Talk:Kathy Sierra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents 1 Why? 2 Allegations of harassment & NPOV 3 Using term 'allegations' with harassment (subpage) 4 Broken cite to BBC article

[edit] Why?

As someone approaching this knowing nothing about it, it seems to me that there should be some mention as to WHY she was singled out for this abuse. The linked articles do not seem to cover the topic either. I imagine that I will find it with some googling, but if this topical entry is to be useful in the future it should explain a bit. -- milovoo 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, she wasn't singled out for anything. She got mocked as part of series of mocking marketers and net-celebrities (which ended up going too far, but not to what the yellow journalism would have). Much of the media coverage is simply mythology, that has little to do with reality. But it's not worth my time to have a big edit war over it. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is longer version of the story, look the part "The Ridiculous MeanKids.org and Bob's Yer Uncle Websites" and here is another --Zache 13:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of harassment & NPOV

Seth has the point on his edit. Article is not neutral when there is just Kathy's point of view. There is other POVs also like those who were named on Kathys orginal blogentry, but also writed what happened.

And what was able to see at the time (from googles cache, because blogs were allready deleted) Meankids/Unclebobism-blogs, the quotes in Kathys blog were out of context and my opinnion was that quoted texts weren't deaththreats, just unpolite/distasteful. Anyhow, deaththreats were the reason why it got the public on BBC etc etc. Dirty pictures and naughty words would not be the news, even when they are from assholes.

This is the reason why i think that there should be some distinction between death threats from anonymous person to her own blog and with Meankids/Unclebobism people which were commenting on public. Also there isn't any known connection between those two, except Kathys blogentry --Zache 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what you're saying. The BBC reported it, so they're our source. The point of the story was that women online seem to attract particularly critical and abusive comments, as well as stalking and harassment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact people are slanders and tasteless in public don't make them more palatable, or less ludicrous, than people who do make death threats anonymously. At least for me. They belong in jail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.218.91 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

See my _Guardian_ column for an examination of the case - http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2059836,00.html . I don't want to put this in myself due to WP:COI -- Seth Finkelstein 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Seth. It would be good to add something from it, but I'm finding it hard to sum up what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In brief: The accused deserve a defense. An accusation is not necessarily true. And the BBC article is not very good because it was working off very incomplete information, much more has surfaced since then. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using term 'allegations' with harassment (subpage)

I archived discussion mainly between Edward G. Nilges and Seth Finkelstein to own subpage because it is pretty long. --Zache 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Archive: /Using term 'allegations' with harassment

[edit] Broken cite to BBC article

I found the section on the online harasment controversy to be rather confusingly worded, and so I made some stylistic revisions. I also added a bit more information, such as why the Guardian article and the joint statement with Locke were relevant.

In the process I seem to have broken the citation of the BBC article somehow. I'm not an experienced enough Wikipede to know how to fix this at first glance - can someone with such experience give it a shot? Arkaaito (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)