Talk:Naomi Wu

Close connection and notability

Regarding the close connection and notability templates, Naomi Wu is only one of the 1,434 tweeps whom I follow, and neither Forbes nor Asia Times are chopped liver. kencf0618 (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Wu is also one of the tweeps I follow. I assume that Newsweek is a good source for her notability? http://www.newsweek.com/naomi-wu-sexy-cyborg-misogyny-silicon-valley-704372 HouseOfChange (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. Thanks for the edit! kencf0618 (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the close connection template had been added because of Special:Contributions/Naomi Wu. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Iron lung

Via a link from Hackaday [1], I came across this thread on Wu's Twitter: [2]. trying to organize Makers to help create new parts for a few old iron lungs still saving the lives of former polio victims. It isn't a news story/RS yet, but just want to flag as a potential future part of the article if it matures. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Given the fierce regulatory environment surrounding medical devices, this story shall undoubtedly mature. kencf0618 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem of social media and BLP

Wikipedia's BLP policy requires evidence, based on secondary sources that are considered Reliable Sources, before putting negative information into the biography of a living person. One characteristic of respectable journalistic sources is that they make an effort to verify the claims of gossip. Another is that they let the person criticized reply to what critics say. Gossip networks, even when amplified by social media, don't meet that standard.

If the New York Times, for example, reports that Naomi Wu is 10 different people, or that all her technology ideas came from her boyfriend, then a link to that NYT article would belong in this bio, assuming also we include what Naomi Wu says in response. Until somebody reliable verifies claims heard in gossip, I hope we can follow wikipedia policy on BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS

