Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

The entire first paragraph & the enormous Star of David sidebar are undeniably absurd.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"Political narrative is not only a theoretical concept, it is also a tool employed by political figures in order to construct the perspectives of people within their environment and alter relationships between social groups.."

Unacceptable. Somebody needs to fix these issues. Steveengel (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)— Steveengel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please provide specific suggestions for alternations, supported by reliable sources, and remember that NPOV does not mean creating false balance. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The topic of including the sidebar is already being discussed above. If you would like to discuss changing the sidebar illustration, I suggest taking it to the respective talk page. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the original first paragraph. Perhaps reverting the first paragraph back similar to this is more NPOV "Gab is a San Mateo, California-based social networking service that allows users to post and read short messages called gabs. Gab enables its users, called Gabbers, to post up to 300 characters in one message/post[2] and to access additional functionality using special characters: # to create hashtags, @ to reference other users by username, and the ability to insert emoji and hyperlinks and to attach images. Gab describes its mission as "to put people and free speech first" by limiting "censorship" to filtering options made available to Gabbers.[3]"

And complete removal of the antisemitism sidebar. Steveengel (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not going to happen, because (1) the sidebar is being discussed above, (2) the lead paragraph is supposed to summarize the article content. (and your suggestion isn't a summary of the article content). see MOS:LEAD Mvbaron (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a summary of the article content "anymore" because the majority of the article content has become bull****. Steveengel (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ha, that's not how summaries work :D Mvbaron (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There is prior discussion about revising the lead to describe what Gab is technically. The suggestion above has merit, at least the first sentence. Instead of "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase" it could say "Gab is an alt-tech social networking and messaging service based in San Mateo, California, and is known for its far-right userbase." It's more accurate without detracting from what makes it notable, and more consistent with other Wikipedia articles about companies. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there RS that refer to it as a messaging service? Does it even have messaging capabilities? As for adding that it's based in San Mateo, that doesn't seem particularly noteworthy (no more than that it's American, which we already mention) and I don't understand how it makes the lead "more accurate". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think where it's based is particularly noteworthy or helpful, but that info would work better in the first sentence of the second paragraph if it's included. "Gab launched publicly in May 2017 and is based in San Mateo, California." It's important not to take away focus from the highly prominent extremist content. Jonmaxras (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They're not based in San Mateo. The sidebar and recent news place their HQ in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. According to the "2016–2018" subsection, they moved to Pennsylvania in 2017. I doubt that either their original location or their present one is first-sentence-of-lede material. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I completely forgot they were based in Pennsylvania lol, thanks for correcting that. Jonmaxras (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion was meant as an example of greater precision, based on the very first version of the lead sentence, without regard to correctness of fact. And yes, there are RS comparing it to Twitter, which is basically a messaging service. In any case, I'm fine with the lead the way it is; I just felt that a bit more detail would give it a more neutral tone. My greater objection is to the jarring presence of the antisemitism sidebar, for reasons I layed out in the discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, I thought this was a specific suggestion. "Messaging service" to me implies direct messaging (like WhatsApp) so we should probably avoid that wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Twitter, which is basically a messaging service" - Most descriptions of Twitter I've seen describe it as either a social networking or microblogging service, not a "messaging" service. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, sidebar seems out-of-place and WP:UNDUE. Who even added that and approved it? Seems like vandalism to me but I'd like to WP:AGF --160.2.143.157 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Clutter may be distracting, but it's not vandalism. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that this started with someone using the obviously anti-semitic/racist phrase "jew star" in the section header [1], I think this discussion would be best considered improper WP:FORUM stuff and hatted. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Article part of "Articles on antisemitism"?

I believe this article should not be a part of the Articles on antisemitism. The main substance of this article is not focused on antisemitism, but is instead focused on a tech company, its userbase, and controversies.Yewvibes (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Jonmaxras, who added the sidebar. I have no strong opinion on whether the sidebar should or shouldn't be included, but I imagine you do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The platform has been openly embracing antisemitism and been noted explicitly because of this several times. See e.g. this article by ADL as well as numerous other sources. Compare e.g. to ADL's article on Parler, which is noted for containing antisemitic speech but not openly embracing it. The sidebar for Gab is completely justified, in my opinion. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The sidebar is absolutely justified. The website, as stated in the article based on reliable sourcing, is a hotbed for neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The reasoning you provide, that the article is focused on a tech company and not antisemitism, is disingenuous at best. Yes, this article is about a tech company. A tech company that has an extensive history embracing of antisemitism. There is extensive sourcing throughout the article discussing this. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Jonmaxras.--Jorm (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no way this article should be part of "antisemitism". Actions such as this undermine the integrity of this entire website. Jonmaxras is attempting to use this article to further their own personal political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not attack other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yewvibes here. I found it jarring to see the sidebar on antisemitism on an article about a tech company. Where is the consensus to include that? Was it just one editor's view that put it there? Why not include, say, sidebars on racism, religious fundamentalism, creationism, science denialism, etc. (assuming such sidebars exist, I didn't check), all of which have representation on Gab? The presence of that antisemitism sidebar gives the article an appearance of an ideological slant. The topic of the article is not antisemitism, any more than the topic is about racism, denial, and so on. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The sidebar and its prominent placement are cartoonishly POV. There are any number of articles on this site in which anti-Semitism or accusations of such are mentioned, and the threshold for them to get this kind of sidebar is orders of magnitude beyond any fact or accusation connected (in RS) to Gab. It's completely hilarious reading through the list as comparison to Gab --- it's like a historical Who's Who of iconic extreme anti-Semitism, plus one several year old website that supports Trump. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually agree that the contents of "Antisemitism on the Internet" feel a little out of place in the sidebar. Normally I wouldn't consider Groypers or 8chan or even necessarily Stormfront as topics that ought to be listed alongside things like The Holocaust, Persecution of Jews during the Black Death, etc. But given that there is a section on this, and that it includes items like 4chan's /pol/, 8chan, and Parler (also under discussion), I think it's appropriate. My thought is either all of the platforms where antisemitism abounds ought to be listed, or none of them, and that's maybe more of a discussion for Template talk:Antisemitism than here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

None of those sites is specificly anti-Semitism oriented, they all host a mixture of overlapping interests that belong under a different umbrella (if there is to be a sidebar at all) such as alt-right. Maybe Stormfront and a couple like it are close enough to being primarily anti-Semitism that the sidebar makes sense for them (if they're proud to wear the label, it probably belongs) but the others are more general forums. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous comment, if there is to be a discussion of removing all of the platforms listed in the "Antisemitism on the Internet" category, it would need to happen at Template talk:Antisemitism and not at one of the several talk pages of the articles in question. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a note there. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Yewvibes and Anachronist. - Daveout(talk) 01:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another thing that seems wildly mis-calibrated about putting the AS sidebar on this article is that it doesn't only use the word "anti-Semitism", it visually almost assaults the reader with a fairly large reproduction of the Jude yellow star, the associations of which are quite dramatic compared to anything Gab has been doing. A site where LARPers circulate "happy merchant" memes is not even close to the scale or intensity of what is visually tagged onto it by the sidebar. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Gab is part of Articles on antisemitism because some users are anti-semites, shouldn't Facebook be part of Articles on child porn because literally 65% of child sexual abuse worldwide trace back to Facebook Messenger? (Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/05/tech-firms-back-new-principles-to-prevent-online-child-sexual-abuse.html you can find many others online) This article is definitely biased to demonize Gab. Av824 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC){— Av824 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And also maybe we should change the first sentence of article about Facebook to "Facebook is a social media used in 65% cases of online child sexual abuse worldwide". Sound ridiculous? Well, that's how unfairly Gab is treated right now. Av824 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC){— Av824 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHER - this discussion belongs to the Facebook article talk page. If you find reliable sources discussing Facebook and antisemitism feel free to add it there. Best --Mvbaron (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not proposing actual changes to the article about Facebook. I'm just providing context to show how biased this article is. And I wasn't even talking about Facebook and antisemitism, but about Facebook and online child sexual abuse. So, please don't change my words and actually refer to my arguments. Av824 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC){— Av824 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And btw, what this WP:OTHER thing has to do with what I said? Are you trying to say, that I'm not allowed to point out hypocrisy on this website? Av824 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC){— Av824 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If reliable sources reported on child abuse content on Facebook as prominently as they report on antisemitism on Gab, then that would be a reasonable suggestion. But they don't, and it isn't. Please see WP:DUE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that, if something is not widely reported by media, that doesn't matter. We're talking right now about an actual study about Facebook and few opinions about Gab from mainstream media, whose opinions are treated as facts. Also let's not confuse opinions with facts - if CNN says that something is antisemitic, that doesn't mean that it's a fact that something is antisemitic; it's just their opinion. I agree that CNN is a reliable source, but "reliable" basically means that they don't lie about facts. But right now we're talking about opinions, not facts. Av824 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying that on Wikipedia we strive to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (WP:NPOV) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Mvbaron, I'm not sure it belongs there either, at least not with that proposed wording. Heh. I get why people are objecting to this; it seems like a "badge of shame". But it's important to note that this is a navigation aid, and isn't a POV statement. Per WP:10YT, this is going to be one of the things that Gab was historically known for. And in that context, it's perfectly appropriate. This sort of content proliferates on the site, and we'd be remiss not to include it as part of the series. However, I have no strong feelings about its inclusion one way or another, except to say that it's perfectly justifiable, and isn't that unusual. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"But it's important to note that this is a navigation aid, and isn't a POV statement." - Most people don't get it that way, so this article is literally manipulating people to think that Gab itself is antisemitic. That's the real problem here. Av824 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC){— Av824 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let me just quickly quote from the article: "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right and extremist userbase. (...) Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter." Yeah, it's not a problem. Mvbaron (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of sidebars in general — they often seem a bit gimmicky to me — but that's just my personal taste, and setting that aside, I think the case for including this sidebar within this article is a good one. Reliable sources make the connection and indicate its significance. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. That antisemitism sidebar serves only to highlight one aspect of Gab. Antisemitism isn't even the most prominent aspect of Gab, and yet we give the topic of antisemitism undue weight in the sidebar? That makes no sense to me, given that the primary activity there seems to be more about right-wing political activity than antisemitism. If we keep that antisemitism sidebar, then let's include sidebars for other features of Gab: Template:Party politics, Template:Discrimination sidebar, Template:Nationalism sidebar, Template:Conservatism US, Template:Tax protest in the United States, etc. The fact that those sidebars don't currently include links to Gab is easily corrected.

Either include all relevant sidebar topics, or none. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I should make it clear that yes, it is absolutely true that Gab hosts a litany of hate speech in near every category imaginable (anti-Black racism, antisemitism, Islamaphobia, homophobia, misogyny, anti-Latino racism, etc). The list could truly go on, but I don't think trying to numbers crunch as to who has the most hate speech is helpful. I agree with XOR'easter that I usually see sidebars as gimmicky or not helpful; obviously that's not the case here as I'm the one who added it in the first place. I didn't add the sidebar in the article because I think that antisemitism is more important to talk about than other forms of discrimination. It's all bad, and should be discussed. However, I should note that I believe the antisemitic content is the most prominent out of all the hate speech on this site. The amount of space dedicated to it in the article (and in reliable sources) is important to heed. Need I remind anyone here, Gab was used extensively by the man who committed the deadliest antisemitic hate crime in United States history, which is what originally brought the service to public attention. The vast presence of neo-Nazis on the site is also notable, as well as QAnon related content (not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned by many reliable sources). Jonmaxras (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the antisemitic content is the most prominent out of all the hate speech on this site. Do any of the sources state that? - Daveout(talk) 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I do think a separate discussion on including other sidebars is warranted. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2 I would like to quote @Ineffablebookkeeper: from the Parler talk page discussing the exact same thing (but with Parler), as I feel like their words apply here just as much.

It's true that it's just a platform; it's not true that its content follows as such and is Entirely Balanced Between Right And Left. Anyone with eyes or the ability to meaningfully process words could recognise that.

It should be noted that there are a fair few editors opposing this; it should also be noted that the content of what they are saying doesn't actually hold much impact beyond numbers-stuffing. Sheer number of votes, in this instance, should not be placed as a blanket consensus with little regard to the content of the votes. Any controversial topic, or article prone to edit warring, is prone to this happening. But the numerous, verifiable and noteworthy sources used to reference this article are clear: Parler does host a considerable quantity of anti-semitic, far-right and alt-right and hate speech content. This is not something that can be called into question.

Even if community consensus on the status of Parler as a platform for hate speech is an undecided-upon topic, community consensus as to what counts as a verifiable source is clear. This article is not stuffed with unverifiable sources, as some are. Based on this, and this alone, the consensus that all verifiable sources involved report Parler as engaging in and particularly highlighting and platforming hate speech with little to no moderation allowing for its rampant creation should be exceedingly clear to all involved, and this explicitly includes anti-semitism as a notable and noxious branch of hate speech. Jonmaxras (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article should be under category Freedom_of_speech --160.2.143.157 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler and Gab are two different services with two completely different sets of community guidelines and moderation standards. I would like to remind you that this article isn't about Parler, Twitter, or Facebook but rather, Gab. The inclusion of an anti-semitism sidebar for the reasons stated here makes the same amount of sense as including the sidebar to the United States wiki page. 172.88.168.1 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler and Gab are two different services with very similar purposes, controversies, and coverage by reliable sources. It is extremely insincere to suggest otherwise and my comparison is justified. It's not like I'm drawing an equivalence between Gab and Allrecipes.com. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed anti-semitism side bar appears out of place. I don't think Gab is "part of a series on anti-semitism" but part of a series on social media companies, platforms, or something to that effect. SoJuicy (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a natural part of the sub-series of the series on antisemitism that covers antisemitism on the Internet. It would also be a natural part of a sub-series about social media companies known for extremist user bases. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Or social media companies in general, blogging, alt-tech, right-wing politics, censorship, deplatforming, free-speech, etc. etc.--SoJuicy (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This appears to be a reflection of personal bias. While there may or may not be a larger ratio of users on the platform with one ideaology vs another, this antisemitism sidebar being included on this page is laughable and simply makes wikipedia look bad. It's relevance is moot to the platform and I guess you may as well add it to the Allrecipes.com page also.172.88.168.1 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki claims to be unbiased.

Sites the SPLC as a source... yeah ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.158.231 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No we do not claim to be unbiased, we are biased in favour of what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN#SPLC: The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. This article is properly giving in-text attribution to the SPLC's opinions, which is in line with the general consensus of how the source should be used. Feel free to begin a discussion at WP:RSN if you think the SPLC ought to be considered an unusable source, but until such consensus is established it is acceptable to use. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Gab (social network)

thread creator is blocked indefinitely, WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia's own page lists absolutely 0 criticism of Wikipedia. Instead there is a completely separate page dedicated to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveengel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— Steveengel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:OTHERCONTENT. But your statement is completely inaccurate. The third paragraph of the lead of Wikipedia begins "Wikipedia has been criticized for...", and a large portion of the article is devoted to criticism. There is a separate article because in Wikipedia's 20 years of existence, there has been a massive amount of research and coverage of Wikipedia, to the point where a WP:SIZESPLIT was necessary. The same is not true for Gab. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template

Hi there. In view of the large number of discussions due to neutrality, I suggest to you use Template:POV in the article. I think that would help to objectify the discussions. --2A02:8388:6781:B780:D0B2:A97B:E720:A048 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree - Daveout(talk) 22:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree Steveengel (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— Steveengel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Normally I would agree too, but I observe that all those discussions were started by anonymous IP addresses, unconfirmed editors, or single-purpose accounts who have yet to gain familiarity with the Wikipedia concepts of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Given that Gab itself has canvassed its users to come here and disrupt the article, it's hardly surprising (since the article is protected) to see outraged comments here from such users. I see no experienced editors here who see a problem. Therefore, this request carries no weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. The article doesn't contain anything that requires applying the template. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) So far, I haven't seen any of these editors with neutrality concerns actually be able to explain how this article, or a part of it, doesn't meet WP:NPOV. So far these discussions have been largely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Until someone can actually describe why this article is not properly reflecting the reliable sources it is citing, or show us additional reliable sources whose viewpoints are significant and not being included, the template should not be added; and even if someone does do that, we should discuss first and attempt to resolve the concern rather than just slapping the {{POV}} tag on the article. There are certainly enough experienced editors watching this page to respond to such a concern.

