Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski

Is noting that the subject of this article reportedly admitted to faking cancer as a high schooler a violation of BLP? Do you consider either of these two links gossip and/or libelous: Gawker link, Shabooty link? Levdr1lp / talk 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gawker link is a valid news source that has been shared over 48k times and is not gossip or libelous because Erika Lauren has admitted lying about having cancer in the article itself and quoted by the journalist. You must not understand libel law to even call it that. You do remain hellbent at keeping the gawker source out of this wiki page for one reason only because you deem it will hurt the subject. You are not being unbiased you are bullying other editors and wrongly removing sources you deem harmful to the subject which is a major wiki violation and harms the community::Meredith4663 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

She also lied about the cancer at the age of 20. You saying she was in high school is a lie trying to steer people away from the truth once again. Extremely alarming how biased you are in regards to this page:::Meredith4663 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Meredith4663- I realize you're a new user, but please try to remain calm try and assume good faith. I opened this request for comment precisely because I realize that I could be acting overly cautiously. I'm primarily concerned with the content in the Shabooty.com post (and that the Gawker post links directly to the same Shabooty.com post). I'm much less concerned about the TimeOut Chicago link. Levdr1lp / talk 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, despite Meredith4663's claims otherwise, I have no connection to the subject of this article. Levdr1lp / talk 01:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You CLEARLY can't read news stories correctly. GAWKER interviews Erika Lauren in which she admits in her own words that she faked having cancer. The Shabooty mention in the Gawker link ^[1] http://gawker.com/5453522/the-real-world-dc-girl-who-faked-cancer-i-regret-it^[2] is about an entirely different issue she did calling the police on her college roommates. You CLEARLY are BIASED when removing content to this page. It is clear to everyone and the wiki admins I'm notifying about this:::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredith4663 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Gawker did not interview the subject of this article; that was TimeOut Chicago. That interview was *linked to* by Gawker, just like the Shabooty.com post was linked to by Gawker. To reiterate, my primary concern is with the content in the Shabooty.com post. Levdr1lp / talk 14:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

GAWKER uses both sources but you keep one source that speaks positively of Erika but not the other. If one is tabloid they both are tabloid, so we should remove the reference from TimeOut from this page which would cause this page in being deleted for lack of good or even acceptable sources. Non of these sources currently are acceptable and the only three listed currently are a failing attempt to make this person notable when in fact they are not. Again, you are not reading the Gawker article good enough or you're just BIASED. Again, you are not allowing the gawker article from being added to this page because of a link in the story which you have no authority to do, while you use another link in the very same article as a sourced reference to this page (TIMEOUT CHICAGO) You are aware it's not your job to question the journalists approach on how they write. You add sources to Wikipedia based on what the media reports. Just because you deem it fake news doesn't give you the right.::::::Meredith4663 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your primary concern is you don't want any sources news story about your friend Erika Lauren who faked having cancer that has been reported in the press by more reputable news sources than the news sources that make up this poor excuse of a Wikipedia page:::::Meredith4663 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Don't include - Gawker was the worst sort of gossip magazine/tabloid (before it was bankrupted by the courts for posting sex tapes and other unethical reporting). As this information is not covered in reputable press to the point that it surpasses WP:Gossip, it is entirely irrelevant to the page at large, even if it happened to be true. Yvarta (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All the sources listed in this page are gossip including the TIMEOUT CHICAGO that is in the Gawker article as a sourced to the wiki page itself, so you agree we must remove the TIMEOUT CHICAGO because it's gossip.:::::Meredith4663 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Gawker refers to Timeout (a reputable magazine, in my understanding), does not make Gawker reputable. Any and all gossip magazines should be removed from the page. If Timeout covers the exact information you want to include in an article you can link to, it would be helpful if you brought that to the table - as it is not among the two articles mentioned in the RFC question. Yvarta (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure that even if it can be reliably sourced it is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have checked multiple sources but all of them mention Shahbooty. Huffpost, PopCrunch Now how can we believe Shahbooty's article as it mentions the mail from her ex-boyfriend (I really doubt it)? What is the source that that mail is sent by her ex. Clearly there are no sources. I think it is libelous. The original source of Time out Chicago isn't available.Monfernape 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by عثمان خلیل (talk • contribs)

I just found the source from Time Out Chicago. I think it's quite reliable. Sorry for the earlier comment but I think here's the original source.Monfernape 16:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by عثمان خلیل (talk • contribs)

