This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naomi Wu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the close connection and notability templates, Naomi Wu is only one of the 1,434 tweeps whom I follow, and neither Forbes nor Asia Times are chopped liver. kencf0618 ( talk) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Via a link from Hackaday [1], I came across this thread on Wu's Twitter: [2]. trying to organize Makers to help create new parts for a few old iron lungs still saving the lives of former polio victims. It isn't a news story/RS yet, but just want to flag as a potential future part of the article if it matures. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's BLP policy requires evidence, based on secondary sources that are considered Reliable Sources, before putting negative information into the biography of a living person. One characteristic of respectable journalistic sources is that they make an effort to verify the claims of gossip. Another is that they let the person criticized reply to what critics say. Gossip networks, even when amplified by social media, don't meet that standard.
If the New York Times, for example, reports that Naomi Wu is 10 different people, or that all her technology ideas came from her boyfriend, then a link to that NYT article would belong in this bio, assuming also we include what Naomi Wu says in response. Until somebody reliable verifies claims heard in gossip, I hope we can follow wikipedia policy on BLP. HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on
WP:RS
|
---|
This just in: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is intended for discussing the ARTICLE, not for attacking the SUBJECT of the article. My opinion of the doxxing claim doesn't matter, nor does yours. If WP:RS examine and report it, the article will report what RS say.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The allegations have been discussed in detail in this RS from last November. Does anyone have any objections to summarizing them from that source? 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Re [7], is there really any legitimate dispute that [8] is clearly dated September 14, 2015? 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia in general does not recommend "Controversy" sections in BLPs, and particularly when the matter is WP:RECENT and reporting by RS has not occurred. Therefore, I am removing the new section an IP just added and posting it here, so that wkipedia people can discuss how to proceed.
Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband. [1] [2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects." [3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address ( doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. Patreon Support released a statement on Twitter which stated, "We had several questions about why we removed https://www.patreon.com/sexycyborg . We removed this creator because they shared an individual’s home address in a public video as part of a threat against that individual. We have a zero tolerance policy for doxing." [4]
I will also mention WP:WEIGHT, this new addition as proposed would be 1/3 of the entire bio. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on
WP:RS
|
---|
The blog post has since been deleted. Coverage of this theory were on the Internet way before the Vice article. 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ceo-apologises-for-saying-sexy-cyborg-female-tech-maker-is-fraud-and-front-for-male-developer-a3696861.html Another article that includes the "rumors" 210.140.221.110 ( talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
People go to Wikipedia for research, and it serves as a form of credibility. The fourth sentence in Dale Daugherty from Make's Wikipedia page comments on the issue between him and Naomi Wu. Dale began to have doubts about Wu's authenticity, and send a private message to have someone read the information critical of Wu on reddit. https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/928294396897902593. The subreddit that was critical of Wu was banned by reddit admins, but the content still exists on various archives. There are numerous articles covering the alleged "bro witch hunt" of Wu, but Wu has never addressed the more damning evidence of her critics. The article by Vice mentions the controversy as a "reddit conspiracy theory," and talks about Wu's almost militant use of her followers. After receiving a message from the author asking if Wu would like to clear up the rumors about her, Wu took to twitter to harass and sic her followers on the authors of the article before it was even published. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ8xvUvU0AENDRR.jpg. After the article was published, and it is mostly a fluff piece, Wu reacted by again going to twitter to complain to her followers and then by releasing a video which contained the home address of one of the reporters at Vice. Her "farewell" video on Youtube does not mention her actions, nor did she apologize. The facts are that there are claims that she is inauthentic. It was one of the reasons Dale doubted her. The Vice reporters, doing their job, asked if they could talk to her about the claims, and she reacted by doxxing one of them. Vice released a follow up article explaining their side of things, and Patreon released a statement on why Naomi was removed from their platform. She is using Wikipedia as a tool to legitimize herself and her business. If Dale will forever have his page and reputation tarnished for doubting Wu's legitimacy, then I don't understand why a mentioning of the controversy and Wu's subsequent behavior cannot be published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.75.181.188 ( talk • contribs)
|
I'm removing the unsourced statement, "Wu first came to public prominence on Reddit." Because, these are her first comments on Reddit, in which she refers to several already-extant projects. Mass media news articles, including some cited already in the article, were written prior to those comments and refer to those earlier projects. At least ten of her 25 Thingiverse uploads are dated prior, as are about a third of her Imgur albums, many of which have hundreds of comments also dated prior. 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This Buzzfeed article has been proposed as a way to COATRACK into the article reddit's theory that Wu is an ignorant mascot for some techy man.