Keep in mind that Gab is actively encouraging its supporters to brigade this article, so it's not exactly surprising that there are quite a lot of people who don't like the article, and/or who are under the impression that NPOV means that the content must lack any description of sources' POV on a subject (Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare, let's WP:ASG and WP:DNB. Many recent or new editors may be new to Gab or heard about it recently since it has been seeing rapid growth after the recent events. It could be something they feel passionate about, free speech and civil liberties often are! This doesn't mean they are behind a conspiracy but could truly believe the article could use improvement. On topic, I don't necessarily think all of the content is bad (though some of it doesn't appear to be adequately sourced or appears to be journalistic conjecture), it could also be the layout and the weight given to certain sections. Reading articles on similar social media platforms are in my humble opinion, much better written and laid out. Because of this I believe POV is warranted. : Agree --SoJuicy (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm pointing the provable fact that Gab has encouraged its supporters to brigade this page. You appear to be putting words in my mouth. As for some of it doesn't appear to be adequately sourced or appears to be journalistic conjecture, please be specific. This page is 7,000 words long and we can't read your mind. The POV tag is warranted iff you can point to specific portions of the page that violate WP:NPOV and explain how, and those concerns go unaddressed. That is not the case with this article, which is heavily watchlisted and full of editors waiting for anyone to point out specifically what they think violates NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of that is a reason to conclude this article was written in a NPOV way... (the individual feelings of editors don't, if you think something isn't adequately sourced then open a discussion about it, what other articles about social media write is a problem for those articles) --Mvbaron (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note I did open a discussion on a piece I did find inaccurately sourced, see below. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". The reasons this article is POV is because it repeatedly and in headlining ways only shows certain aspects of what has been published. It does not do so in a "fair and proportionate" which seems to be done out of "editorial bias". Here's what I think is a better article on "what is Gab" and more fairly and proportionately shows significant views on the subject. . --SoJuicy (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The first source you have suggested says "Gab is known to be used by the far-right, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and believers of conspiracy theory QAnon". The second basically describes Gab as a platform known for its usage by the gunman in the synagogue shootings. Both sources scare quote "free speech" when they say that Gab claims to be a "free speech" platform. How exactly do these articles present a different view on Gab than the ones already included in sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You are exactly describing why and how this article is POV. I never said you'd need to remove something that says that. However you picked the later sentence of the article and not the first sentence that it says on Gab: "What is Gab? Gab was founded in 2016 as a “free speech” platform with limited censorship rules." Hence the article does not appear to fairly or proportaintely describe Gab. --SoJuicy (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:NPOV requires that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not that we represent the ordering in which individual sources discuss a subject. I can just as easily find you some one-off RS that start out saying that Gab is known for its far-right userbase; cherrypicking sources to suggest we must order a Wikipedia article after them is not a valuable argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I quoted WP:NPOV above. I do believe the way an article is ordered and structured, along with the repetition of content and not displaying of other content from the same source, that makes the article POV. --SoJuicy (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What information in that source is missing that ought to be added? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears Gab is (also) largely known for it's lacks censorship rules, but this article's lead says it's known for it's user base. Nothing in the lead mentions this. "Gab was launched as an alternative to traditional platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. During that time, Twitter had suspended several accounts associated with the "alt-right" movement on the same day it vowed a crackdown on hate speech. The suspensions pushed many people to Gab, which has fewer content restrictions compared to Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms." --SoJuicy (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's right there: "it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms. Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty..." We are not omitting this information; we are presenting it in balance with other information, such as that Gab's claims to promote free speech etc. have been challenged. This is proper NPOV treatment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I think would be less POV that reduces a signficant amount of WP:REDUNDANCY that is currently in it. "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its lack of censorship and far-right userbase. Founded in 2016 by Andrew Torba, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms. Gab claims to promote free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its user base." --SoJuicy (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is whitewashing, not NPOV. It also ignores past consensus on including Gab's far-right userbase in the lead sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Re-read my example, I specifically included the known for far-right userbase in the first sentence. "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its lack of censorship and far-right userbase". It's not whitewashing to not be redundant WP:REDUNDANCY and include the same info repeated several times in the first paragraph. --SoJuicy (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Known for its lack of censorship" falls into WP:MANDY apologism territory. It's not how WP:RSes describe the site. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure what WP:MANDY or apologism has to do with this. Also Mandy article says it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. This articles clearly says Gab is known for it's lack of content restrictions. "Gab, which has fewer content restrictions compared to Facebook" and "Gab was founded in 2016 as a “free speech” platform with limited censorship rules" . Hence if the first sentence read "Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its lack of content restrictions and far-right userbase" that would fairly and proportionately reflect the RS's on it. As MOS:FIRST "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." RS's state Gab is known for lack of content moderation as alt-tech, and far-right userbase. Secondly, the second sentence is just a repetition of the first "Gab is...known for its far-right userbase" and "Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and the alt-right," is WP:REDUNDANT since that's what the far-right is described as (see far-right article). No need to repeat it twice. "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." MOS:OPEN The way it's written sounds too specific on describing the far-right. This info could instead be in a section on users as it is. Just trying to be helpful here since some people asked for RS's and such. --SoJuicy (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No we should not be enabling drive-by POV pushing by implying their objections are valid. If anything we should have a FAQ that says why we say what we say, with a link to relevant polcies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

+1 for FAQ Mvbaron (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

+1 from me as well. I'll stub something out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please make any additions or edits to Talk:Gab (social network)/FAQ. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Lets put this another way, any subject is open to POV (Star Wars, its a crap film and if we dont say that we need a POV tag, some people think the earth is flat, POV tag, The moon is made of green cheese POV tag).Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Star Wars is an American epic space opera[1] media franchise created by George Lucas". That's essentially the first sentence. Not "Star Wars is an American epic space opera[1] media franchise created by George Lucas that I don't like so here's a bunch of reasons why". That's what this article reads like. Balancing rhetoric similar to these articles would be more fair and proportionate. and --SoJuicy (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Disagree POV banners should indicate legitimate disputes, not be used to legitimize trolling, bad-faith POV-pushing, and complaints not grounded in policy. (In contrast, an FAQ sounds like a good move.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Bias Information

WP:NOTFORUM. Incidentally, there's actually no such thing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see that whoever wrote this is an extremist liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:2F0:5180:414B:DCA4:5FC6:21DC:8577 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for claim that Gab was among the platforms used to plan the capital protests is incredibly weak

tl;dr: This quote "Gab was among the platforms used to plan the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021" Is not backed up by the source. The source in this article points to , however that article mentions the times as it's source when specifying that Gab was used to plan the Capital protests, and the Hill article only mentions that Gab saw an increase in users after the protests and that users shared photos and videos (not that they organized it.) A better statement would be. "Gab saw an increase in visits and users following the capital protests. Or if you really cared, that gab users shared videos and photos from the day as well (which seems obvious being a social media site). Though it could also be mentioned that facebook and twitter tried to blocked content from the protests . The nytimes source is also incredibly weak, and has no evidence of organizing on the site other than what appears to be hearsay and has no actual content or evidence to back it up. I would claim this journalist is assertion is not reliable in this case. Further they don't mention Twitter or Facebook's role in the source. A nytimes journalist in this opinion piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html) states how the protests were organized on Facebook and makes no mention of Gab. Gab also does not have event organizing capabilities. This part of the article should be amended asap. --SoJuicy (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[[2]], [[3]] [[4]], [[5]], That enough for me to say they did.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you're agreeing with me. The nytimes source is the same one I mentioned. Can you quote anywhere that they mention Gab being used to plan the protests? "On social media sites used by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress." It only mentions that users posted on the site about the protests, not that they were planned or organized there, and doesn't mention that actual planning and organizing was happening on Facebook . Furthermore "at least a dozen" seems paltry in weight to the thousands of users in groups and events on Facebook. The other sources you mention also uses the nytimes article as it's source and businessinsider has been cast doubt upon it's reliablity (see other posters above) so I won't mention it. The headline though seems clear, "parler-erupted-with-talk-of-revolution-as-mobs-stormed-capitol", users commented or posted about the events of the day, but that Gab was used to plan those events is disingenuous. You could say users on the site made comments in support of the protests, which seems much more accurate. See this nytimes article where they mention the planning and organizing of the protests and do not mention Gab. --SoJuicy (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• "Just after 1 p.m., when President Trump ended his speech to protesters in Washington by calling for them to march on Congress, hundreds of echoing calls to storm the building were made by his supporters online. On social media sites used by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress." - The New York Times
• "The Capitol mob began organizing weeks ago for the violence that occurred on January 6, planning inside conspiracy theory and far-right online communities on platforms like Parler and Gab." - Vox
• "In the days before the insurrection attempt on the Capitol, alternative social media site Gab was lighting up about it. Some of the discussion on the social media, which is popular among Trump diehards, even veered into a level of specificity that caused alarm among outside observers. 'There were directions provided on Gab for which streets to take to avoid the police,' said Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League. 'And which tools to use to help pry open the doors.' The plans to storm the Capitol were unfolding online in plain sight on niche social media sites and Facebook and Twitter long before the attack happened on Jan 6." - NPR

I'll update the citations in the article to make sure it's clear inline, but this is adequately supported in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for raising this concern, you're right the inline citations needed to be improved. I've done so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You can add those but all of your sources point to the single NYT article for their source of assertion that planning took place on Gab (which I've disputed veracity of above).

• Example Vox which states "There’s also evidence that specific instructions for taking the Capitol appeared on sites like Parler, 4chan, and Gab." which links to the nytimes article as it's evidence.
• NPR source is the ADL which quotes the nytimes article: "There were directions provided on Gab for which streets to take to avoid the police," said Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League. "And which tools to use to help pry open the doors."

all of these extra sources are to the nyt article. You can post more sources who's source is the nyt article but this doesn't make much of a difference to what I said before. As I said the VOX statement appears to be journalistic conjecture only supported by the NYT article. --SoJuicy (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Furthermore you could use this article to show that the nyt did NOT name Gab in the planning and organizing: --SoJuicy (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(edit conflict) The statement I've quoted above from Vox does not link to the NYTimes, so it appears they are making that based on their own research. NPR spoke to the director of the ADL and quoted him; that is very different from what you are claiming, which is that they are sourcing some publication by the ADL. Furthermore, we trust our reliable sources to do their own research; we do not require they present their data in order to be considered reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that that NYT opinion piece somehow contradicts the other RS: 1) we avoid using opinion pieces as reliable sources, and 2) a source not mentioning Gab as a place where the riots were planned is very different than a source saying the riots were not planned on Gab. It's clear that the riots were planned on multiple platforms, including mainstream ones like Facebook. A source focusing on a subset of them does not contradict that the other platforms were used to plan the attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(1) this is not true (the Vox article for example asserts this without linking to NYT) so why are you saying this?, (2) the nyt article is fine: it clearly states that the storming was organized beforehand on (amongst fb and other sites) on gab (3) and lastly, we as editors are not in the business to question reliable sources, if reliable sources (and in this case multiple) assert something, we rely on them to have made their homework so to say. Mvbaron (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read the VOX article, it does indeed link to the nytimes, I quoted the place it's linked. ICYMI - Vox states "There’s also evidence that specific instructions for taking the Capitol appeared on sites like Parler, 4chan, and Gab." which links to the nytimes article as it's evidence. This is their sourced research for what appears to be any claims that were made about Gab in that article. --SoJuicy (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The statement I quoted, "The Capitol mob began organizing weeks ago for the violence that occurred on January 6, planning inside conspiracy theory and far-right online communities on platforms like Parler and Gab", does not link to the NYT article. The NYT is only linked in the sentence about "specific instructions". Your suggestion that "this is their sourced research for what appears to be any claims that were made about Gab in that article" is conjecture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for the Vox's statement that "The Capitol mob began organizing weeks ago for the violence that occurred on January 6, planning inside conspiracy theory and far-right online communities on platforms like Parler and Gab"? I don't see anything other than the nytimes article or other articles quoting it. --SoJuicy (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)— SoJuicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To repeat myself, "we trust our reliable sources to do their own research; we do not require they present their data in order to be considered reliable." Mvbaron has said the same: "we as editors are not in the business to question reliable sources, if reliable sources (and in this case multiple) assert something, we rely on them to have made their homework so to say." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SoJuicy, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. VOX is a reliable source, we trust them to fact-check their content. They (as opposed to us) don't need to source every sentence they write in an article. Mvbaron (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Mvbaron. SoJuicy, you're crossing a line. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What line am I crossing? Here's wiki's policy on reliable sources [[6]] "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies." and "The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook[17] contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information, such as distrusting anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports, as well as reports attributed to other news media; seeking multiple sources; seeking eyewitness reports; being wary of potential hoaxes". and "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution". This is exactly what I've been arguing with these sources, they are breaking news, should be treated with caution, and they have anonymous or unconfirmed reports. Also "Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics". Also some of these claims are only made in headline type posts and wiki's policy is this "News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims" which is why I was looking in the body to verify these claims but I found no verification, hence my declaration this source is weak and should be treated with caution. I found no mention here that this was done. --SoJuicy (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Two of these sources were published days and weeks after the event, and are not breaking news. All of them make the statement about Gab's usage in planning the riot in the article body, not solely the headline. Vox may have a lefty bias, which means we should consider whether to attribute statements of opinion from them. It does not mean we believe they may publish outright falsehoods, such as that the riot was planned on Gab. Unless you have reliable sources contradicting what has been published in at least three quality RS, the statement should remain. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Here you go. This WashingtonPost article which states that "In the days leading up to last week’s march on the Capitol, supporters of President Trump promoted it extensively on Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram and used the services to organize bus trips to Washington." and that "Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg has sought to deflect blame, noting the role of smaller, right-leaning services such as Parler and Gab." and that "A growing body of evidence shows Facebook played a much larger role than Sandberg suggested.". It would seem this should be added to these claims that Gab was used to organize the protests, which appears to be weak and minimal at best. --SoJuicy (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement in this wiki article that "Gab was among the platforms used to plan the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021" could be changed to this, "In January 2021, The NYTimes reported that Gab was one of the social media platforms to plan the Capital protests. Other articles have shown that the planning was largely done on Facebook and Facebook owned Instagram --SoJuicy (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that the riots were planned on multiple platforms, including mainstream ones like Facebook. A source focusing on a subset of them does not contradict that the other platforms were used to plan the attack. (my 16:40 comment) I am beginning to agree with Mvbaron that you are bludgeoning, because these are points that have been addressed already. It also seems that you are searching for any way to remove well-sourced content from the page, as your argument keeps shifting. The WaPo article does not contradict that Gab was used; it simply says that Sandberg tried to deflect blame from Facebook because the riots were also planned on alt-tech platforms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So then include this material, and clarify that the protests were mainly organized on Facebook, and that Sandberg tried to deflect blame from Facebook to Gab and Parler. Why not add this? --SoJuicy (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Because this article is about Gab, not Facebook or Sheryl Sandberg. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Article mentions Gab deflecting to Facebook. Why not mention both? "He also deflected attention away from Gab and towards Facebook, claiming that the storming was "organized using Facebook's technology, not Gab's" --SoJuicy (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would we want to include a statement that's effectively "Wait, what's that over your shoulder?" levels of trying to avoid scrutiny? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't find Gab deflecting blame towards Facebook particularly relevant to include, either. From what I can tell, many platforms were used to plan the attack, and each of them wishes to blame the others. Pinging X-Editor because it was added in one of your edits, according to WikiBlame: [7]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Personally, I think it makes sense to include because it documents Torba's inability to take responsibility for his own platform. X-Editor (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

