Wikipedia

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 16

< Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Tony Sidaway in topic The draft is back
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Reason edit was reverted

Latest comment: 9 years ago51 comments13 people in discussion

I just edited the article, as shown here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&oldid=639137024 The edit in question included a citation linking to a New York Times "Bits" article covering Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra. Some time later, Woodroar reverted the edit for what it seems like no particular reason, as I could not find an edit summary anywhere. Can someone please clarify why my edit was reverted? Battlesnake1 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's the fact that you removed the description of the allegations against Zoe Quinn as being false, and that you inserted a claim that the controversy involves "corruption in journalism" which, well, yeah, it doesn't, really. If you want to work in the sourced wording where Gamergate supporters view the issue as a consumer boycott, I don't think that's problematic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sorry, Battlesnake1, you had posted on the Talk page previously so I had assumed you were following the discussions. It was the BLP removal of "false accusations", the UNDUE addition of "corruption", and the likewise UNDUE addition of "boycott" to the lede when it's only partially supported by the source: the word "boycott" is used in the title but not in the article, and it's an incorrect or perhaps nonstandard use of the word "boycott" that they describe. But hey, I'm not a reliable source, and if we have reliable sources calling it a "boycott" then who am I to complain? But it needs to be a strong source fully qualifying its usage, and it doesn't belong in the lede when very few sources discuss it. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate is primarily about misogynistic harassment; you can't cherry-pick one of the tiny handful of sources that give credence to the largely debunked "it's all about ethics" angle. The ethics gets a side note, that is all. Tarc (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The question of,"Is Gamergate primarily misogynistic or is it primarily about ethics?" is debatable, there is no clear answer. A clear goal of Wikipedia is to stay neutral in a controversy, despite our personal opinions and to review the facts of said controversy as it develops. Battlesnake1 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not debatable in the slightest; reliable sources have predominantly dismissed the "but ethics" part and given attention to the "misogynistic harassment" part. The Wikipedia does not take a side when it reports the mainstream point-of-view on a topic. "But ethics" gets it's say and mention in the article, but the 2 "sides" are not equal, and will not be presented as such. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Battlesnake1: Welcome to the reality that is Wikipedia. No matter which seems more likely, that thousands of people suddenly decided to organize a harassment campaign about women, or thousands of people became upset that journalists weren't being ethical and got them to change site policies and got FTC guidelines changed, Wikipedia can only report on what is covered in the majority of "reliable" sources. Weedwacker (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If "reliable sources" give more attention to one side of the story than the other side, there is a sign of bias in those said sources. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to report on the 2 sides equally, whether the other side is covered more or not. Battlesnake1 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're describing would create false balance. WP categorically does not report equally on all the sides of a story. — Strongjam (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Per WP:UNDUE, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The ethics concern is covered in the correct proportion that it needs to be. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not undue weight to present a non-judgmental description, of modest length, of what the minority viewpoint is before explaining that the majority disagrees. It is not structurally neutral nor a requirement of due weight to dismiss unpopular views before presenting them, or to interleave the views with sea-lioning WP:HOWEVER clauses. While it is acceptable to assume a side of a controversy in WP's voice for expediency in articles not related to different points of view, this is an article about a controversy. No side of the controversy should be stated in WP's voice. Rhoark (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
We also don't spread gossip about living persons and then come back later to correct it, which is what this edit did. "Oh hey, remember when we said someone slept around for press, like, 3 paragraphs ago? Totes kidding, OMG it didn't even happen!" No, we're not going to do that. Woodroar (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong again, otherwise 9/11 would have to give equal time to theories that the Jews and George Bush brought the towers down, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be authentic, and so on. Fringe theories do not get a seat at the table; they get a seat at the fold-out table in the other room, just like for the kids at Thanksgiving. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate concerns are not fringe, in and of themselves, and especially not in an article that directly pertains to them. If you want to make an analogy then look at September_11_attacks#Motives and Al-Qaeda#Ideology. Note the complete lack of sea-lioning about what mainstream sources think. Rhoark (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are. From the claims that there is a mass media conspiracy against gamergate, to their position that only people who like a game should review it as an example of "ethics in journalism" those gamergaters who are not harassers are wing nut idiots. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Fringe does not mean false, unpopular, or reprehensible. Prominent adherents have been identified. Reliable sources have noted the views. That's what it takes to not be fringe on WP. The adherents do not have to be reliable sources, and the reliable sources do not have to be adherents. Rhoark (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Please name one popular adherent who says "Only people who like a game should review it" let alone someone who says that such a belief represents "ethics in journalism" as it most decidedly represents UNethical journalism. Please name one popular adherent who says there is a mass media conspiracy against gamergaters. And FRINGE IS positions who have no basis and no meaningful support in mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot name any adherents to those or any number of other strawman arguments. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Were you aware that your edit, which you described as "Included a citation linking to a New York Times "Bits" article covering Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra," also "removed the description of the allegations against Zoe Quinn as being false, and ... inserted a claim that the controversy involves 'corruption in journalism?'" I am concerned your account or computer are compromised. Please respond to this post haste. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In what way was I "creating gossip?" Is there a quote in the edit in where it can be interpreted as gossip? I do not want to start an edit war here, but where exactly was I creating gossip? Battlesnake1 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You removed the fact that the accusations against Quinn were categorically false, but added they were simply "allegations". Allegations, neither true nor false. Look at it this way: if this article were about, say, a case of murder, do you think Wikipedia should say "so-and-so was alleged to have committed the crime" and then three paragraphs later resolve it with "haha, just kidding, that wasn't true at all"? I certainly hope not. It's the same reason we don't write that someone may have slept around for press when it didn't actually happen. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the part of the article I feel is most in need of attention, but I've checked over the sources that are being cited for claims in the article about allegations being false, and there are a lot of them. None of them makes the claim, even as an opinion, that all allegations of trading sex for career advancement were false. A couple don't even mention allegations against Quinn one way or another. None of them even mentions alleged partners other than Nathan Grayson. Regarding Grayson, many sources say that he did not write a review of Depression Quest, which is true but a pedantic evasion of the fact he gave positive coverage to Quinn. Several sources note the coverage came before the sex (by 2-3 days), but do not explicitly synthesize this to imply the two things were not related. Stephen Tolito (who should be regarded as a primary source) only goes so far as to say there was not enough evidence to confirm wrongdoing. The bottom line is that the relation between the claims in the article and the available sources are in a sorry state on this matter. I don't believe there is anything noteworthy to be drawn from Quinn's sexual activity, and don't advocate that the article suggest there is. However, the article should moderate its claims to say the accusations are alleged and that there is no evidence that any of the claims are true. There should be no impediment to saying so in WP's voice, even. Saying things are false though should be phrased in a way that communicates what specific claims are false, and attributed as opinion if necessary. Or if an editor prefers, they can find a source that actually says all the allegations are false. Such a source would likely be WP:OTTO, but whatever. As a lower priority, someone should eventually clean up some of the spurious citations that were probably hastily salvaged from trimmed content. Rhoark (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The claims are false, as repeatedly discussed in reliable sources, the end. Your personal belief that something is "a pedantic evasion" is an unsourced opinion with no relevance to our article.
None of them even mentions alleged partners other than Nathan Grayson — which is a very good clue that such allegations have absolutely no place in the encyclopedia. If reliable sources don't see fit to consider them, neither do we.
Moreover, if, as you claim, Gamergate is about "ethics in games journalism," then by extension the only allegation that matters to Gamergate is the allegation relating to a games journalist. Are you suggesting that Gamergate isn't about "ethics in games journalism" and is actually about gossip-filled scandalmongering of Zoe Quinn's personal life based upon an ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack" of a blogpost? Quelle surprise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
My opinions are not proposed to be referenced in the article and as such are not at issue. It is not the allegations, but the claims of falsehood that are under scrutiny here. I do not propose the other sexual partners be discussed in the article. However, if the article states that all the claims are false, that means all the claims. This is purely a reliable sourcing issue. The article is making a claim that is not reliably sourced by references in the article even if the claim is true and the consensus view of reliable sources that exist out there somewhere. If people are going to keep deploying the Spanish Inquisition about reliable sourcing, it has to be over all points of view. The article needs to either weaken its claims or source them better. Rhoark (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not on point here. The claims of falsehood are made repeatedly in a wide array of reliable sources, and we are not in a position to question their conclusions.
