![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The source does not make the claim that it is known for it's far right user base, nor does the source imply it. Regardless of whether the source explicitly says this or not, however, it doesn't provide any evidence that would back it up either. The article is about how Gab is used as a go-to site for popular "far-right" figures, but doesn't say or imply that it's user base is far-right. The article does explicitly say that "Gab’s defining feature is its user guidelines, or rather, its lack thereof." and links directly to gab's user guidelines, yet the claim in the lede does not express this, and instead states something that isn't explicitly stated or implied in the article, and isn't supported by the article. A more accurate and supported lede with this source would be "Known for its lack of user guidelines". "It is known for" should describe something that is actually attributable to the website and should be backed by a source that claims this and gives evidence for it. 'It is known for its far-right user base' Implies that it is recognized that it has a far-right user base and that is what describes it. The source does not explicitly say that Gab's user base is far-right, nor does it give any evidence to support that claim. If the cited source doesn't support the claim, then the claim shouldn't be in the article. Ridiceo ( talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
As the cited source does not support the claim that it is "Known for its far-right user base" nor explicitly states it, that statement should be removed from the lede. Ridiceo ( talk) 19:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this query, this is called paraphrasing. Please see below for some sources.
Social network Gab.ai, known as an anything-goes haven for the far-right, is seeing blowback from the past month’s online white supremacist crackdown. (…) Gab promotes itself as a non-politically affiliated anti-censorship platform, but it hosts several high-profile far-right or “alt-right” users who have been banned from other services over hate speech or harassment, including the Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin. [1]
A new social network has grown quietly in recent months. It's called Gab, and its users are invited to #SpeakFreely — an appeal attractive to many members of the far right and others who feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook. (…) Shortly after Gab launched, a Wired article described the site as "an artifact from a dystopian universe where the alt-right completely took over Twitter." The alt-right has been associated with racism, anti-Semitism and misogyny. [2]
Both of these articles appeared before the synagogue shooting. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Extended content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
A single WaPo article was used for the text of the Section I edited. I replaced the excerpted "partial" sections because they were inaccurate, misleading and mischaracterized the quoted responses from Torba. Rather than try for more balanced "excerpted" text, I elected instead include the full response for clarity & accuracy, and accepted that adding more text may be more cumbersome. Specifically, the "two Jews" characterization of the image being referred to was inaccurate, since only one of the characters in the image was obviously constructed to be Jewish. Second, the replacement of the text "border security" with "opposition to immigration" is POV, given that neither of these characterizations were explicitly stated in the source to characterize the image being discussed. The use of the word "alternatively" in the previous version is used to convey that Torba made several responses, and it conveys the biased idea that he was "changing his story", when a read of the article makes it apparent that Torba's comments happened over time, and most-likely due to the fact that was not aware of the image's existance at first, perhaps he looked into it afterwards. It's all supposition and POV, based on a single, uncited source and with a heavy dose of POV. All of this should have been discussed, first. I support the inclusion of the source, and a description of the image in question, as I think it could work as a good characterization of what a typical post looks like. Primary point to keep in mind is the phrase "raise questions about whether they cross the line into impropriety" from the WaPo Article. The source serves the purpose of showing questions being "raised" by images like this, and not an opportunity for POV-pushing past the line of "inappropriateness" into the "Gab is filled with hate speech" POV narrative. Tym Whittier ( talk) 02:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Gab (social network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "known for its far-right user base" from the lede. Ridiceo ( talk) 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please feel free to continue the discussions happening further up the page, or seek
dispute resolution if necessary. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?)
14:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Islamic State supporters boast of presence on controversial social media network Gab. https://twitter.com/JihadoScope/status/1060544046152720389
This is the stuff people need to know about!-- 2604:2000:1382:41AD:1195:31B7:FF35:ED99 ( talk) 04:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The source is a blurry Twitter post? -- Prince Ludwig ( talk) 12:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
From the "2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" Section:
Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torka, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.[ 59
I think the passage "even as investors cut ties" should be cut, as the idea that the coincident timing seems to be manufactured from somewhere other than the source. Also "Torka's" name is spelled wrong.
