This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
In reference to
this Slate article, I
replaced the sentence Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism
with the sentence Urquhart further argued that Libs of TikTok should have been banned permanently, as it "has repeatedly been a driver of real-world violence".
- on the grounds that this is an article about Libs of TikTok, not about
Bari Weiss and her reporting skills.
Peleio Aquiles then reverted it - explaining that
"That excerpt barely counts as a commentary on Bari Weiss". Which is an odd thing to say. Any thoughts on this?
Korny O'Near (
talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.Given that Libs of TikTok has attracted substantial allegations of engaging in stochastic terrorism, and that Weiss' selective coverage was conflating that with conservative opinion, on balance it does seem to me like an important thing to include. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
On December 9, journalist Bari Weiss, as part of an analysis of internal Twitter communications in the pre-Musk era dubbed the " Twitter Files", revealed that Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, in addition to the known suspensions. Musk later stated that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views.Then the Al Jazeera sentence. And then sentence 3 which currently reads
Conversely, Evan Urquhart of Slate argued that Weiss' own publishing revealed that Libs of TikTok was receiving preferential treatment, with moderators directed not to take any action against the account and to instead elevate issues to higher management. Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.
if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorismthat's a mischaracterisation of what Urquhart said. Urquhart was commenting on the shortfalls of Weiss' coverage, and the "dangerous conflation of conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism". It is required to balance out the otherwise uncritical summary of Weiss' commentary in the Twitter Files about Libs of TikTok, as it is a fair criticism of what Weiss had wrote. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This preferential treatment of Libs of TikTok, while not acknowledged by Weiss, is concerning. It implies that instead of placing the repeatedly banned account on a short leash, in light of its connection to real-world violent acts, ordinary moderators were unable to ensure that Libs of TikTok followed Twitter’s policies at all.(emphasis fro original text) That preferential treatment is covered in the first half of the sentence.
Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, and (attributed to Musk) that
the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views.That is an conflation by both that Libs of TikTok is simply providing right-wing view points. Urquhart's commentary is that this conflation is a dangerous one, and I would agree with that, because it minimises the harm that Libs of TikTok and its followers preform. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
CJ-Moki made this change in order to be "Framing the supporters' claims in accordance with the PinkNews source"; the new text reads:
While fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing " sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, "the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared."
That's based on this sentence from PinkNews:
While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.
Seems pretty straightforward - PinkNews is a reliable source, and that's how they state it, so it's good enough for us, right? No - this sentence is biased trash, and we'd do best to ignore it. Here's what's wrong with it:
What about PinkNews being a reliable source? Well, according to
WP:RSP, There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used.
(Emphasis in original.) Probably caution is necessary because PinkNews sometimes produces wildly irresponsible statements like the above.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful.All "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? No. The majority being so, yes. There is a reason why those people follow and interact with the account, because of the anti-LGBTQ+ content that it continually puts out.
Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people.All? No. A substantial number? Yes. Why do you think Libs of TikTok has a reputation for encouraging and engaging in stochastic terrorism?
it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters sayYes, what Libs of TikTok's supporters say and think with regards to "sex and gender ideology" is pretty laughably wrong.
Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim"I'm somewhat of the opinion that this is one of the few cases where we could say "claim". There is no evidence that there is any sort of "LGBT+ ideology" or any of the other dangerous claims that Libs of TikTok publishes daily. Given that this is a significantly large number group that WP:BLPGROUP would apply such that BLP would not, I could also be convinced to change that to "believe".
This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me.
In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in thereChallenging me to engage in OR, when you've already accused me of engaging in OR is certainly a bold strategy Cotton. However it doesn't matter what my own original research turns up, it only matters what the research of reliable sources have turned up, and there is a consensus amongst those sources that LoTT publishes misleading content, dangerous claims, and engages in stochastic terrorism. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
LOTT does not merely repost random people. Only people who take a demonstrably far left position on issues like Gender Theory and various other issues. Is merely disagreeing with these positions enough to be called Far-Right but not the other way around? Borges123xyz ( talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The article right now states, Raichik claimed that one of the drag queens booked for the brunch was "inspired by Satanism", although the individual she mentioned in her post was not invited to perform at the brunch.
Sounds like a pretty crazy claim! But this is either an incorrect or at least very misleading paraphrasis of the
original source, which states, Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism”, although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.
