Talk:YouCaring

See Also

The sites listed in See Also were mentioned in the references.--Nowa (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Lock

There is twitter controversy surrounding recent events regarding h3h3production's use of this site. Seeing as how recent edits have been made to talk about h3h3production's involvement on the site, I'm requesting a temporary lock of this article to curb wikipedia vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to second this motion. While Ethan (h3h3)'s and (hopefully) most of his fanbase's intentions are good, there's a whole political storm brewing out of this. Wardrich (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, has anyone requested a page protection yet? VViking_TalkEdits 19:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This admin saw the edits by a new editor, saw this talk page discussion, saw the article history, and semi-protected the article. I'm not opining that the material shouldn't go in the article; I am saying that there's a clear lack of consensus that needs resolved through discussion on this talk page and that it should be added only once consensus emerges to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Twitter controversy would be a problem, since this Wikipedia entry was listed under "Controversies". All citations were to primary sources that prove what the entry stated is true or to articles about the incidents leading up to the YouCaring controversy and the controversy itself. This happened about 15 hours ago, so I'm sure more articles will become available. I do not agree with the decision to protect this page and I do not believe what was written there is vandalism, it is 100% accurate and based on events from last night and this morning. If the issue truly is citations, then please explain why primary sources and several other articles regarding the issue are not sufficient. I have seen things with far less citation be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibombs (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I see one of the reasons given to protect this page is that a user is using multiple IP addressed to edit it. I think this is a false claim, as I am the original creator of the entry and I've seen others edit it in the meantime. I believe Wardrich is underestimating how many people care about this issue. When I first created it I didn't have an account, now I do, and I'm not responsible for what anyone else did. I have only used one IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibombs (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikibombs: Part of the reason I protected the page was because of the use of multiple IP addresses. If I read you correctly, you admit that you were one of the IP addresses. There's no way to determine how many other users have edited from IPs. \

Another reason I protected the page was to spare you and other editors from being blocked for edit warring. The article is better served if users can discuss the matter here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I misunderstood, I thought Wardrich was saying in his complaint that one user was using multiple IP addresses, not simply that multiple users from multiple IP addresses were editing. That makes more sense. May I ask, what are the issues with what I posted on the YouCaring page and how can I get it back on there? People have already taken screenshots of it and shared it on Twitter to show others a condensed version of what has transpired. I believe it's helpful information, and I believe it was cited properly, even if some other users do not believe the sources are reliable. They are either primary sources referring directly to the incident or articles about the incident or events leading up to it, although some users have deemed those sources unreliable (which is entirely a matter of opinion, and if they actually went to the articles they would see they cite primary sources to back up their account of the incident as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibombs (talk • contribs) 21:39 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I will say that although I removed it (and I am sorry for being a part of the edit war), I am not against the addition of the content. In fact, I actually support its inclusion. However, the reason I kept removing it was that it was mostly sourced to things like Twitter and YouTube, which aren't reliable and thus cannot be used. I also believe that the sources provided failed WP:TWITTER, specifically point 5. If reliable sources could be found (that aren't YouTube, Twitter, etc.), then maybe it could be added back.

Aso, Wikibombs, sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JudgeRM, still figuring all of this out. I'm just wondering though, wouldn't things like Twitter posts and YouTube pages be admissible if they are primary sources? For example, if part of the entry is that X posted Y on Twitter, isn't a direct link to that a perfectly acceptable citation? Though referring to a third party (the subject of the controversy and the Wikipedia page itself), they are doing so by posting photographic evidence of what the third party sent to them via Twitter, and tagging them in the post. It seems like the most efficient way to connect people to that information. Would it be more acceptable to include an article that simply shows a picture of the Twitter post? That's what doesn't make sense to me, however this morning when one such article became available I did add it into the references but kept the primary sources as well. Wikibombs (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is this (quoted directly from WP:PRIMARY): "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." {Replace article with section, though.) I also feel that the section violated WP:TWITTER point 5, which states that it's these sources are allowed if "the [section] is not based primarily on such sources", which I feel that is was. I would like a third opinion, however, because I do feel I may have misinterpreted some things. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a problem if the entire entry was based exclusively on Twitter posts and YouTube videos, because some of what I wrote there goes beyond what it included in those primary sources, however I also included several articles referring to the incidents. I can't remember exactly how many, but I believe I included approximately 8 different sources, breaking up my entry into much smaller citations. If one were to go through the sources I used, they would see it represents the entirety of what was mentioned in the entry and gives accurate information and proof of the accuracy. I tried to include as much citation as possible, however as I said when more articles come out about this incident I will certainly include those as well. Not only do I think this represents an important issue, but it's also about a good man getting the cancer treatment and financial help he needs. In this case, YouCaring deserves to have the controversy included on their Wikipedia, as it's not only true but it also exposes their actions and reasoning in this incident. Wikibombs (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"[W]hen more articles come out about this incident I will certainly include those as well." @Wikibombs: it sounds like you and JudgeRM are agreeing that the material may be worth including after it has been covered in secondary sources. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not a news service; there's no great rush to add things to an encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