As our article states, false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game and false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game. Both of those statements are well-sourced and accurate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel like this issue has come up before. Maybe to make it easier, NS, could you show your work? Just a quick: This was an allegation made, this is the source that says its false. Shouldn't be too hard if all the sources say "its false," no? (Edit Conflict Note to your edit...) Those are the most prominent allegations, but there are other allegations made. Can you show where the reliable sources called them false too? Ries42 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to click on the numerous reliable sources supplied in the article via inline citations for that statement. Whatever "other allegations" you're claiming exist, the mainstream reliable sources covering this issue do not consider them worthy of mention, so we don't mention them either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) A few examples from sources in the article:
As far as I can tell, not a single reliable source has supported these allegations, and numerous reputable sources have said that they are without merit. We have to cover them based on what the reliable sources say; they have examined these particular accusations of sexual misconduct (in the way described in the article) and have universally dismissed them. Your concern, if I read it right, is that you think the reliable sources have examined the accusations the wrong way-- you believe they haven't followed the right angles, eg. you want to speculate about partners other than Grayson, or you personally feel that the timeline that numerous sources cite to dismiss the accusations is not sufficient evidence. But (particularly when it comes to coverage that falls under BLP, like this) we have to be very careful to follow the coverage in reliable sources, and the overwhelming consensus of those reliable sources matches the description in the article -- some people made these particular accusations about Quinn and Grayson, and those accusations accusations are categorically false. --Aquillion (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
First one isn't there. Another link?
Second one is "on the media.org?" Is that a reliable source? Is this a blog? Hunh? I thought these sources were right out? Could you back this up.
Boston Globe, finally, something clearly reliable. long series of grievances and listed, by name, several people she had allegedly slept with while they were together. One of them was a writer for the popular blog Kotaku, and when this came out a certain subset of the gaming community erupted with videos and blog posts and other rants how she had seduced him for favorable coverage (the wench!). Hmm, sounds like they're discussing a true allegation here. Ries42 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And before you strawman me, the allegation I'm referring to is the impropriety not the "sex for coverage" angle. Boston Globe, a clearly reliable source, is discussing it. That means its notable, right? Ries42 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You might want to do a bit of research. On the Media is National Public Radio's media criticism and analysis program, a highly-reliable source.
The allegation that the relationship had any connection to "favorable coverage" is false, as you agree. That's the only allegation which matters. We aren't in the business of discussing the sordid details of someone's ugly relationship drama, and we won't be doing so here. There is no public interest served in doing so — it is nothing more than bedroom gossip and rumors. If you want a supermarket tabloid report on who broke up with who for what reason, that can be found elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. That allegation has been denied by Grayson and Tolito believes him. Labeling it as "false" is interesting, but, you know, even if I give you that it is false, it doesn't mean that all allegations that were made were false. That's the issue. I just pointed out one of a number of allegations that were made, that were discussed by the reliable source presented here. At least one of those is true. As the "zoepost" is being linked as the start of Gamergate in the lede, and several of the allegations made there have been proven true... This seems like a clear cut case. Yes, many of the allegations are false, maybe even most of them. The specific ones you are pointing at have been agreed to by the reliable sources to be false as well. But the reliable sources have discussed other allegations and those have been proven true. Its misrepresentation to say that all allegations made in relation to Gamergate have been proven false. You and I agree that we don't need to discuss them more than that, but we need to make sure to not misrepresent the truth or the reliable sources. Ries42 (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I'll repeat myself. As our article states, false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game and false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game. Both of those statements are well-sourced and accurate.
Moreover, you have a really, really interesting way of showing that Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism by continually dragging in the personal life of someone who isn't a gaming journalist. What relevance do Zoe Quinn's personal relationships with people not named Nathan Grayson have to ethics in gaming journalism? Do you ever stop to think about why nobody outside your movement takes your claims seriously? Because this is exactly why — you're engaging in a smear campaign against an obscure indie developer. A movement's actions speak louder than its words, and its actions are plain for all to see. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
My movement? What are you accusing me of? Please do not insinuate I'm part of anything. I'm talking about the lede of the article which says, The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson,. That's what the article says. That's a true allegation. Later stating Gamergate's origins in the false allegations and harassment of Quinn is not a completely true statement. At best its a misrepresentation.
Later in the article it says Evidence which is said to justify this belief is the movement's origination in false accusations and trolling and links to the article here, which doesn't even use the word "false" at any point.
Later the article says dating to the movement's origination in false claims about Quinn and Grayson., which, again, is only mostly true. If you state each and every time that they are specifically false allegations for positive coverage because of an intimate personal relationship, than each of those times is true. Without saying that, the article is misrepesenting the case.
I have no care about Ms. Quinn. I do not wish to drag her name through the mud, or make any false allegations. That includes labeling something as "false" that may not be. As long as the lede states that the beginning of Gamergate begins with Eron Gjoni's post and the allegations made there, it includes the allegations he made implicitly when referring to all allegations, some of which have been proven true. Unless the article specifies which allegations it is referring to when it labels all allegations as "false" it is a misrepresentation. The End. Stop trying to deflect by accusing me of something. I simply don't care. Ries42 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
His screed covers a lot of ground and makes a lot of accusations and implication. accusations and implications about what consenting adults did that nobody but sexually deprived basement dwelling trolls care about. The only potential allegation of any public interest was review by someone involved in an undisclosed intimate personal relationship - that allegation is most definitely false. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Context is nice. The full segment, in context: Many Gamergate supporters have said that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism; members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate. This campaign and others like it have been widely criticized in the media as evidence that the ethics concerns are a front for a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics. Gamergate's origins in the false allegations and harassment of Quinn, its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence for this position. The fact that the purported journalism ethics violations by Quinn and Grayson are false has been cited as evidence that the movement isn't really concerned with ethics in video game journalism. Which is true and well-sourced. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How is adding context changing that at all? It doesn't. If it said "Gamergate's origins in the false allegations of ethical misconduct and harassment of Quinn." We have no argument. The fact that just above that it states the the allegations that The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. implies that those allegations are also false. Which they are not. Ries42 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If that's all you thought needed to be changed, why not be WP:BOLD and make the change yourself, rather than argue about it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Its not all that needs to be changed. Minds also need to be changed. Some editors would not agree with even that change. Plus, I feel like if I made that change in all the places it needed to be done, it would be reverted. Additionally, I'm afraid of being banned as I've noticed several editors make what would normally be minor edits and then be sactioned for it. I've decided not to be WP:Bold or make any edits until this article looks less like a battlefield. But I can lend my arguments and hopefully make more friends and make a better bridge here just talking. When there is less accusations like the one you made above, we'll all be in a better place. Ries42 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We're not here to change minds, we're here to document a controversy based on what reliable sources say about it. And what they say about it is pretty unanimous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Baby steps. Ries42 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as NorthBySouthBaranof says, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to change people's minds, but to provide a general overview of the subject as covered in reliable sources. Your objections notwithstanding, I think I illustrated above (and that it has been illustrated throughout the extensive discussions on this talk page) that our current article closely matches what the vast majority of reliable sources have to say on this subject and the weight they have given to its various aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Very small baby steps, clearly, but baby steps none the less. Ries42 (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing peoples' minds about how to edit is a valid goal on a talk page. Speaking of changing minds, while following link trails on this issue I came across this gem: http://www.mattiebrice.com/on-anger/ Insane how aligned some peoples positions would be if events hadn't polarized them. Anyway, I still think there is a problem in this area of the article, but my energies are directed at other parts right now. If someone were to slightly tweak wording so the claims of falsehood are more specific or guarded, I think that would be warranted. Rhoark (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
So when are people's minds going to change about editing to start following WP:NPOV / WP:RS and WP:RWG? seeing any baby steps in that direction would be a good thing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Battlesnake1 and Rhoark, while I appreciate what you guys are doing, it's a lost cause. I and previous users have tried numerous approaches to write an impassive article here, but it's under factional control. There's a small squad of vehement anti-gamergate editors who assume any change in the slant of the writing is perpetrated by their political enemies. I've tried every rhetorical tactic I could think of including a fair amount of bargaining and compromise, but seriously, there is nothing you can do. This issue is ideological and the editors here are writing from ideology - they don't care about the articles for ISIS, the Nazis, or anyone else. They don't care what anyone's actual motives are. The history of the gaming industry this controversy concerns is meaningless here. Misogyny is their version of sin, and Gamergate supporters are demons. You can't convince them to allow these changes any more than you could convince someone to deliberately cast their own soul into Hell.