There have been several instances of major factual disputes in the mass media. The information at [3] (elaborated at [4] and summarized at [5]) certainly establishes reasonable doubt as to many of the claims in the article, and outlines the plausible means, motive, and opportunities for a {{hoax}}. Most convincing to me are the photos of the living spaces with identical furniture, the fact that she only shows herself using English language software for CAD programs which are available in Chinese, and then only in screencast, never actually showing her operating the software, and the fact that she claims she has people proofread her English posts for her, but never says who those people are -- and that she did it because her earliest posts were using poor grammar. Well, I just looked at her earliest Reddit comments, and she not only has perfect grammar, but she knows way more about SOC hardware than her claims of self-education in "Ruby on Rails, transitioning to Javascript" could reasonably support. Frankly, the article which is the source of her most recent controversy [6] establishes reasonable doubt, too. Her Patreon has been suspended because she doxxed the author of that article in a YouTube video which has since been removed along with all Reddit posts of it. Therefore I'm tagging the article as a possible hoax, and will be asking for assistance on WP:BLPN. By the way, if her detractors are correct, this is a pretty egregious instance of exploitation in order to troll feminists in the maker community, a knowing BLP violation for financial gain exploiting our readers, and WP:PUFFERY. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [Added Twitter link.] 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) This just in: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Conspiracy theories from Reddit and Imgur do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP, and things that would never be allowed as sources for the article shouldn't be posted to the talk page either. The recent article from Vice was written by someone who spent many days in the company of Naomi Wu, meeting her friends, seeing her home, and talking with her. If she were indeed a know-nothing fraud, he has every motivation to reveal that in his story--not only would he have a big scoop but also she seems to have attacked him quite publicly while the story was being written. Yet this most in-depth story yet gives no hint that the author subscribes to your conspiracy theories. I welcome a wider discussion on this article among people who care more about Wikipedia policies for BLP than about flinging mud at some minor tech-celebrity.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Firstly, the author is Sarah Emerson, not a male. She was not able to complete those portions of her article, as her editor says, because when she started asking questions about "the unfairness of assuming a woman receives help, just because her partner works/worked in a similar industry" Naomi put her home address in a video on her YouTube channel expressing the desire that she would have to repeatedly move. Doesn't that seem to be more than a little oversensitive to you? I remain convinced by the portions of the evidence to which I referred. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) I read the Motherboard piece you linked to and it mentioned nothing about a hoax. I'm not going to read the other sources for what are obvious reasons to anybody who's taken a brief glance at WP:RS. I've removed the hoax tag and I hope to see some secondary sources with the slightest bit of credibility here before it gets readded. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Do you consider the archive.is links to "timaz's" now-deleted photos of the same apartment, with several instances of identical furniture to be reliable? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) If some reliable source like NYT publishes those photos, after establishing their provenance, etc. they would be reliable. Links to somebody's untraceable and now-deleted photos? I don't understand why you know so much about WP mechanics for some things without understanding what "reliable" means here, and why it means that. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) I suggest in a few days time there will be additional secondary news sources covering the doxxing dispute. Until then I will simply {{POV}} tag the article. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Not giving enough space to allegations that a person does not exist does not fit under the POV tag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC) I'm not claiming that she doesn't exist, I'm claiming that she's exploiting her sex appeal as a plagiarist, to among other things use Wikipedia to prop up the financial scam she had going on Patreon before she blew it up by doxxing the author of a friendly profile of her. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC) You sound like a gamergater. She acknowledges that she's "exploiting her sex appeal" to educate, asking people for money on Patreon is not a "scam", doxxing somebody doesn't imply that anything in this article is false. If you believe she's a plagiarist, that's your business. But you're not going to put that into this article without a WP:RS. Have I addressed everything? Can you stop adding nonsense to the article now? Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC) To be clear, I haven't added anything to the article, except for dispute tags that you removed twice, and have corrected the date of an article which was reverted. I think I'll wait for the news cycle on this. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC) To be clear, you have contented yourself with adding inappropriate non-RS material to the Talk page, and trying to gain eyeballs for it with dispute tags and a posting to the BLP page. The doxxing claim is completely different from the fraud claim, and your enthusiasm for both suggests that your interest is not in building an encyclopedia but in finding a way to harm someone you dislike for reasons you don't share. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Naomi Wu is clearly notable, and we want readers to be able to find reliable, well-sourced information about her when they look up her article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) I find the evidence of a financial plagiarism scam leveraging the credulity of our readers both credible and directly supported by primary sources. Such sources are most certainly appropriate for discussion of improvements to the article, just as allegations of paid editing or source misrepresentation are. And that's what the allegations are, at their heart, the misrepresentation of sources and their authenticity. The doxxing claims are a different matter altogether. Are you claiming that Wu did not show the addresses of the Vice article author and her editor, and suggest that people should harass them? If so, you might want to do your own research. YouTube and Patreon have come to contrary conclusions. I will not be goaded into further doxxing the victims. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) The talk page is intended for discussing the ARTICLE, not for attacking the SUBJECT of the article. My opinion of the doxxing claim doesn't matter, nor does yours. If WP:RS examine and report it, the article will report what RS say. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) More precisely, the talk page is to be used for discussing improvements to the article. I am not attacking Wu, only relating what I have become convinced is a scam to take advantage of, among many others, Wikipedia readers. I literally did not know she even existed until today. If there is any reason to believe that the doxxing, the questions it occurred in reaction to, and the allegations about which the questions were asked, should not be described in the article once secondary sources become available, I am open to considering them. I want to believe that she is an innocent role model, but I am convinced otherwise. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) One more time, if any WP:RS report on or confirm your many different accusations of Wu, those articles will get some mention in Wikipedia. We are building an encyclopedia here, not Righting Great Wrongs by shaming people for doing this that or the other. I hope this helps. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) My goal is not to shame, it is to stop an alleged scam of which this article serves as a part. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The allegations have been discussed in detail in this RS from last November. Does anyone have any objections to summarizing them from that source? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See #BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding below. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Date of "SexyCyborg is Dismantling Cliches About Women in Tech, One Boob Shot at a Time" article

Re [7], is there really any legitimate dispute that [8] is clearly dated September 14, 2015? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft controversial section on Talk page before adding (consensus) version to article

Wikipedia in general does not recommend "Controversy" sections in BLPs, and particularly when the matter is WP:RECENT and reporting by RS has not occurred. Therefore, I am removing the new section an IP just added and posting it here, so that wkipedia people can discuss how to proceed.

Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband.In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects." After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address (doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. Patreon Support released a statement on Twitter which stated, "We had several questions about why we removed https://www.patreon.com/sexycyborg . We removed this creator because they shared an individual’s home address in a public video as part of a threat against that individual. We have a zero tolerance policy for doxing."