. Which is still somewhat awkwardly worded; looking at the [link removed per
WP:PROBLEMLINKS] makes it clear what's going on: the drag queen's own bio states that he/they are "inspired by Satanism"; the controversy is just whether this particular drag queen was at that 2022 drag brunch. I tried to make this part, and some of the other wording around this event, clearer, but
Zaathras
reverted it. So here we are.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism,” although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.Your edit strikes me as WP:OR. Unless you have a reliable secondary source supporting your version, I would suggest the former wording is preferable. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I just removed the "inspired by Satanism" part of the paragraph, based on the apparent consensus here - it also makes the text a little more straightforward, which is hopefully good. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back: @ Korny O'Near: @ Dronebogus: what is this? is there a reason for this to be happening? jp× g 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The "Reception/Response to account content" section contains several significant citations to support the statement that LoTT spreads disinformation, so Korny O'Near's claim that the description is not supported by the article body is simply not true.
CBC News: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community, and advertise themselves as "Bringing you news you won't see anywhere else."
Shopify won't cut ties with controversial Libs of TikTok | CBC News
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
accountsthat probably includes LoTT. I really don't think this adds up to us categorizing LoTT as a disinformation operation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 03:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
"The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children" - backed up by several citations. Sounds like disinformation to me.contains two misconceptions:
It should be clear from verifiable information in the article.
apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sourcesThat is the problem Iamreallygoodatcheckers worked out: the CBC is the only source making this particular claim.
fineprint applies;) Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yahoo! News says LoTT is a "mainly Twitter-based disinformation and harassment account". I assure you I do more than just a basic text search. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that question there. I contend that there's still only one unimpeachably reliable source calling Libs of TikTok a disinformation purveyor, and that's the CBC article. The more I think about this AMA letter, the more I think it can't be used as evidence, since there's a massive conflict of interest there: the AMA et al. are calling for some form of punishment for Libs of TikTok, so they pretty much have to say it's intentional disinformation: if it were just a person saying incorrect things on the internet, there's presumably nothing the U.S. government could do about it. Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
FFS! I'm outta here. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a Twitter account is not a person...You are still, amusingly and wrongly, hung up on this point. Yes, this Twitter account is a person, it is Chaya Raichik. This is not a business or a role account, it is literally her in her words. So yes, we are following the reliable sources that say this person is engaged in disinformation. Zaathras ( talk) 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Previously, I have made edits regarding Chaya Raichik’s presence at the January 6th Capitol riot that were reverted. One mention was in the lead “ Raichik was present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack. [1] “ and one mention was in the header for the inception paragraph “Inception, original content, and January 6th”.
ref name 20 is [2] [1] by the way.
The diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Libs_of_TikTok&diff=prev&oldid=1131674105
I am wondering if we can have a reference to January 6th either in the lead, the heading “Inception, original content“ or both as I believe it is not immediately clear and is notable. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC) TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
:20
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Re this edit, what is the evidence that Libs of TikTok is a critic of Black Lives Matter? The only mention of Black Lives Matter currently in the article is a tweet Raichik posted (from a different Twitter account) saying that the BLM protests of 2020 were more violent than the January 6, 2021 protest. Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment. Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment
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.
The article states: "In August 2022, Libs of TikTok received substantial media attention after falsely claiming that gender-affirming hysterectomies were being provided to minors at the Boston Children's Hospital and at the Children's National Hospital. This resulted in a harassment campaign against both hospitals, including bomb threats."
The Children's National Hospital has a Gender Development Program that it targets to children - it also receives funding from some very 'interesting' political groups given the nature of their work. The claim that the Hospital is not providing gender-affirming hysterectomies to minors is arguably not correct. They do advertise counselling and dispense drugs to orient gender towards a particular outcome which presumably at its final stages is going to involve surgery - so arguably, that is an outcome that is offered to minors at the outset even though the procedure itself takes place at 18+ (not sure whether that is a clarification that occurred after the article brought attention to the Hospital). This should probably be made more clear in the article as without it, it gives the impression that the original claim is wholly without basis. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the original statement makes a claim without quoting the original source.Looks like our article currently cites 4 sources, all of which back up the statement.
