Talk:Ashley Gjøvik

Education

Can we use her website or LinkedIn as opposed to Mail Online to highlight her education? As she is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished, other than just her ongoing pursuing of a law degree. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we could add it from her website per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll do that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

[1] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Harassment

Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org. It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither Mashable or TruthOut is a great source. If there is mention of it by a publisher with the caliber of some of the others that have written about her (NYT, Reuters, etc.) then it could be worth including. But the bit you included from the Mashable piece was a small portion of a long article about mostly other things (where Gjøvik took a generally empathetic view towards the reception). I think we should stick to the higher quality sources for this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding now that I've skimmed through the TruthOut piece—the mentions of harassment there seem to be the same as the ones already mentioned in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Alright, maybe I misunderstood that they both were subjected to a ton of vile harassment from pro-Apple anons from the pieces. Thanks for checking and clarifying your understanding. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP concerns with Ashley Gjøvik#Anti-harassment order

I don't think we should be republishing Gjøvik's allegations against Scarlett, particularly given that a court saw fit to grant an anti-harassment order to Scarlett to protect against harassment from Gjøvik. The section also relies on a single source, which itself is relying on a generally unreliable source (New York Post, see WP:NYPOST). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done for now. You're right that the AppleInsider piece relies heavily on NY Post reporting, and our article's summary didn't similarly attribute claims to the original publication. I couldn't find coverage in any other publication to verify the content or lend it any additional weight. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The anti-harassment order seems like the sort of thing that should be on this page, no? 85.191.71.142 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the section just above named "Harassment". Here is a list explaining Reliable Sources: WP:RSP. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Possible libel" cited as reasoning for revert of revert

Happened to notice a large drive-by content removal by an IP and reverted it, on the grounds that there wasn't a substantive justification.

User:Bobrossghost reverted my revert, stating "possible libel vs Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, section WP:UNDUE vs sourcing about her allegations. IP was a range block. Use talk page to make a case for inclusion"

This seems not unreasonable; however, examining the history of the page, User:Bobrossghost appears to have contributed the sections involving Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Gj%C3%B8vik&diff=prev&oldid=1084110580

It seems strange to cite one's own contributions as the reasoning for the revert of a larger delta (8739 characters vs. ~3k for the net of Bobrossghost's contributions).

Further, the spirit of Bob Ross appears to be a WP:SPA -- all edits involve this article, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobrossghost

I invite discussion from uninvolved observers here (I think I am one, I've never edited this page previously).

User:Bobrossghost, why not remove your own contributions if you feel they were potentially libelous? Traumerei (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Readability

I fixed grammar and ordering for readability. Also some claims failed verification so I deleted or replaced them. You Make Me Fade (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A word on off site canvassing and the request to prohibit IP edits

The subject of this article has been using her Twitter account (in the article, not outing) canvassing for the reversion of certain edits. This is not allowed. Not every IP editor is a vandal, even in the case of this article, which has some history of vandalizing (as many BLPs do). A reminder to assume good faith and constructively edit Wikipedia, instead of just reverting unless it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or a violation of WP:BLP or WP:LP. 69.133.28.44 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty egregious off-wiki campaigning mischaracterizing edits as vandalism.[2] 172.59.223.176 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You should probably report this to the page protection noticeboard. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

article ownership

the article, while mostly adhering to reliable sources, is being group edited and being blockaded against reasonable contrary edits.

we will go ahead and follow along as a learning exercise. fairly certain i can ascertain where the tangeles are being directed, so that other disinterested editors can make constructive edits.

thanks in advance for attempting to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

specifically, the claims in the bio are often sourced to a pdf of her self-created resume.

that specific content will be removed as being effectively unsourced biographical content. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

we're going over all the sources and claims, removing poorly sourced, rewriting for POV, and making adjustments to match facts in the sources.

you are welcome to contribute, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and there's another ip editor, the 9th in the last hour, reverting any and all, and implying ownership. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and there's interested editor number 10, in barely 1:15 minutes. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

you do realize this woman told millions of people in the last 24h that Apple almost killed her right 2603:8000:6500:BC1:1489:824D:1F09:4FFC (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i dont knee jerk edit, i edit for the ages.

what she has recently claimed in her social media has zero effect on the edits currently being made, all of which are evidently long standing issues with balance, tone, and sourcing.

thanks for they heads up, i didn't know she existed until this afternoon. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ip editor 12 just raised its head. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Facts about herself which are not contentious such as birthday, places of residence, place of birth, family, volunteer work, education, and work places all fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. 2600:1702:3890:1940:5CF7:1314:DC8F:6F9 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the of you taking the time to reply.

about self does not cover philanthropy or volunteer work, or other fan cruft that is excessively laudatory.

links to PDFs of resumes fail for multiple reasons.

also, self editing, ip hopping, and inserting peacock/unbalanced prose has no place in the wikipedia project, as im sure you will realize.

thanks again for helping keeping the encyclopedia accurate. i hope to hear similar reasonable comments from the other 8 ip editors who swarmed over the last hour.

have a wikipedia afternoon, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

being blockaded against reasonable contrary edits

1. Your edits to expand the table were reverted because they broke the table with incorrect code.

2. Breaking up the lead where you are doesn't make sense and is confusing the flow. She is known for her legal complaints and termination at Apple. The rest of the paragraph explains the most notable legal complaints and why she was fired. The RICO lawsuit is a separate paragraph as it was more than 2 years later and not part of why she's notable.

3. Per WP:AWW, edits were made to some of your additions to remove a passive voice.

Hope this helps. 47.145.204.243 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i read the same thing you read, and disagree about the table being collapsed, about the prose being used, and about the length of the lead, and about using marginal sources.

the article lacks balance, is excessively congratulatory, and will be edited to reflect these facts.

poorly sourced content, particularly, will need to be pruned.

thanks for taking an interest in the accuracy of the encyclopedia, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

mate that says your edits BROKE the table template 24.126.135.220 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i check all sources, all edits, all content, for all of my edits, and then recheck the article for weeks afterwards.

if i broke the table it was in error, and i appreciate reliable competent assistance wherever i can find it.

thanks for helping create a world class online reference, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1) I support the way the IP wants the lead, because it breaks it up time-wise and subject wise.

2) I have removed some of the volunteer resume sourced "puffery".

2) TO THE IP EDITOR: IP hopping MAY be against Wikipedia rules, or it MAY be frowned upon, because it gives the false impression of consensus by many editors when in fact only one person is behind the IP's. WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is against Wikipedia rules, but I don't know about IP hopping. I do understand people's want for privacy and I am not criticizing that. I just wanted to bring the subject up. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to clairfy, I am not alleging any ABUSIVE use of these multiple IP's. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturing vs R&D

Some IP editors are aggressively removing any reference that the facility code-named Aria is a "manufacturing" facility. It makes stuff for research purposes, not large quantities for production, and this is confirmed by Bloomberg here: "designing and producing its own device displays for the first time, using a secret manufacturing facility near its California headquarters"

I changed my edit from R&D manufacturing to "manufacturing R&D" because the primary purpose of the facility appears to be R&D, but they have to manufacture on a small scale in order to DO that R&D, and the construction of the facility is tailored for that manufacturing operation. It isn't a cozy "lab" where people just sit at their desks all day! 76.6.213.65 (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)