Presently, this article is under ArbCom review, which might remove a few editors and allow some less accusatory writing, but until then it's a wash. Until then, this article will regard Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and other Feminist pundits as sacrosanct martyrs and Gamergate will be Pilate. Just leave the article alone and come back in a year or two when it's further in the past. YellowSandals (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I have not seen any indication of editors presently acting in bad faith on this article. Several small but positive steps have been taken towards neutrality in the article itself over the weekend. Present discussions about expanding the diversity of reliable sourcing in the article are promising. Positive change will come by being vigilant that WP:DUE does not overshadow WP:IMPARTIAL. Rhoark (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but as a head's up, then, I can pass the baton to some extent and let you know that the editors here have gone over virtually every angle of WP:IMPARTIAL versus WP:UNDUE. It's the core issue with the article, of course, when you get down to it, but I have to express that the problem you're looking at is not just a single thing. Although it's quite difficult to remark on what Gamergate is doing or was trying to do because most articles only accuse Gamergate of harassment and don't elaborate on why they would harass anyone, the broader problem is that you've got editors who feel that Gamergate supporters are bad human beings as a matter of factual statement. Hence, when they write disparaging comments about Gamergate supporters, describing them as misogynists or anti-feminists, it doesn't matter why those people have actually done or said or how they describe themselves - it's presumed as fact. If you call someone a misogynist, that's just what they are. You can't debate it. None of the reliable sources are debating it, so nobody can debate it. Some editors will refer to this as undeniable truth, or irrefutable fact.
Likewise, any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn also does comes from the assumption that their enemies are all misogynists. It doesn't matter what either of these people have actually said, what their histories are - talk against them is misogynistic. All the reliable sources say this. It is regarded as Truth. You can't write against Truth. Writing against Truth would be WP:UNDUE. Imagine you are trying to convince other editors to say the sky is orange because you've got one or two reliable articles saying there's some debate about it. That's how it seems to them.
Aside from that, don't bother bringing up the fact that Wikipedia hasn't made moral stances on other subjects. In the earliest parts of these debates, some editors merely remarked that this failure to disparage other evil groups was a "grave failing" or something to that effect. Since then the response to these comparisons have only grown colder and colder, to the point where it gets laughed off. You seem to have a good grasp of Wiki policy, Rhoark, but it's going to be an uphill battle and I'll be impressed if you can cite enough precedents to make any progress towards writing this article as though it were a controversy with opposing viewpoints and motives outside of Saturday morning cartoon evil. YellowSandals (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You keep seeming to think this is about Gamergate the OrganizationTM - its not. As an "organization"/"movement"/"revolting consumers" its non notable- nobody fucking cares about an "organizaiton"/"movement"/revolting consumers that cannot provide mission or even a spokesperson. The thing that got it noticed is the repetitive vile harassment committed under its name which lead to a wider discussion about sexism in video games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to be a neutral encyclopedia (not a news source), we have to care there is a self-described movement that has ethics claims, and give what few details have been published in reliable sources non-judgemential treatment of their cause, after which we can then include the criticisms of that cause. We absolutely cannot take the attitude that "nobody fucking cares" - its actually wrong to say that, because the sources do care in so far that this group is attached to a hashtag that has also been used for harassment attacks, and thus anything this group has tried to justified is tainted by that. That's "not caring", that's "strongly concerned". The more articles that come out this far out from the event - like the DAily Dot - suggest that we may want to start thinking of this article around the movement; they were initially noted for the harassment, but now they are noted for the consequences of their actions from both the harassment angle and from the ethics side even if these were not the results they wanted to end up. The controversy that is the topic of this article is about the actions of that movement or tied to the GG hashtop, and not the actual controversial elements that the movement has with ethics --MASEM (t) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, your emotional ties to gamergate just keep showing through please start trying to be objective. As long as the sources dont care we dont care. And the sources DO NOT CARE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Three Paragraph Lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What exact purpose do the second two paragraphs in the lede provide, and can we take anything pertinent from them and push them into the first paragraph, or more likely, the content below?

I considered just making this edit myself (bold, etc etc), but while I've been following this page pretty closely, I admit I missed some of the discussion of the lede, and I know that it's the most contested part of the page. My concern is that the second paragraph opens with "The controversy began", despite the fact that the first section in the article itself is the history of the controversy. I think the first paragraph covers most of the critical details, and I've been trying to figure out which bits in the second two need to be moved up or down, if we go ahead with this.

  • Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian as the most notable victims of abuse? I honestly don't think their names need to be in a one paragraph lede, since thankfully none of the three have suffered any lasting consequences from the harassment. All this would require is making sure they're properly introduced when they're brought up below.
  • Sources of the harassment: This probably should be moved into the first paragraph. Considering that Gamergate triggered the mass exodus from 4chan that created 8chan, it can probably feature as the locus, with reddit and twitter backing it up here. The wording here would be key, as I'm also wary of creating a bloated lede, which I imagine is why we have the three paragraphs we have now.
  • "The movement's unwillingness to move beyond its unorganized, leaderless and anonymous roots has been criticized as non-constructive, and has resulted in an inability to control its behavior and messaging" This is what I consider the most important part of the third paragraph, and I think it belongs in a single paragraph lede because it'll be the lasting memory of this whole debacle, and its fizzling. In fact, it's possible we could wrap this and the second bullet into one sentence, as the idea of a leaderless mob is in no small part closely linked to its roots in imageboards and hashtags.

It feels silly to type all of this instead of just making the edit myself, but frankly I just wanted to be respectful and pick the brains of the more experienced editors about this. Parabolist (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"...since thankfully none of the three have suffered any lasting consequences from the harassment" ? Doesn't matter one bit; if the harassment lasted for a day or a year (and judging by Amazon publishes thinly veiled rape fantasy of #GamerGate target Zoe Quinn, it is still an ongoing event), we follow what the sources say about a subject. Quinn, Sarkeesian, & Wu's targeting for harassment is what Gamergate is all about. The lead introduces the subject matter, hence the prominence of their names. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I absolutely agree with that. What I'm saying is that in terms of lede real estate and long term notability, it's not entirely necessary for their NAMES to be in the lede. A controversy is remembered by its lasting outcomes, and Quinn/Wu/Sarkeesian are more likely to be remembered for their career successes than their position as targets of gamergate harassment, whereas as this whole debacle is most likely going to be remembered for its connections to a larger conversation on social issues. Parabolist (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont recall seeing any coverage of gg that didnt mention at least one of the three, most coverage includes all three. the harassment they in particular have been subject to is central to what makes gg notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that in general, harassment of Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian in particular is what GamerGate is most famous for and is the focus of the majority of its coverage in reliable sources. I mean, maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be; clearly there's other stuff to cover, too (and our article does). But for the better or worse that's where a huge bulk of the coverage and notability here comes from, so it needs to be prominent in both the lead and the article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary collation of balancing sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago87 comments15 people in discussion

This is a non-exhaustive, unordered, and unannotated collection of sources that may potentially be useful for correcting the lack of due weight given to minority viewpoints in the article as it stands. The initial slate is primarily concerned with chronologically early aspects of the controversy. It is being presented here for several reasons: First, as a parking place for the material while I and perhaps other editors deliberate best how to to incorporate new material in the article. Second, for dissenters to identify sources whose reliability they find suspect prior to inclusion in the article proper. (Reliability can only be fully evaluated in context, so seeking an opinion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard would be premature.) Finally, as an aid to fact-based debate about what positions can or cannot be supported by reliable third-party sources.

All entries are published by third parties with professional editorial and/or fact-checking procedures, and so provisionally fulfill the characteristics of a reliable source. It may be that some of these sources have a "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" causing the provisional extension of reliability to be rescinded. Those would be useful discoveries at this point. Some sources may only be reliable as a source of an attributed opinion.