The Buzzfeed article is in some ways problematic. Reliable sources should do some vetting of claims they publish, but this article is mostly screencaps from Twitter and elsewhere, unvetted, including the conspiracy theory which it sources to an anonymous poster who later deleted it. We don't have a date for that claim, but Wu has been highly visible since 2015, and it is now 2018. So presumably her abilities and creations have made some progress in 3 years of working on tech, something conspiracy theorists do not address.
Buzzfeed clearly states that Dougherty's claims were based on anonymous theories on reddit. It notes that Dougherty asked for advice from somebody who had spent time with Wu (Andrew "bunnie" Huang.) Dougherty later claimed that if he had read the response from Huang, he would never have made his claim that Wu was not a real maker.
Similarly, the Vice reporter who spent 3 days with Wu also did not agree with the conspiracy theories from long-ago reddit "detectives," describing them as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career" [9]. So maybe using that quote from Vice would be an acceptable way to include the conspiracy theory that some people desperately want to add to this article. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Dougherty explained to followers that his statement was based on Google searches for "Naomi Wu liar and fake," which turned up Reddit pages he called "mostly conjecture." Dougherty also reached out to contacts in Shenzhen, including American programmer Andrew “bunnie” Huang. Dougherty later said that if he had read the response from Huang, he would not have published his claim about Wu. [1] [2] The anonymously posted material on which Dougherty based his original claim was described in a Vice article, by a reporter who spent 3 days interviewing Wu, meeting her friends, and seeing her work as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." [3]
References
Dougherty told BuzzFeed News that he wrote the tweet because he was upset at Wu for attacking him and calling him a Trump supporter, which he said was a false claim. "I shouldn't have questioned her identity," he said. "I was questioning her attacking us, and it came out wrong."
Dale reached out to me on November 2nd with an email asking what I thought about an anonymous post that accused Naomi of being a fake. I vouched for Naomi as a real person and as a budding Maker; I wrote back to Dale that "I take the approach of interacting with her like any other enthusiastic, curious Maker and the resulting interactions have been positive. She's a fast learner."
Should the paragraph discussing questions of Wu's authenticity begin with the sentence, "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer."? 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 14:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The majority of articles about Wu contain references to rumors about her authenticity. I am open to input on the best way to word this so as to not damage or bookshelf the rumors if they are indeed untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.249.100.210 ( talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Presumably professional journalist Sarah Jeong is a reliable source for Wu's deleted tweets she posted asking "dudes in NYC" to photograph the Vice editor she was in a dispute with in return for dinner, and asking "infosec peeps" to help doxing him further. Is there a similar reliable source for her tweet about hoping that Vice staff would feel the need to move home addresses repeatedly?
The sooner those facts get added to the article, the sooner Wu will stop feeling the need to try to cover them up, and the better off she will be. The coverup is worse than the crime in this case. StressedDiplo ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This site, founded by Alibaba VP Brian Wong [10], published an interview with Naomi Wu about recent events: https://radiichina.com/shenzhen-maker-naomi-wu-on-twitter-wars-chinese-tech-and-her-growing-profile/ HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEAD, the purpose of a lead section is to introduce and summarize the body. I notice that the last sentence of the present lead (which, incidentally, is a ridiculous run-on) contains several statements that are referenced but do not appear in the body of the article. I invite proposals for emending this. -- JBL ( talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
As per WP:RECENT this topic does not rate its current prominence in article lead. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The "Vice article" section ends with "This effectively put an end to Wu's independent maker career, and she returned to freelance coding." This is no longer accurate, her Youtube channel is active and being updated and she has detailed further developments in a second article on Medium. Bineary ( talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Wu has made it crystal clear that details of her personal life should be kept private out of fear of retaliation by the Chinese government. In particular she has stated
and
A recent edit to this page attempted to insert details of Wu's sexual orientation. I reverted the edit based upon WP:BLP concern and the response was edit warring.
