This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article probably shouldn't cite the Initiative's website and press releases. Here are a few more cites worth potentially using:
Steven Walling • talk 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
By and large, we discourage mission statements, as they are generally high-minded, idealistic, and not necessarily reflective of the realities of the subject. Should this one be dumped? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What about their theory of "rape triggers", which says anything even remotely related to sex (and not only) should be banned because it can potentially upset a rape victim? They have been harassing people about it, getting scheduled side talks removed from conferences, and so on. If that's the right thing to do, let's ban talking about spiders because it can upset those who suffer of arachnophobia -- and considering anything sexual to be promotion of rape is just beyond words.
Censorship, especially of the kooky sort, is a major attack against free speech. References to the Ada Initiative's behaviour at Security BSides in dec 2012 have been removed citing Wikipedia:UNDUE -- why? Something as despicable is certainly noteworthy when it's done by an organization claiming to promote cultural freedoms. -- KiloByte ( talk) 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed this. Neither cited source was a trustworthy third party which connected the Violet Blue incident and the events at another conference. Taking two primary sources and constructing a narrative is classic synthesis original research, which should be avoided. If someone wants to find other text to add so we can link to Violet's personal post disputing the events (perhaps just say she did so?) I think that would be fair. Steven Walling • talk 04:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim that has been floated that all mention of the Violet Blue/Ada Initiative incident at BSides should be dropped because it is not "properly sourced". Here are some additional sources, and I believe that all of the rise above being mere self-published sources and meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY:
It is my intention to incorporate these into the "controversy" section of the article, expanding it as necessary, and making it more strongly sourced. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I just replaced some citations to an article by Bruce Byfield. This was initiated by a request from him; but I want to state clearly that his request alone isn't a good reason to take action. He supplied some additional citations, of which I used two that seemed to me to be of comparable quality: one from Marie Claire and one from ITWire. (Byfield's piece was in Datamation.) I wasn't able to find another high quality source that talks about the Ada Initiative's surveys, so I left that one intact. (Also, I made similar changes to the Valerie Aurora bio a couple months back.) - Pete ( talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Why, when we have several reliable third-party sources on the Bsides incident, is a wiki page for a conference written by one of the parties involved cited twice instead of the Betabeat, Daily Dot, or Vice articles? I can't fix it because I'm one of the co-founders of the organization. Catavar ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Somehow managed to poke in via TOR. 88.159.71.52 ( talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: oh i wasnt... i suck.. privoxy is not great. Probably should use the browser bundle. At least i add some entropy. 88.159.71.52 ( talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ada Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article probably shouldn't cite the Initiative's website and press releases. Here are a few more cites worth potentially using:
Steven Walling • talk 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
By and large, we discourage mission statements, as they are generally high-minded, idealistic, and not necessarily reflective of the realities of the subject. Should this one be dumped? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What about their theory of "rape triggers", which says anything even remotely related to sex (and not only) should be banned because it can potentially upset a rape victim? They have been harassing people about it, getting scheduled side talks removed from conferences, and so on. If that's the right thing to do, let's ban talking about spiders because it can upset those who suffer of arachnophobia -- and considering anything sexual to be promotion of rape is just beyond words.
Censorship, especially of the kooky sort, is a major attack against free speech. References to the Ada Initiative's behaviour at Security BSides in dec 2012 have been removed citing Wikipedia:UNDUE -- why? Something as despicable is certainly noteworthy when it's done by an organization claiming to promote cultural freedoms. -- KiloByte ( talk) 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed this. Neither cited source was a trustworthy third party which connected the Violet Blue incident and the events at another conference. Taking two primary sources and constructing a narrative is classic synthesis original research, which should be avoided. If someone wants to find other text to add so we can link to Violet's personal post disputing the events (perhaps just say she did so?) I think that would be fair. Steven Walling • talk 04:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim that has been floated that all mention of the Violet Blue/Ada Initiative incident at BSides should be dropped because it is not "properly sourced". Here are some additional sources, and I believe that all of the rise above being mere self-published sources and meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY:
It is my intention to incorporate these into the "controversy" section of the article, expanding it as necessary, and making it more strongly sourced. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I just replaced some citations to an article by Bruce Byfield. This was initiated by a request from him; but I want to state clearly that his request alone isn't a good reason to take action. He supplied some additional citations, of which I used two that seemed to me to be of comparable quality: one from Marie Claire and one from ITWire. (Byfield's piece was in Datamation.) I wasn't able to find another high quality source that talks about the Ada Initiative's surveys, so I left that one intact. (Also, I made similar changes to the Valerie Aurora bio a couple months back.) - Pete ( talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Why, when we have several reliable third-party sources on the Bsides incident, is a wiki page for a conference written by one of the parties involved cited twice instead of the Betabeat, Daily Dot, or Vice articles? I can't fix it because I'm one of the co-founders of the organization. Catavar ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Somehow managed to poke in via TOR. 88.159.71.52 ( talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: oh i wasnt... i suck.. privoxy is not great. Probably should use the browser bundle. At least i add some entropy. 88.159.71.52 ( talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ada Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)