Presenting an position that is "widely considered by other sources to be extremist" can be cause for considering something a questionable source; however, such determinations should be deferred for the time being. The division between unpopular and extremist is nuanced. Exclusion on such a basis can form a trap in which a significant minority consensus is not given a chance to gain a foothold against an incumbent majority consensus.

Sources are not required to be perfect. As per WP:BIASED, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Finally, consider a the conclusion of /RFC1: "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term."

http://www.gameskinny.com/o3t09/depression-quest-dev-faces-extreme-harassment-because-shes-a-woman

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

http://techraptor.net/content/inside-gamejournopros-interview-william-oneal

(Redacted)

http://www.edge-online.com/news/why-the-co-creator-of-depression-quest-is-fighting-back-against-internet-trolls/

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/11/gamergate-does-games-journalism-have-a-liberal-bias-problem/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12390-Damion-Schubert-GamerGate-Interview

https://medium.com/@SvizraLion/everything-totalbiscuit-got-wrong-in-way-too-many-words-4df407e8113c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e78JRIHRjC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmIrWqEUUU

Rhoark (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:UNDUE blogs and youtub ranters et al do not get "balanced" against PBS, The Guardian, BBC, Columbia Journalism Review, Washington Post, New York Times, Australian Broadcast Company etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
None of these are blogs. They all have professional editorial staff. WP:NOYT Youtube channels may be reliable secondary sources if they can be traced to a reliable publisher. Rhoark (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have redacted the links which are obviously unreliable and make defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources are self-published as claimed in your edit summary. Whether they are reliable and whether their claims are defamatory are at issue, and they should be available for discussion. Giving deference to the fact that they do concern living persons, I will leave reasonable time for you to make your case before restoring the links. Rhoark (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Restoring links to defamatory material in unreliable or self-published sources would be most unwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Then its a good thing they are reliable third-party sources. Rhoark (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You would be wrong about that, and if you wish to find out from a broader community consensus just how unsuitable those sources are, the reliable sources noticeboard is thataway -->
We are an encyclopedia, not a scandalmongering compilation of scurrilous rumors, innuendo, smear campaigns and unsupported personal attacks. I suggest that you review WP:BLPGOSSIP, which dictates that Wikipedia editors must: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Or, as the policy explicitly dictates, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My findings on applicable policy are the following. By WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE anyone wanting to restore material deleted on BLP grounds bears the burden of proof that the material complies with WP policy. According to WP:BLPTALK it is appropriate to present material of uncertain quality on a talk page for the purpose of discussing whether it is suitable for inclusion in an article. By this citation, burden of proof is fulfilled. I did not find any instance where guidelines are established for citing non-defamatory material from sources containing other material that is potentially defamatory. That is likely to be a fruitful subject on which to consult relevant review boards. As to what constitutes defamation, WP:LIBEL defers to Defamation, which states in the lede that defamation must be false and is usually "irrational unprovoked criticism which has little or no factual basis". Exact criteria vary by legal jurisdiction. To legally prove defamation in the United States, one "must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement." A variety of rationale for why a statement might not be defamatory are listed in Defamation#Other_defenses Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of these have been discussed previously. At a glance:
  • GameSkinny looks unreliable. I don't see any author or editor credentials. The staff details on the Contact Us link has a "former editor in chief" and "former staff editor", but no current information. I would consider all of that quick fails for the required "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  • TechRaptor looks slightly better, but still unreliable. I don't see any author credentials. Plus, having seen the content of their other stories, I seriously question their reliability and reputation.
  • Edge Online appears to be part of Future Publishing, which includes Mac|Life and Gizmodo. Probably notable, although it's very odd there's no by-line on the article.
  • The Medium article written by Andy Baio appears reliable to an extent: my understanding about Medium is that they are similar to the Forbes blogs, where there is little to no editorial control. We'd have to be careful about BLP claims, but I didn't notice any at first glance. The other Medium article is a pseudonym, so no.
  • Bright Side of News has been discussed many, many times before. They accept anything. Not reliable in the slightest.
  • The Escapist is a reliable source, but it's an WP:INTERVIEW. All the normal caveats apply.
  • YouTube is not a reliable source, even videos by TotalBiscuit.
So really, there's not much here that's not already in the article. Certainly not enough to shift WP:DUE weight. Woodroar (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; this is constructive. [situation with Medium is apparently complicated]. That will be one to bring to the review board. Policy on YouTube seems to be basically that the fact something is on YouTube is secondary to whether the video originates from what is otherwise a reliable third-party source. CynicalBrit is not only TotalBiscuit himself, but also an editorial staff. He has a reputation for issuing corrections and retractions. The others you have raised concerns about, I will look at more closely. Rhoark (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
To discuss the redacted links:
  • GamesNosh has existed for fewer than 4 months. The article linked features no actual reporting, only uncritical third-hand repetition of something from a blog filtered through Twitter, and it makes unfounded claims which have since been proven false.
  • Breitbart is a categorically-unreliable source for issues relating to living people. It has a reputation — a horrible one. As our article on the site helpfully points out, the outlet has a long history of publishing hoaxes, frauds and malicious falsehoods in service of its political goals.
  • TechRaptor is unreliable as per Woodroar's comments above. No significant reputation.
  • 8CN is a self-publishing platform which permits effectively anyone to sign up and post content, as their website makes plain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mindless Zombie Studios appears to exist solely to put forth a particular POV about Gamergate. No established reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and the owner states that by being the sole guy owning and running this site, and trying to make something of this site, I am exactly the sort of person that should care and be active. So I've decided to put my helmet on, and go to war for Gamergate. Yup, not what we're looking for in a reliable source.
  • NicheGamer is an article which simply uncritically repeats anonymous interviews, many of which feature defamatory claims about living people. We don't repeat anonymous gossip, and such is unacceptable as a source.
As Woodroar noted above, there's no there, there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that's helpful as well. With the addendum that uncritically repeating social media is also the mode of operation for a lot of what more established media is cited for in this article. That is essentially the value of their inclusion, as the real activity of the controversy is happening on social media, while our hands are tied by the need for secondary sources. Rhoark (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I would note that this search for high-quality sources cuts both ways, as a consensus has been reached that we will avoid citing oft-clickbaity sites such as Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, or Gawker sites except where they are used to source statements about the involvement of Gawker sites in the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you seriously just redact a link to Breitbart as a BLP violation? Are we really going there?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Did I redact a link to a site that has a longstanding history of literally making shit up about people it doesn't like and intentionally editing videos to create fake scandals and hold people in a false light? You bet I did. There's a million and one reasons that we don't accept Breitbart-sourced claims, and it's helpfully right in our article about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Dude, you are actively editing the article to make them look worse at the very same time that you are citing the Wikipedia article as a reason for why they are unreliable!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's because Collect weakened the true description of the issue which I wrote a month ago when it occurred. Collect's description made it appear as if it was some minor inadvertent error when it is actually a blatantly false story where the "error" constitutes the entire article, as the reliable sources note. You don't write an entire story which says some person is actually a different person and then dismiss it as "oops we confused two people." They initially left the story up with a correction appended to the bottom which amounted to admitting the entire article was false. If you want me to add more sources noting how fundamentally awful of an error this is, and how this points to a catastrophic lack of anything resembling fact-checking or editorial control at Breitbart if it means they can try to score political points against their perceived opponents, I'll be happy to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "true" description, first of all, because neither source states that the entire article was false, mainly because the entire article was not false. The headline and part of the piece was wrong, but other parts appear to be factually accurate. More importantly, you are editing the article on a source to make it seem less reliable and then using the content of the article to explain why we cannot use that source. Do you not see the problem with that?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, TDA, if you write an article that is headlined "Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama's attorney general nominee, represented Bill Clinton during the Whitewater scandal," and extensively claims the aforementioned falsehood, yes, we describe the entire article as false. The very premise of the article is invalid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You're foruming about an entirely different article NorthBySouthBaranof, please stop. Bramble window (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask why TDA brought it up, then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If I may request, since you seem to have an issue with Breitbart, then you should take it to WP:RSN instead of using WP as a source for excluding it. Mistakes are always made, though if you feel that the mistakes and actions made by Breitbart are due to negligence or similar, then it would be easier to come to a decision there and not sniping here. The exclusion would likely have been ok, though I am concerned if the issue with Breitbart is due to Yiannopoulos. Either way, I believe that WP:RSN is the place for this and would recommend that if this becomes an issue that it be taken there to settle it. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to reopen such a debate if you wish. There's a longstanding consensus that it's unacceptable for living persons issues, and the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate any change in that situation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If this becomes an issue, I am requesting you take it to WP:RSN to settle it. As I have said, the exclusion would likely be ok. However, if you wish to permanently prevent a source from being used for the future, then it must be taken to RSN or debated here. --Super Goku V (talk)
