Talk:Slate Star Codex

Archives (Index)

2022/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Retitle to Scott Alexander?

Now that Scott blogs on Astral Codex Ten, it probably makes more sense to reshape this to be an article about Scott that refers to his blogs rather than vice versa. ciphergoth (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the new blog notable? It’s not clear that he is notable as a person, independent to the blog. — HTGS (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Doxing" in lead

Sources for "doxing" include:

• Hoonhout, Tobias (23 June 2020). "What an NYT Reporter's Doxing Threat Says about the Paper's 'Standards'". National Review. Archived from the original on 23 June 2020. Retrieved 23 June 2020.
• Jackson, Jasper (25 June 2020). "Why is the New York Times threatening to reveal blogger Scott Alexander's true identity?". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 27 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
• Tani, Maxwell (24 June 2020). "The Latest Squabble Inside The New York Times". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 26 June 2020. Retrieved 26 June 2020.

Previously the article attributed this claim to Alexander directly. It did not present this as a simple fact or via WP:WEASEL words.

Both WP:DAILYBEAST and WP:NATIONALREVIEW are 'yellow' at WP:RSP. The National Review source only uses the term 'dox' once outside of the headline, and that is in a quote from Alexander himself. The Daily Beast article uses the term in quotes or scare-quotes, and includes this stand-alone paragraph:

Several Times staffers pushed back, noting that the paper was not “doxxing” Alexander, as that term is widely used to describe situations where the goal of revealing a person’s identity is specifically to encourage harassment.[1]

To state that this is doxing in simple language would be editorializing about the motives of the NYT journalists, which is not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice.

As far as I know, the New Statesman is fine, but it uses the term only once in scare-quotes, in a paragraph about reactions from social media, and specifically mention that the term isn't usually applied to newspaper reporting.

To include this in the lead without any context in the body is inappropriate. This either needs to be attributed or at least contextualized per reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Verge [2], The New Yorker [3], and Reason [4], all of which are 'green' sources according to RSP, also refer to it as doxxing.

The Verge refers to it in article-voice, though perhaps it was merely speaking from the perspective of the people it was talking about:

Rationalists, Metz writes, believe AI could eventually destroy the world. Many were very into the musings on SlateStarCodex. The blog was read by top venture capitalists and startup leaders, he writes, who felt it was up to them to build AI in a safe way. Most held a deep-seated distrust of mainstream media (and some even contemplated ways to target a “single vulnerable hostile reporter” for doxxing).

The New Yorker refers to it repeatedly, in quoting Alexander, Balaji Srinivasan, and referring to others using the term.

Reason has a length discussion on the use of the term, eventually stating in article-voice that "it's still hard to see what was about to happen to Alexander as anything other than doxxing".

Alexander is hoping that his deletion of the blog will cause the Times reporter to decline to publish, or to publish without revealing Alexander's real name to the world—a practice that has come to be called "doxxing," at least when done by internet trolls.

Of course, if publishing information about a person without their permission is always "doxxing," then the craft of journalism is one nonstop doxxing party. News stories at The New York Times, Reason, and virtually every other publication of some importance frequently contain details that the subjects themselves would have preferred to be omitted. It can hardly be called "doxxing" to reveal that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) is a millionaire who owns three homes, for example.

Doxxing, then, should probably be defined in a more limited way—perhaps as the act of revealing private or personal information about a private or semi-private subject, in a situation where it isn't warranted. But under this definition, it's still hard to see what was about to happen to Alexander as anything other than doxxing.

I think you're also misusing The Daily Beast here. They use the term in three paragraphs about NYT staffers, quoting multiple as saying that it was doxxing. Perhaps we should say something like "with many staffers affirming that the paper was doxing Alexander while others claimed that the term did not apply"? I think it's useful to note that there was disagreement inside of the Times.

Either way, I think there's wide agreement here that many, including Alexander, considered the actions to be doxing. I agree that we shouldn't claim it in wiki-voice, since it's not a neutral term, but it was also widely used to describe the situation and is certainly not undue. Gbear605 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that the lead should simply state what happened: Slate Star Codex was launched in 2013, and was discontinued by Alexander on June 23, 2020, after his full name was published by the New York Times. In the body, the dispute over whether including his full name in the article is doxing or not can be explained if necessary. It's really irrelevant whether it meets the definition of doxing or not; the impact was that the NYT's insistence on publishing a name he'd tried to keep private caused him to shut down SSC. Schazjmd (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The body seems like a much better place to explain this. The term is used by Alexander's supporters, as all of these sources indicate, and Alexander himself is the one who introduced this term.

The Reason source is an (ideologically sympathetic) editorial and per WP:RSP it would require attribution to Robby Soave. Neither Alexander himself nor Srinivasan are reliable for the definitions of these terms.

The Verge article uses the term 'doxing', but it is discussing hypothetically doxing the journalist, not Alexander. (this usage only makes sense if we accept 'doxing' to be much more than just mentioning someone's name, since the journalist's name is already public knowledge.) Using that source here, to imply that Alexander was being "doxed", is not appropriate.

Every use of the term 'dox' in the New Yorker source is either in quotes or contextualized in scare-quotes. The New Yorker doesn't' accept as a fact that this is 'doxing'.

Your proposed summary of the Daily Beast source uses "affirm" for the position you tacitly support and "claim" for the one you reject. This is inappropriate editorializing. See MOS:CLAIM.

Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)