Talk:Molly White (writer)/Archive 1

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

Disambiguation

I struggled with finding the right disambiguation term, seeing as the subject is a software engineer but best known as a critic of Web3/cryptocurrency. The most prominent noun I've found is "crypto skeptic" but that concept needs some development (and likely its own article) before I'd be comfortable using it as a disambiguator. I also considered "technologist" but that definition is also murky. Open to other ideas, but I think "cryptocurrency critic" is the most direct and plain version of what White "is noted for being in their own right". czar 15:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly moved it to Molly White (writer) as more typical among disambiguators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think "writer" is better, since it's a broader term, meaning that it'll more likely remain accurate even if White moves on to other endeavors. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree, "writer" is better than "cryptocurrency critic". ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Age of first edits

special:diff/1090665199

As a preteen, she began writing and editing Wikipedia pages ...
— WaPo

White isn't new to Wikipedia. She's been a Wikipedia editor since she was 13.
— BI

One minor error I noticed: I began editing Wikipedia in 2006 when I was 13 (see [1]).
— user talk:GorillaWarfare


The sources do not mention the year, so should we? I'd sooner go with WaPo since BI has some reliability issues (this does not appear to be BI's "culture" section), but it looks like WaPo may be wrong too unless her first edits were unregistered. czar 18:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Given Molly's own feedback, makes sense to go with the original language on the page. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The original language was WaPo, unless you meant to go with BI without the year. czar 12:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Secondary-source reputation for reliability should not supersede confirmed reliability from a primary source. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing the message from GW, though the date of the first account's registration does not rule out that she made at least one edit from an IP as a pre-teen. I feel like I'm splitting hairs when I say "been an editor since X" typically means that the person first regularly made edits around that date. The sources don't quite contradict read that way, but it's a bit hard for me to accept that WaPo's fact-checkers let a basic error like this slip through. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Unless the WaPo's fact-checkers are so good that they discovered some IP edits I made when I was younger and then forgot about, I think it's just a wording thing. I didn't realize until reading this discussion that preteen was understood to mean exclusively <13 (fwiw preteen says "the age range is commonly designated as 10–13 years"). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The WaPo profile says that White began editing As a preteen, while Business Insider says that she has been a Wikipedia editor since she was 13. Our Wikipedia article says that she began editing at age 13. I'm not exactly sure what to make of the difference in the sources here, though I think the current WP:WIKIVOICE description of the age at which she began editing as 13 may be giving undue weight to the marginally reliable WP:BI relative to the generally reliable WP:WAPO. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this (we could say that she began editing Wikipedia "no later than age 13", but I'm not quite satisfied with this phrasing since it's somewhat evasive). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

White is a reliable source for herself, and she has flat out said 13 is correct and preteen incorrect. This is essentially a self-published source. Could also just say adolescent, or could contact the WaPo corrections department to fix that error. We shouldnt keep what we know to be false just because a reliable source says so. We dont need to prove a source correct, but if we can prove it wrong we dont have to mirror its errors. nableezy - 22:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I can reach out to WaPo to request a correction if that is the case. These are the sorts of basic things that... fact-checking is supposed to catch. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy: I've submitted a request for correction to the Washington Post. I will update this if I receive a response. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy: No clarification nor correction has been issued thus far and I have yet to receive a response from WaPo. I'm unsatisfied by their decision to not respond to my email whatsoever, but it's been just about three days at this point so I don't anticipate them answering. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Most major sources wont respond to corrections, they would normally just put a note at the end of the article saying what changed. Would have expected it by now if it were going to happen, but either way I think the wording now in our article is fine. nableezy - 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like it's best to go with BI for now. Thanks, all. czar 03:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote

Context

@Czar: regarding the revert, I'm not going to push too hard on the hatnote, but I did want to draw your attention to part of the guideline you cited The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other. I can understand the argument about ambiguity, but I disagree that removing the hatnote is the best idea. Firstly, there are lots of people named Molly White, some of whom may be (non-notable) writers, and helping readers quickly understand the subject and navigate to alternative ones is a net positive. Secondly, it drives readers and editors who might actually know of those subjects to the disambiguation page and add entries we might be missing. The cost of these benefits is that readers have a sentence saying there are other Molly Whites which they can skim past. The hatnote seems like a net positive, or am I missing something? Could you explain what the harm is in more detail? — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If other Molly Whites were writers and could be confused with this subject, I could see it but right now it is highly uncommon to hatnote an individual bio unless the title leaves reason for confusion. Perhaps there are many Molly Whites but few have Wikipedia articles. For hatnote example/precedent, spot check disambiguation pages linked from White (surname). czar 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Image change

I am interested in changing the image, and Molly has privately expressed a slight preference for the current image, but said she wouldn't fight an attempted change, so I'm turning to the community for input.