I will also mention WP:WEIGHT, this new addition as proposed would be 1/3 of the entire bio.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Just for the record, I'm not the IP who added that. I think we should wait for secondary sources (not the involved Vice press release) about the doxxing before adding anything, and I'm still very conflicted about how to handle the plagiarism aspect, but I remain convinced that unethical trolling of feminists, financial scamming, and puffery have all occurred. In any case, I recommend this Twitter thread for the most accurate and sober perspective on the issue I've seen so far. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The cited article says "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories" but that has been worded as "claims" in this text. We should call it a conspiracy theory too. For brevity and for lack of RSes, the last two sentences about Patreon could be dropped. Otherwise it looks okay. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This draft is an effort to COATRACK in the reddit conspiracy theory, which has never been confirmed by any RS. The draft cites "claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband", the basic reddit theory and something that does not appear in any of the sources cited. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was thinking it would be good to mention the harassment she's faced, but perhaps instead of saying "there's a conspiracy theory about her" (which might inadvertently signal-boost the message of the harassers), we should just say "she's been the victim of harassment" (which this Motherboard article is a citation for). --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on WP:RS

Another proposed draft (by 60.249.100.210, HouseOfChange is adding this title for clarity) Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss the conspiracy theory that Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband.[1][2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects."[3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address (doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. 60.249.100.210 (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Simply, no. This latest draft COATRACKs in the reddit conspiracy theories about Wu, which are NOT detailed in the sources cited, and are NOT found in any RS. Wikipedia is not going to publish your conspiracy theories until/unless they appear in a reliable source. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.buzzfeed.com/kassycho/a-male-ceo-has-apologized-after-saying-that-this-female?utm_term=.icxamZaw7#.mwOqg4qEP This article states: An anonymous blog post, which was widely shared, claimed that Sexy Cyborg "is an online persona created by Wu's boyfriend, who is a seasoned electrical engineer who has used Wu as the face of his operation." It cites "red flags" about her such as "just how good her written English skills are" for someone from China, and her familiarity with social media networks such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram, which are blocked — but still accessible via VPN — in China. The blog post has since been deleted. Coverage of this theory were on the Internet way before the Vice article. 211.22.161.69 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ceo-apologises-for-saying-sexy-cyborg-female-tech-maker-is-fraud-and-front-for-male-developer-a3696861.html Another article that includes the "rumors"210.140.221.110 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC) So there was an anonymous blogpost, since deleted, which BuzzFeed mentioned in an "article" that is mostly screencaps of tweets. If BuzzFeed had done some vetting that confirmed the claim, we could definitely include this. But BuzzFeed, which is sometimes (and sometimes not) considered a reliable source did not vet the claim. Instead it adds the name of yet another person who has actually met Naomi Wu and concludes that the claim is false. (There doesn't seem to be one reliable source or working reporter who has met Naomi Wu and decided that she is a beautiful dunce mascoting a boyfriend.) It is entirely possible that she has or had a boyfriend who helped her get started, but that is a completely different question and hardly a scandal. She has now been working in tech, meeting with people in tech, creating stuff which is technically simple but full of imagination in public, for years. The Vice article, by the way, notes that she has a WeChat group helping her with English for her posts in English. The existence of this "vile conspiracy" theory is not notable or news that should be attached to anybody's BLP. Nearly every good-looking young woman in the public eye is subjected to similar whisper networks claiming that she is a phony who doesn't really know technology (or games, or Making, or whatever field she got recognition in.) I suppose it is one step up from rape threats and death threats, which is what Wu was referencing when she was concerned that Vice was going to reveal her real identity and location. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC) People go to Wikipedia for research, and it serves as a form of credibility. The fourth sentence in Dale Daugherty from Make's Wikipedia page comments on the issue between him and Naomi Wu. Dale began to have doubts about Wu's authenticity, and send a private message to have someone read the information critical of Wu on reddit. https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/928294396897902593. The subreddit that was critical of Wu was banned by reddit admins, but the content still exists on various archives. There are numerous articles covering the alleged "bro witch hunt" of Wu, but Wu has never addressed the more damning evidence of her critics. The article by Vice mentions the controversy as a "reddit conspiracy theory," and talks about Wu's almost militant use of her followers. After receiving a message from the author asking if Wu would like to clear up the rumors about her, Wu took to twitter to harass and sic her followers on the authors of the article before it was even published. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ8xvUvU0AENDRR.jpg. After the article was published, and it is mostly a fluff piece, Wu reacted by again going to twitter to complain to her followers and then by releasing a video which contained the home address of one of the reporters at Vice. Her "farewell" video on Youtube does not mention her actions, nor did she apologize. The facts are that there are claims that she is inauthentic. It was one of the reasons Dale doubted her. The Vice reporters, doing their job, asked if they could talk to her about the claims, and she reacted by doxxing one of them. Vice released a follow up article explaining their side of things, and Patreon released a statement on why Naomi was removed from their platform. She is using Wikipedia as a tool to legitimize herself and her business. If Dale will forever have his page and reputation tarnished for doubting Wu's legitimacy, then I don't understand why a mentioning of the controversy and Wu's subsequent behavior cannot be published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.75.181.188 (talk • contribs) While I am strongly inclined to agree with your conclusions about the allegations of plagiarism for the reasons I detailed above, we must follow Wikipedia policy and wait for a reliable and secondary source about the accusations before mention of them can be included in the article, per the WP:V pillar policy. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Here's another Twitter thread that does more to explain the social dynamics which may be helpful. It also raises some legitimate questions showing just how important it is to wait for independent analysis by people closer to the principals, which we may or may not ever have.... 75.171.239.84 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Reminding both 75.. and 45.. that the Talk page is to discuss the article, not to post long accusations about the subject of the article "supported" by links to "sources" like Twitter or reddit. If you object to the idea that Wu is "using wikipedia as a tool" to promote her legitimacy (not clear how that works because afaik she and her YouTube fans aren't editing this article), I object to your using the talk page as a tool to promote the legitimacy of reddit's conspiracy theories. We cannot improve the article with material sourced only by unreliable sources. Please discuss improvements to the article, and include links to WP:RS supporting your ideas. One more comment, with all the injustice and suffering occurring around the world, I find it astounding that you care so much about your theory that some Chinese social media star, who openly says that her appearance is her superpower, who openly says that her own tech projects are simple, maybe got help from a current or former boyfriend. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC) If you really want to know why I personally care about the issue, google "Her engineer boyfriend is doing God's work". 75.171.239.84 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) I care because it isn't exactly a mystery to people here in China who know them. They are taking advantage of people. Her whole back-story is a lie, and she is being held up as a role model. It is important for people to tell the truth in this world, and she/they could have avoided all the criticism by just telling the truth from the beginning. I applaud what they claim to be trying to do, but I don't like the way they are going about it. The Wikipedia article on her is a fluff piece that holds her up as some tech/feminist icon, but you can see what types of people they are by their recent actions. There is a lot of injustice in the world, and liars should be held accountable for their sins just as much as everyone else. Especially when they are taking advantage of the feminist and minority supporters to make a buck. I don't want my daughters to look up to someone like her/them, and Wikipedia not even having a footnote about the allegations and her behavior on social media will continue to add credibility to these con artist. 47.75.8.214 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) It is important for people to tell the truth and it is important for Wikipedia to abide by its rules about RS and BLP. I predict that eventually some RS will report on the Patreon controversy, and when that happens we can cite that source in this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to this hatting of text. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Did not come to prominence on Reddit