Breitbart has been discussed at RSN many times—it's even being discussed now—and the consensus has always been that it's inappropriate for BLP claims. We have also discussed it several times on this page. At this point, if an editor wants to use Breitbart, then per WP:BURDEN they should be taking it to RSN to have it vetted. Think of it as WP:DRV for sources. Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As was said above, there's nothing about these sources that makes them noteworthy enough to include; using them would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. WP:FRINGE specifically forbids using less noteworthy or lower-quality sources in order to 'balance out' an article. The basic fact is that while I know it's frustrating, Wikipedia's coverage is fundamentally governed by the consensus of the reputable mainstream media; if you feel that the mainstream media is biased on a specific subject, then you are always going to feel that the corresponding Wikipedia article is biased, because it's the nature of an encyclopedia to uncritically reflect the mainstream. Wikipedia is simply not the place to try and, as you put it, give a fringe viewpoint "a chance to gain a foothold against an incumbent majority consensus" -- that's just not what an encyclopedia is for. Gain a foothold for your point-of-view elsewhere and get the mainstream media to report on it, then we'll reflect that here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There is one good point made here, that Breitbart's negative reliability and ability to be sourced shouldn't only have the wikipedia mainstream saying that it is. That's definitely conflicting with WP:NPOV and turns the fork onto Wikipedia. I did a quick search and could only find an answers.com where a user asked if Breitbart's site is reliable. The top response said no, and it's something I feel we know, but I feel like it would be easier to make the laughable few who do trust it to avoid fighting over whether or not there is truth to the statement by finding a reputable source that actually calls them out, regardless of neutrality. (As their mediums can say whatever they want. Just covering my bases for when someone tries to call out ambivalence.) What's that other news site that I've tried to purge from memory that posts all of the pictures of the photoshopped animals, like green cats, saying, "you won't believe this vitamin," or whatever? The real question is, on a scientific level and a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, how can you flesh out the reason behind why Breitbart is not reliable without linking to articles cross referencing those with contradicting articles from legitimate publications? Also, I wanted to point out that it's hillarious that anyone could pretend there was a "mixup" on the two people and the site lingered. I know the publication process and how stressful being accurate and have your page perfect and correct is, as I've seen it first hand. An error like that doesn't linger, no. It's blatant fabrication.Chewbakadog (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Our definition of a reliable source is described in WP:RS. Breitbart, as far as I can tell, is almost a textbook example of a questionable source; putting aside whether it's generally-accepted as extremist, it unquestionably has a poor reputation for checking the facts. This means it cannot be used to source contentious claims about third parties. There is an important caveat, though -- reliability is based on the context, so a Breitbart opinion piece is, for instance, a reliable source on the opinion of the author, provided the significance of the author's views can be established using some other source. For example, we can cite Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos to illustrate his opinion in sections of the article that directly deal with him and accusations that he made, but only when we have cites from other sources as well to confirm that those accusations are relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight is not in the mere inclusion of a significant minority view, but in its presentation vis-a-vis more reputable sources. WP:DUE suggests a minority viewpoint may be a significant one if prominent adherents can be easily named. Via WP:FRINGE, "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Gamergate ethics concerns fulfill notability guidelines in and of themselves, and notability is further confirmed by mainstream media attention irrespective of that attention being negative. As this is an article about a controversy, it relates to at least two points of view. By WP:DUE again, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." Rhoark (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources you've listed are prominent reliable sources; they are not publications, I think, that anyone here had heard of before this controversy; suggesting that they should be used as sources in an article that already has exemplary sourcing from many, many well-known mainstream publications simply doesn't make any sense. Part of the purpose of WP:UNDUE is that you should not simply dig up whatever articles agree with a particular point-of-view simply to provide 'balance'; rather, you should survey prominent reliable sources and cover what they say. The fact that your survey could only come up with a scattering of barely-known journals and a YouTube channel where someone self-publishes their personal opinions shows, I think, that the point of view in these things is WP:FRINGE, at least as far as reliable sources are concerned. If it were not a fringe viewpoint, it should be easy to come up with sources on par with, for instance, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), Wired, The New Yorker, New York, The Telegraph, and so on, all of whom have weighed in at length on this issue. --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability may be an indicator but is not a requirement for a source to be reliable. Establishment of non-fringe status requires identification of prominent adherents to the view, not coverage by notable news outlets. Regardless, the notion that there are legitimate ethics concerns has both of these things. This is not at all the same thing as the PoV that Gamergate is on the whole a good thing. Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I still am not seeing it. There is an overwhelming consensus among prominent reliable sources that the GamerGate ethics concerns are either trivial or entirely without merit; and the sources you are trying to add to the discussion universally fail WP:RS for the numerous reasons named both above and below. This doesn't mean, of course, that there can't be a few public figures and talking heads who disagree (and we do touch on some of them in the article, when their notability is attested to by other sources), but it means that our article has to reflect the consensus view as described by the New York Times, The Boston Globe, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), Wired, The New Yorker, New York, The Telegraph, and so forth. Other views are clearly WP:FRINGE, and need to be treated as a fringe viewpoint, which means adding obscure blogs or news sites to push that fringe position is not acceptable. Note that simply finding people who agree with you -- even, say, famous actors or whatever -- does not make your view less WP:FRINGE; you need reliable sources, which virtually none of the people, blogs, websites and youtube channels you've mentioned qualify as. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
There are two separate questions, which are whether an idea is fringe, and what its due weight is. A view is not fringe if prominent adherents (not sources) can be identified, and reliable sources have covered it (not agreed with it). The idea there are legitimate ethics concerns meets these criteria to not be fringe. Since it is not fringe, the due weight is greater than zero, and at least must include a descriptive overview of what the position is before describing the level of acceptance the idea receives in the mainstream. How much space is given is guided by the proportional availability of reliable sources supporting the various viewpoints. However, minority viewpoints are due more than strictly proportional space when an article is "related to the minority viewpoint", which is the case here. Rhoark (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
To further this line of discussion, the elephant in the room here is the nature of the debate itself. If we were discussing a debate about which video game is better, or whose console is more powerful, or just about anything else, some of these sources might be usable in these relatively-inoffensive contexts.
However, that is not the case. What we are dealing with here is a series of highly-defamatory claims about the personal lives and conduct of living people, supported by little more than anonymous gossip, screenshots, blogposts and third-hand Twitter posts — many of which have been outright debunked repeatedly by reliable sources. As WP:BLPGOSSIP states, Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Policy dictates that we must write material about living people conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. In an article filled with high-quality reliable sources which have done extensive reporting on the controversy, if you require a self-published YouTube videos or four-month-old newsblog to support a claim about a person, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliability occurs in a context. These sources are not likely to be used for defamatory claims, or likely any claims that fall under the rubric of BLP. Proposed uses are numbered in a section below. Standards of reliability for non-BLP claims are much lower. Standards of reliability for attributed opinions are lower still. Reliability standards in general for sources on the minority view in this specific article relaxed for reasons I've reiterated several times. Rhoark (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If Escapist is WP:RS then you might want to include this source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12397-Brad-Wardell-GamerGate-Interview. HessmixD (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I need to put forth that if the Damion Schubert interview from Escapist is used, every single interview The Escapist has done on the topic of GamerGate should also be used as a source (I only just looked at how many they actually did, it's a fair amount). HessmixD (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not how we write articles. We don't include every one of anything. Otherwise articles would be a) 10 miles long and b) have 20-mile-long source lists. Moreover, if we included every mainstream reliable source article about Gamergate, you would be complaining even more than you are now about a supposed "imbalance," because the weight is pretty overwhelming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've misunderstood some of the policies then, so help me out here. Why was it determined that the Damion Schubert interview would be used as a source but none of the countless others? HessmixD (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Also I'm reading over your comment again. Did I do something wrong? You seem to be accusing me of bad faith. I'm not complaining anywhere, I really am trying to make this article the best that it possibly be. HessmixD (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not an accusation — it's simply meant as a note of the consequences if we included every reliable source — the article would get very big and very unwieldy and would include even more material that paints Gamergate in a negative light.
There's never been any statement that Damion Schubert's interview would be the only one used — only that we aren't going to use all of them, because we don't use all of anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright thank you for the clarification it helps. Since I'm new it looked liked only one source was being considered for use. Also sorry, the "you would" sounded accusatory. HessmixD (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Reliability of TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and CynicalBrit