There are two images I feel are better than the current one which, IMO, is a bit "flat" because it's straight on. Images from a slight angle or the side show more of her facial profile:

  • Current image. Molly White in 2022
    Current image. Molly White in 2022
  • Molly White in 2017
    Molly White in 2017
  • Molly White in 2011]
    Molly White in 2011]

Although they are older images, I don't see any substantial difference that really matters. Molly ages very well! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep the current one. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I favor the current image. The middle one is poorly framed, not showing her entire head. She was a teenager when the third photo was taken, and is now on her late 20s. There is nothing wrong with the image now in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    My only objection to the current image is that it's two-dimensional. The others are more attractive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I agree that the current image (left above) is better than the other two (centre+right above), both of which I think are not great (centre is not a full headshot, and in the right pic she looks too young). The left image is not perfect, but still quite good. 78.18.245.153 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    Then we need better choices of current photos. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • +1, Keep the current one. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the current photo is fine, second place to 2017. 2011 is too long ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep the current one. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus to keep the current image, so I withdraw my proposal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User page link

@Firefly, I noticed you removed the user page link in the external links sections, with summary generally we don't self-reference like this, and I don't see what benefit it has to a reader. I'm very much in agreement that we shouldn't normally link from the encyclopedia proper to internal pages, but for external link sections I try to treat them like any other hyperlink. For most people, we link to their profiles on the main sites where they're active, and since White is active on Wikipedia, it made sense to link to her user page, wrapped in {{srlink}} just as we do at Jimmy Wales. Granted, her website is clearly her more primary landing page, and it links to her user page, so perhaps we don't need it. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb I don't have a deeply-held objection to linking it if it's the "done thing" for other notable Wikipedians (which I didn't know at the time). In general I try to trim out internal links in articles as it comes across as navel-gazey, but I can definitely see the argument here. I certainly won't object to restoration if you wish to do so. :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL I think we should link to her website and not her use page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a rule about this, but I don't think we should link user names to user pages within Wikipedia prose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested edit

  • Under the "Wikipedia editing" header, "Since posting a photo of herself online in 2011" is somewhat divergent from the source: White’s story of contributing to Wikipedia unfortunately includes several incidents of doxing. She started editing the site in 2008, when she was 13, and for years she only went by the username of GorillaWarfare. She thinks that most Wikipedia editors assumed she was male, partly because her username gives that impression and also because an estimated 90 percent of the site’s contributors are men, according to survey data. Then, in 2011, White agreed to allow the Wikimedia Foundation to use her photo in a fundraising campaign that featured appeals for donations from various Wikipedians and foundation employees. “I was more naïve then and didn’t expect what I now see as a bit of a given, which is that some people zeroed in on the photograph of the young woman,” White said in an email. – Slate
  • A space probably ought to be inserted into "cryptoskeptic". Combining the terms into one word makes it sound like "crypto" is a prefix for "skeptic"—as though I'm a secret skeptic in the same way a cryptofascist is a secret fascist. (See crypto-).
  • I might also change the header from "Web3 criticism" to "Cryptocurrency criticism"—"web3" is a less well-known word, and my criticism is also a good bit broader than just what might be considered "web3" (as the section says).

Thanks much! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
(EC)  Done All three points addressed. I’ve closed the request but if the first item still isn’t quite right, just say and clearly someone will see it promptly! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
That was quick, thanks! I do worry a bit that the current wording suggests that a significant portion of harassment I've experienced stems from that fundraising photo, which is not the case, but I think that's up to editorial discretion whether it needs to be adjusted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
You do have a point. Do you have a suggested wording that would be more accurate? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The first clause could be taken out entirely, or perhaps something like White experienced harassment as a result of her Wikipedia editing in 2011, after allowing the Wikimedia Foundation to share a photo of her as one of Wikipedia's volunteers. She has also been targeted with harassment, threats of violence, and doxxing from Internet trolls, particularly after 2018, when she began to contribute more to Wikipedia coverage of contentious topics like incels. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • [2] @Cullen328, your revert restores a causality here that is not in the source. The source associates the WMF sharing the photo with harassment but doesn't put the photo as the singular, causal event, as we have currently written. This is exactly what I was looking to avoid from what was said above: I do worry a bit that the current wording suggests that a significant portion of harassment I've experienced stems from that fundraising photo, which is not the case. The operative part is that the sustained harassment happened, not the use of the photo, per both the source and the subject of the BLP. (Same for editing "incels"—it was not a causal moment.) We should use generalities where causal inference is inappropriate. Please reconsider your edit. czar 22:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Czar, please feel free to modify the text as you see fit. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I fixed this on July 2. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It didn't address the quoted green text, which is why I raised it. I've addressed it now. czar 20:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ever since she published a photo of herself online in 2011 she has been a target for harassment and threats of violence from internet trolls, particularly after her Wikipedia coverage of incendiary topics such as incels.
— Naughton, John (2022-07-02). "Crypto-sceptic Molly White could be the new JK Galbraith… just much tougher". The Observer. Retrieved 2022-07-06.