GorillaWarfare and others locking this page

Bad faith accusations are not welcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently the histoy shows ongoing month to month locking of this page except by editors like GorillaWarefare. I see 3 months of locking, and upon expiration, it is locked once more, claiming others are trying to edit page, yet the history only shows admins editing most of the last 2-3 months. There is no proof of GorillaWarefar showing edits by non admins. Locking the Wikipedia page every month only shows obvios bias by the Admins about this subject. This isnt helpful to the Wikipedia community or it's users. Mabidex (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @Mabidex: What really isn't helpful is you making false accusations. The page protection log is publicly visible, and you will see my name is not among those who have applied protection to the page. I am an involved editor when it comes to this page, and it would be improper for me to use my admin tools with respect to it, which is why I don't. I am also not sure where you are seeing that the history only shows admins editing most of the last 2-3 months. Looking at the past 100 edits to the page, I see: myself, X-Editor, XOR-Easter, HandThatFeeds, Paleontologist99, Cyberbot II, Anachronist, FredLGibsonJr, Jorm, Jonmaxras, SledgeHammer2017, Girth Summit, Samsara, DawnOfTheLed, Ahmetlii, 5.43.177.215, Britishfinance, 172.83.47.121, JGabbard, Acroterion, 85.255.236.174, 72.137.170.86, Slatersteven, 131.93.39.9, Materialscientist, 79.33.178.100, and 192.143.184.193. Of that list, only me, Anachronist, Girth Summit, Samsara, Acroterion, and Materialscientist are administrators. Anachronist, Girth Summit, and Samsara each only edited the page to apply protection and protection templates; Acroterion and Materialscientist made one edit apiece to revert vandalism. So how is your claim true when I am the only admin to have made any substantial edits to the page in the last 100 edits? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: it's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, Gab is asking their users to brigade the page again. [8] IHateAccounts (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Could be. I still think it's beneficial to be courteous and responsive to those who post on this page, regardless of how they got here or why they're posting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Total Users

The total users should be listed in the sidebar summary and under the "Users and content" section. "Since the riots on the Capitol, Gab's registered users more than doubled to around 3.4 million." https://www.npr.org/2021/01/17/957512634/social-media-site-gab-is-surging-even-as-critics-blame-it-for-capitol-violence - TuffStuffMcG (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I find user counts fluctuate so much, and are so unreliable, as to be meaningless. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Scale is important to keep things in perspective, and it appears to be standard for social platforms to include and update user estimates.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done [9]. @HandThatFeeds: I hear what you're saying about fluctuation, but I do think user counts are valuable to give an overall sense of scale. By adding it to the infobox people can see at a glance a ballpark estimate of how big the platform is. The meaningful information is not that Gab has 3.2 or 3.4 or 3.6 million users (or even 2 or 3 or 4 million), but that it has single digit millions. This illustrates that it is in the same ballpark size-wise as Ello (social network) (>1M), Friendster (8M), and Minds (2.5M), and that it's a bit smaller than its contemporary competitor Parler (15M). It also shows that it's nowhere near the scale of the mainstream platforms like Facebook (2B+ monthly active) and Twitter (330M monthly active). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for the updateTuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Protection (2)

Why does this have PC protection? This is such a well visited and disrupted article (as evidenced by the current ECP) that PC seems an ill choice. I think permanent semi or ECP seems the appropriate action here. Given how long the protection log is, and the subject matter, I think giving this permanent ECP under AP2 would not be out of the question. I am not doing it unilaterally however as I see several different admins have protected this page with differing rationales. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: @Girth Summit: @Samsara: @Anachronist: as the latest protecting admins, your thoughts? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To answer the question about PC protection, that was put in place when the semiprotection was briefly bumped to full-protection during an edit war, so that when the full protection expired the page wouldn't drop down to fully unprotected. I guess it was just left in place when the semiprotection was restored. As for the wisdom of permanent protection, I'll leave that up to uninvolved admins. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The general understanding is that the article must be semi-protected indefinitely as the default option (probably it even was semi-protected as AE, but I am too lazy to check this). Right now, it is extended-confirmed protection, and pending changes is needed as an insurance for the period between the expiration of the current protection and the first admin restoring indefinite semi-protection. It was never meant as the only long-term protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What Ymblanter said. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If I may comment, I think the protection level should remain as long as Gab is known to be WP:CANVASSING their alt-right users to try to brigade the article. Given that they did it about 8 hours ago at the latest [10]... IHateAccounts (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes indefinite semi-protection sound like the right way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there something ironic about them using Twitter to complain about this page? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not just you. I'm sure they post all kinds of crazy crap about this page on their own platform too but since they lock the Gab site down so you have to register for an account to see the content, and non-nazis aren't likely to sign up for Gab... IHateAccounts (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I think you may be confusing Gab with Parler. Gab feeds are public. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

3.6 million gab users shouldn't be labeled as "likely nazis" in these comments. That is inappropriate and unfounded by reliable sources.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A biased slant on Gab

As an independent and neutral person, my take is that this is a terribly written description of what the Gab service is. It wreaks of being written by person(s) with political leanings and does not throughly describe the Gab service. My suggestion is to model the Gab wiki exactly like the Facebook wiki while including the criticisms in a separate section, similarly to the Facebook wiki. The Gab wiki in it's current form doesnt do Gab a disservice as much as it does Wikipedia. K123-Editor123 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, K123-Editor123. Before considering your request, it is incumbent on you to provide links to reliable, independent sources that contradict or refute what the current version of the article says. Then, we will have a basis for discussion, since the job of Wikipedia editors is to summarize those reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@K123-Editor123: Please also see the FAQ at the very top of the page, specifically Q2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Extremist in leading headline is unsourced

None of the sourced articles mention Gab as having an extremist userbase, where did this poorly sourced biased word choice come from? 160.2.143.157 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See Gab#Users. The far-right is itself also extremism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's not neutral to use instances of extremism to label the entire userbase. There is no source indicating how many percent of Gab users are far-right. Therefore, it's misleading to label them as such. Please cite a source indicating in a reliable format how many percent of Gab users are actually far-right.Yewvibes (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the userbase as far-right, and past consensus firmly determined that "known for its far-right user base" should be included in the lead. We abide by our reliable sourcing policy, and we are not going to change the article based on arbitrary demands on the sources such as that they provide percentages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I once again challenge you to provide the specific source which claims (with evidence) that far-right users are more prevalent on Gab than an average social media platform. As you mentioned yourself before, the individual opinion of a writer is not reliable. There would need to be tangible evidence of such. I also challenge you to visit Gab yourself and make a determination as to if you believe the accusation of "far-right and extremist" userbase is fair.Yewvibes (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citations are abundant in the article. And visiting the site itself has no bearing on the contents of this article. Please stop beating a dead horse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. The individual opinions of Wikipedia editors, who are not reliable sources, are not reliable. Statements made in reliable sources are a different matter, and whether there is one author or five authors does not really change that. You can review the policy if you would like to know more about how reliability is determined. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Gab is a social media platform that promotes the bastion of free speech and expression that is enshrined in the US Constitution. Outside Torba’s Rule of Three in terms of violations – a Gabber is given the space and grace to post whatever they like in the spirit of freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of ideas. Three Freedoms that will surely make the world a better place and perhaps inspire the serious discussions that censorship makes impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.91.20 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

change "suggesting" to "about" in "And posts suggesting carrying guns into the halls of Congress"

The cited article only mentions that "At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress." I know it's semantics but we should try to avoid injecting are own interpretation here. The source doesn't say people suggested but people posted about. We don't know what they were posting "about" (it could have been "there's people carrying guns into the halls of Congress", we don't know, no additional context or information given). --SoJuicy (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done The sentence had some wonky grammar that needed cleaning up anyway, [11] GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

GAB is as much a right-wing network as Twitter is a far left wing social network.

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

---

Searching for the answer i stumbled upon the talk page for Gab, and more specifically the question about calling Gab a right-wing page or "used by right-wing groups to storm the capitol" . Now ofcourse it is in Wikipedias code that authors should be unbiased but it seems the contrary.

Gab is not a right-wing alternative to Twitter. For that to be true that would authomatically make Twitter the left wing alternative to Gab.

The truth is closer to the above statement but it is more important to focus on timelines. Twitter starts in 2006. Over the year left-wing extremists within the Twitter network start forcing their ideals on users through the form of censorship and banning people they disagree with. It is very important to note that Twitters extreme left-wing propaganda started this entire movement. As Twitter left-wing policies attacked free speech on the platform, alot of people that were silenced seaked alternatives and thats how they decided to move to Gab, Parler or any of the other social network alternatives to Twitter. If we look at the timeline though, Gab is merely a product of left-wing propaganda by Twitter. The need for a social network that allowed for free speech only became a thing after Twitter decided to push its agenda on its users. If anything, there should be a warning on Twitters wikipedia page that it is a far left-wing page. Gab wouldnt exist if Twitter wasnt pushing its left-wing agenda on its users.It is my recommendation that Gab page is changed to writer " Gab is a free speech alternative to twitter used primarily by Right-wing followers that were disenfranchised and forced away by Twitters left-wing extremist administrators" and i would also suggest Twitters page to be changed to include that Twitter is a platform that prohibits free-speech and it is controlled by left wing extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.70.74 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

NO its not, far-right means further right than right, not further right than left. As to changing another article, this is not the place for that discussion, its that articles talk page that is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If GAB is alt-right ...shouldn't we write that Twitter is alt-left/communist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.186.33 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Make a case at Twitter, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You must be confused, first of all Gab is not far right, it is simply right thats why i said Gab is as much a right wing network as Twitter is a far left network. The premise is simple, Gab wouldnt exist if twitters Administrators werent pushing far left ideologies on its users while banning Conservatives and libertarians. Also i dont mind what it says on Twitters page, i dont use Twitter, im just simply stating the fact that Twitters Far Left ideals have created GAB , a free speech platform, that is primarily used by Right wingers, that were pushed away from Twitter. Gab is a free speech platform first, accomodating to all. By the logic of Wikipedia Administrators, if there is no mention of Far left propaganda on Twitters page then there shouldnt be any mention of right wing ideologies on Gabs page since the first created the second and not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.70.74 (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Can we AT LEAST agree the opening of this article needs a major rework?

The opening sentence starts right off with "alt-right" before the word "social networking" and then goes back to talking about political leaning for several more sentences without explaining anything about how the platform works or what it does. The next paragraph mentions its founding in 2017 and then goes back to public reception. for several sentences. The last paragraph then discusses another product of the company, before again going political.

After reading the opening, I thus have no idea what Gab even is besides something with "social networking". There are hundreds of different social media platforms out there that work in completely different manners, and a better explanation of a side product of the company in the opening than the platform itself. Twitter, as its closest equivalent, is not mentioned once as being its "mainstream" alternative.

Let's compare with a few related articles, including those on the alt-right spectrum, to show that this is simply really bad quality compared to other Wikipedia articles:

• Twitter - actually explains what the platform does in the first paragraph, as well as business-relevant aspects and discussing the size of the company.
• Donald Trump - factually explains that Donald Trump is the president of the United States, shortly mentions his previous career in real estate and reality TV. Only gets political after it explained who Donald Trump is, and does it in a very neutral way that gives a good overview of his political positions.
• Parler - the first and second paragraph give you a good idea what Parler is (a Twitter alternative). Political positions are described in a far more structured and arguably neutral manner than done here.

This is honestly ridiculous and Wikipedia should be above accepting articles like this as a standard, let alone lock them from editing and leave them in such a state at the same time.

I don't mind mentioning the political issues as they are highly relevant to the public reception of the platform - but can we at the very least dedicate the opening paragraph to actually explaining what the platform even is, i.e. a Twitter alternative?

And yes, I have seen this came up several times in the archives. I'd propose adding a discussion of it as a microblogging platform, which is not mentioned once in the whole article. If there is a lack of sources that identify Gab as a microblogging platform (which is not the case, the article itself compares it to Twitter, see e.g. "Reception" section), then I have to question why Gab is in the corresponding category, which seems to have no problem to identify it as such.

Here's a suggestion: "Gab is an English-language alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. The platform has been described as an alt-tech competitor to Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit by several outlets, notable for its far-right leaning and extremist userbase."

This would give a much better impression of what the platform is, while still reflecting on its public reception.

And before you asked for sources: three of the four sources currently used for the first sentence make the Twitter comparison, which again makes me wonder about the neutrality of this article.