Based on the above discussion and WP policy I believe a case can be made that TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and CynicalBrit are reliable sources for certain uses and circumstances. They are third-party publishers. They have paid professional writers and editorial staff. They have demonstrably engaged in fact-checking and issued corrections. All explicit guidelines for reliability have been met, and no explicit criteria of a questionable source have been met. Although CynicalBrit publishes via YouTube, WP:NOYT makes exception for official channels of reliable publishers. TechRaptor and NicheGamer have published codes of ethics and privacy policies, which is above and beyond WP's expectations for a reliable source. These sources are unquestionably less established than the likes of the New York Times, but that is not the minimal threshold of reliability. WP:NEWSORG notes "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact", but that is a statement on the degree of reliability, not a prohibition of less established sources. Various editors, such as on notice boards and wiki project pages, have applied more stringent standards - including career history of the writers, or whether the source itself meets WP topic notability standards. These criteria, and any like them, are not endorsed by relevant policy pages, and using these opinions as precedents here is unwarranted. This is especially so in light of the concluding statement of /RFC1, which noted "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term."

As a non-exhaustive list of how these sources might be used:

  1. What claims, themes, and opinions exist within the Gamergate controversy, as statements of fact
  2. The level of agreement or support for various claims, themes, or opinions within Gamergate, as WP:INTEXT attributed opinions
  3. Precise numerical data on how social media is used in the Gamergate controversy, as statements of fact.
  4. Establishing noteworthiness and performing synthesis on statements in social media, as attributed opinions. (From WP:NEWSORG, "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true).")
  5. Reviews of video games, particularly as pertaining to their gender portrayals, as attributed opinions
  6. Summaries of aggregate trends in consumer or media responses to particular games, as statements of fact
  7. Other statements of fact for which the source gives specific, verifiable evidence supporting the statement of fact. (This evidence need not itself come from a source eligible for citation on Wikipedia. That evidence be provided at all is not in general an onus placed on secondary sources in WP, but a special consideration given to allay concerns about reputability.)

Similar matters will no doubt be raised in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; however appropriate use of the noticeboard is for supporting exact statements in an article. The discussion has not yet reached that level of specificity. Rhoark (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel as long as we use similar wording to other sources that are presenting opinions, and are sure to mention these are the opinions of the authors/publications, their inclusion should be fine. Ries42 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, these are not at all reliable. I checked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and both TechRaptor and NicheGamer have been discussed there, with the result that neither were considered reliable. If you want another opinion, I would suggest starting there. It doesn't appear that TotalBiscuit has ever been discussed there, but I can almost guarantee he would be quick failed as he's not a journalist, isn't part of a publication, and so on. (And I say this as someone who has watched probably 75% of his videos.) Woodroar (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Those discussions are what I had in mind when mentioning more stringent criteria that should not be used as precedents here. My points on that still stand. TotalBiscuit is part of a publication (CynicalBrit). He has made very nuanced arguments about the distinctions between journalism, entertainment, commentary, consumer reporting, etc and where he stands; but he still amounts to a news source. Rhoark (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting CynicalBrit is a publication? Everything I've seen is that it's run by Bain under the Polaris network, but that doesn't mean it there is editorial control or fact checking going on. Further TotalBiscuit says he's not a journalist, so we'd be citing a not-a-journalist for his opinion which would violate WP:UNDUE unless a WP:RS weighted for us. — Strongjam (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, read WP:UNDUE. As it states, if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents among reliable sources. TechRaptor and NicheGamer are obviously not prominent. CynicalBrit, meanwhile, makes no claims to editorial control or fact-checking; his youtube videos are explicitly self-published opinion pieces, which means he is a questionable source. Using any of these in the article for the things you mentioned would therefore be a clear-cut case of giving their fringe viewpoint WP:UNDUE weight. (Remember, WP:FRINGE cares about how common and mainstream an opinion is among reliable sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You are conflating prominence of adherents, notability of adherents, and prominence/reliability of sources. It is easy to name prominent adherents of the idea that there are legitimate ethical concerns in Gamergate. Adam Baldwin, Christina Sommers, Georgina Young, Damion Schubert, Milo Yiannopoulos, Julian Assange, Raph Koster, Jimmy Wales, etc, etc, etc. It is not necessary for this purpose to identify people who believe that Gamergate is on the whole a good thing. This is clearly not a fringe idea, and it deserves due weight. CynicalBrit absolutely makes claims to editorial control and fact checking. It is true that most of what it publishes is opinion, and that should be taken into account in the ways it is cited. Rhoark (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles are not written under the assumption that there are just two monolithic sides; every commentator has their own opinion, and we give weight to opinions based on how they are covered in reliable sources. If you want to include quotes from comparatively-unknown outlets like TechRaptor or NicheGamer, you therefore need reliable sources saying that the opinions of those publications specifically are relevant, not just vague "they are on the same side as Adam Baldwin, whose notability makes everyone who I judge to be on Adam Baldwin's side relevant." Likewise, prominence is not sufficient; we need prominent reliable sources on the subject. Most of the people you listed are not reliable sources for things outside their own opinion. Given the quality of sourcing already present, we generally need large mainstream publications with a reputation for reliable fact-checking and editorial control to back up the core narrative of the article and to determine which of the countless non-notable opinions people have posted on the Internet about this are worth citing. CynicalBrit, say, does not claim remotely the level of these things necessary to be a reliable source. his videos youtube videos are self-published discussions of his personal opinions, with none of the dividing line between opinion and fact necessary for a reliable source, nor is there any reason to think his personal opinion on this matter is particularly relevant here beyond the fact that he happens to agree with you. Beyond that, it is easy to find coverage from large, well-known mainstream publications that have discussed GamerGate, so I don't see any reason why we would use the unreliable and questionable sources you've dug up; remember, our goal as an encyclopedia is not to give every side equal weight, but to give each side weight in proportion to its representation among reliable sources. The paucity and obscurity of the sources you have dug up here, I think, clearly shows that the opinions you're trying to use these sources for are WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As I've explained in a couple of places higher in the thread, the requirements under WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:RS are not one big mass that can be squished together and applied interchangeably. They are separate issues, which are met separately and in different ways for the idea that there are legitimate ethical concerns. More sources need to be included in the article because they exist, and without them the article does not give due weight to a significant minority viewpoint to which the article topic is directly related. The momentum of discussion should now be towards deciding which sources best satisfy this need for due weight, not whether it ought to be satisfied. Rhoark (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The idea that Gamergate has anything to do with "ethics in games journalism" is indisputably fringe, and only becoming more fringe as time passes. What little mainstream coverage remains of Gamergate can be more or less summed up by MCV: GamerGate has quietened down in recent weeks (although it remains an issue), but the lasting damage this has done to the industry will only be seen over time, as the whole world saw a dark and disappointing side to the video game community. [1] and the Los Angeles Times: Much of the past year in gaming was marred by a quasi-Internet-driven movement known as “gamergate.” The phrase was almost immediately associated with violent, social-media-driven comments directed at female game developers and writers, namely those who dared to speak out about the boys club that has long been the video game medium. Gamergate is convoluted, but it’s driven by a fear that criticizing games for misogyny or a lack of social awareness will result in a politically correct makeover of the medium. [2] The movement is described not as having anything to do with "ethics in games journalism," but with alleged "political correctness." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In surveying the available sources, I have come to the realization that the existence of legitimate concerns is the majority consensus. The most common opinion seems to be that there are legitimate concerns overshadowed by harassment. Next is legitimate concerns being advanced in bad faith as attacks on women. These combined outnumber those saying there are no legitimate concerns, even before adding those saying without reservation that concerns are legitimate. Rhoark (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

