Forums / Discussion / Meme Research

I was thinking if there should be a Brianna Wu (John Flynt) entry. With a sex change, becomes a feminist, creating Revolution 60, huge grudge against GamerGate, and spreading news that Samus Aran is a trans, I think it's worth mentioning this nutty trans. Should it be part of a series on GamerGate?

She has connections involving Gamergate yes. Also include when she tried to make herself a victim of harassment by sending hate comments towards to herself

>Brianna Wu (John Flynt) entry
That comment section's going to be fun.

Given she really only got noticed because of Gamergate (Literally Wu), I'd say putting it as part of a series on it makes sense.

Yes, I would agree she deserves an entry, but I can't stress enough because I can already see where this is going, STAY NEUTRAL. I get you don't like her, but keep it to a minimum. Take a note from the Sarkeesian entry, you can obviously mention the GG stuff but don't play it too obviously pro, we're at least supposed to remain unbiased.

You know what…alright, alright. Sorry if I did piss you off and cause you and the others too much stress whenever I want to contribute or discuss research. I didn't know I was the main problem here.

That's a lot of personal offense to take from constructive criticism IMO. I can definitely see this going well when the inevitable editing war happens to the page.

As long as we keep the amount of user editors (very) limited, it should go well. Most mods know how to write objectively even when it's Wu. And a staff member is bound to hop in as well.

Should they start an edit war, consider their editorship revoked. We're here to write about Wu, not "nutty trans".

I…. what? No no no you completely misunderstood that, that was not a criticism of you personally, an I'm shocked you took it that way. You made it very clear in your OP that you don't like her, I would have given the same advice to anyone. I don't see any point of that where I personally criticised you.

If I cause you to stress because I said "nutty trans", then I'm sorry. I wasn't thinking of editorship. Just discussing on research if it deserves an entry.

Well that's a relief. For a while I thought I cause you and the other mods in a boiling point. Sorry for the misunderstanding…

Okay I'll shut up now.

Just an example brah, hardly stress. Chill.

If you say you can stay objective, go ahead. Wu's actions speak against her, so I'm not gonna end up suprised if objective writing ends you with more stuff working against her.

The point is that good things shouldn't be intentionally ignored. If she won an award for example, mention it too. Don't say a vid she made was bad, say that the vid racked up 90% dislikes for example. Mentioning a majority opinion is objective, but don't then call the opinion a fact.

If she's a "nutty trans", even objective writing will support that.

Dunt forget to be careful with her being trans. People are really jumpy about that.

Yeah I would say it's probably worthy of an entry.

As others have said, you don't have to put "crazy trans person" because her actions speak for themselves. Essentially the only reason why you would back her up is if you don't actually know what she did. Pro-GG or not, she is quite the interesting person.

On this note, don't deadname (mention the name "John Flynt" in the entry) her when writing the entry. You'll get even more anger than the entry is inevitably going to get.

In fact, I question if it should even be brought up at all. Her born sex was originally the subject of a witch hunt against her and it has no relevance to her notoriety within Gamergate other than an attack-point against her. It wouldn't add substance to the entry. If you do so, perhaps mention it briefly when elaborating on the Samus debacle to provide more context.

On this note, don’t deadname (mention the name “John Flynt” in the entry) her when writing the entry. You’ll get even more anger than the entry is inevitably going to get.

We did the same for Caitlyn Jenner. I don't see why offhandedly mentioning the original identity would cause a problem, nor do I see a reason to care if it would. Facts are facts.

On this note, don’t deadname (mention the name “John Flynt” in the entry) her when writing the entry. You’ll get even more anger than the entry is inevitably going to get.

Even if it causes anger, this would be a Person entry, and as such the point is to document who that person is and why they're notable. How people respond to the entry isn't of major concern, as long as the entry isn't designed to influence how they respond.

In fact, I question if it should even be brought up at all. Her born sex was originally the subject of a witch hunt against her and it has no relevance to her notoriety within Gamergate other than an attack-point against her. It wouldn’t add substance to the entry.

Again, you're supposed to explain who they are, and why they are notable. There's a reason the style guide has About, Online Relevance, Reputation, and Personal Life as categories. The most recently confimed Person entry verifies this.

Jenner was already well-known long before the fact. Wu's given name was dug up only through extensive digging, and doing such would be deadnaming – considered extremely disrespectful within the transgender community. I digress though, per Prof's post.

Edit: just try not to start start the article off like this disaster:

Where is this from? Seriously, I'm genuinely curious. It looks like a Conservapedia article, if I had to guess, though I feel like I'm probably wrong and it's a wiki I don't know at the moment.

I mean, I'm all for differece of opinion, but whoever created this certainly didn't waste any time to call her a liar. Not that I'm saying that pointing out lies is in itself a bad thing, but when information like that is given greater precedence than the actual structure of the article, that's a red flag to me.

In terms of structure, I refer to ideas such as reporting the facts but not the conclusions, (that's the difference between an article and editorial), generally sticking to repoting things from beginning to end and subject-by-subject after sufficent context has been provided (instead of jumping around a person's timeline back and forth and going straight into a subject without a brief introduction that gives the reader an idea of what to expect from the full article), and word choice that creates an objective tone for the hopefully objective information (which generally includes avoiding words like irrefutable, worthy, lied, fabricated, etc. which all hold some sort of connotation that is not objective).

I mean, I'm sure there's more to writing an accurate, objective, and enjoyable article than what I pointed out, and I certainly may have written something (if not multiple things) wrong somewhere. But I think it's safe to say this website's only "real agenda" is memes, so any writing that "says" otherwise should be avoided, if at all possible.

Rikameme, my two cents, but I think it's perfectly okay to list their birth name as long as that's their confirmed birth name, and as long as they have relevant internet history associated with that name.

After all, we're a database, and people are going to search for that person based on their birth name or their new name – this is true for all name changes regardless. Trans people aren't granted some sort of immunity to this basic fact for some arbitrary reason. If Wu did stuff that was relevant before their name change – for example, if they have a long history of shenanigans either in real life or on the internet before going full fledged retard – it would be appropriate to list that name in the entry – even if these shenanigans were dug up by people trying to poison the well.

But just like someone who didn't get up to bullshit until after they were known by their married name, if there's little or no evidence to suggest Wu was a crazy bitch before deciding she wanted her dick hacked off, then there's no point and it's just exposing information that's probably best not known.

I'm not going to prod in someone's history I don't care about, but you get the general idea.

I'm going to give my two cents and say that yes, the witch hunt should be mentioned. However, even though it is very very likely that she is trans, I would forego mentioning her birth name in the introductory paragraph. While it is important information in regard to the witch hunt, there isn't a reliable source for it being true (Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't count) and Wikipedia doesn't mention at all ln her page that she is trans or what her birthname is. Yes they do have different standards from KYM, but I feel if it has not been confirmed by her herself, then it shouldn't be put anywhere outside the witch hunt section.

This article is sure to be completely without controversy and slapfighting…
Will it mention Jace Connors and the "Gamergate Prius Guy" incident? Because that was hilarious.