The changing of the word 'provided' to 'offered' for example would change the entire context of the T/F claim of the statement
If 'your' article wants to make a T/F claim on what the original source said - it should quote what the original source said (not a secondary, or a tertiary, ... ).That's not how wikipedia works. We rely on secondary reliable sources, we don't really care about the actual "truthfulness" of the claim, since that is so easily perverted by POV and bias of our editors. In fact, citing any "primary" source is actually a violation of our no original research policy. Instead, the pillars of wikipedia rely on verifiability to secondary sources which interpret primary sources for us, instead of any abstract sense of " truth". It is those sources which determine what is "true" to Wikipedia's eyes. If they are wrong (as you seem to think they are), then we at Wikipedia are also wrong, intentionally. That's how it works. Luckily, those sources have been pretty reliably correct on most matters. And in my estimation, they are correct here as well.I think your comments may be better served on a different website, such as Conservapedia. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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.
The article makes frequent reference to the word transgender when describing child patients to various hospitals.
By the studies undertaken by one of the hospital's own doctors (Childrens National Hospital): A. Cohen, et.al "Shifts in Gender-Related Medical Requests by Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents", Journal of Adolescent Health, 17 Dec 2022.
only 68 of 130 patients (almost 1/2) were admitted to the gender transitioning program (supposedly under the guidelines of the "The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards Of Care For Gender Identity Disorders, Sixth Version".
Of these only 22% were judged as being nonbinary (interestingly the majority (almost 1/2) were judged as being autistic - which arguably should fail their inclusion in the program - and indeed many did later change their transitioning request (~1/3)).
As only 15 of the 130 patients in this study were clinically identified as nonbinary (and arguably not yet transgender) the 'transgender' term is incorrect and I suggest it is replaced with 'patients'. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The intro currently includes the following curious (and rather long) sentence: Fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, but its followers "routinely attack individuals whose content is shared", and several dozen incidents of online or real life threats and harassment against a range of targets have been linked to Libs of TikTok's tweets, especially those where Raichik singles out specific events, locations or people.
The use of the words "claim" and "but" imply that the second part of the sentence will contradict the first part, but there is no contradiction: it could well be that Libs of TikTok simply reposts others' content, and that some of the people who follow the account are then inspired by what they see to harass the people in the videos. I don't think anyone has tried to defend this phrasing yet on its own terms, but some editors have
justified it on the grounds that that's how
this PinkNews article phrases it. Specifically, the PinkNews article states, While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.
(Note that PinkNews uses the verb "say"; it's only this Wikipedia article that changes it to "claim", in apparent violation of
WP:CLAIM.)
I don't know where anyone got the idea that, just because PinkNews phrases it in this inartful way, this Wikipedia article has to as well. There are various other sources that say much the same thing (that supporters of LoTT defend it by saying that it just reposts content) without attempting to contradict it;
The Jerusalem Post, for example. And it's not clear that PinkNews even counts as a reliable source for this:
WP:RSP states, somewhat grudgingly, that There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting
, but this isn't even factual reporting: this particular contextualization is strictly analysis.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 15:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
1RR doesn't mean wait 26 hours then revert. I've protected the page for three days so the current back and forth can be discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
we aren’t doing this crap again
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
It is odd to me to label this account as having any political affiliation at all. LOTT does not talk about tax law, foreign policy, corporate law, etc. It seems to be narrowly focused on mental health/ sexual orientation issues. The little editorializing It does is also mainstream and in line of what every major Democrat figure in the US publicly believed ten or 15 years ago. If this account could be said to be mainstream or even agreed upon by leftwing leaders then it isn't far- right, if anything its centrist position shows how far left politics have moved in the past decade. 2601:152:300:4C2D:5481:3FFF:275B:F4A4 ( talk) 01:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
|
@ Korny O'Near: I find myself confused by this edit summary of yours. Obviously it does add information – that Libs of TikTok employs the aforementioned tactic. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok has used this tactic to avoid additional penalties from Twitter while still making an impact on a large online audience.Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it - I was thinking "this tactic" meant deleting tweets that Twitter objected to, but I guess it means posting controversial tweets, with the full intent of deleting them soon afterwards, before Twitter (the company) can even get a chance to weigh in. Although, if the latter is the case, that's quite an incendiary charge to make - and should probably be attributed to Joan Donovan (who is the source of that assertion). Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. So maybe the sentence should be removed anyway, because it's a big charge resting on a flimsy basis. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok.From the article (emphasis my own):
Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. She noted that influencers such as Libs of TikTok play a sophisticated cat-and-mouse game with the social media companies, “paying close attention to the company’s twists and turns in their terms of service,” to purposefully dance around the rules.