THIS IS WRONG. Unless we have express permission from Wu to include details of her personal life on her wikipedia page our BLP policy demands that we leave it out. Westerners don't understand the dangers we are creating for Chinese nationals when we do shit like this. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Wu sometimes comments on political issues in her Twitter feed. Like many other Chinese people I know (including many who live in the US and don't need to tailor opinions out of fear of the PRC) she sometimes gets annoyed by what she sees as complacent western criticism of China -- especially when that criticism seems to assume enormous superiority of western ways of doing things. Until and unless the political views of Naomi Wu become notable enough that published RS start to comment on them, why should our article do so? And what could we say about her political views, when there exists no consensus in RS about what they are? HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"Complacent western criticism of China" does not equate to Wu's rampant pushing of disinformation, propaganda and similar messages through her social media channels. It has become so pervasive, it is now one of the major focuses of her openly expressed online identity. Furthermore, given Wu is one of the PRC's most influential social media figures (as per this Wikipedia entry) her tweets pushing a pro-CCP political agenda have the potential to be highly impactful and influential given her extensive reach. Persistently deleting the extensive evidence demonstrating so (of which HouseOfChange is guilty of) shows favoritism towards Wu. Using the example of "like many other Chinese people I know" is anecdotal evidence and not a suitable example. For the article to be balanced, one must acknowledge Wu is using her social media platform to push messages which are clearly politically motivated and aimed at spreading misinformation. To suggest otherwise is either complicit or naive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was written by Wu. How is this an accepted/unbiased source?
Her article involves claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). This is a violation of Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.89.136 ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Wu uses @sexycyborg as her Twitter handle, but in news stories about her I see her nickname written as "Sexy Cyborg." So I understand why somebody keeps wanting to change "Sexy Cyborg" to "sexycyborg" but I disagree with the change. We might include both as alternate nicknames, perhaps? HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
A whole new section was created. This section is again using Naomi Wu's Medium article as a reference. it should be removed
/info/en/?search=Naomi_Wu#After_Vice_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E9C0:14A0:7072:9C0F:8642:EAC8 ( talk • contribs)
Naomi Wu 机械妖姬 @RealSexyCyborg English: Ok for those of you that haven't figured it out I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it- so there's not going to be much posting on social media anymore and only on very specific subjects. I can leave but Kaidi can't so we're just going to follow the new rules and that's that. Nothing personal if I don't like and reply like I used to. I'll be focusing on the store and the occasional video. Thanks for understanding, it was fun while it lasted.
7 Jul 2023
Arlo James Barnes 07:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent article about Naomi Wu getting blacklisted by Chinese censors:
https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/naomi-wu-and-the-silence-that-speaks-volumes
Hopefully reliable sources will pick up on this story soon. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Supposedly, Wu enforced GPL compliance from Umidigi, a 3D printer manufacturer. The blog section of the SF conservancy reported on it, as did a Linux-related podcast. The only other sources for this activism are her Twitter and YouTube channels. I'm not quite comfortable adding this activism to the page with so few sources, but as part of the subject's activism, I believe it is suitable for inclusion.
-- Holzklöppel ( talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Naomi Wu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the close connection and notability templates, Naomi Wu is only one of the 1,434 tweeps whom I follow, and neither Forbes nor Asia Times are chopped liver. kencf0618 ( talk) 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Via a link from Hackaday [1], I came across this thread on Wu's Twitter: [2]. trying to organize Makers to help create new parts for a few old iron lungs still saving the lives of former polio victims. It isn't a news story/RS yet, but just want to flag as a potential future part of the article if it matures. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's BLP policy requires evidence, based on secondary sources that are considered Reliable Sources, before putting negative information into the biography of a living person. One characteristic of respectable journalistic sources is that they make an effort to verify the claims of gossip. Another is that they let the person criticized reply to what critics say. Gossip networks, even when amplified by social media, don't meet that standard.