I'm removing the unsourced statement, "Wu first came to public prominence on Reddit." Because, these are her first comments on Reddit, in which she refers to several already-extant projects. Mass media news articles, including some cited already in the article, were written prior to those comments and refer to those earlier projects. At least ten of her 25 Thingiverse uploads are dated prior, as are about a third of her Imgur albums, many of which have hundreds of comments also dated prior. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed article as justification for adding reddit theories? Get consensus before adding

This Buzzfeed article has been proposed as a way to COATRACK into the article reddit's theory that Wu is an ignorant mascot for some techy man.

The Buzzfeed article is in some ways problematic. Reliable sources should do some vetting of claims they publish, but this article is mostly screencaps from Twitter and elsewhere, unvetted, including the conspiracy theory which it sources to an anonymous poster who later deleted it. We don't have a date for that claim, but Wu has been highly visible since 2015, and it is now 2018. So presumably her abilities and creations have made some progress in 3 years of working on tech, something conspiracy theorists do not address.

Buzzfeed clearly states that Dougherty's claims were based on anonymous theories on reddit. It notes that Dougherty asked for advice from somebody who had spent time with Wu (Andrew "bunnie" Huang.) Dougherty later claimed that if he had read the response from Huang, he would never have made his claim that Wu was not a real maker.

Similarly, the Vice reporter who spent 3 days with Wu also did not agree with the conspiracy theories from long-ago reddit "detectives," describing them as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career"[9]. So maybe using that quote from Vice would be an acceptable way to include the conspiracy theory that some people desperately want to add to this article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I included an absolutely minimal description of the situation: "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer.[1]" to introduce a completely pertinent paragraph which says in no uncertain terms that the claims were reviewed in detail, debunked (although I disagree with that conclusion), statements made because of them were withdrawn and apologized for, and the apology was accepted.