• Support for inclusion As to the primary issue here which Levdr1lp fairly raises, I am of the opinion that this content should probably be included. The sourcing is not stellar, and the Shabooty source likely doesn't qualify as RS (you could always inquire at RSN). But the Gawker article, being an uncontested direct interview, is certainly an at least acceptable source for this claim. It's also per se non-defamtory if it comes from directly from Wasilewski. Also, it's worth noting the context that she owns this mistake. Her account, if it has been reported accurately, is this:

"'Um, there is some truth to what you're hearing. Yes, it happened. Yes, I regret it. If I could take it back, I would. I was going through some severe emotional problems at the time. I was lashing out and craving attention wherever I could. It was really destructive. I didn't even realize I had a problem until my freshman year of college. At that point, I received help and I did take antidepressants. I weaned myself off with the guidance of my doctor, and I've basically done a complete turnaround.'"

She doesn't come off as weedly, but rather as an adult with perspective on a time in her life when she very young and basically unwell, so my take-away is self-awareness and honesty. Mileage may vary in that regard, but its not really at the center of the policy inquiry anyway. There remains a little bit of a WP:WEIGHT question as to whether this is relevant to an encyclopedic summary of Wasilewski as a topic. On the balance of all factors though, I think it should be included. It would stick out like less of a sore thumb if there was more meat to this article, but it seems to at least pass muster under every relevant policy.

I do want to note also that I think the tone of some of the comments directed at Levdr1lp have been needlessly combative, incendiary, or just plain aggressive. Meredith4663, you need to tone it down a bit, and read WP:C, because your approach here is boarding on WP:disruptive and that kind of all-out attack and refusal to WP:AGF could get you blocked if it doesn't let up. You've got the right end of the content policy issues here, more or less, so just trust the case to make itself as a consensus is formed. Levdr1lp did exactly what they should have in this context to get more perspectives, so you don't get to berate and cast aspersions out of the gate. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment The interview quoted in the Gawker link was conducted by Time Out Chicago: "Time Out Chicago interviewed Erika about a rather damning rumor from her pre-Real World days..." So Gawker did not interview Wasilewski. My concern with the Gawker post is that it links to a pretty gossipy (maybe even libelous?) Shabooty.com post. Levdr1lp / talk 03:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see that the Gawker article's link to the original Time Out Chicago article is now a dead link (if Time Out Chicago is still hosting it, it's not at that URL). That's less than ideal, but insofar as it was apparently a credited interview that was reviewed by one of our editors at the time it was added, I think it is technically allowable under policy to verify that quote, or the Gawker article can stand in for it, so long as we have no reason to believe the quote was altered between the two publications. But if someone could find the original, that would be most ideal. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I see that an up-to-date link to the Time Out Chicago piece is already cited in this article: . Further, it seems that both of the other sources actually replicate the content originally found in this source; that is, both of the accounts of those two different events come from this single interview, which is credited and found in a reliable source. So insofar as verifiability goes, these claims/quotes are just fine. I agree that the Shabooty article is journalistically underwhelming, and almost certainly not RS. But we can leave it out of the loop altogether and simply source to the original interview. As I mentioned above, there only real open question I can see is the WP:WEIGHT issue, but I tend to think the content squeezes through acceptability there too. One tiny little caveat; the article currently ends on the line, "She later regretted her decision to lie about having cancer to gain public sympathy." That seems like a rather editorialized way to describe the situation that attaches a sentiment that doesn't quite perfectly match what she says in the interview. It's just not quite neutral in my opinion. I'd prefer just quoting her account a little more fully with a block quote. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Don't include - Most sources that have reported on it aren't really reliable sources, Sure they made a dumb comment but I don't really see the need to name & shame them over it, Had various reputable sources reported on it and there was a lot of criticism over it then fine but at present only a few non notable sources have recycled it to death and in short there wasn't any criticism over the words, So in short including it would only serve to name & shame them and that's it. –Davey2010^Talk 11:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Include but correct, to note that "She also lied about the cancer at the age of 20", if there's a source for that. Whether Gawker is usually a good source or not is completely irrelevant in this case, because the material is the subject's own statement in an interview, and that is sufficient sourcing per WP:ABOUTSELF, even if it's negative. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude we can't use something from a questionable source, and Gawker truly is questionable. Get it from a reliable source or keep it out, per WP:BLP (Trust me, as a cancer survivor, I'd love to vote just the opposite, but BLP needs to be followed :) ) К Ф Ƽ Ħ 16:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)