If the New York Times, for example, reports that Naomi Wu is 10 different people, or that all her technology ideas came from her boyfriend, then a link to that NYT article would belong in this bio, assuming also we include what Naomi Wu says in response. Until somebody reliable verifies claims heard in gossip, I hope we can follow wikipedia policy on BLP. HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on
WP:RS
|
---|
This just in: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is intended for discussing the ARTICLE, not for attacking the SUBJECT of the article. My opinion of the doxxing claim doesn't matter, nor does yours. If WP:RS examine and report it, the article will report what RS say.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 03:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|
The allegations have been discussed in detail in this RS from last November. Does anyone have any objections to summarizing them from that source? 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Re [7], is there really any legitimate dispute that [8] is clearly dated September 14, 2015? 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia in general does not recommend "Controversy" sections in BLPs, and particularly when the matter is WP:RECENT and reporting by RS has not occurred. Therefore, I am removing the new section an IP just added and posting it here, so that wkipedia people can discuss how to proceed.
Prior to the release of the 2018 Vice article, Wu had a very public disagreement with the writers about an email exchange where the reporters asked Wu if she would discuss claims of Wu receiving training and monetary assistance for her videos from a possible electrical engineer/experienced boyfriend or husband. [1] [2]In a statement released after Wu's response to the article, Vice magazine clarified that, "The aim of the story was never to speculate on Naomi's private life, and the end result reflects that. But as with any story, we need to address what has been previously reported or publicly discussed by a subject. And as we detailed, the story we reported would be incomplete if we were to avoid these subjects." [3] After the article was published, Wu was removed from Patreon for displaying the home address ( doxxing) of one of the reporters in one of her videos in an apparent act of retaliation for the article. Patreon Support released a statement on Twitter which stated, "We had several questions about why we removed https://www.patreon.com/sexycyborg . We removed this creator because they shared an individual’s home address in a public video as part of a threat against that individual. We have a zero tolerance policy for doxing." [4]
I will also mention WP:WEIGHT, this new addition as proposed would be 1/3 of the entire bio. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Discussion of conspiracy theories not based on
WP:RS
|
---|
The blog post has since been deleted. Coverage of this theory were on the Internet way before the Vice article. 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 16:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ceo-apologises-for-saying-sexy-cyborg-female-tech-maker-is-fraud-and-front-for-male-developer-a3696861.html Another article that includes the "rumors" 210.140.221.110 ( talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
People go to Wikipedia for research, and it serves as a form of credibility. The fourth sentence in Dale Daugherty from Make's Wikipedia page comments on the issue between him and Naomi Wu. Dale began to have doubts about Wu's authenticity, and send a private message to have someone read the information critical of Wu on reddit. https://twitter.com/KirinDave/status/928294396897902593. The subreddit that was critical of Wu was banned by reddit admins, but the content still exists on various archives. There are numerous articles covering the alleged "bro witch hunt" of Wu, but Wu has never addressed the more damning evidence of her critics. The article by Vice mentions the controversy as a "reddit conspiracy theory," and talks about Wu's almost militant use of her followers. After receiving a message from the author asking if Wu would like to clear up the rumors about her, Wu took to twitter to harass and sic her followers on the authors of the article before it was even published. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ8xvUvU0AENDRR.jpg. After the article was published, and it is mostly a fluff piece, Wu reacted by again going to twitter to complain to her followers and then by releasing a video which contained the home address of one of the reporters at Vice. Her "farewell" video on Youtube does not mention her actions, nor did she apologize. The facts are that there are claims that she is inauthentic. It was one of the reasons Dale doubted her. The Vice reporters, doing their job, asked if they could talk to her about the claims, and she reacted by doxxing one of them. Vice released a follow up article explaining their side of things, and Patreon released a statement on why Naomi was removed from their platform. She is using Wikipedia as a tool to legitimize herself and her business. If Dale will forever have his page and reputation tarnished for doubting Wu's legitimacy, then I don't understand why a mentioning of the controversy and Wu's subsequent behavior cannot be published here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.75.181.188 ( talk • contribs)
|
I'm removing the unsourced statement, "Wu first came to public prominence on Reddit." Because, these are her first comments on Reddit, in which she refers to several already-extant projects. Mass media news articles, including some cited already in the article, were written prior to those comments and refer to those earlier projects. At least ten of her 25 Thingiverse uploads are dated prior, as are about a third of her Imgur albums, many of which have hundreds of comments also dated prior. 75.171.239.84 ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
This Buzzfeed article has been proposed as a way to COATRACK into the article reddit's theory that Wu is an ignorant mascot for some techy man.