As in April, Raichik deleted the offending tweet herself, before Twitter could do so.¶ Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter.Donovan's explanation only makes sense in context as a description of what Raichik did and why; there's no reasonable alternative reading. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
According to Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Libs of TikTok's practice of deleting content before a platform takes action is a common tactic for digital actors spreading disinformation.
Well, we already talked about it
before, but I guess we have to talk about it again, per
this revert.
WP:NONDEF states, The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided.
In what way does "critic of
Black Lives Matter" serve as a defining characteristic of Libs of TikTok?
Korny O'Near (
talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
A school in DC forced kindergarteners to march around with BLM signs and chant “Black Lives Matter”. The third is an article about some agitated women who yelled "black lives matter" at an unmasked black man; LoTT referred to it as
More mask madness. I'm not seeing any actual criticism here, let alone enough to justify calling it a "defining characteristic". Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
In reference to
this Slate article, I
replaced the sentence Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism
with the sentence Urquhart further argued that Libs of TikTok should have been banned permanently, as it "has repeatedly been a driver of real-world violence".
- on the grounds that this is an article about Libs of TikTok, not about
Bari Weiss and her reporting skills.
Peleio Aquiles then reverted it - explaining that
"That excerpt barely counts as a commentary on Bari Weiss". Which is an odd thing to say. Any thoughts on this?
Korny O'Near (
talk) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.Given that Libs of TikTok has attracted substantial allegations of engaging in stochastic terrorism, and that Weiss' selective coverage was conflating that with conservative opinion, on balance it does seem to me like an important thing to include. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
On December 9, journalist Bari Weiss, as part of an analysis of internal Twitter communications in the pre-Musk era dubbed the " Twitter Files", revealed that Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, in addition to the known suspensions. Musk later stated that the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views.Then the Al Jazeera sentence. And then sentence 3 which currently reads
Conversely, Evan Urquhart of Slate argued that Weiss' own publishing revealed that Libs of TikTok was receiving preferential treatment, with moderators directed not to take any action against the account and to instead elevate issues to higher management. Urquhart further argued that Weiss' portrayal of Libs of TikTok dangerously conflated conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism.
if the goal is to say that Urquhart thinks Libs of TikTok engages in so-called stochastic terrorismthat's a mischaracterisation of what Urquhart said. Urquhart was commenting on the shortfalls of Weiss' coverage, and the "dangerous conflation of conservative opinions with stochastic terrorism and extremism". It is required to balance out the otherwise uncritical summary of Weiss' commentary in the Twitter Files about Libs of TikTok, as it is a fair criticism of what Weiss had wrote. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This preferential treatment of Libs of TikTok, while not acknowledged by Weiss, is concerning. It implies that instead of placing the repeatedly banned account on a short leash, in light of its connection to real-world violent acts, ordinary moderators were unable to ensure that Libs of TikTok followed Twitter’s policies at all.(emphasis fro original text) That preferential treatment is covered in the first half of the sentence.
Twitter had secretly operated to limit Libs of TikTok's reach via shadow banning, and (attributed to Musk) that
the site's content guidelines were historically enforced against accounts expressing right-wing views while being ignored for those that expressed left-wing views.That is an conflation by both that Libs of TikTok is simply providing right-wing view points. Urquhart's commentary is that this conflation is a dangerous one, and I would agree with that, because it minimises the harm that Libs of TikTok and its followers preform. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
CJ-Moki made this change in order to be "Framing the supporters' claims in accordance with the PinkNews source"; the new text reads:
While fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing " sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, "the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared."
That's based on this sentence from PinkNews:
While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.
Seems pretty straightforward - PinkNews is a reliable source, and that's how they state it, so it's good enough for us, right? No - this sentence is biased trash, and we'd do best to ignore it. Here's what's wrong with it:
What about PinkNews being a reliable source? Well, according to
WP:RSP, There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used.
