There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis.
-
@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
-
@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
@aliu @Xtreix Why is it that there's a paragraph based on a manipulative interpretation of our posts without the context, without actually conveying what was written in them and with a Wikipedia editor's own opinions clearly involved in it? Why is it that you can't use objective facts from a primary source but you're fine with an inaccurate interpretation of something directly from a primary source? Why is there one standard for making attacks on GrapheneOS and another for correcting them?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
@aliu @Xtreix Okay, so remove the paragraph in the article inaccurately interpreting the announcements we made about protecting Daniel from harassment. It shouldn't be in the article unless it comes from secondary sources, particularly since it involves a living person and the current content is an extreme misrepresentation of what was said and the context of it as part of someone trying to make a jab towards us. Why is that paragraph there, but actual facts can't be cited?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it!
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
@aliu @Xtreix You're demonstrating that you're extremely biased and apply double standards. It's not something which is going to stand. We know the reality of Wikipedia which is that it's extremely astroturfed and biased. It reflects the overall bias of the editors. It doesn't reflect a consensus among people who want to have accurate content.
-
@aliu @Xtreix You're demonstrating that you're extremely biased and apply double standards. It's not something which is going to stand. We know the reality of Wikipedia which is that it's extremely astroturfed and biased. It reflects the overall bias of the editors. It doesn't reflect a consensus among people who want to have accurate content.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it! As I've mentioned, that should be usable as a primary source.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it!
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix PSST: Just as a test please reply to this post, not the previous one, ASAP if you see it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@aliu @Xtreix Why is the article directly interpreting what someone posted on their personal Twitter account and subsequently deleted as if it was an official announcement? You can't actually justify that, especially when it's warping what was said by leaving out the context. Why is harassment not mentioned when the topic of the posts was harassment and a plan for dealing with it? The plan was revised a few more times prior to official announcements about the actual concrete details...
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
-
@aliu @Xtreix Why is the article directly interpreting what someone posted on their personal Twitter account and subsequently deleted as if it was an official announcement? You can't actually justify that, especially when it's warping what was said by leaving out the context. Why is harassment not mentioned when the topic of the posts was harassment and a plan for dealing with it? The plan was revised a few more times prior to official announcements about the actual concrete details...
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Could you link those official announcements?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it would benefit both of us here if we each went back and re-read posts a little carefully. So carefully, in fact, that I unfortunately won't be able to reply for a few hours. This is a very interesting rabbit hole and I do want to see where this conversation leads.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
@aliu @Xtreix It's a misrepresentation of what was posted on a personal account which was never an official announcement by the project.
Why is the article talking about it in the first place? What makes it notable when you cannot find any secondary source about it?
We're well aware that Wikipedia editors simply interpret the rules how they want to achieve the end results they want and that there are extreme double standards applied everywhere including here. It's not honest or acceptable.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it would benefit both of us here if we each went back and re-read posts a little carefully. So carefully, in fact, that I unfortunately won't be able to reply for a few hours. This is a very interesting rabbit hole and I do want to see where this conversation leads.
@aliu @Xtreix Both the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles on Wikipedia make libelous claims about the founder of GrapheneOS. People involved in the harassment towards him have been involved in editing the article. That's why the article is citing his posts about harassment while leaving out the fact that it was about harassment. That's why it's trying to present something as a gotcha which isn't at all. Those posts did not say or imply that he permanently stepped down as a director.
-
@aliu @Xtreix Both the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles on Wikipedia make libelous claims about the founder of GrapheneOS. People involved in the harassment towards him have been involved in editing the article. That's why the article is citing his posts about harassment while leaving out the fact that it was about harassment. That's why it's trying to present something as a gotcha which isn't at all. Those posts did not say or imply that he permanently stepped down as a director.
@aliu @Xtreix The actual content of the posts says that he was stepping down from those roles to recover from the harassment. It's quite clear from the content of the posts that he wasn't leaving the project but rather stepping away from demanding roles due to stress. Nowhere is it implied that he was leaving the project or permanently leaving as a director. That narrative comes from people engaging in harassment and they've been editing the article including linking harassment content in it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The actual content of the posts says that he was stepping down from those roles to recover from the harassment. It's quite clear from the content of the posts that he wasn't leaving the project but rather stepping away from demanding roles due to stress. Nowhere is it implied that he was leaving the project or permanently leaving as a director. That narrative comes from people engaging in harassment and they've been editing the article including linking harassment content in it.
@aliu @Xtreix Harassment content linked by the article was recently removed but there are still many leftover parts from the groups who added that content. Any approach which leads to this happening is awful. Misrepresenting primary sources to try to make a gotcha attack on GrapheneOS by twisting what was said is somehow fine but verifiable facts debunking the false narratives presented as a history of GrapheneOS are ignored. Wikipedia thoroughly fails to defend against astroturfing and trolls.