--95.90.245.161 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I've started reworking the lead based on your feedback. I agree, there is duplication and some lack of clarity on aspects of the site. I'm not done and I'll continue to make changes to make it read and flow better. Let me know if you have more suggestions. Thanks! Jonmaxras (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: I fully agree that the extremist aspects of Gab are important and should be primary; I hope my edits did not seem in bad faith or like I was trying to change that. I will be more conscious going forward. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonmaxras: You can't discuss the "extremist" aspects of Gab without also acknowledging the extreme left bias of sites like Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia. You either have all or none. Gab is a legitimate social media sites and no more extreme than those which harbor your political views. Thotbuster (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Gab as compared to Twitter, Gab is primarily known for its far-right extremist userbase, so that should be said up-front in the lead. I have no problem adding an additional word or two expanding on the technical description of the service. The changes by Jonmaxras weren't minor, however, and incorrectly de-emphasized the primary topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thank you for the feedback. Would you be fine with adding that it is a microblogging site to the lead sentence? Jonmaxras (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's "English-language"? I mean, on the one hand it's kind of a default, but on the other, you can't do your right-wingy talkies in other languages? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, English-language seems like an unnecessary descriptor. Perhaps change to American? Jonmaxras (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel it is hard to judge whether or not the far-right or Twitter aspect are more prominent, especially at the moment, however the latter should be included explicitly in my opinion. Recent coverage regarding Trump's ban keeps making the comparison (1) or mostly covers the platform as social media platform without discussing its or beyond the far-right aspects (1, 2). Most people who are looking up Gab right now would probably be interested in it often being likened to Twitter instead of solely its political direction. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Most, including me, would argue the far-right aspect is far more prominent, but that it wouldn't hurt to mention that the website functions in a similar manner to Twitter (as opposed to YouTube or Reddit). Jonmaxras (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I think the fact that the current version lacks the Twitter comparison/microblogging is what irks most people about the neutrality of the article in either case, especially since it is a well-sourced statement even using the sources of the current revision (1, 2, 3). I also agree about YouTube and Reddit needing no mention, the Twitter comparison is made by far the most frequent (the only Reddit comparison I've seen comes from the NYT article I linked, and while they seemingly launched a YouTube alternative recently I've not seen it being mentioned once anywhere) and the most relevant considering current events and discussions regarding Donald Trump. Thank you for the revision. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me, I've added a sentence to the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The very first sentence is wildly biased. The "service known for its "far-right userbase"? Ridiculous. Why not describe the service before being political and judgmental. The sources for the first sentence are these leftists anti-conservative sources without ONE objective source: (1) NY times -- leftist (2) The Verge -- far left, (3) NPR -- leftist, (4) The observer -- far left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KManG (talk • contribs) 05:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@KManG: If you have reliable sources that take a different view on Gab, or contradict the current sourcing, please provide them. You seem to be under the (very common) misconception that biased sources are not usable on Wikipedia, which is not the case: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (WP:BIASEDSOURCE)

Please note that the all of these sources are considered to be reliable by consensus of the Wikipedia editing community. Please also note that for sources that have bias to a point where it may affect their reliability, or where statements should be or may need to be attributed, that is noted at WP:RSP (for examples, see the entries for WP:RSP#The Intercept, WP:RSP#Mother Jones, etc.). That is not the case for any of these:

• "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable." (WP:RSP#New York Times)
• "There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles." (WP:RSP#The Verge)
• "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact." (WP:RSP#NPR)
• "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable... Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." (WP:RSP#The Obersver)

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually went to Gab to see what all the fuss is about and trying to decide what are its characteristics. Frankly if it should be described as anything is should be described as 'pro Christian' and 'pro conservative'. Tried to find any alt right or nazi posts and could not find any. And when searching for antisemitic content found actually Jewish jewelry shops promoting their products.

Frankly this page is unfair and non-factual. Jahabdank (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahabdank: I would suggest contacting some journalists, then. Wikipedia articles reflect coverage in secondary sources, such as news articles, and we cannot adjust this article based on the original research of editors into the platforms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Delete the section of labeling Gab as white supremacist, nazi, and anti semitic. It is not true. Delete it. 2603:8081:6640:2E57:DCAF:F194:D9B3:EA63 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. Also please read the article, which does not describe the company as white supremacist, nazi, or antisemitic, but rather refers to its service's popularity among these groups. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Well over half of the sources listed in this article are not reliable sources. Words and phrases like "allegedly" and "is believed to" appear frequently throughout the source titles and articles. ABC news, The New York Times, The Observer? These are completely opinion based sources used to support speculative writings throughout this article. Spyderxlt (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Don’t be ridiculous. For the Wikipedia consensus on what counts as a reliable source see WP:RSP. Besides that, in the real world: the New York Times is of course a reliable source, it would be quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Mvbaron (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of ABC News, The New York Times, or The Observer, feel free to begin new discussions at WP:RSN. Until then, we will go with existing consensus, which is that these are all generally reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have quality sources conflicting with anything you read in the article (or something not covered), please post them here for discussion. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Biasedness and defamatory in the lead

What that is described in the lead of this article does not meet WP:Biased & WP:Lead & WP:Neutral and should be removed from the lead and put in a section specified for criticism. As criticism applies almost to any social media, a social media is a tool and that's self-evident that it can be used by criminals. And every social media is used by criminals. It's like saying knives are famous by being used by criminals and mass murderers Using those kind of criticizing information is irrelevant in the upper lead. Also social media articles should not be treated with double standard in this encyclopedia. For example Tor (anonymity network) is criticized and famous for being used by criminals and so on, but we don't put criticism or defamatory opinions in the upper lead, it's against our policies. Consequently I will transfer the information to another section specified for criticism with regard to that rationale. Thanks The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

NO--In Wikipedia the NPOV rule does NOT mean the article is "neutral" regarding the subject. Rather it means that thr viewpoints of all significant reliable secondary sources are represented. The article meets that criterion andis a good one. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, because it appears you have some misconceptions about WP:NPOV. As a note, could you please avoid using this much bold in your future talk page messages? It makes your comment quite difficult to read. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek as a source for Gab deleting their Twitter

Seeing as Newsweek being a cited as a source is decided on a case by case basis, I was wondering if it would be okay to use them as a source for Gab deleting their Twitter account.[12] Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of who reports on it, I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. They deactivate their Twitter on a fairly regular basis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: In that case, I agree with you. X-Editor (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove "themselves" from "documented themselves going into the offices of members of Congress."

The times article states: "On Gab, they documented going into the offices of members of Congress, including that of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi." . This wiki article currently says: "During the storming, users of Gab documented themselves going into the offices of members of Congress". 'Themselves' is not supported by the source and should be removed. The source doesn't say whether they were documenting themselves or others, just that they were documenting. --SoJuicy (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Adjusted "users of Gab documented themselves going into the offices of..." to "users of Gab recording entering offices of...", as it was also close paraphrasing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the change makes grammatical sense: "users of Gab recording entering offices of members of Congress" -- might want to just change it to "users of Gab documented entering offices...". --SoJuicy (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Does it not? I don't see why "documented entering" would be grammatical and "recorded entering" wouldn't be, though I suspect this is why "themselves" was added in the first place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops it's not documented vs recorded, you had "users of Gab recording entering". Just changing to past tense recorded or documented would be okay --SoJuicy (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Facepalm So it is. Fixed! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

The remarks made about Gab are untrue. They need to be fixed. It is not 'a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, and the alt-right.' If you are going to be unbiased, please remove this. Twitter is not called a 'haven for extremists including antifacists, anti-white, anti-male, anti-right and Alt-Left'. Gab is however, a social media space similar to Twitter that allows free speech. Dr Prof Len (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is supported by multiple reliable sources. Whether or not you agree that it is such a haven, it is true that it has been widely described as such, which is what the article says. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Torba's Signoff "Jesus is King"

The article states "Torba... contained an unusual sign-off, in which he said that "Jesus is King", which Torba had not used in any previous Gab press releases" (emphasis added). Is there any source that Torba had not used this sign-off or is this original research? The source mentioned does not contain this from what I can see. Looking through press releases on Gab it appears it has been used before. --SoJuicy (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it is based off the following statement in the source: "While Torba is a self-described proud Christian, Gab’s previous and subsequent letters and press releases did not contain that assertion." However it does appear based on the links included in the source that they meant to convey that the one press release prior to the "Jesus is King" one didn't include the sign-off, rather than all previous ones. I've updated this article, thanks for pointing it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"Obscure"

"2019–present Gab partnered with the "obscure" Second Amendment Processing for credit"...

Obscure according to who? I believe the word "obscure" in this case is really biased and needs to be removed. --85.144.29.123 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The citations are right at the end of the sentence. In this case, that is coming from the SPLC, who writes, The company was relying on snail mail and cryptocurrency to sell premium subscription services, but announced on Tuesday it formed a relationship with an obscure company called 2nd Amendment Processing to help with future credit card payments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You can have a citation from a clearly biased source, it doesnt mean that your claim is valid. You can also cite me on this, Gab partnered with the excellent 2nd Amendment Processing to help with future credit card payments.

But then again as Michael Scott said “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information.” 46.199.70.74 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE for why your argument about the SPLC (or anyone else) having a strong point of view does not itself disqualify them as a reliable source.

The SPLC is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia, and although they undeniably have a point of view, their describing the group as "obscure" seems like a pretty uncontroversial statement of fact. It's not a negative thing, it just means that 2nd Amendment Processing is a lot less widely-used than most payment processors (Square, Stripe, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

Replace Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events".[31] to "Gab states that it does not “‘fact check’ political opinions, news, history, math problems, memes, or anything else,” although illegal activity and threats of violence are not allowed." 23.121.184.120 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – robertsky (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be straightforward enough to find a source for this, but we are not going to replace a statement by academic researchers with Gab PR speak. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible edits as to change the tone of the article

In the second sentence, it states that Gab is a social network favoured by extremists and neo-nazis, and while I don' think this should be deleted, I think this should stay in the reaction column. The moment you read the second sentence, 99% of people are going to have a negative opinion of the site. I feel that the starting paragraphs could be better modeled like the facebook page, the first paragraph being a basic explanation of what the site offers, simply saying it's a social media site and a brief mention of the founders, the second being a more indepth explanation of the founders, how the site is accessed, and at the bottom, the controversies that the app has been involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isben88 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We go with how it is known by reliable sources. Also the lede is a summary of the article. Its links to extremist content make up a sizable chunk of the body of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Users

This editor created an account on Gab and reviewed the users, groups, and topics of discussion. There is no doubt that Gab's stated purpose of free expression is enjoyed by people of a conservative persuasion. However, it was not a haven for extremists and Neo-Nazis. Users include well-known conservatives and Christians including Franklin Graham, Mike Lindell, and Todd Starnes. Additionally, the 45th President Donald Trump is also a user. It is would give the appearance of extreme bias to leave the first paragraph of this article as is. A more balanced representation would be found in CNN's recent article describing Gab's history, philosophy of free speech, and its policy against illegal activities.

     "One exception: Gab blocks posts that involve "illegal activity, threats of violence, doxxing, pornography, child exploitation and spam," which, Gab claims, it takes action 
      to "prevent and remove."
                              -<https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/17/tech/what-is-gab-explainer/index.html></CNN Business> 

Teachersrb (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Teachersrb: The vast majority of reliable sources agree with the characterization presented in the article. Also, just because users on the platform claim they aren't extremists or neo-nazis doesn't make it true. Looking at Gab users and claiming based on your experience that the characterization in the article is wrong is original research. That trump account is fake btw. X-Editor (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Teachersrb: Additionally, that CNN article that you quoted from actually supports the statement in this article that Gab is popular among extremists and the far right. It opens by saying, "Gab, an alternative social media network popular with conservatives, the alt-right and some extremists, is surging in popularity after conservative social network Parler was effectively taken off the internet in the wake of the January 6 Capitol siege." The paragraph just before the one you quoted says, "Gab's lax approach on content has made way for a slew of QAnon conspiracy theories, misinformation and anti-Semitic commentary on the platform, among lots of vile hatred and racist posts -- much of wouldn't be allowed on today's well-known social apps (although mainstream social networks have their own problems moderating extremism as well)." GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hat thread hijacking
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must start by saying I believe that Wikipedia is a world treasure. I have worked on it for years. I understand why it is not accepted in Academia. And I accept that. But if you want some good information on "Queen Elizabeth the First", "The Garden of Earthly Delights (painting)" or "Adenanthos obovatus (plant)" it is almost beyond comprehension how useful it is. There is one category of articles that currently has unresolved problems. That is articles of a contemporaneous nature about people, but mostly organizations. This is usually committed by stating that organization XYZ is against "Purple People" or some such thing. Usually somewhere in the first paragraph of the article. And sources will be cited. And they are usually sources from some obscure website written by a person, or persons, that seem to have opinions out of the mainstream of thought. Who might state, just for example: 1) Several cars in organization XYZ parking lot had anti-Purple People bumper stickers on them. 2) A person at organization XYZ fired a Purple Person for no good cause. 3) The leader of organization XYZ was overheard disparaging Purple People at a restaurant in 2018. If you attempt to take the negative reference out, they will just put it back in (they are automatically notified). If you do this three times, several people will get together and attempt to ban you for being a "disrupter". So, if you are looking for some information on "Henry the VIII", you are in the right place. If you are looking for information on a conservative website, not so much. Republican = Nazi. Trump supporter = racist. These people that blatantly politicize Wikipedia constantly should be ashamed of themselves. Jroehl (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC) @Jroehl: Publications that have mentioned Gab's far-right userbase include at least two academic sources, The New York Times, NPR, MIT Technology Review, The Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and many more. Perhaps you have seen people trying to insert undue descriptors into articles based on "sources from some obscure website written by a person, or persons, that seem to have opinions out of the mainstream of thought", but that is not by any stretch what is happening here. Thank you for removing your aspersions, or most of them at least, in this second try at posting your thoughts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC) I count 10+ NPOV violations in the first paragraph of this article. Could anybody cite another Wikipedia article in which there were more violations of the policy NPOV (a fundamental principle of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), than in the first 2 paragraphs of this article? Please provide some examples here, I have provided some space. '**************** <Space for examples of flagrant NPOV Violations in Wikipedia Paragraph openings> ********************************* '**************** </Space for examples of flagrant NPOV Violations in Wikipedia Paragraph openings> ******************************** Editors, keep in mind that if you attempt to change one word in either of these first 2 paragraphs of this article, you will be labeled an "obstructer" and they (who come out of the woodwork) will threaten to ban you from Wikipedia. Let us all strive to keep Wikipedia NPOV! Jroehl (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) @Jroehl: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? If there are indeed "10+ NPOV violations" in the five-sentence-long first paragraph, please list any or all of them here with an explanation and sourcing to show how they are violations, so that those working on this article can either address your concerns or rectify the issues with the article. As for "they will threaten to ban you", the threats of bans were not due to your "attempting to change one word" in this article. They were due to you making personal attacks, casting aspersions against me without a shred of evidence (and in spite of easily-accessible information to show that your claims were false), and recently making up complete falsehoods about what I have said. I think anyone who peruses this talk page history will see that I and others have gone out of our way to try to work with you and hear your concerns about this page, which so far you have yet to actually specify, despite egregious attacks against us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) <repetition of personal attack removed> Jroehl is blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

My suggestion would be that this social media profile be altered to come more in line with other social media profiles. This article appears to be an attempt at character assassination in comparison to how other social media sites are portrayed. 216.14.79.218 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

PLease see the three or four similar requests above this one. If we keep on getting the same question asked every few days the talk page will be locked, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this article is quite in line with articles about other social media platforms and websites that are also primarily notable for their fringe userbases. Compare this article with Parler, BitChute, 8chan, The Daily Stormer, Stormfront (website), etc. Of course this article looks different than our articles on social networks like Facebook or Twitter (which I assume is who you mean when you say "other social media profiles")—it is because they are notable for entirely different reasons, and the coverage of them in reliable sources is very, very different. If you are going to use the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, at least compare apples to apples. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

This is just a lie! GAB is not a bunch of alt right! 207.44.26.47 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the reliable sources disagree with you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the three or four similar requests above this one. If we keep on getting the same question asked every few days the talk page will be locked, please stop. So I will now issue a warning, one more wp:spa IP asking the same question and I will ask for talk page protection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Support talk page protection on the next spa posting the same request. In my opinion, pending changes protection would be better than semi-protection. It is a bit more work, but it has the advantage that a new user who makes a comment about a typo doesn't get an error message. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of PC protection on talk pages. It's useful in the articlespace so readers don't see vandalism attempts, but on talk pages it's functionally not much different than if we just started more aggressively removing the repetitive posts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I just felt it would save time and effort.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Change the tense in the intro paragraph to past tense. :-D Juballharshaw (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Wait for more information to come out. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gab just made a statement on why their website shut down and their site is up again. Their Twitter account is still down tho. X-Editor (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well why they say it was shut down.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that they deactivate their Twitter account quite regularly, so I don't think it's safe to assume the two are related. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Do you know why they deactivate their account regularly? X-Editor (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. They also often delete all of their tweets. My only guesses would be that it either has something to do with them not wanting reporters/etc. to notice some of the pretty questionable tweets they make, or it has to do with some hesitance to be such a prolific user of Twitter while also constantly urging others to stop using Twitter in favor of Gab. This is all speculation on my part, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DDoSecrets leak