(Emphasis in original.) Probably caution is necessary because PinkNews sometimes produces wildly irresponsible statements like the above.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok has 1.5 million followers - are they all "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? That seems doubtful.All "rabidly anti-LGBTQ+"? No. The majority being so, yes. There is a reason why those people follow and interact with the account, because of the anti-LGBTQ+ content that it continually puts out.
Do they all "routinely attack individuals"? I feel like we would know if someone got harassed by 1.5 million people.All? No. A substantial number? Yes. Why do you think Libs of TikTok has a reputation for encouraging and engaging in stochastic terrorism?
it's set up to make you think that there's something incorrect about what supporters sayYes, what Libs of TikTok's supporters say and think with regards to "sex and gender ideology" is pretty laughably wrong.
Finally, CJ-Moki added some additional bias by replacing "say" with "claim"I'm somewhat of the opinion that this is one of the few cases where we could say "claim". There is no evidence that there is any sort of "LGBT+ ideology" or any of the other dangerous claims that Libs of TikTok publishes daily. Given that this is a significantly large number group that WP:BLPGROUP would apply such that BLP would not, I could also be convinced to change that to "believe".
This is of course entirely original research, but that's alright with me.
In fact, I challenge you to scroll through and find a single "dangerous claim" in thereChallenging me to engage in OR, when you've already accused me of engaging in OR is certainly a bold strategy Cotton. However it doesn't matter what my own original research turns up, it only matters what the research of reliable sources have turned up, and there is a consensus amongst those sources that LoTT publishes misleading content, dangerous claims, and engages in stochastic terrorism. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
LOTT does not merely repost random people. Only people who take a demonstrably far left position on issues like Gender Theory and various other issues. Is merely disagreeing with these positions enough to be called Far-Right but not the other way around? Borges123xyz ( talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The article right now states, Raichik claimed that one of the drag queens booked for the brunch was "inspired by Satanism", although the individual she mentioned in her post was not invited to perform at the brunch.
Sounds like a pretty crazy claim! But this is either an incorrect or at least very misleading paraphrasis of the
original source, which states, Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism”, although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.
. Which is still somewhat awkwardly worded; looking at the [link removed per
WP:PROBLEMLINKS] makes it clear what's going on: the drag queen's own bio states that he/they are "inspired by Satanism"; the controversy is just whether this particular drag queen was at that 2022 drag brunch. I tried to make this part, and some of the other wording around this event, clearer, but
Zaathras
reverted it. So here we are.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok’s tweet indicated that one of the drag performers was “inspired by Satanism,” although Knapp says she doesn’t know that performer, and they were not on Sunday’s bill.Your edit strikes me as WP:OR. Unless you have a reliable secondary source supporting your version, I would suggest the former wording is preferable. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I just removed the "inspired by Satanism" part of the paragraph, based on the apparent consensus here - it also makes the text a little more straightforward, which is hopefully good. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back: @ Korny O'Near: @ Dronebogus: what is this? is there a reason for this to be happening? jp× g 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The "Reception/Response to account content" section contains several significant citations to support the statement that LoTT spreads disinformation, so Korny O'Near's claim that the description is not supported by the article body is simply not true.
CBC News: The accounts often target and spread disinformation about the LGBTQ community, and advertise themselves as "Bringing you news you won't see anywhere else."
Shopify won't cut ties with controversial Libs of TikTok | CBC News
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
accountsthat probably includes LoTT. I really don't think this adds up to us categorizing LoTT as a disinformation operation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers t@lk 03:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
"The account spreads false claims and hateful commentary, especially relating to medical care of transgender children" - backed up by several citations. Sounds like disinformation to me.contains two misconceptions:
It should be clear from verifiable information in the article.
apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sourcesThat is the problem Iamreallygoodatcheckers worked out: the CBC is the only source making this particular claim.