The Buzzfeed article is in some ways problematic. Reliable sources should do some vetting of claims they publish, but this article is mostly screencaps from Twitter and elsewhere, unvetted, including the conspiracy theory which it sources to an anonymous poster who later deleted it. We don't have a date for that claim, but Wu has been highly visible since 2015, and it is now 2018. So presumably her abilities and creations have made some progress in 3 years of working on tech, something conspiracy theorists do not address.
Buzzfeed clearly states that Dougherty's claims were based on anonymous theories on reddit. It notes that Dougherty asked for advice from somebody who had spent time with Wu (Andrew "bunnie" Huang.) Dougherty later claimed that if he had read the response from Huang, he would never have made his claim that Wu was not a real maker.
Similarly, the Vice reporter who spent 3 days with Wu also did not agree with the conspiracy theories from long-ago reddit "detectives," describing them as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career" [9]. So maybe using that quote from Vice would be an acceptable way to include the conspiracy theory that some people desperately want to add to this article. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Dougherty explained to followers that his statement was based on Google searches for "Naomi Wu liar and fake," which turned up Reddit pages he called "mostly conjecture." Dougherty also reached out to contacts in Shenzhen, including American programmer Andrew “bunnie” Huang. Dougherty later said that if he had read the response from Huang, he would not have published his claim about Wu. [1] [2] The anonymously posted material on which Dougherty based his original claim was described in a Vice article, by a reporter who spent 3 days interviewing Wu, meeting her friends, and seeing her work as "vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career." [3]
References
Dougherty told BuzzFeed News that he wrote the tweet because he was upset at Wu for attacking him and calling him a Trump supporter, which he said was a false claim. "I shouldn't have questioned her identity," he said. "I was questioning her attacking us, and it came out wrong."
Dale reached out to me on November 2nd with an email asking what I thought about an anonymous post that accused Naomi of being a fake. I vouched for Naomi as a real person and as a budding Maker; I wrote back to Dale that "I take the approach of interacting with her like any other enthusiastic, curious Maker and the resulting interactions have been positive. She's a fast learner."
Should the paragraph discussing questions of Wu's authenticity begin with the sentence, "Wu has been accused of being an online persona created by her boyfriend, an electrical engineer."? 03:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 14:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 211.22.161.69 ( talk) 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The majority of articles about Wu contain references to rumors about her authenticity. I am open to input on the best way to word this so as to not damage or bookshelf the rumors if they are indeed untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.249.100.210 ( talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Presumably professional journalist Sarah Jeong is a reliable source for Wu's deleted tweets she posted asking "dudes in NYC" to photograph the Vice editor she was in a dispute with in return for dinner, and asking "infosec peeps" to help doxing him further. Is there a similar reliable source for her tweet about hoping that Vice staff would feel the need to move home addresses repeatedly?