More secondary sources will help to verify the information and not have it removed, but I still think that 3 (I believe I included 3) secondary sources could be considered sufficient for a single, relatively small Wikipedia entry, especially when it is also backed up by primary sources. The only reason I am adamant about including more secondary sources is that the information was removed for apparently not being cited reliable, a claim that I still dispute. However I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia's rules, only what I've read so far, so I could be way off. My understanding of primary and secondary sources, and how they're used on Wikipedia, leads me to believe that the citation provided so far is sufficient but I'm happy to add more until it is deemed so by admins and other experienced users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibombs (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You said that you found several articles based on this. Can you provide them if you can? JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that I have requested a third opinion, since I question my actions after further thought. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Not sure how to properly post them here so I'll just copypaste. https://boingboing.net/2016/11/08/youcaring-shuts-down-healthcar.html and http://heatst.com/culture-wars/woman-who-accused-hugh-mungus-of-sexual-harassment-raising-money-for-fight-against-patriarchy/ and https://heatst.com/culture-wars/blm-activist-accuses-man-of-sexual-harassment-for-telling-her-his-name-is-hugh-mungus/. Two referring to YouCaring directly, one explaining the incidents leading up to this that I mentioned in the entry. Wikibombs (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now my issue is that I question the reliability of both BoingBoing and Heat Street, which should be solved before using them. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The articles I just linked to provide evidence for everything they discuss and appear to be perfectly reliable. I don't think we can pick and choose what we think is reliable based on whether we agree with the things they say. We're not going to see this story picked up be NBC or CNN, I can promise you that. Wikibombs (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That is true... a third opinion has agreed to give their opinion, so I'll wait until they do. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It looks like the issue at hand here is the use of self-published sources, not the inclusion of the content itself. Self-published sources, such as tweets on Twitter and videos on YouTube, are often only reliable when they are used as sources about themselves, and not a third party (See WP:SELFPUB). I'll go through and evaluate every source in this edit against the claim it makes. On November 7th, 2016, YouTuber h3h3Productions created a video entitled "Hugh Mungus Needs Our Help" with a link to a YouCaring page raising funds for Rudy Pantoja Jr. for cancer treatment and to help him financially. This is a reasonable use of a self-published source. The video is used to show that the video exists. The statement about the purpose of the fundraising page is supported by the video. Rudy is also known on the internet as "Hugh Mungus" after an incident (The Hugh Mungus Incident) involving a woman named Zarna Joshi, who accused him of sexual harassment after he used said gag name. This isn't a self-published source. I don't know much about Heat Street, but it apparently has a conservative bias. I don't know if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as it was launched in February of 2016. This YouCaring page was created not only to help Mr. Pantoja but also as a direct response to Zarna Joshi's YouCaring page which was raising money for her "well-being", which was widely criticized online as self-serving after Pantoja used all of his notoriety on the internet to direct attention and contributions to a charity called Hope Soldiers based in Seattle, Washington and Joshi used hers to ask people to send her money. The first video supports the statement about sending money to Hope Soldiers, so that is a good use. The Hope Soldiers ref doesn't appear to be helpful, at all. The third reference is to a video from someone exterior to the dispute, and is a self published source, and fails the 5th criterion of WP:SELFPUB. The 4th ref is another Heat Street reference. After Ethan Klein of h3h3Productions created the YouCaring page, the site was overloaded with traffic and was inaccessible for several hours. That tweet is a self-published source about another group, and should be replaced with a reliable source. Saying that the h3h3 YouCaring page was connected to the YouCaring issues is WP:SYNTHESIS When the site's functionality returned, they revealed on Twitter that they had removed the donation page because "the subject matter incites controversy, does not have a clear cause, and does not fit within our listed categories" even though medical treatment is one of their categories. The BoingBoing source is probably good, so the Twitter ref can be removed. YouCaring is already facing widespread backlash on social media for this decision, and the donation page created by h3h3Productions made plans to move to GoFundMe. [citation needed] Within fourteen hours of creating a donation page on GoFundMe, h3h3Productions raised $51,903 of the $10,000 goal. WP:Primary source. Would be a good source if I could figure out how to see a timeline of how much was raised over time. In conclusion, many of these self-published sources are useful, but the section should be based on reliable, independent sources. While primary sources aren't necessarily bad, the section relies too heavily on primary sources. While I likely wouldn't have reverted the entire edit over the issue, there were definitely sourcing issues in the section. I hope this helps to solve the dispute. If you need clarification on something, please ping me or ask on my talk page. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much for taking the time to go through this and thoroughly respond, AntiCompositeNumber. I see some of the errors I've made now and I believe I can fix them. With regards to Heat Street, it most definitely leans to the right (conservative) but the articles I've linked to appear to properly back up everything they say with evidence. With regards to the backlash on social media, I believe the boingboing article covers this, but if it doesn't I could also link to YouCaring's tweets and responses, and/or their Facebook page, as it shows hundreds of outraged users not only commenting about the controversy but also linking to it and sharing it on their own social media pages. I also agree that it would be helpful if there was a timeline for how much the GoFundMe page has raised and when, but that was meant to be more of an "as of this moment" type of thing, and I'm not sure how to properly address that issue because the donations are still coming in (for example, it is now at $64,789 after 19 hours). Thank you once again for your time and consideration, I believe that this can now be remedied and put back on the YouCaring page, and also thank you for clearing many things up including the use of primary sources. Wikibombs (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I can't update it on the actual page, I just thought everyone reading this should know that the GoFundMe page just surpassed $100,000 in less than 23 hours. The real winner tonight is Rudy and the battle against cancer. 2607:FEA8:5CA0:D4C:C090:4146:BAA5:B779 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Users adding image of their own YouCaring

could we make a rule against users adding screenshots of their own active fundraisers? Tweptwep seems to do this repeatedly Revision as of 18:09, 8 January 2018 Revision as of 20:19, 1 March 2018 -🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 21:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)