@GorillaWarfare: Should this info be added or is it too early? https://www.wired.com/story/gab-hack-data-breach-ddosecrets/ X-Editor (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say it makes sense to include it now that Wired has reported on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic comments

Bringing this here for discussion. Previously, this page said "[Gab's CEO] also used a transphobic slur to insult the hackers 'attacking' Gab." This was later expanded to "[Gab's CEO] also used a transphobic slur to insult the hackers 'attacking' Gab, calling them 'mentally ill tranny demon hackers'." I removed this with the summary "we shouldn't gratuitously reprint transphobic slurs", but I see X-Editor has restored it with the summary "WP is not censored". While I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED, in my view this quote provides no additional encyclopedic value (at least that couldn't be accomplished by mentioning that Torba also described them as "mentally ill" and "demon hackers") and is therefore both unnecessary and gratuitous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur. Removing.--Jorm (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. X-Editor (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No critical thinking human has an irrational fear of trans people. Trans people are not a disease, trans people are not the boogeyman. That's ignorance and misuse of language and a mockery of intellect to assume that all people who view transpeople differently are somehow coming from a place of irrational fear is a sign of blatant hubris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakengard2099 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (from Greek φόβος phobos, "fear") occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, abnormal, unwarranted, persistent, or disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage, they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject (e.g. homophobia). (-phobia). If some other term for hatred towards trans people enters the common vernacular, we could use it, but at the moment this is what we've got. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gab tweet

Should this be mentioned in the Gab article, or is it a bit too trivial? https://mashable.com/article/gab-american-dream-video-game-tweet-self-own/ X-Editor (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's too trivial but open to other thoughts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree its just trivia, what does it actual tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Too recent, too trivial, Gab still doesn't understand humor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and the most hilarious part of it all was that it was a self-own. X-Editor (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Info about storming of the capitol in the lede

Gab's involvement in the storming of the US capitol should be mentioned in the lede, as it takes up a significant amount of the article. If we are to add the info to the lede, how should we phrase it? X-Editor (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just a sentence along the lines of what's used to begin the "Storming" section? Gab was among the platforms used to plan the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Sounds good! But how would you phrase the lede sentence vs. the sentence already in the article? X-Editor (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Personally I think using the same wording in both places is fine, though if you think that's too redundant we can figure out some adjustments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I guess the wording is fine, but maybe we could add that it prompted the adl to call for Gab to be investigated as well? X-Editor (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: There's currently only one secondary source for that, so unless there's more sourcing to show it's so WEIGHTy it ought to go in the lead I'd be inclined to leave it out, at least until such an investigation actually happens. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, I'll add the storming sentence to the article. X-Editor (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Torba engaging with anti-semites

Should this be added to the article, and should it be under the userbase section? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/03/andrew-torba-anti-semites/ X-Editor (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Gab (social network)#By Gab GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Oh nice. You already added it. X-Editor (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mother Jones is deemed by WP:RSPSRC as a reliable but biased source, and the addition at least provides some additional justification for that silly "antisemitism" sidebar, which I still feel is on shaky ground by giving the topic of antisemitism undue prominence. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Consider tone of the opening sentences:

"Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known by whom? what does "known" mean? for its far-right userbase.[8] Widely described by whom? as a haven for extremists what does "extremist" mean in this context? It's a subjective, pejorative term including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists another perjorative term, it has attracted users and groups who have been banned from other social media and users seeking alternatives to mainstream social media platforms this is factually true but why is it presented as the most significant fact about Gab? What tone is being created here?.[22] Gab says it promotes free speech, individual liberty, and "the free flow of information online", though these statements have been criticized by whom? as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem what does that mean?.[33] Researchers note that Gab has been "repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events" Which researchers? Linked in what manner?.

Now consider the opening paragraph on Hitler:

"Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[a] becoming Chancellor in 1933 and then assuming the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[b] During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland on 1 September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the genocide of about 6 million Jews and millions of other victims."

This contains no partially-attributed allegations, no moral judgements, no pejoratives, and no vague language hiding personal opinions. Why is the neutral POV so much better adhered to there? The article on Gab needs a pretty comprehensive overhaul. Presently it is a list of allegations, not an encyclopaedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobW982 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Widely described has four sources alone, that is without all of the other sources through the article. As to Mr Hitler, it is a different article (about a different type of topic).Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@JacobW982: Most of my answers here can be summarized by "we write what is reported in reliable sources". However, to reply to your bolded statements in order:

• "by whom? what does "known" mean?": The majority of reliable sources introduce and discuss Gab in the context of its extremist userbase, which establishes that it is "known" for this characteristic. At present there are 224 sources in this article, and answering the "by whom" question in-text when so many sources support it would not be practical or particularly informative.
• "by whom?" I will make the inline cite a little more clear for this bit, as I see it is now supporting a longer sentence. (Done—I've split out the "haven for extremists" cites from the "attracts banned users" cites).
• "what does "extremist" mean in this context? It's a subjective, pejorative term" Extremism (and more specifically, far-right politics) is pretty clear, I think, and we list a handful of such groups (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, etc.) directly after. Do you have a term that you believe is less "pejorative"? I think we are using the most neutral term available, and it is well-supported by many RS.
• "another pejorative term" Again, what is your suggestion for a less pejorative term for one who spreads conspiracy theories? Please note that we do not omit well-sourced, properly weighted information just because it is negative.
• "this is factually true but why is it presented as the most significant fact about Gab? What tone is being created here?" Again, this is an extremely widely-described fact about Gab, and so is included for that reason. I'll note that Gab themselves touts that they are an alternative to mainstream platforms, and that they are an option for users banned from said platforms, so I'm surprised this is objectionable.
• "by whom?" See the citations at the end of the sentence. Again, this is supported by multiple sources and so does not make sense to attribute in text. There was some broken syntax in the ref, so apologies if that was confusing—I've fixed it.
• "what does that mean?" This is addressed in-text (ctrl-F "shield"). If you have ideas for clarifying the wording I'd be happy to hear them. Basically it means that their positioning of themselves as a "free speech platform"/protectors of free speech/etc. has been used to deflect from the fact that they have welcomed far-right users/content. If you see the last sentence in the lead of alt-tech you will see this is a pretty common feature in alt-tech platforms.
• "Which researchers? Linked in what manner?" Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Jeremy Blackburn, Barry Bradlyn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gianluca Stringhini, Summer Long, Stephanie Greenberg, Savvas Zannettou. You can imagine why we're not listing all of them by name. The article is freely available so feel free to read it for more details, though they are summarizing other research when they write: "Online platforms are increasingly exploited to spread hate, extremist ideologies, and weaponized information, and have been repeatedly linked to radicalization leading to real-world violent events [1,27]. Seemingly niche communities are often involved in such activities; for instance, Gab, 8chan, and 4chan have all played a role in the apparent radicalization of individuals that went on to alleged murderous actions [2, 9, 16]."

Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcomed, they have practically used it as a marketing tool. "come here if you are too extreme for Twitter".Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I find it daunting that no reliable source considers gab admirable for hosting lawful but controversial speech. We don't attack criminal defense attorney's for defending even craven alleged criminals. We recognize that; where there is a right, there must be those willing to stand in defense of those rights - otherwise it isn't much of a right. "Reliable sources" are an echo chamber on this issue. Torba is a religious extremist, but there is nothing anti-semitic or racist about Gab policyTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG, The reason you don't find any reliable sources that find gab "admirable" is because no one with any level of critical thinking actually believes that Gab is about free speech. It is demonstrably a mechanism for hate speech, not free speech. It's not admirable at all; quite the opposite.

Your comparison to the process of a defense attorney doesn't fly. Defense attorneys work to uphold the law as provided in the constitution (there is a constitutional duty to provide a defense); Gab is not a government agent and cannot, in any way, "defend or protect" freedom of speech, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

I wonder, given your single-minded attempts to whitewash deplorable things, if you have the competency to even be productive here. I don't think you like editing here; you don't seem to care about consensus or reliable sources. What is your goal? Jorm (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in ensuring that wikipedia's community standards are maintained, because I trust it as a source of information. I want it to continue to grow as a fountain of combined human knowledge, without vitriol or undue bias poisoning the well due to contemporary concerns.

Figuratively related; Many of the puritanical Christians who founded the NE colonies were not interested in Religious tolerance technically; being more interested in establishing a moralistic theocracy in the New World of their own. Their own experience with State intolerance, and the concerns of other purged denominations, led to a more live-and-let-live community over time. I see these fringe communities in a similar light, and think that the purges have had an enlightening effect.

In any case, my reply wasn't filled with seething personal animus, and I'd ask that you refrain from the same.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of following community standards, please observe NOTFORUM. Since I assume you are not suggesting we make changes based on your own opinions about Gab, which you have stated are not reflected by RS, there is nothing actionable in your comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do, I apologize for the non-actionable opinion expressed and recognize this is not a forumTuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in this case, as there is a huge difference between a dictator vs. a social network. X-Editor (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well this article definately isn't showing a Neutral Point of View - case in point, almost all the "sources" are centre-left to left-wing to far-left wing media outlets. The only "Neutral" or centre-right or right-wing or far-right sources I could find were in the following order: US Government, Fox News, Fox Business, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Axios, Reason (magazine), The Spectator, just to name a few - I can't say anything about the jewish or israli news outlets because I know nothing of them but if your going to have this article be viewed from an NPOV then at least put in some counter arguments to all the left-wing outlets and put in the view points of some right-wing and/or centrist outlets so that people can see both sides (of views) when it comes to gab, a controversial social media platform that is hated by the left for supporting free-speech and also hated by a small minority of the right who dislike Andrew Torba's evangelical viewpoints and his banning of lolicon (these people migrated to minds. 94.1.122.40 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you have anything to add to the article based off of these reliable center/right-wing sources, go ahead! What's not going to happen is to ignore reliable sources that are already in the article though. Mvbaron (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think 94.* was listing the center to right publications that are already used in this article. It's a bit amusing to claim that this article isn't showing NPOV because "almost all" the sources are leftist, but then list a whole slew of center to right sources used in this article. But yes, 94.*, as Mvbaron said, if you have reliable sources that you feel offer a different perspective, feel free to suggest them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you wound care to provide some RS making counter-arguments?16:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• [13] "an emerging free-speech juggernaut in the tech space", "self sufficiency, anti-fragility and robustness for Gab that few, if any, non-Globalist sites can match."
• [14] "governor of Texas Greg Abbott falsely claimed that free speech social media website Gab is "an anti-semitic platform""
• [15] "we find that 5.4% of all Gab posts include a hate word. In comparison, Gab has 2.4 times the rate of hate words when compared to Twitter, but less than halve the rate of hate words compared to 4chan’s Politically Incorrect board (/pol/) [9]. These findings indicate that Gab resides on the border of mainstream social networks like Twitter and fringe Web communities like 4chan’s Politically Incorrect (/pol/) board." Comment: hate speech is certainly on this site, evidently more than on other sites such as Twitter, but this doesn't meet the narrative that "Antisemitism is prominent". Reading the antisemitism section in the article makes me disgusted (celebrating massacres etc.), but this appears to be a small minority on the site ("We showed that Gab is extensively used for the discussion of news, world events, and politics-related topics,). Just as you could find anti-semites and others similar on Gab, you can find hate speech and porn on Twitter [16], [17], [18] but I don't see this mentioned in the second sentence of Twitter, never mind the lede.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am by no means trying to defend the site or pretend that this isn't some deplorable stuff on there, but I don't think this article is NPOV and the sources on the article almost all put Gab in bad light, especially when there is evidence to say that Gab is a Conservative site and not just a pile of extremism [19], [20]. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

While it is true that you can find hate speech on Twitter, as the study mentions, there is far more of it on Gab and the site's owner seems to be actively encouraging it, whereas Twitter has a policy against it. Stop trying to whitewash the alt-right and far-right. X-Editor (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

While there are reliable sources that simply describe Gab as being conservative, the vast majority of sources we consider reliable call Gab far-right and/or alt-right, and so the Wiki article reflects this. X-Editor (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

you will need to petition for Revolver and National File to be added as green/reliable to the perrenially reliable sources list.

Since that list recognizes Mother Jones, Slate, People, The Daily Beast, and Buzzfeed political editorial as reliable - while National Review, Fox News, Forbes political articles are excluded.... Your chances of that happening are approximately 0%. Best bet is to find a Reason.com article, but if one were to come out admiring Gab or Parler for their efforts to preserve speech, we can expect that the reason URL would turn red/unreliable in the perrenial sources list. That's how it works. If you don't like it, create your own open source font of human knowledgeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are just the sources we consider unreliable and reliable based on discussions and consensus at WP:RSN. If you want to argue why sources like Mother Jones and others are unreliable, please go to the RS noticeboard first and then we'll talk here. X-Editor (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat tangential, but Forbes is fine as a source: WP:FORBES (so long as you are not citing the self-published portion of the site, which is in line with how we treat self published sources anywhere). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe Revolver.news or National File are usable sources (though as TuffStuff has said you are welcome to begin a discussion at WP:RSN to determine this). Regarding the research piece, we already use it in this article, but we are very specific about how we can use primary research such as that. We can cite where the article is summarizing existing research, but we cannot draw conclusions based on the primary research as you are suggesting we do.

Regarding Just as you could find anti-semites and others similar on Gab, you can find hate speech and porn on Twitter, the sourcing does not say "you can find anti-semites (etc.) on Gab"—it goes into detail about the prominence of this content. That is why we mention it in this article. Please refer to point 2 in the FAQ, though—if you would like to discuss mentioning porn and hate speech more prominently at Twitter, the place to do so is Talk:Twitter; if you are simply trying to make a point, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.

Regarding your "evidence to say that Gab is a Conservative site and not just a pile of extremism", the Scotsman/MSN piece describes "conservative and far-right accounts" moving to alternative services including Gab, and later says, "Gab is known to be used by the far-right, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and believers of conspiracy theory QAnon." That description seems fully in line with how this article is written. The CPO Magazine source is also in line with what we say here, writing that Gab tries to present itself as a free speech platform, but "the practical result is that extremist ideologies banned from other platforms have tended to gather there." GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

at least put in some counter arguments to all the left-wing outlets and put in the view points of some right-wing and/or centrist outlets

WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV is not maintained by having an equal number of "left" and "right" sources, but by demonstrating the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lexi Webster views on Dissenter

I've removed the sentence quoting Lexi Webster's views on Dissenter. She isn't 'Lexi Webster of The Conversation' - that piece is the only thing she's written for The Conversation. When she wrote that, she was 'Lexi webster, PhD student at Lancaster University'. Since she wrote it she's graduated, and become 'Lexi Webster, lecturer in linguistics at Manchester Metropolitan', but I don't see why a PhD student's opinions on the platform, published on what is effectively an academic blog, are significant enough to be worth quoting here. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Does this article have NPOV problems?