fineprint applies;) Happy editing, Paradoctor ( talk) 14:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yahoo! News says LoTT is a "mainly Twitter-based disinformation and harassment account". I assure you I do more than just a basic text search. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.Korny O'Near ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that question there. I contend that there's still only one unimpeachably reliable source calling Libs of TikTok a disinformation purveyor, and that's the CBC article. The more I think about this AMA letter, the more I think it can't be used as evidence, since there's a massive conflict of interest there: the AMA et al. are calling for some form of punishment for Libs of TikTok, so they pretty much have to say it's intentional disinformation: if it were just a person saying incorrect things on the internet, there's presumably nothing the U.S. government could do about it. Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
FFS! I'm outta here. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a Twitter account is not a person...You are still, amusingly and wrongly, hung up on this point. Yes, this Twitter account is a person, it is Chaya Raichik. This is not a business or a role account, it is literally her in her words. So yes, we are following the reliable sources that say this person is engaged in disinformation. Zaathras ( talk) 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Previously, I have made edits regarding Chaya Raichik’s presence at the January 6th Capitol riot that were reverted. One mention was in the lead “ Raichik was present at the January 6 United States Capitol attack. [1] “ and one mention was in the header for the inception paragraph “Inception, original content, and January 6th”.
ref name 20 is [2] [1] by the way.
The diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Libs_of_TikTok&diff=prev&oldid=1131674105
I am wondering if we can have a reference to January 6th either in the lead, the heading “Inception, original content“ or both as I believe it is not immediately clear and is notable. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC) TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
:20
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Re this edit, what is the evidence that Libs of TikTok is a critic of Black Lives Matter? The only mention of Black Lives Matter currently in the article is a tweet Raichik posted (from a different Twitter account) saying that the BLM protests of 2020 were more violent than the January 6, 2021 protest. Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment. Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Which, true or not (I think it's true) is a simple statement of fact, not necessarily even a value judgment
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.
The article states: "In August 2022, Libs of TikTok received substantial media attention after falsely claiming that gender-affirming hysterectomies were being provided to minors at the Boston Children's Hospital and at the Children's National Hospital. This resulted in a harassment campaign against both hospitals, including bomb threats."
The Children's National Hospital has a Gender Development Program that it targets to children - it also receives funding from some very 'interesting' political groups given the nature of their work. The claim that the Hospital is not providing gender-affirming hysterectomies to minors is arguably not correct. They do advertise counselling and dispense drugs to orient gender towards a particular outcome which presumably at its final stages is going to involve surgery - so arguably, that is an outcome that is offered to minors at the outset even though the procedure itself takes place at 18+ (not sure whether that is a clarification that occurred after the article brought attention to the Hospital). This should probably be made more clear in the article as without it, it gives the impression that the original claim is wholly without basis. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the original statement makes a claim without quoting the original source.Looks like our article currently cites 4 sources, all of which back up the statement.
The changing of the word 'provided' to 'offered' for example would change the entire context of the T/F claim of the statement
If 'your' article wants to make a T/F claim on what the original source said - it should quote what the original source said (not a secondary, or a tertiary, ... ).That's not how wikipedia works. We rely on secondary reliable sources, we don't really care about the actual "truthfulness" of the claim, since that is so easily perverted by POV and bias of our editors. In fact, citing any "primary" source is actually a violation of our no original research policy. Instead, the pillars of wikipedia rely on verifiability to secondary sources which interpret primary sources for us, instead of any abstract sense of " truth". It is those sources which determine what is "true" to Wikipedia's eyes. If they are wrong (as you seem to think they are), then we at Wikipedia are also wrong, intentionally. That's how it works. Luckily, those sources have been pretty reliably correct on most matters. And in my estimation, they are correct here as well.I think your comments may be better served on a different website, such as Conservapedia. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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.
The article makes frequent reference to the word transgender when describing child patients to various hospitals.
By the studies undertaken by one of the hospital's own doctors (Childrens National Hospital): A. Cohen, et.al "Shifts in Gender-Related Medical Requests by Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents", Journal of Adolescent Health, 17 Dec 2022.
only 68 of 130 patients (almost 1/2) were admitted to the gender transitioning program (supposedly under the guidelines of the "The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards Of Care For Gender Identity Disorders, Sixth Version".
Of these only 22% were judged as being nonbinary (interestingly the majority (almost 1/2) were judged as being autistic - which arguably should fail their inclusion in the program - and indeed many did later change their transitioning request (~1/3)).
As only 15 of the 130 patients in this study were clinically identified as nonbinary (and arguably not yet transgender) the 'transgender' term is incorrect and I suggest it is replaced with 'patients'. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The intro currently includes the following curious (and rather long) sentence: Fans and supporters of Libs of TikTok claim the account simply reposts content showcasing "sex and gender ideology" that was already publicly available, but its followers "routinely attack individuals whose content is shared", and several dozen incidents of online or real life threats and harassment against a range of targets have been linked to Libs of TikTok's tweets, especially those where Raichik singles out specific events, locations or people.
