single-purpose or that I cannot make valid points. Also merely disagreeing with you is not "brigading". This is a clear personal attack. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that the single purpose accounts account actively specifies to assume good faith. All I've said is that I feel "alt-right" is an unnecessarily politicising label when others are valid, and pointed out that the edit war the RfPP was requested for probably referred to the one you were involved with, because of the person who submitted it at the time they submitted it and the reason they submitted it. Neither is aggressive as an action. I'd be grateful to not be attacked for my lower number of contributions even if we disagree on a topic. -A1Qicks (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. You guys' edit histories speak for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Please stop it with all this talk of "voting" and whatever, and your whole entitled sense of senior supremacy. If you actually had experience, you would know this is not a vote. --Nanite (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It's precisely because I do have experience that I am aware that most of the time, unless someone points out sketchy votes, meat puppetry, failure to address policy and such, regardless of everyone who says the "it's not a vote" ... it is a vote.
And it's not an "entitled sense of senior supremacy". If I was criticizing someone for having been here only 3 years or something maybe you'd have point. But here, these are just straight up SPA accounts with 50 edits each or so. It's damn obvious this is shenanigans.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No 1) The Alt-Right attribution was clearly done for frame Damore as an Alt right, which his various interviews, and his answers in the IAMA clearly show him not to be (not foolproof, but it is very hard to believe). In a way this superfluous labeling is actually misleading rather than just not needed. 2) Unless said guy is overwhelmingly clear to beling there, I cannot see much reasons to add those labels. 3) Should we add "Diversity obsessed" in front of Google's CEO name? (dunno enough, but he is said to ensure that Google's board is half female etc. Its legit, but enough to slap various labels in front of his name. Enough said, anyway Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sigh. 1) Damore is NOT being called "alt-right". 2) " The Alt-Right attribution was clearly done for frame Damore as an Alt right" - I don't even know what that means, it's incomprehensible 3) If reliable sources widely described the Google CEO as "diversity obsessed" we would indeed consider adding that in front of their name. But guess what? They don't. They do however describe Molyneux (Molyneux, not Damore) as "alt-right".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:LABEL, alt right is just the flavour of the week. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:LABEL as @Darkness Shines stated.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, per LABEL as I explained in the BLP noticeboard. And at the very least we would have to use in-text attribution which is too wordy and distracts from the whole point of the context of the sentence. --Nanite (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No, are we seriously doing this over one editor's inability to overcome their POV? Cjhard (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - not shown as self declaring, and not even predominant label in RS. The Goodreads and imdb links highlighted for him say other things. Seems a bit WP:OFF TOPIC of this article anyway, and simply not big enough in RS to use.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)
  • Yes There have been sufficient WP:RS shown in this discussion, and this is no different then what we have done in other articles where similar issues have come up. Molyneux is a public figure, so as long as it is sourced to NYT we are fine on BLP. Seraphim System (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Well sourced and pertinent encyclopedic information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes as covered by sources and relevant to the subject, see for example NY Mag: "Fired Google-Memo Author James Damore’s First Stop: Alt-Right YouTube". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No: Absent the subject self-declaring themselves to be "alt-right", any other branding of this nature is at least somewhat subjective and therefore, does not belong here. Further, how is it relevant in the context of a Wikipedia article? Do not misunderstand, I do see possible value in using this label in a different discussion and\or forum but for my reasons mentioned here and those of others who have voted No, IMO the label does not belong here. airuditious (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - the 1st cited source [failed verification], the 2nd cited source describes him as YouTube personality Stefan Molyneux. The 3rd cited source says associated with alt-right, the 4th cited source [failed verification]. Remove it, it's a derogatory label and it violates at least 2 of the 3 core content policies required in BLP. Atsme📞📧 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Per WP:LABEL as noted above. Its a pejorative and should not be added. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) as no evidence was provided by (unsigned) RfC initiator one way or the other. I don't know if there is a dispute over this or whether the sources conflict or if there are any sources. And no, I am not going to spend a few hours researching the question. Default answer is of course no. What I can say as a matter of general principle is that such labels should not be used unless the person is described that way by a multiple reliable sources, and I would not favor referring to him that way in the lead except in exceptional circumstances. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: I was the one who opened the RfC. RfC headers are meant to be brief and neutral, and are not meant to build a case for this or that position. Links to the discussion dealing with the matter is given in the section below, and others have made their points above. If you can't be bothered to research the question, perhaps you should not be responding to this RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest first that you sign the post, as it just shows the date and time. No biggie, but it needs to be fixed. Secondly, I think you've gone a bit too far in terms of bare bones. Responders, or at least this responder, need more to go on. Coretheapple (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No I'll make it clear--because I don't want this to be seen as some kind of endorsement--I have an extraordinarily low opinion of Stefan Molyneux. If someone was arguing that the label "cult-leader" be used to describe him you would hear no disagreement from me, and you could find WP:RS to support it. The problem is the term alt-right is being thrown around with no concrete meaning or definition attached to it, which makes it inherently unencyclopedic. The most commonly accepted definition seems to be a kind of synonym for white supremacist, which at the very least raises BLP issues if we're going to use it. It's a contentious label and another should be selected. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No. It's unnecessary to even provide a description for him at all. We don't need to characterize every person mentioned by their political affiliation or group because some sources describe them as such. It's neutral and straightforward to simply state he is as Youtube personality/podcaster. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Appears to be an attempt to unnecessarily label him, his name is wikilinked if readers desire more information about him. Damore gave numerous interviews and none of the other interviewers are labelled as to their political ideologies. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No It doesn't seem necessary to provide this label. It doesn't seem very relevant to the article either. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure Per NBSB and Specifico above. The self identification argument is largely a red herring that crops up every time something like this is discussed. Well sourced attributed but negative information isn't a BLP issue, which governs unsourced or poorly sourced information of any type. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No per WP:LABEL. And echoing Cjhard... what's the point of having an RFC based on the objections of literally one POV-pushing editor??? DoubleCross (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No This is bordering on POV-pushing. Jdcomix (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Well sourced, and meaningful context. - 2603:3024:200:300:2D03:CDDC:D4B4:B04B (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No Per other editors, WP:LABEL. Stikkyy t/c 04:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but would endorse a slightly less contentious label (such as right-wing) , almost all sources refer to his political position, but not all use 'alt-right'. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion here. Further discussion can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing from here because the linked discussion is outdated. There appears to be clear consensus to exclude "alt-right." A recent attempt was made to add anti-feminist which I reverted as I don't believe he's most notable for being an anti-feminist. If a description is necessary, Youtuber or podcaster would be more appropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Stefan_Molyneux#Alt-right does note he's alt-right. We should not arrive a different consensus here than at Molyneux's main article. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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