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

---

Does this article have NPOV problems? Seeing as this issue has been brought up recently and also many times beforehand, I think it's about time we settle this debate. X-Editor (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• No. This article accurately represents the bulk of both reliable news media and academic publishing on Gab. The objections on this talk page seem to be generally based in misunderstandings of our neutral point-of-view policy, often suggesting we must provide a false balance that does not reflect the weight of sources, describe the site in anodyne terms that are not widely used in sourcing (for example "conservative" rather than "far-right"), or describe the site in wikivoice in the terms it uses to describe itself. Noting for the closer that I have been a heavy contributor to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I hope you don't mind I've added the {{rfc}} template to draw outside participation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• No per GW.--Jorm (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I fail to see the usefulness of an RFC with such a question. At best it can be used to establish that at time X there was consensus that the article has no POV problems. At any further time it just moves the discussion from "has this article NPOV problems" to "has the article significantly changed from time X to now". Can we really point to an RFC when the inevitable editor comes along saying "this article is bias"? I kinda doubt it. --Mvbaron (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On "useless" RfCs: In most cases, it more effort to comment on an RfC being useless -- and a lot harder to remove an RfC that you think is useless -- than it takes to simply ignore the RfC.

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments on this talk page, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard.   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

D I don't think I am tied to the chair... but lemme check some RS first! I guess my comment started out with the simple question "is this a proper RFC?" - it didn't strike me as such, and I'm genuinely curious about the merits of it. And then somehow never asked that question. But you are certainly right, my time commenting here would be much better spent adding to some article in mainspace. Thanks for the friendly comment which is a good reminder of priorities! cheers Mvbaron (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this question? If you're talking about the whole article, then no, the article could be said to be neutral. If we're talking about specific areas, such as the first few sentences of the lede, then yes there are problems, as it is with a lot of political articles. I don't see any use in this RFC; there's clearly a group of editors who are prepared to invest large amounts of time and effort into keeping the article how it is and aren't open to new proposals and don't like when others say their work isn't neutral, and thus the RFC will never get anywhere other than to silence those that would like to change the article when contrary evidence is brought forward. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The first few sentences of the article simply reflect what the vast majority of reliable sources say about Gab. Not doing so would be whitewashing the far-right and other extremists. X-Editor (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair summation of what's happened with your suggestion above. Not implementing a suggestion based on poor sourcing and a flawed reading of the sources is not "invest[ing] large amounts of time and effort into keeping the article how it is" or not being open to new proposals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• No - There aren't many reliable sources that suggest Gab is honorably defending free speech, and reliable sources are nearly unanimous in their condemnation of it on ideological grounds. The facts seem to support that the user base leans far right, and it is notable for anti-semitism and racism to a greater extent than it's competitors. I do agree with Gab's self assessment, though, and see a platform that is maximally permissive to lawful speech as critically important - no matter what the original intent of the platform creators may have been, or what the lawful content might be. I am suprised that reliable sources aren't valuing this in principle, since they seem to be interested in boosting other subjective ideological principles, as is their right to do.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If Gab really bases their platform on what is lawful, then they wouldn't be banning pornography from their platform, seeing as porn is mostly lawful in the United States, with common sense exceptions for child porn and revenge porn. X-Editor (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is very common for neo-nazis to be anti-pornography. Many websites that are unambiguously illegal such as the discussion groups for selling credit card information and crystal meth on the dark web don't allow pornography. Also, most legitimate websites, while agreeing that porn is legal, choose not to allow it on their websites. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

True, but those platforms that ban porn don't loudly claim to champion free speech. Gab, on the other hand, loudly claims to support free speech, but contradicts this by banning porn. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is unlawful to be naked in most public places in the US. There are indecent exposure laws everywhere - some are blanket bans on nudity, others only ban nudity with the intention to cause shock, offense or sexual gratification. It is consistent to support extensive free speech in public and keep non-artistic & sexually gratifying nudity out of the public forum - while it is legal in private mode or elsewhere. Personally, I'd just detect nudity and only show it to users who wanted to see it, but that's neither here nor there.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That's some "puree the camel and it can seep through the needle's eye" kind of logic twisting. Do you actually believe that, for real? Jorm (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I prefer the "allow it, but also allow users to filter it out of they'd like" option. I was trying to sort out why nearly all platforms ban lawful pornography, and the surest answer to that would be "when it isn't lawful". The don't tend to offer an explanation of why in their brief "what we ban" sectionsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• No: Anyone who think that the current version has a NPOV problem either hasn't read what reliable reliable news and academic sources say about Gab, or they simply don't care. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Improper RFC - This is not the kind of question you use RFC to resolve. RFC is for specific issues with an article, not a vague "does this article have problems?" — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why RFCs shouldn't be done to address broader issues with articles as well, especially this article. X-Editor (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The standard isn't "User:X-Editor doesn't see why not". The standard is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which clearly states

"Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." (emphasis added).

This RfC does not propose any changes and thus is an improper RfC.

Looking at how most RfCs are written may be helpful. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. If your RfC looks way different that most of those listed, you may have an improper RfC. (Note: do not scan the list, ignoring how most people write RfCs, cherry pick another outlier, and say "well, the snatzafasxooozle RfC is screwed up the same way mine is, so it's OK." Other peple write improper RfCs too. Instead look at how most RfCs are worded.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well here is one reason why. Person A "Yes, as it does not say they are Nazi scum" Person B "Yes, as it makes too many claims they are Nazii scum". So two different users could give the same answer (yes) yet mean two totally different things.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually completely agree that they are nazi scum based on what the reliable sources say, I'm not trying to claim they aren't. X-Editor (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the NPOV arguments are about them not all being Nazi scum, so (as I said) a person might answer "yes" thinking it means something other than your intent. The RFC is far to open a question to be able to anaswerSlatersteven (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"Nazi scum" is inappropriate and uncivil language here, X-Editor- and absent from RS. Slatersteven used it questionably but as an example. Who is "all of them" that you believe are "Nazi scum". Please desist.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That was just my opinion and I do agree that it isn't the most civil language. What I was trying to say is that I agree Gab is far-right based on what the RSes say. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As the person who started this RFC, I would suggest a Close because as many have pointed out, the RFC's question is too broad. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

social (network) is the wrong term

for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists,

--Über-Blick (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Über-Blick: What would be a better term than social network? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don`t know the conventions in the english language wikipedia, but in the first sentence is written "far-right userbase" --Über-Blick (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Social networks can have a far-right userbase or any other kind of userbase. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

yeah, that the mainstream use, but the term "social networks" is disputed and debatable
my reverence point is reflection,
that means I scrutinize the problematical mainstream terms
and especially in this case, it`s very obvious, that this labeling is missleading and a problematic established term

--Über-Blick (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am having some trouble understanding what you are suggesting, maybe because of a language barrier. At least in English there is no specific alternative term for "social network" that is specifically used for platforms with far-right userbases. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

perhaps it could help to reflect the meaning of social and compare it with this concrete media --Über-Blick (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Über-Blick, Wikipedia editors don't decide how words are used; we use the language as it exists, and as how it is used in the sources that we refer to. If those sources call it a social network, so must we. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What is "concrete media"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think it's a generic term to describe this type of publication. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Where is the law that orders the necessity to use problematic euphemistic terms ? Where is the law that prohibits to think critical, to reflect language, problematic and euphemistic terms ? Where is the law that prohibits the use of alternative terms which are not euphemistic as for example ethnic cleansing ? --Über-Blick (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RULES.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Über-Blick I see that while your account is quite old, you have not made very many edits to this project. I also get the impression from what you have written that English is not your first language. That's fine - we have contributors from all over the world, and everyone is welcome to get involved, but can I suggest that you simply take on board what we are telling you here: social media is the correct term to use here, it's not euphemistic, it's just the natural, plain English phrase used to refer to the type of thing that this subject is. Let's not waste time going back and forth on this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A haven for extremists?

This is not a forum for debating the topic or for playing whataboutism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is exactly why I would never support Wikipedia! Your definition of Gab couldn't be further from the truth!! Gab is an American alt-tech social networking service known for its far-right userbase. Widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists 64.141.50.210 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Whether or not you agree that it is such a haven, it is true that it has been widely described as such, which is what the article says. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Gorilla, twitter is widely used by pedophiles who share child pornography by the millions. Google it and find many many thousands of articles. Why isn’t this fact in the first sentence of twitters article? Megat503 (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Because pedos only make up a very small minority of Twitter users. Extremists make up the majority of Gab users. X-Editor (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Go to that article and ask.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor where is your source for "Extremist make up the majority of Gab users?" Putting a Star of David and the words antisemitism on a business should require a higher bar of data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffwalters (talk • contribs) 14:47, April 20, 2021 (UTC)

Jeffwalters : No comment re "extremists" etc. but I guess "Star of David" refers to the "Antisemitism sidebar". So, FYI: it was discussed before in archived thread The entire first paragraph & the enormous Star of David sidebar are undeniably absurd. and in archived thread Article part of "Articles on antisemitism"?. The same sidebar was also placed on the Parler article but removed after a formal close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A huge amount of the reliable sources that mention Gab note that it has an extremist userbase, making this part of its userbase notable. It also becomes pretty obvious when you visit Gab and spend some time on the site yourself. X-Editor (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its espousal of free speech in contra-distinction to the politically correct policies imposed by other social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter which impose censorship along anti-Christian, pro-socialist, pro-materialist, pro-LGBT lines. The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users were its target markets.

Gab promotes itself as a vehicle for "free speech". Gab is a favorite of, and primarily attracts, users who have been banned from other social networks, such as those who are labeled "far-right or "alt-right" by the bosses of Twitter and Facebook. A majority of Gab's users are white, a majority are male, and a majority are conservative.

Gab reported more than 1,000,000 registered user accounts in August 2019, although Storyful found that only 19,526 unique usernames had posted content during a seven days between January 9 and January 16, 2019. As of 2018, the site's most-followed users included high-profile far-right figures such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones. The site recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors, according to an early 2018 financial filing. The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018, as Robert Gregory Bowers, the perpetrator of the massacre, posted a message indicating an immediate intent to harm before the shooting; Bowers had a history of making extreme, antisemitic postings on Gab. After a backlash from hosting providers, Gab briefly went offline. The government is evil (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ah yes, that well known £100bn socialist empire, Facebook.  Not done, obviously as apart from anything else, no sources provided. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think The government is evil understands what socialism means. X-Editor (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not the place to discuss their understanding of it. The request has been rejected, no need to soapbpox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, good point. X-Editor (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

The maximum limit for a post on Gab is 3000 characters, not 300, as the page is currently stating. RaspberryEnergy (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is an uncontroversial change, and have gone ahead and made it. Gab's own help page does indicate 3000 character limit. Frankly, if we're going to demand a source, I'd rather remove the entire statement regarding the post size limit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the 300 character limit claim was sourced, to the Business Insider article that was left at the end of the sentence. But I don't think it's unreasonable to use a primary source for this; I've replaced that source with the Gab Help page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism

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

---

I do not believe the sources provided prove that Gab (the company) has engaged in hatred towards Jews, though many that hold such views do exist on the site.

The CNN source is pretty unequivocal: "the company has itself taken part in anti-Semitic commentary" GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC) A slander piece written by CNN is taken as a reliable source? There are plenty of opinion pieces and slander pieces written by numerous papers and media organizations, but the evidence in the CNN article does not support the claim.

CNN is a reliable source: WP:RSP#CNN. If you would like to contest that, WP:RSN is thataway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)That is a dangerous way to go--that a media organization can have free run with no accountability. Websites should not have a blanket trusted source status.

They don't, which is why we say "generally reliable". But when the community has decided via multiple discussions that a publication has a solid reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight, you need to provide a good reason to refute the reliability of an article they publish, and "I don't like it" or "I disagree" is not one. If they publish a retraction, or another reliable source refutes what they have published, that might be usable. You can say the evidence in the CNN piece doesn't support the conclusion, I can say it does, and neither really matters because we go by what RS say and not individual editors' opinions of the sources' conclusions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC) It is not that I just disagree, but it is proven by the twitter feed provided by CNN that Gab did not incite hatred towards Jews(the definition of antisemitism)

Refer to my above comment. You say it doesn't, I say it does, but neither matters. What does matter is that an RS does (and others mention similar incidents), and so far as I'm aware no RS refute it. Feel free to present contradictory sources if you know of them; I would think CNN making unsubstantiated accusations of antisemitism against a company would probably invite some refutations if that were the case. If you genuinely think "I disagree" is enough to disqualify the CNN source, feel free to try it at RSN and get consensus that the source shouldn't be used despite the publication's status as generally reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of unreliability https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6248938060001 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html

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.

Description

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

---

I am seeing a large problem. On just about any free-speech social media site, Wikipedia starts the page off by saying how it is a haven for racist scum. While this is true for many of these sites, this appears to be propaganda, only serving to keep the masses on the monopoly sites like Facebook. I propose these descriptions are put in a "Moderation" section of the page. The majority of users on Gab, and other free speech sites such as Minds, LBRY, etc., are horrible, racist people. A site that supports free speech means that it has content that you might disagree with. This doesn't mean we should make Wikipedia a propaganda page to devalue those sites. I am posting this as a request to move it from the top to a section about "Moderation Practices," or the like. As well as the other free-speech social media sites. I'm not sure why a request like this deserves deletion on a talk page. Weagesdf (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read any of the many conversations on this subject in the archives of this talk page and in the FAQ at the top of the page. Your post was originally removed because it provides no source- or policy-based arguments and is based only around your own opinions (see WP:NOTFORUM) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Redundant and overcited

Article is excessively lengthy given its lack of assessed importance by the Wikiprojects that it belongs to. No, that isn't a valid reason to say it is excessively lengthy: rather, it is redundant with similar content in multiple sections. This tends to happen in Wikipedia articles about topics that elicit much interest. I want to try to trim it back. I may not be able to though.

