Removal Of Self-Promotion

Regarding Promotional Tone, primarily my attention caught unnecessary self-promotional tones here; Aligning herself with Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn - Noting the creation of a legal defense fund - This quote, "I’m one of the best-known women developers in the world today. That’s a fact." There are sourced materials that Brianna Wu is (or was) a columnist and/or contributor for; The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Huffington Post, The Mary Sue, and Polygon - This is a conflict of interest and suggests influence. Her PDF link for Argentus is a magazine creation website and is convincingly padding her RESUME. Adjustments should be made before a nomination for deletion is renewed. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, nominate the article for deletion, and we'll see how things shake out. After that, however, I request you go over to Muhammad Ali and tag that article for deletion as well; there is an absolute ridiculous amount of self-promotion by that subject (e.g., his claim to being "the greatest" is completely unsourced). Dumuzid (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To beg debate on Muhammad Ali's achievements by comparison to severely-objective claims? Is puerile absurdity. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Inc. Magazine

[1] David Whitford, "WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army", Inc. April 2015.

Boston Globe 9-15-2015

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/15/the-download-brianna-self-proclaimed-godzilla-tech-feminists/eKoN8TujeD2LJNmjWyD8tJ/story.html

This should go in the lead

This amount of funding for new emotional tech is very significant.

"She says her company will soon release a new version of Revolution 60, a shoot-'em-up set in outer space, and is seeking $25 million in funding to develop software that will help computers know when we're happy, frustrated, or sad."

www.inc.com/david-whitford/gamergate-women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please leave a while to let a consensus for this edit develop. When you find a consensus, or if no-one responds in a reasonable amount of time, please reactivate the edit request template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only significant if they actually get funded to create the technology. Anyone can say they're looking for funding. (Similarly, creating the technology is the notable part; the funding itself is interesting, but the achievement is it working). Fleetingshadow (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic line

In a September 2015 interview, Wu stated that she was "taking a step back" and no longer responding to hateful posts before blocking them. How Wu chooses to use her social media isn't encyclopedic or notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Because her notability is due, in a significant extent, to the vicious online attacks against her, then it follows that her response to those attacks is both encyclopedic and "notable" in this context. I enclose "notable" in quotes because that Wikipedia concept actually applies only to the topic of the article, Brianna Wu, rather than to specific pieces of information about her. We will not help perpetuate the harassment against her by failing to discuss how she has dealt with and responded to that harassment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit protected)) template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, in point of fact, it has now been discussed in The Washington Post: [2]. Also useful for this article is the identity of one of Wu’s harassers, who was too unstable to be prosecuted. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the individual they claim "too unstable to be prosecuted", Jan Rankowski, is a notable internet troll. His whole character of Jace was established to be an act. Not the most solid foundation to build your case on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Established after the fact. And just because someone after the fact says "oh it was just trolling" does not mean it wasn't harassment. — Strongjam (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not necessarily inconsistent with instability. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And both are reading into something rather than citing what was actually said. If you want to use him as an example of harassment, we should also mention the latter 'reveal' as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categories