TechRaptor

Techraptor gives its authors, who have no journalistic credentials at all, access to edit their own articles. Those authors have said that Techraptor does not do any "copyediting" of their works. Techraptor has said that authors are paid-per-click. This is nearly identical to "the examiner," which is globally prohibited from use. Hipocrite (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You just described a large number of sites that are not blacklisted. There is currently only one article that links to TechRaptor. No indication exists that anyone is attempting to spam the site.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If there's only one article which links to TechRaptor right now, that would tend to suggest that it's not a significant or widely-used source on the encyclopedia and that it doesn't have a known reputation for reliability and fact-checking. The claim currently sourced to TechRaptor is an inoffensive fact about a video game. The links proposed here, on the other hand, contain highly-derogatory claims about living people, for which we (properly) set a much higher standard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere did I suggest we use TechRaptor as a source as I generally agree they do not meet our standards for reliability. What I was responding to was the implication behind comparing TechRaptor to a black-listed site.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Highly derogatory claims about living people are not among the proposed uses in the numbered list above. Rhoark (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The exact procedures by which editorial control is enforced do not seem relevant for the purposes of establishing reliability. "Copyediting" denotes correction of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. TechRaptor promulgates standards for its content, and there is no reason to believe it does not enforce them. Moreover, reliability occurs in a context. The present context is in an article that directly relates to a controversy involving a significant minority viewpoint, and under an exhortation from RFC1 to accept less reliable sources where needed to give due weight to that viewpoint. Sources that might not be reliable enough for other pages can be reliable here. Rhoark (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What Hipocrite is saying is that Techraptor is, effectively, self-published; in particular, it is a content farm, which are generally not acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That is just wild accusation. There is no indication of SEO abuse. There is no indication their content is routinely copied across different sites. There is no indication their articles are designed as clickbait or based on search engine analysis. There is no indication that they are engaged in spamming. The best allegation that can be leveled against them is that they are relatively new. Age is an indicator, but not by itself an excluding criteria for a reliable source. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not mention SEO abuse, site copying, search engine analysis, or spamming. I note that they have no professional editorial oversight (the EIC is a real estate agent for his day job), and run a platform that would tend to produce articles that are first-on-the-scene with bad information. Pay-per-click with direct access to the publishing platform and no professional editorial oversight is not what a reliable source does. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Aquillion called it a content farm, which entails those specific practices. Part-time professional oversight is still oversight. Major outlets also run with unconfirmed information for breaking news. We don't cite that on WP either. Reliable source guidelines make no mention of payment structure except where a specific conflict of interest has been identified. None has been identified. You are grasping at straws and bringing up things that are either irrelevant, or that TechRaptor has in common with accepted sources for this article. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No I didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, it was Aquillion who made that claim. I have modified my comment accordingly. Rhoark (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, the core element here is the use of huge numbers of freelance writers, paid per click, with no editorial control over them and no noticeable checks for quality; they are like a content farm in the ways we care most about. Functionally, this makes them no different than a blog or a forum post in terms of reliability, since nearly anyone can contribute. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, monetization only matters if a conflict of interest can be identified. Writers have an application process including submission of writing samples. Editorial and opinion pieces are marked as such by prominent disclaimers. Content and ethics guidelines are promulgated. Corrections and retractions are plainly visible in numerous articles. TechRaptor meets every concrete criteria of a reliable source and no concrete criteria of a questionable source. Rhoark (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand the objection. Conflicts of interest are irrelevant (and in fact reliable sources can sometimes have conflicts of interest); but the fact that they are open to submissions from everyone means that they fail to provide editorial control and fall under "...any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth." They come nowhere near satisfying WP:RS; as I said, my opinion after looking over their policies is that they are a form of content farm in the ways we care about it. (They also fail, of course, under "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact".) --Aquillion (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can write for them only in the same sense as anyone can write for the New York Times. They're certainly not as picky, but its nowhere close to user-generated content. Rhoark (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, the WP:RS guidelines set a level of "not picky" which makes a source unreliable; and by adopting a contant-farm-style business model (in which they recruit as many editors as possible, with no editorial control or copyediting and no checks for their credentials, and then pay them per-click) I think they've crossed that line. Regardless, the fact that they clearly fail the 'less-established outlets' test badly makes them unusable for any statements of fact, and there is no reason to think that any of the opinions posted there are noteworthy. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The consequent of "less established" is "less reliable" not "non-reliable". Reliability is in a context. As for the content farm allegation you keep making, WP:LEGS. Rhoark (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
While reliability (and "established") are a spectrum, and depend on context, TechRaptor is not established at all, in any context; therefore it completely lacks reliability as a source. And I feel that I have repeatedly explained why it is analogous to a content farm in every way that we care about. Their business model appears to be to recruit as many contributors as they can, provide no meaningful editorial control or copyediting, and pay them by clicks; these are (if nothing else) the reasons why we do not allow content farms as reliable sources, and they clearly apply in this case. Regardless, looking over recent discussions, it looks as if you're the only one who feels particularly strongly that they can be used as a source, while I see numerous editors providing you with extensive, well-reasoned explanations for why it can't be used; so why not just find another source? GamerGate has gotten extensive coverage across the entire news media, so any views with significant grounding in reliable sources should be easy to source to less disputed outlets. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would further note that the source links proposed are not even "news reporting" — they are clearly-labeled as op-eds which represent nothing more than the personal opinion of the author. I don't find any evidence that Andrew Otton has a significant reputation for reliability or that his opinions are considered notable. He has fewer than 125 followers on Twitter, which does not say much for his level of professional experience. Given that the substance of both links thus constitutes a non-notable writer's personal opinion published on a platform that doesn't appear to have strong editorial controls, there's really no need to pursue this line any further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TechRaptor publishes news and editorial content. It is their policy to clearly identify which is intended. Rhoark (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the articles in question are indeed clearly identified as editorials — note the category tags "in Editorials, Gaming" — and thus represent the personal opinion of Andrew Otton only. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

sectioning for this tangent

Discussion about user conduct, not about improving the article. — Strongjam (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: an editor above has made personal attacks here on me, and did not have the common decency to inform me that he would utter such claims as he does. I ask all who are discussing the issues to kindly treat his writings as inapt, inaccurate, battlegroundish, and not in conformity with Wikipedia standards of civil discourse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could kindly describe what "personal attack" I have made, that would be nice. Otherwise, I request that you withdraw the accusation. Describing your actions as having "weakened" the description of Breitbart's journalistic failure in that case is both true and a comment about the edit, not the editor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Try acting (fill in the blank) and READ what you wrote, please. And when you attack people on pages they do not have on their watch list, it is like a sucker punch in an alley. I emended an incorrectly worded article - as we are absolutely required to do. That you wish a (fill in the blank) against Breitbart is more dispositive of a POV problem on your part than of problems with every other editor on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So the answer is no, I didn't make a personal attack, and you just disagree with my description of your edits. That's what I thought. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see your apparent comprehension of your own words has failings. Collect (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Mic.com

Looking closer at some of the sources, since we're on the topic, we're using Mic.com for one piece. The former Policymic, the site has been brought up multiple times at WP:RS/N for issues, and been shot down. It's rarely used on the site for good measure due to its lack of real editorial oversight (anyone can write for it), and I think the reference and supporting statements for it (there's really only one paragraph that amounts to the opinion of two people that is reliant solely on the site) should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I just used it in my re-write of a paragraph, but decided to remove it from there as wasn't really needed. The only problem with removing it entirely is the paragraph about the "Gamer Bill of Rights" goes. Which is useful for a reader, but if only mic.com writes about it, then maybe it's WP:UNDUE. — Strongjam (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I used it because it was one of the few/only sources available that was actually attempting to present Gamergate's claims in some form, to document and examine them. I wasn't aware of the previous discussions at RSN. If there's a consensus that it's not a good source, then it should be removed, and the whole "Gamer Bill of Rights" thing along with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been looking for other sources that cover it, and not finding any. more evidence that NO ONE has every really taken the "but ethics" seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't find anyone even discussing this "bill of rights" in forums, except for a thread started by its author. Axe it. Rhoark (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