I also think that if the Article is going to make a big deal out of the association between the Synagogue Shooter and a Gab Account, it should also list one of the many other major crimes that have been committed by people with a Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.... account, for balance. The impression given is "Only Users of Gab commit heinous crimes", with the secondary message of "Gab causes heinous crimes", which is the current media narrative, given the proximity to the mid-term elections. Unless Wikipedia WANTS to associate Gab with heinous crime, and/or establish a causal relationship, in which case it should do so explicitly. The current bias undermines Wikipedia's credibility on the topic. Either balance the Article, or make the Gab/Crime association explicit. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 ( talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
References
It's likely that this sentence is from the link to Gab's twitter account in the article, but now that the tweet has been deleted and we don't know if there is an archive. I hold no opinion on whether to remove this or not. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The primary SEC filing source doesn't appear to be listed. It is https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000170924418000001/GAB_-_Annual_Report_-_2018.pdf. The Washington Post article interprets the content of the filing to make Breitbart and Infowars "competitors" when the explicitly stated competitors are only Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Vidme, and Minds. Also the use of the word "admitted" when refering to the "target market" in the SEC filing is not a NPOV as (according the the google definition of admit) it implies reluctance in confessing the truth. It should be "stated" or "said" or similar. Dude6935 ( talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I added the following to the synagogue shooting section. I believe this incident should merit an inclusion.
References
Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
So gab was temporarily down for a few days as it maintained its service and switched hosting and domain service providers. My question is: who changed the article to past tense, and what was the reason? It seemed like some sort of sophist attempt at misinformation. Gab still existed it was just temporarily down - this was repeated frequently through gabs twitter communication channel. So why was this article written as if gab was gone? Do we put the same standard to google services whenever they go down? Youtube was down for an entire day many times through its existence including last week. Did the guy (who wrote the entire gab article in past tense) also change YouTube’s article to past tense? No because it wouldn’t be allowed. So why was it allowed on gabs article? Wikipedia’s attempt on stopping bias starts when it stops the people injecting their bias into articles. If gab says it is temporarily down, you don’t go and change the entire article to past tense to insinuate it is gone forever. That is pure misinformation and makes Wikipedia look like a megaphone for propaganda pushers. Article is now in present tense but it shouldn’t change going forward since Gab is clearly not gone. Megat503 ( talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Far right Conspiracy websites like Breitbart and Infowars". This is opinion, not proper for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be an extension of Buzzfeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8400:5790:512B:AE86:4047:ABA7 ( talk) 05:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hayden is a reporter for Newsweek and has written numerous articles on the alt-right, white nationalism, etc... and there is a recently deleted Gab account that is widely believed to be Michael Hayden's. I went looking for RS to support this and found none. Did Google searches of as many variations of relevant text I could think of, and beyond that I can't think of any other methods to use. Before a discussion of noteworthiness can take place, I'd first like to find a reliable source that connects the account with Michael Hayden. I assume Gabs (equivalent of Tweets) are not enough. It's widely believed to be him, but no reliable source. Looking for help in finding RS. Tym Whittier ( talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Today I looked through through the listed references and discovered several links to "gabs" (Gab's equivalent to "Tweets"). First, I question if they should even been there since it seems they are "primary sources" and cannot be used in the Article. It's my understanding that we'd need a secondary source to report them in order to use THAT material (and not the "gab" itself). Given that, why are they there? Second, the links to the gabs are dead, and have no value. So again, why are they even there? Tym Whittier ( talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gab (social network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "known for its far-right user base." completely, because the source does not support that claim, nor is it the reason that the website is notable. 50.107.107.189 ( talk) 22:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Tsumikiria (
T/
C)
00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Tym Whittier The conparison to the article of Islam is invalid. I'm against all religions, but writing Islam as a religion for terrorists or primarily known a by its extremist tendencies are invariably false. Only a right-winger would write it as such. Reliable sources certainly don't. On the other hand, Gab is getting covered by reliable sources primarily because a) it hosts far right extremists b) the consequences of hosting far right extremists. Only some right wing blogs would write it as some heroic David vs Goliath situation. It isn't. Tsumikiria ( T/ C) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Ridiceo: Do you have any other Wikipedia accounts? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 05:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
References