References

There is no question that statement of fact, which is apparently the source of all the new controversy, as included is true. It exists in a reliable secondary source which cites and displays the corresponding primary sources. The other IP editor wanted to include a whole lot more. You would not have been unwilling to compromise by demanding consensus here if you didn't know that the number of editors who want to censor this information outnumber, by a few, those here who want to include it. Prior to this, you only complained about the lack of secondary reliable sources and the verbosity of the other IP's inclusion. Because you have moved the goalposts, stating criteria and then revising them after they were met, I will be asking for a wider review of the proposed inclusion. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a draft that includes reddit theory in appropriate context:

Dougherty explained to followers that his statement was based on Google searches for "Naomi Wu liar and fake," which turned up Reddit pages he called "mostly conjecture." Dougherty also reached out to contacts in Shenzhen, including American programmer Andrew “bunnie” Huang. Dougherty later said that if he had read the response from Huang, he would not have published his claim about Wu. The anonymously posted material on which Dougherty based his original claim was described in a Vice article, by a reporter who spent 3 days interviewing Wu, meeting her friends, and seeing her work as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career."

HouseOfChange (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

References

You don't think that gives more of a signal boost to the allegations than simply mentioning them in the most minimal possible form and then explaining that they were debunked, apologized for, and the apology was accepted? "Vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan" are fairly loaded WP:LABELs. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It places the allegations in their appropriate context. Introducing them with a sanitized passive voice ("Wu has been accused...") which implies much more substantive and respectable origin for the accusations than anonymous blogposts from a Reddit hate-chat room that proved too toxic even for Reddit. Furthermore the accusation that "a white man has masterminded her career" is a quote from Vice. This is a slightly sanitized version of "the same accusation everybody makes toward every successful woman: she got to where she is because she had sex with someone" (quoting Zoe Quinn, who was talking about her own harassment by online posses in Gamergate.) HouseOfChange (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to not include the sentence per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, the latter of which reads, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the paragraph discussing questions of Wu's authenticity begin with the sentence, "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer."? 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as proposer, per the enclosing section above. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• No The most reliable source discussing these theories (Vice) calls them "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." Feel free to include the claim somewhere if you also include this entire quote. I have proposed a draft containing this claim on this page, above. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• No It's undue weight. kencf0618 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• No. It might be necessary to mention that she's the victim of a harassment campaign, but there's no reason to repeat the claims made by the harassers. --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Whether the allegations are true or not, does the friend deserve any credit? 63.225.113.81 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• No We should avoid causing damage where possible - no real encyclopedic gain from including this conspiracy theory, no wide coverage of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Or something to that effect. Newsweek, The LA Times, and The Evening Standard have all included details of the rumors in their publications.

211.22.161.69 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 211.22.161.69 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. Even the best sources describe them as unfounded rumors and mention them only in passing; this doesn't meet the standard WP:BLP requires for inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) False and Undue. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, seems pretty clear this is WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, WP:UNDUE. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, I never heard of this person until half an hour ago when a bot summoned me here and I read the article and several of the most relevant references. Disclosure: I once attended a Maker Faire and posted extensively on social media about that day. It seems a powerful person in this subculture cooked up a sexist conspiracy theory and later recanted. That deserves much more space in his Wikipedia biography than hers. It should be minimized in hers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• No as per UNDUE. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: What RS say about the theory you want to add to the bio of Naomi Wu: Vice calls it "a vile and unfounded' theory." Newsweek gives zero details of the accusation but says "An anonymous blogger, meanwhile, wrote a "debunking" post that has since been disproven." LA Times says, "They took unsupported aim at an aspiring woman in a male-dominated industry" and adds the detail that "an anonymous blog post claimed Wu was the face of a boyfriend's operation." The headline of the Evening Standard article cited says "SexyCyborg’ female tech maker is no fraud." The only mention of these claims in RS simultaneously says the claims are false, unsupported, and vile. Please cite some RS that supports these claims rather than an RS that debunks them if you want to claim that predictable expressions of sexist bro harassment are relevant to Naomi Wu in particular. To give a closely related example, David Icke claims that the British Royal family and GW Bush are shape-shifting reptilians. Yet when I go to articles about Bush or the Brits, these looney fake claims are not part of their bios. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Another example of poorly-sourced material that got mentioned elsewhere but after RFC was not added to the bio of David Ogden Stiers: Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers

HouseOfChange (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Newsweek's article states, "Maker CEO Dale Dougherty has harassed Wu online for weeks, alleging that she's only a model who serves as the face of engineering projects completed by a team of men." The Evening Standard article states, "A tech CEO has been forced to apologise to a Youtuber known as SexyCyborg after claiming she was faking her work as a developer to promote her boyfriend's business." The LA Times article states, "But the attacks grew more pronounced this fall, when an anonymous blog post claimed Wu was the face of a boyfriend's operation. Wu insisted the projects were her own creations." The Buzzfeed article states, "However, as she rose to fame, Wu found herself the target of a conspiracy theory claiming that she was not a real maker but just a mascot for a male engineer." The Outline article states, "But for many months, something else has been going viral: an online conspiracy theory that she isn't really a “maker,” but being used as a mascot for her white engineer boyfriend. One Reddit post claims that she's not the “tech genius she claims to be. She is a puppet that was created to garner views and free stuff for her engineer husband.”" The Sixth Tone article states, "But Wu is still angry. “His slander is that I must have a white male helping me with stuff,” Wu says. “That sentence does not only denigrate my identity but also my country, China. It means China has no creativity at all; I must have help from some random white person.”" Even the Vice article mentions the rumors multiple times: "In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." "But early one morning, Dougherty signed on to Twitter and typed the following words: “Naomi is a persona, not a real person. She is several or many people.” He’d been investigating Wu, using the anonymous Reddit conspiracy theory as a source, " "Wu told me she didn’t want to discuss her marital status, but before publishing the piece, I followed up with her. I hoped to discuss the Reddit conspiracy theory that claimed someone she’s in a relationship with was behind her work. Wu has spent significant energy proving these conspiracy theories false, and shutting down this harassment has inspired other women who have faced similar treatment online."

The majority of articles about Wu contain references to rumors about her authenticity. I am open to input on the best way to word this so as to not damage or bookshelf the rumors if they are indeed untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.249.100.210 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It is remarkable that every "No" on this RFC is signed by an established Wikipedia editor, while every "vote" to add vile and unsupported material to this BLP comes from an IP whose "contributions" are mostly attacking this BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC has been posted for 10 days now. 7 say No, only 2 (including proposer) say Yes. I suggest some more experienced Wikipedian close this RFC and record the verdict as No, that Wikipedians in general do not want to let others use this BLP to publicize false allegations against the subject. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

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.

Sources on doxxing and harassing incitement?

Presumably professional journalist Sarah Jeong is a reliable source for Wu's deleted tweets she posted asking "dudes in NYC" to photograph the Vice editor she was in a dispute with in return for dinner, and asking "infosec peeps" to help doxing him further. Is there a similar reliable source for her tweet about hoping that Vice staff would feel the need to move home addresses repeatedly?

The sooner those facts get added to the article, the sooner Wu will stop feeling the need to try to cover them up, and the better off she will be. The coverup is worse than the crime in this case. StressedDiplo (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to coerce people into certain courses of action. And if that's your motivation then you're clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It was already decided by an RfC on this page to not include this information. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to include information that the above RfC decided to leave out

This site, founded by Alibaba VP Brian Wong [10], published an interview with Naomi Wu about recent events: https://radiichina.com/shenzhen-maker-naomi-wu-on-twitter-wars-chinese-tech-and-her-growing-profile/ HouseOfChange (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the purpose of a lead section is to introduce and summarize the body. I notice that the last sentence of the present lead (which, incidentally, is a ridiculous run-on) contains several statements that are referenced but do not appear in the body of the article. I invite proposals for emending this. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"she is the veteran of several Internet flame wars,[6]" is a very weird sentence to lead an article with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:RECENT this topic does not rate its current prominence in article lead. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It was already decided by an RfC on this page to not include this information. Slightly changing the wording does not change this. Plus, some of the sources are WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I have deleted the information. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am two days away from pitching something to the Village Pump about a blanket policy that Wikipedia should not ever comment on Twitter drama.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Vice article section out of date

The "Vice article" section ends with "This effectively put an end to Wu's independent maker career, and she returned to freelance coding." This is no longer accurate, her Youtube channel is active and being updated and she has detailed further developments in a second article on Medium. Bineary (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A primary source like Medium, which is effectively a blog, can't really be used for much, especially not all the stuff about how Americans intentionally made her invisible to go after Sargon of Akkad, but I think we can at least delete the "effectively put an end to her independent maker career," with something more accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Victimizing Wu once again.