The sooner those facts get added to the article, the sooner Wu will stop feeling the need to try to cover them up, and the better off she will be. The coverup is worse than the crime in this case. StressedDiplo ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This site, founded by Alibaba VP Brian Wong [10], published an interview with Naomi Wu about recent events: https://radiichina.com/shenzhen-maker-naomi-wu-on-twitter-wars-chinese-tech-and-her-growing-profile/ HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEAD, the purpose of a lead section is to introduce and summarize the body. I notice that the last sentence of the present lead (which, incidentally, is a ridiculous run-on) contains several statements that are referenced but do not appear in the body of the article. I invite proposals for emending this. -- JBL ( talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
As per WP:RECENT this topic does not rate its current prominence in article lead. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The "Vice article" section ends with "This effectively put an end to Wu's independent maker career, and she returned to freelance coding." This is no longer accurate, her Youtube channel is active and being updated and she has detailed further developments in a second article on Medium. Bineary ( talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Wu has made it crystal clear that details of her personal life should be kept private out of fear of retaliation by the Chinese government. In particular she has stated
and
A recent edit to this page attempted to insert details of Wu's sexual orientation. I reverted the edit based upon WP:BLP concern and the response was edit warring.
THIS IS WRONG. Unless we have express permission from Wu to include details of her personal life on her wikipedia page our BLP policy demands that we leave it out. Westerners don't understand the dangers we are creating for Chinese nationals when we do shit like this. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Wu sometimes comments on political issues in her Twitter feed. Like many other Chinese people I know (including many who live in the US and don't need to tailor opinions out of fear of the PRC) she sometimes gets annoyed by what she sees as complacent western criticism of China -- especially when that criticism seems to assume enormous superiority of western ways of doing things. Until and unless the political views of Naomi Wu become notable enough that published RS start to comment on them, why should our article do so? And what could we say about her political views, when there exists no consensus in RS about what they are? HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"Complacent western criticism of China" does not equate to Wu's rampant pushing of disinformation, propaganda and similar messages through her social media channels. It has become so pervasive, it is now one of the major focuses of her openly expressed online identity. Furthermore, given Wu is one of the PRC's most influential social media figures (as per this Wikipedia entry) her tweets pushing a pro-CCP political agenda have the potential to be highly impactful and influential given her extensive reach. Persistently deleting the extensive evidence demonstrating so (of which HouseOfChange is guilty of) shows favoritism towards Wu. Using the example of "like many other Chinese people I know" is anecdotal evidence and not a suitable example. For the article to be balanced, one must acknowledge Wu is using her social media platform to push messages which are clearly politically motivated and aimed at spreading misinformation. To suggest otherwise is either complicit or naive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was written by Wu. How is this an accepted/unbiased source?
Her article involves claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). This is a violation of Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.89.136 ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Wu uses @sexycyborg as her Twitter handle, but in news stories about her I see her nickname written as "Sexy Cyborg." So I understand why somebody keeps wanting to change "Sexy Cyborg" to "sexycyborg" but I disagree with the change. We might include both as alternate nicknames, perhaps? HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
A whole new section was created. This section is again using Naomi Wu's Medium article as a reference. it should be removed
/info/en/?search=Naomi_Wu#After_Vice_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E9C0:14A0:7072:9C0F:8642:EAC8 ( talk • contribs)
Naomi Wu 机械妖姬 @RealSexyCyborg English: Ok for those of you that haven't figured it out I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it- so there's not going to be much posting on social media anymore and only on very specific subjects. I can leave but Kaidi can't so we're just going to follow the new rules and that's that. Nothing personal if I don't like and reply like I used to. I'll be focusing on the store and the occasional video. Thanks for understanding, it was fun while it lasted.
7 Jul 2023
Arlo James Barnes 07:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent article about Naomi Wu getting blacklisted by Chinese censors:
https://www.hackingbutlegal.com/p/naomi-wu-and-the-silence-that-speaks-volumes
Hopefully reliable sources will pick up on this story soon. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Supposedly, Wu enforced GPL compliance from Umidigi, a 3D printer manufacturer. The blog section of the SF conservancy reported on it, as did a Linux-related podcast. The only other sources for this activism are her Twitter and YouTube channels. I'm not quite comfortable adding this activism to the page with so few sources, but as part of the subject's activism, I believe it is suitable for inclusion.
-- Holzklöppel ( talk) 04:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)