This op-ed quote, per the above concern, is lifted directly from how our article was originally phrased, and is why we should be especially cautious about casuality and citogenesis. czar 21:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

creating a new section in the article about Web3 criticisms

I think it would be beneficial to split off some of the content from the current section about crypto criticism into a new section about broader Web3 criticisms. So I am proposing to create a new Web3 criticisms section below the currently existing section on crypto criticism. (Update: Not proposing that anymore heh.)
Also, just found this article in which White discusses some of the problems related to building social media platforms on top of immutable ledger/blockchain technology, which gave me the idea for this. Her concerns are larger than just crypto, and it would be nice for the article to also reflect that more clearly.
Any objections? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What additional information requires another section? The "crypto" section should include her Web3 activities as well. It was just recently renamed (see above) but encompasses both. The Fortune citation is already in the article. Remember that this is a biography article and should be anchored in the biographical detail, i.e., her positions on these issues, not the issues of the technology itself. The latter belongs in sections about the technology in other articles. czar 17:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Right, but the section is titled "cryptocurrency criticism" so where do her broader criticisms of Web3 go? For example, here is one of the relevant parts from the article I mentioned above: "She says her primary concern about Web3 is the idea of everything, like social networks, being built on immutable ledger technology like a blockchain, which can't be changed after the fact. White cites the example of someone accidentally tweeting a picture that has an envelope in the background with their home address visible on it. Sure, there's a chance someone will grab a screenshot of it before it can be deleted. But the fact remains: You can still delete the tweet."
Please read the article (it's kinda short), it talks about her other concerns about Web3 stuff, not just cryptocurrency. How to make this information clear in the article, that her concerns go well beyond just crypto bros and rug pulls and all that? Doesn't seem like it makes sense to put broader criticisms within a section title "cryptocurrency criticism" if I'm quoting something about issues she may have with social media platforms built on top of a similar technology and the privacy implications etc., for example. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Also P.S. this Fortune article is not already cited on the Wikipedia page. I believe you are referring to a different Fortune article, unless I am missing something.
Well okay, I'm totally wrong! It looks like the citation is incorrect, and has the title of the article as something altogether different! Fixing that here in a minute. (Repaired the citation with correct title.) Confusing!!
So the Fortune article is cited on White's bio page here, but the citation is used following this sentence: "She has a large following among cryptocurrency skeptics" when the article is about much more than that, so hmmm, a lot of important stuff is left out there with that sentence. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the section should be titled "Cryptocurrency and Web3 criticisms" or something like that? I also don't see the name change discussion thread "above" or in the talk page archive, so I'm not sure what Czar is referencing? Help? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For the section title change, see I might also change the header from "Web3 criticism" to "Cryptocurrency criticism" above.
For the Fortune citation title, the source uses different headlines in header text, title metadata, and Open Graph title metadata (used, for example, on social media), which is common among major newspapers.
To the general point, the section currently covers crypto, blockchain, and Web3 interwoven, just as it's interwoven (and not distinct) in the sources. Does the end of the section's third paragraph on privacy and harassment implications cover what you considered important from the text you quoted? Feel free to add more from the article if needed but note that detail beyond what is needed for general biographical purposes might be pared back. For general detail of Web3 criticism, the best place to cover that is Web3 § Reception or Cryptocurrency § Criticism, not necessarily in this biographical article. czar 05:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the third paragraph covers some of the privacy stuff. I will mull it over and maybe make an edit in the coming days.
Reading over this "crypto criticisms" section several more times, it does seem to make more sense to me now about having all of these related topics interwoven chronologically like that. It documents the evolution of this part of her career, as well as notable concerns, appearances, and activities in this sphere. I just wish the title of the section was somehow more broad, but do concede that "cryptocurrency criticism" is maybe the best thing we can go with for now. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Good article nomination