Wu has made it crystal clear that details of her personal life should be kept private out of fear of retaliation by the Chinese government. In particular she has stated

"I exchanged several emails with Vice magazine making it clear what the scope of the article would be. The key points being no discussion of sexual orientation or my relationships."

and

"These are not games you play in China, it doesn’t matter if the sum total of their experience living a warm sheltered life in America makes them think it will probably be ok. Things are not the same here."

A recent edit to this page attempted to insert details of Wu's sexual orientation. I reverted the edit based upon WP:BLP concern and the response was edit warring.

THIS IS WRONG. Unless we have express permission from Wu to include details of her personal life on her wikipedia page our BLP policy demands that we leave it out. Westerners don't understand the dangers we are creating for Chinese nationals when we do shit like this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My reading our BLP "presumption in favor of privacy" supports User:Guy Macon here. Also, one tweet in a joking tone should not be rushed onto Wikipedia as a serious example of self-identification within 24 hours of being made. Wikipedia is not The Daily Mail. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wu's complicated political opinions aren't related to her notability

Wu sometimes comments on political issues in her Twitter feed. Like many other Chinese people I know (including many who live in the US and don't need to tailor opinions out of fear of the PRC) she sometimes gets annoyed by what she sees as complacent western criticism of China -- especially when that criticism seems to assume enormous superiority of western ways of doing things. Until and unless the political views of Naomi Wu become notable enough that published RS start to comment on them, why should our article do so? And what could we say about her political views, when there exists no consensus in RS about what they are? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Skepchick and Hacking but legal have now commented, specifically in relation to Naomi's July 7 tweet about getting her wings clipped. 96.40.208.235 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Addressing HouseOfChange's objections to the inclusion of criticism

"Complacent western criticism of China" does not equate to Wu's rampant pushing of disinformation, propaganda and similar messages through her social media channels. It has become so pervasive, it is now one of the major focuses of her openly expressed online identity. Furthermore, given Wu is one of the PRC's most influential social media figures (as per this Wikipedia entry) her tweets pushing a pro-CCP political agenda have the potential to be highly impactful and influential given her extensive reach. Persistently deleting the extensive evidence demonstrating so (of which HouseOfChange is guilty of) shows favoritism towards Wu. Using the example of "like many other Chinese people I know" is anecdotal evidence and not a suitable example. For the article to be balanced, one must acknowledge Wu is using her social media platform to push messages which are clearly politically motivated and aimed at spreading misinformation. To suggest otherwise is either complicit or naive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that the lead paragraph of a BLP should broadcast your personal negative opinion concerning the subject of the article, and I have started discussion at WP:BLPN. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is fine for the article to include information about Wu's political views etc. but only if RS write about them so that we can reference what RS have said. It is OR and SYNTH to draw our own conclusions about what her tweets, taken singly or together, express about politics. Also, the lead summarizes the most important facts in an article. So put your well-sourced political material together in the body of the article, and then if it is of major importance to the topic of Naomi Wu, it could get mentioned in the lead also. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I did put the 'well sourced' information together. Eight sources in total. However you are insistent on censoring the article to fit a favorable bias by removing these. Are you a member of the 50 Cent Party? MrEarlGray (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2020 (GMT)

Your eight sources were a bunch of tweets. The tweets are sources for their own content but determining from them that she pushes an angle is synthesis. You need an RS not your own analysis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Naomi_Wu should make that reasonably clear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference 1, the Medium.com article should not be used as a source

This article was written by Wu. How is this an accepted/unbiased source?

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

Her article involves claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). This is a violation of Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.89.136 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."

...with links to the discussions where this was decided.

I am removing the source and any material attributed to it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the Medium.com article is fine as long as it is not used as a secondary source. It makes sense as a source for Wu's own opinion on the issue because, well, that's literally what it is. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am OK with direct quotes from Wu published in that source. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nickname / Username

Wu uses @sexycyborg as her Twitter handle, but in news stories about her I see her nickname written as "Sexy Cyborg." So I understand why somebody keeps wanting to change "Sexy Cyborg" to "sexycyborg" but I disagree with the change. We might include both as alternate nicknames, perhaps? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Her twitter handle is not "@sexycyborg". It is "@RealSexyCyborg".