I am certain that I can trim some of the overcites that are due to the same news story being reported in multiple publications or even syndicated content, then referenced repeatedly as sources. I'll start on that first. This is a daunting clean-up, so I don't know how far I'll go with it.--FeralOink (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Thanks for cleaning up the article, although there was some valuable content that you removed without explanation. X-Editor (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, yes, you're right. I had to stop at a certain point (to go to work) and there are references that I need to rescue. I did remove some content that was repeated later in the article, or was no longer relevant because it was outdated, or was not WP:NPOV. If there is anything in particular you have in mind, I have no problem with it being reinserted. I will try to be less aggressive in my clean-ups in the future.--FeralOink (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Hope you can rescue some of the references. X-Editor (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

what Torba says

BladeJogger2049 I think it's important to first show what Torba says his platform is all about, because it's a pretty significant characterization, then juxtapose that with how others characterize it. soibangla (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla I agree that specific quote warrants inclusion in the article! But I don't feel that it's prominent enough on its own to be in the lede. I moved that source to paragraph 2 sentence 1 as to how the company describes itself in the interest of being concise. I'll play around with some copyediting and see if there's a good spot in the lede to fit it, but for now, I'd lean towards just having that quote in the article body. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Also just realized that the lede does not mention Andrew Torba by name with my rewrite but I think it's good to include him. I'll work on that! Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 21:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@BladeJogger2049: Thanks for improving the lede! X-Editor (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@BladeJogger2049: Why remove the mention that the majority of content on Gab is related to politics though (sourced to First Monday)? I added that originally and re-added it once before. I believe it is significant enough for the lead because it is enough of a defining characteristic of the platform for somebody who's just been introduced to Gab to find it relevant, e.g. it is a social platform that is usually used seemingly very differently from Twitter or any other number of mainstream social media platforms. You may argue that the description of the site as a haven for certain political groups or the self-description as a "Christian parallel society" by Torba means the reader will already assume this of the majority of the content on Gab, but I think it is not necessarily so. The creator of a platform may say it's for X and then his users may use it for Y instead. A reader may see that Gab is a haven for certain political groups, in the media's description, but imagine that it is characterized as such despite being, possibly, a minority of the site's content, just tolerated enough by the site's staff that the media calls it home to those political communities. --Chillabit (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Pleaae read wp:lede, it is a summary of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

On this topic, why is all the anti semitism and other smear talk included here? The people who spread all these rumors are mostly paid by Gab's competitors, as Gab stands in the direct path for the big Monopolies. If I say that you are a smart guy, that doesn't make it a fact, even if my friends at Forbes publish an article on it. Nor any of the other smears on this company. --Massintel (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that say they are? Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are thousands. For example, https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/coronavirus-grants-fact-checking --Massintel (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC) The whole point is that Gab is competing with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, so these companies logically will fund bad press on a potential competitor, before it can become big. This Monopolistic practice is not unique to Silicon Valley nor is it a recent phenomenon. See this https://news.gab.com/2022/09/02/gabs-response-letter-to-congress/ .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massintel (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven is asking for a reliable source that says "The people who spread all these rumors are mostly paid by Gab's competitors, as Gab stands in the direct path for the big Monopolies." You looking at activities by Facebook and concluding that they are smearing Gab is WP:OR—we would need a reliable source that draws that conclusion for it to be included. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Or, I am asking about wp:rs in a way that passes wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gab website, as of August 19th, 2021.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality / NPOV Noticeboard Discussion

This is to notify other editors who may have an interest that I have started a topic of discussion concerning this article at: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network). Commandur (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Article has heavy anti-Gab bias in intro.

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

---

As a reader, foreign to all Wikipedia editing policies, the start of this article carries an overtly negative tone and systematically and manipulatively uses articles from sources “widely known” to have a bias to support said negative tone. At its core, Gab is a social media site, like Facebook and Twitter, that provides the ability to post/share thoughts, ideas, images, videos, and other content. If the article is about what the users primarily use it for, an understandable bias could make sense to be present. However, an article simply about the site should not open with anything other than a description and summary of the site’s founding and function, as opposed to the functions of the sites users. Reason being, many of those same users in question also utilize Twitter and Facebook, but the articles for either of those platforms do not mention their use by those same users. Pointing out Gabs use by those users is disingenuous and begs the question of the purpose of their mentioning.

I’m not seeking changes, since content like this is a primary reason Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a reliable destination for neutral information in most scholarly spaces. I am just simply here to say that your bias is showing in the intro of this article, and everyone that isn’t you or sharing your world view can see it. If you ever have a vision of Wikipedia being utilized and respected the same way Britannica or World Book Encyclopedia, articles like this, about a tool, should always start by describing the “tool” rather than the “users of the tool.” Lastly, to accept the “reliable media sources” perspective on this topic is to ignore that the same media sources held positions contrary to 50% of the country and evident in the 2016 and 2020 election results. Those “fringe sources” were evidently equally as accurate and representative of “widely believed” ideas then, they just had less funding. 2600:1700:5080:2140:CD67:40EE:790A:F524 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is of no importance here. Sources say a thing, a Wikipedia article reflects the sources. That is all. Zaathras (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As per above, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

the country? This is an international project; most of our editors and readers aren't in the country that I think you're referring to. Anyway, I just Googled 'Gab' to see what sources say about it, to get an idea of whether our article is based on cherry-picked sources. This is how the Stanford University's Internet Observatory observatory described Gab in a recent report: While sites such as Parler and Gettr generally cater to a broader base of right-wing users, the far-right platform Gab hews more toward an openly white Christian nationalist demographic. Founded in 2016, Gab has spent most of its existence on the toxic fringe of alternative social media platforms — something exacerbated by its links to the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and its fraught relationship with various app stores and service providers. The first five hits on a Google Scholar search (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) all emphasise Gab's far-right user base. From what I've seen, for us to fail to mention that aspect of the platform in our lead would be for us to misrepresent the sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Atomwaffen Division

"In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of antisemitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by several neo-Nazi and alt-right groups, including Identity Evropa, Patriot Front, and the Atomwaffen Division, a terrorist organization tied to a number of murders."

I've checked the site sourced next to this, and the Atomwaffen Division is never mentioned once. Please correct this or cite a different source. 174.130.211.224 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. I removed. I also didn't notice that the cited source mentions recruiting except in reference to Twitter not Gab, but I left "used as a recruitment tool" in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The source was erroneously removed as an 'overcite' a couple years ago, per Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 12#Redundant and overcited. I have restored the content and the source. As always, any further discussion of this content should be based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change "As of 2021, posts on Gab are limited to 3,000 characters" to "As of 2023, posts on Gab are limited to 5,000 characters." 98.22.34.247 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Zaathras (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality, lack of impartial tone, and existence of weasel words.

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

---

This article about Gab is not written in an impartial tone. "Widely described as a haven" is not neutral phrasing. Widely described by whom? When you claim it is widely known that way, you need to say by whom, otherwise this is described as "weasel words" according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia has policies about neutrality, nonjudgmental language, weasel words, impartial tone, etc. The rules of Wikipedia to remain neutral are just as important as the rule to use reliable sources while writing or editing Wikipedia articles. Not less important. Saying something is "widely described" on an controversial article, without saying who it is widely described by in-line, is not a neutral way of writing.

I also want to address that the first paragraph of the article is heavily biased against Gab due to the way in which the facts are presented and organized, starting with heavy negative criticism from the cited sources filling the majority of the first paragraph. Most articles list critics and their criticism further down in the article under a subheading such as "Criticism and controversies", which seems to be the method of consensus across most of Wikipedia. It is fine to have some criticism and negative statements in the lede paragraph, but it should not be the primary focus.

Please check the NPOV (Neutral point of view) article that states "inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized".

While this is self-evident to unbiased editors, I have also found sources that indicate that Gab being described as a "haven" is a statement from critics and not necessarily a widely-accepted fact:

• "Critics claim the site serves as a haven for extremist groups." - https://www.liferaftinc.com/blog/resources/gab-explained

• "has been billed by some as the social network for the alt-right" - https://www.inc.com/salvador-rodriguez/gab-apple-twitter.html

Notice the terms used: "critics claim" and "has been billed by some as". This means there is not a near-complete consensus on the matter.

Although I have only just heard about Gab for the first time within the last week and have never used it myself, I am amazed at how many unnecessary arguments have occurred on this talk page. NPOV is a policy of Wikipedia and it is counterproductive to argue against NPOV as it benefits all good-faith users and editors of Wikipedia.

The irony of censoring NPOV edits on an article about a website that has been banned from most big tech platforms for allowing it's users mostly unrestricted freedom of speech is not lost on me. This type of behavior is why people create alternative websites in the first place.

I humbly ask that another unbiased editor or administrator should reinstate my revision or make a similar revision to bring the article up to NPOV standards.

- Commandur (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed that this was posted to the talk page.

"Widely described" is absolutely neutral, as the majority of reliable sources describe Gab in this manner. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:WEASEL. The citations are all throughout the article to back up this point.

The article is biased against Gab in the same way that an article about Flat Earth is biased against it: all the reliable sources are in agreement on the topic. Only fringe sources support Gab.

Since you're relatively new to the topic, I am pleased you read the previous discussions. But simultaneously disappointed you consider them "unnecessary," as that indicates you've come here with a pre-conceived notion and are fighting for that stance. Claiming that editors here are censoring NPOV edits is a serious accusation, and you should take that to WP:ANI with diffs to back it up. Otherwise, it's simply personal attacks against the editors who have worked so hard to put this article together.

If you are still unsatisfied with this, your options are to go through dispute resolution steps. However, given the years of editing by many, many people here, I do not think your argument will result in change, as it is basically a rehash of all the previous ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Main Response

First I'd like to point out that you really didn't address most of my points in my original post. However, I'll still give you the courtesy of responding to each one of your points in great detail.

As it turns out, "Widely described" is specifically mentioned as an example of weasel words on WP:WEASEL. See: Unsupported attributions.

If you want to use wording like this, you should pay close attention to the part where it says: "the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution". In other words, in-line attribution is still expected. Considering this is a contentious article, I think we should take things like weasel words more seriously. The fact that people here have already argued about weasel words already proves my point that we need to attribute it to someone.

I'm curious. How precisely do you think I have a misconception about Weasel Words? Perhaps you'd take the opportunity to briefly educate me on any misconceptions I may have.

You said, "The citations are all throughout the article to back up this point." However, citing sources does not grant a free license to keep blatant bias in an article. If you want to stick with the reliable sources argument, I myself cited a "new" source in my edit, but you reverted my edit. Apparently you deemed it too insignificant of a source to keep, despite the fact it was used to show that we can safely attribute the statements to "critics". Or perhaps you merely take issue with using the word "critics" there?

Do you know why there are less articles written in favor of alternative tech? Being in favor of free speech is not particularly controversial. Less controversy means less readers. Less readers means less money. There is essentially no financial incentive for major news outlets to post such an article. If people simply want to know what something is or general facts about that something, that's what websites like Wikipedia are here for, the news isn't going to reliably fill that role for you on most topics. If we aren't careful, someday Wikipedia won't either.

Flat Earth analogy?

Interesting that you compare the article's bias to "Flat Earth" of all things. This is severely tangential, but I'll humor you here... Most "reliable sources" in the time of Aristotle and even as late as Galileo would have had severe issues with modern astronomy. Those "reliable sources" that punished those freethinkers and would fight against what we now consider facts, are the ones you'd likely be touting as "reliable sources" about flat earth ideology, if you lived in those times. (Because if you thought they are reliable, then of course you'd believe them that the world is flat.) The astounding ability of humans to be incorrect in their serious convictions is why we need to be careful about blindly trusting any sources, "mainstream", "fringe", or otherwise. I'd be remiss to mention that theories on physical reality, demonstrable through mathematics, logic, scientific tests, etc. is a completely different ball game than sociopolitical bias in the media or the same on a Wikipedia Talk Page, which is more often driven by feelings than by logical analysis. Astronomy and physics on the other hand can be interpreted a variety of ways, but in nearly all cases are based on some core irrefutable facts.

Back to the Topic

Just because the majority of articles present a certain opinionated bias does not mean we as writers and editors need to indulge in said bias. Instead, we should attribute the bias to the sources it comes from. There is also an inherent bias in that sources conflating free speech with extremism are more controversial, and inherently pull in more readers. This encourages news outlets to continue to post opinionated and controversial articles. I think an argument could be made that, in general, journalistic quality has been worsening horrifically ever since the decline of the physical newspaper.

Response to Accusations

Now I'd like address your unmerited accusations against me.

1-RGW: I'm not asking for the article to be POSITIVE about Gab. I just want the article to be NEUTRAL in accordance with WP:NPOV. Truthfully any contrarian arguments to NPOV stance is unilaterally unnecessary. If editors were better educated on NPOV writing, such discussion need not exist. Also, one could easily argue that your insistence on keeping weasel words in the article is good evidence that you are in fact the one who is trying to fight for a preconceived stance concerning this article. Maybe you should re-read WP:RGW. I am, after all, perfectly fine with this article being neutral.

2-ANI: Perhaps you can see it as a serious accusation, but I accused no person in particular. Secondly, there is a prevailing attitude present among a certain group of editors in the Talk pages that this article must remain overly-negative. There is plenty of evidence for it, just read the Talk archives. As for diffs, how about the last three diffs where my improved version was reverted? I'm sure I could find plenty more affecting other editors, but if I spent all day doing that I'd be running around in circles just to make you happy.

3-NPA: First of all, I think you misunderstand NPA as nothing I said can be construed as a "personal attack" by any reasonable person. NPOV is a non-negotiable tenet of Wikipedia. This Talk page section is littered with comments of people pushing negative messages about Gab. Generally speaking, a website that provides a service is a neutral entity. While I've read the founder is certainly not politically neutral, the website itself is still just a platform, a tool. Like a hammer, a screwdriver, or a calculator. They can be used for good or for nefarious means, depending on the user. I am also not going to take the time to file NPA on every single incident.

(3-NPA, continued:) There are a lot of the arguments against NPOV in the Talk page, most are thinly disguised as referring to "reliable source" material as the reason for the obvious bias. Those talks are entirely unnecessary, because NPOV is a core tenet of Wikipedia. We don't need a "reliable source" to tell us to be neutral in how we write and edit. Wikipedia already says to do that. You can present biased ideas from biased sources if you want - just do it while following Wikipedia's rules.

(3-NPA, continued:) I did not specifically attack any person, nor did I attack their work putting together this article. That is an outrageous accusation. I merely referred to the problems presented by multiple editors with their own biased views. This is all about improving the article, not about attacking strangers on the internet, for which I have no real motivation. While I would like to assume everyone is acting in good faith, that is not always the case. How are you seriously going to argue that "Widely described" without in-line attribution isn't weasel words? We know readers aren't frequently going to click on the cited articles to see who wrote it... that's why the article itself should be neutral.

In fact, if you've read RGW, RGW also prohibits "taking sides" in our editing:

See: RGW: Seeing editing as being about taking sides.

Main Response: Continued

Someone's perception of a source being "fringe" or someone's perception of a source being a "reliable source" does not always necessarily reflect reality. Unlike facts, perception is malleable. One thing to seriously consider is the fact that a typically-reliable source that is reliable about most neutral topics, may be severely unreliable when it comes to certain sociopolitical topics. Suddenly, the source you rely on may not be so reliable. This is a serious issue with modern media.

The negative bias in the article and on this article's Talk pages archives is palpable. I could cherry pick some juicy tidbits for you if you really want, but it's easy enough to find them. Just read the Talk pages archives and see for yourself.

Conclusion

You said, "I do not think your argument will result in change, as it is basically a rehash of all the previous ones." Well, I guess we will see - if one of us files a dispute, that is. I never had to make a dispute before so I'll have to research it some more, but I'm curious what determines if I should file the dispute, or whether you should file it because you take issue with my edits. I'd like to think there is still hope for Wikipedia to remain a neutral encyclopedia. If I believed it was already over and completely controlled by one side, I wouldn't even be here.

__ Commandur (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. - Notice to those who repeatedly delete edits:

Follow the normal protocol

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Commandur (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you do not think it can be improved you should delete it, and then the person adding it should bring it here for discussion (see wp:brd). Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Slater is right, we're already in the Discuss portion of BRD. I've already pointed out how WP:WEASEL is satisfied by the current sourcing in the body. As to this:

Do you know why there are less articles written in favor of alternative tech? Being in favor of free speech is not particularly controversial. Less controversy means less readers. Less readers means less money. There is essentially no financial incentive for major news outlets to post such an article. If people simply want to know what something is or general facts about that something, that's what websites like Wikipedia are here for, the news isn't going to reliably fill that role for you on most topics. If we aren't careful, someday Wikipedia won't either.

This is both your own opinion on media companies & a bizarre appeal to have Wikipedia fill a hole that you feel traditional sources do not. We will not do that. We report what third party reliable sources say, and the vast majority of media and academic sources describe Gab as far-right.

Most "reliable sources" in the time of Aristotle...