All the extant sources have been included in the article. Is there anything else missing from the article for purposes of GA breadth? czar 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Czar, there's this Boston Globe profile published today that isn't in the article. It's behind a paywall so I don't know what it says, but I would think that it should be used. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Can read article text on the archived version! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Me neither, it's still paywalled in archive.org. I'm surprised it was archived so quickly, considering it's live and from today. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Muboshgu. Boston Globe is accessible by disabling JavaScript in your browser. And Archive.ph has an archive. I'll add the paraphrase later tonight. czar 22:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Ahh yeah, I forget about how many javascript blocking plug-ins I've got running on my browser.  : )  This article reads a little bit like the Wikipedia page here, sort of biography of Molly White, mostly, with not a lot of new info from what I could tell. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggested source (behind a paywall)

Can somebody add this article? Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vortex3427, it's been in the article since the beginning :) Molly White (writer)#cite note-WaPo-4 czar 16:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Guardian article

Not sure if this is worth adding to, but here's a Guardian article. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EpicPupper, it's already in the article (The Guardian hosts The Observer). czar 19:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Czar, I'm just really sleep deprived. I'm slightly surprised and also very proud of the community that this is a GA! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for lookin' out. czar 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Self-identification

Unresolved

Do we add mention of her self-identification as a queer feminist, along with LGBT/queer- and feminist-related categories? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

My two cents is that these self-identifications appear not have to been discussed in reliable third-party sources, so perhaps we should not add them at this point. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I would consider this information relevant to the personal life section, yes. One's sexuality is a major component of personal identity, and it's relevant to some aspects of White's public profile (e.g. editing interests, harassment). There are no sourcing issues because the tweet is sufficient for WP:ABOUTSELF info. However, for categories, there's the higher WP:DEFINING standard, so I'd perhaps leave those out (the info can be structured on Wikidata instead). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Personally I always think we're on safer ground with "if RS have noted it, we can/should too" especially given the BLP policy considerations. But if we're going to include it without RS, I would suggest "White identifies as a queer feminist" wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's due weight. I would leave it out. If it's relevant to things like editing interests or harassment then, well, the idea is that newspapers doing profiles on White should make that connection. I'm quite ardently against citing tweets wherever possible as it's cherry-picking a small amount of information about a person and defining it as the most important thing they've said on the platform, and it's not a stable/reliable source of information (tweets are often deleted and often not that carefully worded/considered by the subject as they don't expect them to get a huge amount of long-term scrutiny). — Bilorv (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
She is very open about her status as a queer feminist, and mentions it regularly on her twitter, wikipedia user page and her personal website. I think it therefore should also be mentioned in her BLP (per the recommendation above, "White identifies as a queer feminist"). 78.18.245.153 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that it should be included. Would also be nice if we could find a source that mentions this, of course. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Not yet per Bilorv and Barkeep. If it is noteworthy for the public record, a reliable, secondary source will pick it up. czar 18:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
While waiting for this, can her blp categories be updated for her self-identification (i.e. we are not doubting the authenticity of her self-identification, just its notabililty). 78.18.245.153 (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually, having read WP:CATLGBT, we should not reflect her self-identification in categories unless reliable sources do so (per the article). 78.18.245.153 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree here, at least regarding mentioning LGBTQ status. Molly's self-identification passes WP:ABOUTSELF, and someone's sexual orientation is an inherently significant core biographical detail. Much like we mention where someone is from if there's a good ABOUTSELF source, even if not mentioned in independent sources. "White identifies as queer" would be a perfectly normal detail to include. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with Tamzin on this point, regarding inclusion of identity. It seems noteworthy & relevant. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Primary topic?

Has anyone thought about whether this article is the primary topic for the title Molly White? It seems like it is to me, since it has about 200 times as many page views as the politician and is the only target from the disambiguation page that shows up in WikiNav * Pppery * it has begun... 01:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about it. There's a recency effect when counting page views and using the multiplier here is misleading since we're still talking a low page view count for both articles. I thought it best to disambiguate between the several low-traffic Molly Whites. czar 01:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
200 views a day is a low page view count? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
For a primary topic argument that minds a recency bias, yes. czar 00:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

2023 Forbes 30 Under 30 Social Media list

Congrats to Molly!

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

plus Added czar 14:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Molly_White_(writer)/Archive_1&oldid=1184253934"