• On Instagram she goes by "ReallySexyCyborg".
• On Thingverse she goes by "Sexy Cyborg"
• On YouTube she goes by "Naomi 'SexyCyborg' Wu" and the opening logo shows "Naomi Wu SexyCyborg".
• On Reddit she goes by "u/SexyCyborg".
• On Facebook she goes by "Naomi Wu" with "reallysexycyborg" in the URL.
• On subscribestar she goes by "Naomi Wu"
• On Naomi Wu's Shenzhen Store she sells a "Naomi Wu/SexyCyborg Logo- Less Yammering, More Hammering T-Shirt" but the shirt just says "Naomi Wu".
• On Tipee she writes "Who am I? Hi! I'm Naomi Wu aka 'SexyCyborg'. I'm a 26-year-old Maker and hardware enthusiast from China."
• The Los Angeles Times calls her "Sexy Cyborg".[11]

So, what should Wikipedia call her? If we are going to list more than one username how do we pick two instead of making it "Naomi Wu AKA SexyCyborg / sexycyborg / Sexy Cyborg / @RealSexyCyborg /u/SexyCyborg / ReallySexyCyborg / reallysexycyborg"? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include variations or alternative nicknames. They are all so similar that Sexy Cyborg is sufficient, and Sexy Cyborg is what she has been referred to as in reliable sources. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems she uploaded file:Naomi "SexyCyborg" Wu, 3D Body Scan.stl which runs the words together in BactrianCase. Arlo James Barnes 21:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

After Vice article section

A whole new section was created. This section is again using Naomi Wu's Medium article as a reference. it should be removed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wu#After_Vice_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E9C0:14A0:7072:9C0F:8642:EAC8 (talk • contribs)

@2600:1700:E9C0:14A0:7072:9C0F:8642:EAC8: Hello. There is no Wikipedia rule against having an article authored by the subject, in this case Naomi Wu, as the exclusive reference for a section. In fact, Wikipedia even has a policy saying that it is okay to use these self-published sources when the author is writing about themselves, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_by_self-published_authors_about_themselves. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Reliable Sources Noticeboard

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Decider.com / Jimmy DiResta / Naomi_Wu 06:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CAE:6306:8B34:1600 (talk)

developments

Naomi Wu 机械妖姬 Twitter @RealSexyCyborg

English: Ok for those of you that haven't figured it out I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it- so there's not going to be much posting on social media anymore and only on very specific subjects. I can leave but Kaidi can't so we're just going to follow the new rules and that's that. Nothing personal if I don't like and reply like I used to. I'll be focusing on the store and the occasional video. Thanks for understanding, it was fun while it lasted.

7 Jul 2023

Arlo James Barnes 07:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

Recent article about Naomi Wu getting blacklisted by Chinese censors:

https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/naomi-wu-and-the-silence-that-speaks-volumes

Hopefully reliable sources will pick up on this story soon. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wu is briefly mentioned in this MIT Tech review article, on the related subject of third-party Android keyboard apps. This is part of the reason the CCP has banned her from posting publicly as an influencer — for criticizing Chinese tech companies that refuse to patch keyboard app security holes. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Technology Review is a reliable enough source. Quote: "Wu herself has disappeared from social media since the end of June, following a visit from police that was reportedly related to her online discussions of Signal and keyboard apps."

The word "reportedly" links to https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/naomi-wu-and-the-silence-that-speaks-volumes - I cannot judge the reliability but it is a well-written and well-researched piece, with quotations from Wu herself.

We should have enough from these two sources to include a sentence or two in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be great to include in the article here, thanks. I will also keep my eyes peeled for more sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing for Wu enforcing GPL compliance from Umidigi

Supposedly, Wu enforced GPL compliance from Umidigi, a 3D printer manufacturer. The blog section of the SF conservancy reported on it, as did a Linux-related podcast. The only other sources for this activism are her Twitter and YouTube channels. I'm not quite comfortable adding this activism to the page with so few sources, but as part of the subject's activism, I believe it is suitable for inclusion.

--Holzklöppel (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Holzklöppel: I think the article could benefit from an activism section, to include what you found as well as the information in the section above this one. The clumsily worded section heading "After the Vice article" could be renamed to Activism and other examples included there, including a couple that are in the "Work" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have created an Activism section and included a couple sentences about GPL enforcement. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)