"Analysis of the science" section

This section is a nightmare: it's just a dozen primary sources or uncritical secondary repetitions of "he got the science mostly right/mostly wrong" with a jumble of credentials attached. The only information this provides is that there are people with PhDs, in unknown WP:WEIGHTs, on both sides of the argument; that information would be far better conveyed by simply saying so, with a reliable secondary source, ideally giving some actual analysis of how much weight is on each side of the debate. Even a very short summary like that in this BBC article would be preferable to the current mess. 05:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential sources

I haven't had time to go through and incorporate these sources into the article. Leaving them here in case anyone is inclined:

James J. Lambden (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

more sources to considers
The CSM one is interesting for setting a larger context.
The Cosmo one is interesting for not being a tech/business source, but a women oriented source. - 2603:3024:200:300:CCD7:B465:21DB:71FC (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Might it be a good idea to add a link to the full memo? I don't know how long this one stays up, but for what it's worth, here it is: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fringe Dweller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a link in the article to https://diversitymemo.com with the full text. 173.228.123.18 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden thanks, v useful Keith Johnston (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek you have reverted my edit including this source: * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/
You stated two arguments -1) that we should only use "notable reactions" and that 2) otherwise this will turn into a "he said, she said".
Please 1) define notable and explain why The Globe and Mail and/or the author are not RS but the Guardian is and 2) RS (see BBC) say the science is conflicting so we should reflect this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)