The use of the words "claim" and "but" imply that the second part of the sentence will contradict the first part, but there is no contradiction: it could well be that Libs of TikTok simply reposts others' content, and that some of the people who follow the account are then inspired by what they see to harass the people in the videos. I don't think anyone has tried to defend this phrasing yet on its own terms, but some editors have
justified it on the grounds that that's how
this PinkNews article phrases it. Specifically, the PinkNews article states, While supporters say that Libs of TikTok is merely a “public information” account that reposts content already available, the account’s followers are rabidly anti-LGBTQ+ and routinely attack individuals whose content is shared.
(Note that PinkNews uses the verb "say"; it's only this Wikipedia article that changes it to "claim", in apparent violation of
WP:CLAIM.)
I don't know where anyone got the idea that, just because PinkNews phrases it in this inartful way, this Wikipedia article has to as well. There are various other sources that say much the same thing (that supporters of LoTT defend it by saying that it just reposts content) without attempting to contradict it;
The Jerusalem Post, for example. And it's not clear that PinkNews even counts as a reliable source for this:
WP:RSP states, somewhat grudgingly, that There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting
, but this isn't even factual reporting: this particular contextualization is strictly analysis.
Korny O'Near (
talk) 15:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
1RR doesn't mean wait 26 hours then revert. I've protected the page for three days so the current back and forth can be discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
we aren’t doing this crap again
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
It is odd to me to label this account as having any political affiliation at all. LOTT does not talk about tax law, foreign policy, corporate law, etc. It seems to be narrowly focused on mental health/ sexual orientation issues. The little editorializing It does is also mainstream and in line of what every major Democrat figure in the US publicly believed ten or 15 years ago. If this account could be said to be mainstream or even agreed upon by leftwing leaders then it isn't far- right, if anything its centrist position shows how far left politics have moved in the past decade. 2601:152:300:4C2D:5481:3FFF:275B:F4A4 ( talk) 01:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
|
@ Korny O'Near: I find myself confused by this edit summary of yours. Obviously it does add information – that Libs of TikTok employs the aforementioned tactic. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Libs of TikTok has used this tactic to avoid additional penalties from Twitter while still making an impact on a large online audience.Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it - I was thinking "this tactic" meant deleting tweets that Twitter objected to, but I guess it means posting controversial tweets, with the full intent of deleting them soon afterwards, before Twitter (the company) can even get a chance to weigh in. Although, if the latter is the case, that's quite an incendiary charge to make - and should probably be attributed to Joan Donovan (who is the source of that assertion). Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok. So maybe the sentence should be removed anyway, because it's a big charge resting on a flimsy basis. Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Though Donovan seems to just say it's true of "disinformation sowers", not necessarily of Libs of TikTok.From the article (emphasis my own):
Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter. She noted that influencers such as Libs of TikTok play a sophisticated cat-and-mouse game with the social media companies, “paying close attention to the company’s twists and turns in their terms of service,” to purposefully dance around the rules.
As in April, Raichik deleted the offending tweet herself, before Twitter could do so.¶ Donovan said quickly deleting problematic tweets is a common way for disinformation sowers to make an impact with a broad online audience but then incur a lesser penalty from Twitter.Donovan's explanation only makes sense in context as a description of what Raichik did and why; there's no reasonable alternative reading. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
According to Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Libs of TikTok's practice of deleting content before a platform takes action is a common tactic for digital actors spreading disinformation.
Well, we already talked about it
before, but I guess we have to talk about it again, per
this revert.
WP:NONDEF states, The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided.
In what way does "critic of
Black Lives Matter" serve as a defining characteristic of Libs of TikTok?
Korny O'Near (
talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
A school in DC forced kindergarteners to march around with BLM signs and chant “Black Lives Matter”. The third is an article about some agitated women who yelled "black lives matter" at an unmasked black man; LoTT referred to it as
More mask madness. I'm not seeing any actual criticism here, let alone enough to justify calling it a "defining characteristic". Korny O'Near ( talk) 18:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Korny O'Near ( talk) 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)