Jump to content

Talk:Ellen Pao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kj cheetham (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 21 August 2020 (Assessment (B): banner shell, Biography, Business, California, Law, Private Equity, Feminism, Internet culture, Finance & Investment, Women, New Jersey, +Women scientists (Low) (Rater)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quote boxes

@Connor Behan: So we should probably discuss the quote boxes. I'm not a fan of quote boxes in the first place and would prefer none. As said in WP:LONGQUOTE: "quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." However I doubt you'd agree to that, and I can see an argument for one. If we're going to keep a quote box, I think Pao's should be kept over Wong's. Firstly, I think Wong's introduces some neutrality issues by being put in a block quote because then we're giving special prominence to a defense of Pao (when there are other points of view). Second, I think, in a section about her exit from Reddit, if we're going to give special prominence to any particular point of view on the matter, I think it should be hers and her own stated rationale for leaving rather than someone else's interpretation of her motives and of the events. I don't think Wong's point needs to be entirely eliminated, rather, that it would be better if incorporated into the text. Thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good arguments, so go ahead and use whichever quotation you prefer. I'll just explain why I think Wong's quote is special objectively. First, a former CEO and current shareholder who is in contact with all of the major players fits the usual definition of a reliable source. But unlike all of the other "reliable sources", he made a comment that is not vague at all. In one of those threads, Ohanian said he doesn't want to go into details. Pao mentioned pressure to grow the user base but did not say whether there were other disagreements with the board. This course of action makes perfect sense for someone who's still looking for a job. Wong's post may be non-neutral but it has a higher "reliability to vagueness ratio" than anything I thought I would see. It's something that could only have come from someone who no longer wants to be any sort of executive. Yes, many people have different points of view on Pao and they don't buy Wong's Reddit or Quora posts, but I don't think any qualify for the high "reliability to vagueness" category. Connor Behan (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"unpaid users"?

What website pays it users? I would love to join it! Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you think about it, the "unpaid" seems unnecessary if "users" is already there. But I'm hesitant to remove it because that's the point of the sentence: that the enforcement of a company's rules is primarily carried out by people who are not paid by that company—its users. Mz7 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few examples like YouTube. Connor Behan (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Unpaid volunteers" might be more accurate with regards to the context. Kinda like Wikipedia: all "users" are unpaid, but talking about unpaid editors makes more sense than talking about unpaid readers... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

"Ellen Pao made at least two apologies on July 3; one delivered via Reddit" I don't find the text supported with the given time source. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the date is wrong on that.... it should be 6 july.... but Per this cnn article's quote it references and links to her Reddit apology,
Here's another source.... a business insider article stating the same thing on July 6, her apology and then one delivered via reddit with the same apology linked in the article. —  dainomite   15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The date is completely correct. The first Reddit apology was on July 3, the second Reddit apology was on July 6 and those sources focus on the second one. A sourced sentence in this article about downvotes reducing visibility explains why that is. Connor Behan (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the loss of her lawsuit in the lead

There has been some back and forth regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the bare fact that Pao lost her celebrated lawsuit, with @Connor Behan: on the side of exclusion of this fact from the lead, with their latest edit summary stating, "I'd be perfectly happy to make this article even more upfront about the result but that requires a more drastic rewrite of the prose". I'm unclear as to why a "drastic rewrite" is required. Why does the simple bare fact that it was a loss require a "drastic rewrite"? That it was in fact a loss is a highly salient point to the event and her career. Why is not simply adding that it was in fact a loss sufficient? I'm not understanding your point at all. Marteau (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really the only thing that makes her notable, frankly. She accomplished nothing but destruction at Kleiner Perkins, grasped at a straw when she was dismissed for cause, and got Reddit tossed to her as some kind of show of solidarity for overprivileged women, like Obama's great dereliction of duty in giving Hillary Clinton the Department of State. 2601:647:4F00:81:2CA7:BA19:CD50:6E2A (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's that notable since the majority of gender discrimination suits result in losses. But of course I'm not against including this fact. It's just that the current paragraph is such that all "minors ways" to add it make the wording less precise. If we say "filing an unsuccessful suit", this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since some companies have made new policies and data releases as a direct response to it. If we say "having become widely known for filing and losing... in 2012", that's wrong because the loss was in 2015. It's also mainly the filing that made Pao newsworthy as pointed out by @Clpo13:. Trying even more ways to work it in is an option. But there is now enough information on what she's been doing in 2016 that the lead needs to be rewritten anyway. I will get to it later this summer if no one else does. Connor Behan (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your edit summary: Choice between an awkward sentence and having to click to learn something because those are not the only choices. First off, as per WP:LEAD a lead section "... should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Compelling reader to "click to learn something" is not "standing on its own". Additionally, I think you are advocating a "newspaper style" lead which is explicitly not what encyclopedic leads are to be (also as per the style guide). A newspaper lead gives the reader the main idea of the story, but Wikipedia leads should be able to stand alone. And not having the outcome of the case in the lead is most certainly not "standing alone". Regarding any awkwardness, well, perhaps I'll get cracking on coming up with a "most less awkward" alternative. Because something as seminal as the outcome of her case certainly belongs in the lead, and should not be teased and require the reader to "click to learn". Marteau (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellen Pao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ellen_Pao&oldid=974155421"