Cassius26, be WP:BOLD and add stuff from here. 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

question from Caterjean

Why is this article talking about mainly Damore and how he is affected instead of how his colleagues are affected by this memo? Caterjean (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has been look at the WP:RS, I think it's because the Reliable Sources haven't talked about the affect on his colleagues (beyond the cancelled townhall). I think there's a fair bit about the sexism.
If you're asking about the effects of sexism in tech. The effects of sexism are covered in the see also link: Sexism in the technology industry. Though I wonder if that could be linked in the article itself. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Damore was at the center of the controversy and the entity most affected by it. What effect do you believe it had on his colleagues? Keyakakushi46 (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Damore's educational background

Ehm, I find this topic a bit too divisive to engage with, but I feel that this article is failing readers when it doesn't mention Damore's educational background with a bachelor in molecular biology of the university of Illinois, a master in systems biology of Harvard and enrolment in a PhD program for systems biology at Harvard (unfinished)... No matter which way you swing, that seems as critical background information as to why he would even touch on such subjects. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources then put it in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources for his educational background. For example: https://www.wired.com/story/james-damore-author-google-memo-might-sue/ Keyakakushi46 (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias towards effect on Damore through entire article

The "Analysis of the science" section lists 7 pro-Damore arguments in a row with one interruption at the third paragraph for a rebuttal. The final paragraph corrects this imbalance, but it is disconcerting that the arguments in favor of Damore each receive their own spaced paragraph and that they have the effect of literally burying the rebuttals at the end.

Further, in the "Cultural Commentary" section, all of its sources are again on the pro-Damore side, and there is not a single source of a cultural comment attacking Damore, despite the abundance of such critiques in reputable sources. And why is there an "Other Commentary" section? A single section called "Commentary" could be created, and it should represent the actual commentary that there has been on the issue, not just Breitbart's take.

I mention Breitbart because I suspect these biases have emerged from Breitbart specifically targeting this Wikipedia page, as they implied they would do with the publishing of that article mentioned in this Talk page. These biases and Breitbart's unwelcome intervention into Wikipedia should be corrected in the interest of freedom of thought.

Cassius26 (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

1) Those are experts on the data investigating gender differences (as distinct from theoretical opinions). You can see that a lot of space was devoted to opposing opinions too. Alas, most of those were not from scientific experts on gender differences.
2) I was editing this page from before the Breitbart article appeared. The said section was fully here before that. I do not think there was material editing difference after the said article was published.
3) Intentional political editing happened here a lot. But it was pretty even. A lot of anti Damore activist editors as well Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reviewing it, I noticed a number of problems immediately: Several quotes either aren't in the cited source, or are taken out-of-context. There's also a heavy slant towards op-eds, which aren't really great sources for scientific topics. My advice would be to remove all the op-eds, and possibly even nuke the entire section (it's mostly just a WP:QUOTEFARM at this point - what purpose does it serve when we already have much more detailed articles about sex and gender?) A brief paragraph or two summarizing reactions is more useful than this sort of exhaustive back-and-forth where people drop every single op-ed they can dredge up to support their view. Summarizing the section, it roughly boils down to: 1. The science in the memo, while it has supporters in the field, is extremely controversial and not universally accepted; and, 2. even many of the people who agree with the broad outlines of the science feel that Damore exaggerated or misapplied it. We should try to arrange the sources around those broad themes and points, rather than dropping a giant wall of quotes on the reader. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I've taken an initial swipe at condensing it. The main issue here is that extensively quoting and describing a bunch of people saying "he was right" or "he was wrong" isn't really useful to the reader (and comes close to WP:OR if we're trying to do some sort of nose-counting to push a particular conclusion.) It's much more useful - and more importantly, much more legible to the reader - to capture broad trends in the responses and summarize those. The other response sections need to be condensed the same way, although it's slightly more difficult because they cover a bit more ground. --Aquillion (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber/Archive_3&oldid=1077844576"