This is an old, tired argument that editors have rejected over and over again. We are dealing with what reliable sources say now. We do not speculate on what future sources might say, so this entire paragraph is not persuasive.

Just because the majority of articles present a certain opinionated bias does not mean we as writers and editors need to indulge in said bias

This is flatly wrong. We present the facts as reported in reliable sources, and per WP:DUE we do not give fringe views equal footing. If we did, the article on the September 11 attacks would be full of crap from Truthers.

nothing I said can be construed as a "personal attack" by any reasonable person

Accusing others of intentionally inserting bias into an article can be considered a personal attack by Wikipedia's standards. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I just heard about GAB today and wanted to read about it when I saw the link to this article featured in the search results. From the first three sentences, I could already see this article was a hit piece, not a reliable source of information. There are TWO HUNDRED and SEVENTY, that's 2-7-0, citations from opinion pieces in various media outlets. Opinions are *not* reliable sources of information. At the very end of the citations list are two "additional reading" sources that are probably the only credible, peer-reviewed sources ... but they have nothing to do with GAB. This Wikipedia entry, or whatever you call it, concretely illustrates why serious teachers/professors tell their students not to use Wikipedia as a source to write papers. The fact that it's a featured search result further illustrates how the internet has done a huge disservice to the young minds of our world when it comes to serious topics because the louder, more persistent, opinion; and the more avid, relentless editor (or group of) is the one who ultimately dictates what "fact" is considered to be. Opinions are not facts! So, this article is invalid as it is composed mainly of opinions. Lesson learned: stick to Wikipedia for information on actor filmographies, band discographies, gardening, fight stats, and municipal information. Alerion69x (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the citations are to opinion pieces. Zaathras (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

MOST of them are. How much research and data was acquired to write an article that contained the words "God Emperor Trump" in its heading? Are there people that, in fact, referred to him as such? And if so, where is the proof of that? It doesn't exist, for that is a term used by people to "make fun of" Mr. Trump. And this statistic of 5.4% of posts contained hate speech was based on a database of "offensive language" compiled by people who considered those terms to be highly offensive even in cases where their own "research" determined the words were no longer offensive and were downgraded to slang, and in some cases were originally used by the very people the words referred to *against each other.* The database still flags it as "hate speech," but that term itself is subjective, not objective ... a.k.a. Opinion. This article is only for you and yours, but cannot be considered a serious, fact-based piece of information because it comes from a place of malicious intent to vilify people with a certain ideology. One which they are free to have, as are you. It's all one huge echo chamber of opinion smashed together to try to drive home the idea that GAB users are ______. Easily dismissed in one paragraph. Be well, Sir Zaathras. I am on to more important things. Alerion69x (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:rs, if it is an RS we assume that it has done the research and is just presenting its conclusions. And read wp:or. As to much of the rest see wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of Wikipedia being used as a political tool, there is no evidence of any of the claims of these opinions regarding Gab, and Gab has the best reputation as far as dealing with law enforcement. --Massintel (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, do you have any sources for the claim "Gab has the best reputation as far as dealing with law enforcement"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In November 2022, Torba said "The Jews in positions of power do not care that you have the freedom of speech in this country, they care that people like Ye have the freedom to reach a lot of people and criticize their power and oversized influence in our culture, government, and society."[21] It's beyond obvious that Gab is far-right at this point and I'm shocked that there is still denial about this when Torba is very clearly endorsing far-right views. X-Editor (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And here's the article from Torba himself in case you think the ADL made up the quote.[22] X-Editor (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Total hit job on Gab with no basis in fact

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

---

In this sentence, it mentions Neo Nazis:

Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon,[6][7]

Ok, but look the first reference [6] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gab-new-domain-host-epik-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-shooting/

The News article mentions nothing about Neo Nazis. It says a shooter used Gab. Shooters typically use Facebook, such as this one:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/16/482339322/senator-says-orlando-shooter-posted-pro-isis-messages-on-facebook

Facebook was not shut down the next day. Facebook was not slandered into a 'haven for Neo Nazis' - this article is a total Troll job with pathetic references and I'm sure that if anyone tries to change the hit job, their account will be deleted. Wikipedia is not going to make it with this biased top down approach, the rules of Wiki editing are clearly not being followed on this page, and there are probably many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massintel (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) --Massintel (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

but reference #7 says a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists soibangla (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Widely Described" would mean MULTIPLE references. In the 7 "References" there is ONE reference. So it's not "Widely Described" it's "Described by one source, but other sources say differently" Do you see how this is misleading? Massintel (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead section of the article is just a summary. More details about neo-Nazis on Gab (and many more sources) can be found in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Those references are opinions they do not show evidence of "Neo Nazis" there is no evidence because it doesn't exist. It's a false narrative. Massintel (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Prove it wrong. Show one example, not an opinion op-ed. Massintel (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to show their evidence in turn, and I decline to go hunting for examples since per WP:NOR they wouldn't be usable for Wikipedia content. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Also not all of our sources do seem to be opp-edds, I see at leat two from peer-reviewed academic journals and one from a newspaper not marked as an opp-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"It's just an opinion" has been a long standing tradition of Gab supporters to decry any reliable source which bothers to point out the site is full of neo-Nazis. That argument isn't going to fly here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We are doing a daily content review of Gab. We can't find any of the offensive content on the site, so the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources. In other words, they are stating this word "Neo Nazis" but there are not "Neo Nazis" on Gab nor are there any evidence of Neo Nazi content except for World War 2 history groups which discuss actual Nazis from the period of 1930s - 1940s. This page is clearly biased against Gab and is in violation of the Wikipedia rules. The replies here have confirmed that by "Not wanting to get into the details" isn't that the first defense of a ponzi scammer when you ask for evidence their investment is not a fraud? Deflect, confuse, deny, .. Definitely not good for Wikipedia. Massintel (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Or you are not seeing it, or you define it in a way no one else does or...but I could go on. Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Who is the 'we' doing a daily content review? That sounds like an exercise in original research, which carries no weight here, but it would be interesting to know whether you represent an organisation of some sort. If you want to affect any change here, I would advise you to be specific about which 'Wikipedia rules' you believe are being violated, and you are going to have to argue your case based on those rules, and the content of reliable secondary sources. Unsupported assertions that pages are 'obviously biased' are very common, but never effective. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources

That's... not how investigative journalism works. You don't get to substitute your assumptions for what reliable sources have said, nor can you perform your own analysis to determine the RS are wrong.

As a point of order, NPOV does not forbid Wikipedians from having an opinion on a subject. You grossly misunderstand that rule if you're going to try and pull that argument here. And I don't know where you pulled "Not wanting to get into the details from," as that never came up in this discussion.

The remainder of your post is very close to violating WP:NPA, so I suggest you move on to another topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you aren't looking very hard. Within 2 seconds of scrolling the front page of this website there's blatant antisemitism (including holocaust denial), various instances of racism using slurs I wont repeat here and a post that reads "Shift the Overton Window so far Right that it never moves again. 卐".

The descriptors used by Wikipedia are more than apt.

</OR> Dricoust (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Original description is incomplete.

The first sentence says, "Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service known for its far-right userbase."

This is true, but incomplete.

It would be more accurate to say:

"Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking with a policy of free speech in accordance with the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This policy results in lax content moderation and attracts a far-right userbase, which Gab is known for."

Thoughts? I think this is more accurate given Gab's Terms of Service.

https://gab.com/about/tos

Their terms of service doesn't mention anything far-right topics or bias. It just says they follow the 1st amendment with regard to content moderation:

"Although our Content Standards, following the First Amendment, do not proscribe offensive speech, we strongly encourage you to ensure that your User Contributions are cordial and civil. The foundation of a free society requires people to peacefully settle their differences through dialogue and debate. Gab exists to promote the free flow of information online."

And this content moderation policy is responsible for attracting far-right users who cannot post their views on sites with more stringent content moderation policies. Apc3161 (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the quote from the US Constitution that names Gab. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We primarily follow what reliable sources say about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

But is it even up for debate that their terms of service follow the 1st amendment? I think that is 100% accurate.

There is no question it is a far-right website, the reliable sources are correct about that, but that is a result of the fact that it's the only website that doesn't ban or censor far-right users.

I think it's more accurate to describe what Gab is, and then describe what the result is, than it is to describe Gab as a far-right website, which on a fundamental level it is not. Subtle distinction. Apc3161 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm the coolest thing since sliced bread, but a Wikipedia article about me shouldn't describe me as such (even if it's objectively true) unless reliable sources widely take up the descriptor. Same goes here. This topic has been discussed at great length in the talk page archives, which I would invite you to peruse.

It's not terribly relevant to the discussion, since individual editors' opinions around whether Gab adheres to the first amendment as they claim should not influence whether the descriptor goes in the article, but since you asked: I think it's quite a bit less than 100% accurate. Gab has a blanket ban on "sexually explicit or pornographic" content, which is generally protected by the First Amendment. The same goes for other categories they prohibit (spam, financial activities, etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

the First Amendment applies to governments, NOT to private companies like Gab. The freedom of speech clause says the government cannot censor speech before it is spoken (but it can punish speech after the speech is uttered)--it does not in any way del with the removal of nasty messages on Gab. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we change it to something more accurate though? e.g.

"Gab is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking with lax content moderation policies, which attracts a far-right userbase that it is known for" Apc3161 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's known for its far-right userbase, that's what we're primarily going to talk about. No need to make the opening sentence more complicated. Your suggestion is not more *accurate*--it still includes all the same information as the original, so any accuracy issues would not be changed. It might be more *precise*, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

White & Black

The text "White" in this article should be capitalized, as it refers to the racial group, and there are already two instances of the word "Black" that are capitalized. MOS:RACECAPS AppGoo0011 (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove Dissenter section?

Gab stopped developing the Dissenter browser some time ago it seems. News articles concerning it are over 2 years old. The dissenter website is now just a news aggregator it seems.

https://dissenter.com/

No mention of the old browser, which apparently you can't even download.

Thoughts about deleting this section for a defunct project? Apc3161 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, unless we can find a source about the change, we can probably just delete it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Rather than deleting it entirely, perhaps a shortened version of the section should be merged into the 2019 history subsection. It was certainly noteworthy at the time, so deleting it outright doesn't seem appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In line with your suggestion, I was thinking of deleting the dissenter section, since it has been discontinued, and just copying some of the text over to the 2019 section as follows, thoughts?:

"In 2019, Gab launched a browser extension called Dissenter, an aggregation and discussion service which allowed Gab users to make non-moderated comments on any webpage including news articles, YouTube videos, and individual social media posts. Comments made using the Dissenter extension were outside of the webpage owner's control, and the extension could be used to comment on websites with no comment feature or where the comment sections were closed. Dissenter was criticized as an extension which "puts a far-right comments section on every site." The Dissenter extension was subsequently banned from the Google and Mozilla add-on stores for violating hate-speech policies. . Following this removal, Gab created their own Dissenter browser, based on a fork of the Brave browser, which has since been discontinued. " Apc3161 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a good change to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Might be worth adding that the Dissenter extension has also been discontinued, assuming a reliable source for that exists. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Gab AI

I created a section for Gab's new Chatbot AI. The section what accurate and concise as follows:

"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots that impersonate well known historicals figures such as Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Confucius, and Mother Teresa."

It was removed, stating "it doesn't need its own l2 heading." I fail to see how Dissenter, a browser which has been discontinued for 4 years should have it's own section, but an AI chatbot and AI art generator that has 100,000 users and competes with Google's Gemini, ChatGPT, etc. should not have its own section.

I would like to add it back. Thoughts everyone? If it shouldn't have it's own section, where should I add this description? Apc3161 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems this was added to the 2024 section. I still think Gab AI chatbot/image generator should have its own section. But I suppose having it in the 2024 section is also accurate. Apc3161 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is very little third-party sourcing about this feature, so I don't think it warrants a full section of its own. Speaking of which, please cite reliable third-party sources to support content you add. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Wikipedia policy states:

"The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

So if something is easily verifiable, no third party source is required. The fact that there are AI models for various historical figures is easy verifiable, just go to the website.

https://gab.ai/characters

You can easily verify that 100's of AI characters are available to chat with. That is why I mentioned Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, Lenin, and Confucius.

Why would only the AI bot for Hitler be mentioned? Doesn't seem logical to me, there are literally 100's of characters. I think we should mention a few of them to keep the article accurate.

Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why you're talking about the historical figure models. That's not relevant to this discussion. If your point is "it exists" well... that's not enough to justify a section about it. We need to demonstrate it's relevant to the article, and that's where third-party sources come in. If no one is talking about it, it's not worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want a section about it. There is already a discussion on it. I just don't see how it makes logical sense, of the 100's of characters available, the only one this wiki article mentions is Hitler. Seems strange. Apc3161 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not strange when you consider how controversial Hitler is, and that making a chatbot for people to interact with "him" is going to attract controversy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that GorillaWarfare on 9 February 2024 replaced your list with Adolf Hitler, edit summary = "2024: adjust section to rely on secondary rather than primary sources", the secondary source being Rolling Stone. I'd be sympathetic to changing or reverting that if the cite is to https://gab.ai/characters -- it's probably okay according to WP:SELFPUB. (I'd say a full list is not unduly self-serving, what's undue would be a writer's opinion that only one person on the list matters.) But I don't see why you picked the "historical figures" that you picked, and would be happier with "users can choose to interact with chatbots including some that impersonate historical figures", no names. Alternatively we could say nothing at all. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Update: I asked gab.ai "does gab ai have a chatbot based on adolf hitler?" and the reply was "No ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk)

I'm leaning towards "nothing at all" personally. It's another fad chatbot, with figures selected for shock value. It's not WP:DUE for inclusion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We should cite the page itself and write something just as you suggested:

"In early 2024, Gab launched a beta version of a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate historical figures. Gab AI can also function as a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art."

Accurate. Concise. Neutral.

Thoughts? Apc3161 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay be me, but if GorillaWarfare and HandThatFeeds object then we don't have consensus, and in that case I think the fallback should be to remove entirely since the GorillaWarfare version doesn't have consensus either, assuming you object to it as much as I do. Let's see first whether they both object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection to removal. My concern was about having a section on a topic that was entirely sourced to Gab itself — a concern that is reintroduced by Apc's proposal. If this is noteworthy enough to mention, we should see what RS have to say and follow their lead. Otherwise, it should be omitted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if our only source is the Gab page, then all that says is "it exists." That flies in the face of WP:DUE, much less WP:RS, so it just needs to come out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed because AI, per them, is one of if not their main focus now. It should probably have its own section (especially if the Dissenter has its own section, which hasn't existed for years), but should at least be added into the 2024 section. So let's try do build a consensus then. How about this?

"In early 2024, Gab launched a chatbot service called Gab AI. In addition to the default chatbot, users can choose to interact with chatbots which impersonate numerous historical figures, including controversial figures such as Vladimir Putin.. Gab AI can also made use of a text-to-image model to produce artificial intelligence art."

This is accurate, concise, cites reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines, and neutral. I would like to hear suggestions in order to build a consensus. Apc3161 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Gab’s Racist AI Chatbots Have Been Instructed to Deny the Holocaust

Yeah. I think your brief paragraph, plus the above cite, is about all we need on the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't need its own section, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added?

Gab is not accessible from Israel, should this be added? Reciprocist (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly relevant. And we'd need reliable sources that cover it, in any case. I doubt it would pass WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the above, seems (assuming is can be sourced) pretty trvial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)