More Cutting

Latest comment: 9 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion

In February 2013, Zoe Quinn released Depression Quest, her interactive fiction browser game created through the Twine software; it was accessible through the depressionquest.com website. Though the game was met positively by critics, it generated a backlash from some players who believed that the game received an undue amount of attention in comparison to its quality, especially after a planned Steam distribution platform release. Quinn began to receive hate mail over the game upon its release and criticism from some parts of the Steam user community, receiving enough harassment to cause her to change her phone number and restrict harsh commentators from posting on the game's Steam discussion forum. This elicited further outrage from others and by September 2014, Quinn had already endured eighteen months of increasing harassment, which had created "an ambient hum of menace in her life, albeit one that she has mostly been able to ignore."[1][2][3]

A lot of this seems overly long, and as the first thing in the main article, doesn't really seem to get into the details of the controversy really well. Propose eliminating a lot of it and merging it with the following paragraphs, as so:

In August 2014, Zoe Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack",[4] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[5] Although not alleged by Gjoni, several detractors used information contained in the blog post to falsely accuse Quinn of using her relationship with Grayson to garner a positive review of her game, Depression Quest.[6][5][7][8][9][10][2] Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced in early April and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written by Grayson that included a mention of Quinn and Depression Quest on March 31, before the two began their relationship.[7][11] A number of commentators in and outside the gaming industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded.[1][12][13][14]

Prior to these allegations, Quinn was subject to hate mail and harsh criticism[1][2][3], and as a result of these allegations, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent harassment campaign[1][5][12] including doxxing, threats of rape, hacks of her Tumblr, Dropbox, and Skype accounts,[15] and death threats. She began staying with friends out of fear that she would be tracked to her home.[2][5][16] Quinn told the BBC, "Before [Gamergate] had a name, it was nothing but trying to get me to kill myself, trying to get people to hurt me, going after my family. [...] There is no mention of ethics in journalism at all outside of making the same accusation everybody makes towards any successful woman; that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone."[17] Quinn told The New Yorker that she feels sympathy for her attackers because they have "deep-seeded loathing in themselves."[2] In an interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow Daily, she said she regards her Gamergate detractors as becoming increasingly irrelevant in the industry due to the democratization of game-making tools,[18] but nonetheless noted later in an interview with the BBC that, "I used to go to games [sic] events and feel like I was going home... Now it's just like... are any of the people I'm currently in the room with ones that said they wanted to beat me to death?"[17]

I feel like this keeps just about everything that was important in the first paragraph, and more focuses on the loci of the controversy, being the "zoepost" followed by the harassment that was generated from it. Comments?Ries42 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Kind of loses the history of the harassment campaign against Quinn before GG which is important. Quinn was the subject of harassment for 18 months, then there's the blog post, harassment intensifies and then things spiral even farther out of control. Strongjam (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The question I have is really, how notable is that? Even in the paragraph it is stated that the harassment amounted to mostly been able to ignore." This is not to say in any way that is acceptable. It just didn't seem to be that big of a deal pre-blog post. Mentioning it in the second paragraph and then moving on to the actual controversy seems to be more important as an encyclopedic endeavor, if only because if we talked about every possibly harassing communication on wikipedia, we'd be here forever. Ries42 (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's important background information. The manure that fertilized the Quinnspiracy and later became Gamergate if you will. — Strongjam (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I see your side, I just disagree with how important it is. We have a lot of article, we need to make some cuts. A common complaint is that it is overlong and sporadic. I'm trying to identify areas we can cut without losing much of the substantive controversy. Do we really need an entire paragraph that is at best tangentially related to the subject? If it were a clear cause and effect history, that would be one thing. But it isn't. If anything, the "Quinnspiricy" stuff is barely relevant to Gamergate, which didn't really seem to gain notability until a month after the blog post. That being said, the blog post itself is the pertinent background without getting too deep into its actual details for BLP reasons, and lays the ground work for the prior ramping up of harassment before the explosion of notability in later August/early September. Everything before that can be related in a line or two. Ries42 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact Quinn was being harassed long before the Zoepost is the most important fact in the History section. I'm almost certain I once read she was harassed about her modeling work too, but can't find it again. Rhoark (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it bothering anyone else that the supposed "18 months of harassment" are based solely on one article (and nonexistent in two of the current refs) and are not supported by any actual evidence other than one extremely sympathetic New Yorker piece? In particular, the current paragraph seems to bundle the doxxing (which did happen) with actual substantive criticism of the game as one in the same, and that doesn't seem really accurate, supportable, or even properly attributed currently. The blue is better, but I'm still not seeing that bright line between criticism of the game and the later harassment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It bothers me that you continue to make the BLP insinuations that these well reported incidents are people lie. You need to stop. Now. And for good measure retract your statement above to show you are capable of understanding BLP and are not merely a troll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand BLP, but that doesn't look like TO saying anyone is lying about anything, just that both positive and negative information about a living person needs to be properly sourced and supported before it is offered as fact on Wikipedia. Isn't it you who often says the "objective truth" doesn't matter, only what the reliable sources say, and if the reliable sources all support one thing and talk about one thing, it is both notable and supported? Wouldn't it be WP:Undue, and a violation of WP:BLP to cite something only one source states, no matter how reliable, and that is not reported often, as it pertains to the controversy, in other reliable sources? Ries42 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made no insinuation of the sort. We need evidence to include information, right? We have no reliable evidence to support the claim being made, so why are we including it? Simply because someone says so? I could care less if Quinn is being truthful or not, it's utterly irrelevant to the question or topic at hand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No we do NOT need to see the vicious harassment that has been sent to Quinn - we only need a reliable source to present that she has been harassed AND WE HAVE THAT IN SPADES. For you to continue to attempt to implicate that Quinn is fabricating is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. You need to stop NOW and you need to retract your implications above to show you have come vague comprehension of BLP or we will be going to the Sanctions Board. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're not talking to me, correct? Ries42 (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, this is just a common thread with him and me for whatever reason. It'll stop eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done nothing of the sort. Please stop making unfounded accusations toward me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Since we don't need to see vicious harassment, how about we remove the quotebox about giving her brain damage Rhoark (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The evidence is The New Yorker piece. It's a WP:RS and unless another RS contradicts the statement then we don't have any reason to question it. — Strongjam (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm pretty sure WP:BLP wants more than one reliable source before stating something as fact about a living person, especially when taking into account WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but whether it is objectively true (and we assume it is completely true) is irrelevant to the question of whether to keep it in the article. The argument is that its irrelevant here because of WP:Notability and WP:Undue. It doesn't need as much exposition because at best, this part of it is only tangentially related to Gamergate. Ries42 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've add a few more sources to the paragraph. I'm sure more could be found if we had to. — Strongjam (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And> The fact that all these sources are from September or later implies the harassment pre-gamergate isn't notable. And the sources added aren't particularly that big a deal. CS Monitor: Gamergate came about more than three months ago after a computer programmer named Eron Gjoni posted a 3,000 word screed, complete with details of private conversations, that chronicled the break-up of his relationship with Zoe Quinn, a then-relatively obscure independent game developer and feminist. Not notable until after the zoepost. PCGamer doesn't seem relevant at all. The Guardian is semi-relevent, She withdrew the game, only to resubmit later, more determined. This time, it was approved by the Steam Greenlight community, but the hate never stopped. Looking back, it’s obvious how starkly premonitory this all was. The tinder for Gamergate had been there for months. All it needed was a lit match, but even then, its all notable as related to Gamergate. Its not notable in and of itself, and its relation to Gamergate doesn't need an entire paragraph. Seriously.Ries42 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It's notable in the context of GG. I'm not saying it needs it's own article. I didn't add the PCGamer article, that's just there for dating the greenlight addition. From the csmonitor She'd been the subject of collective digital punishment before, in late 2013 and again earlier this year when Quinn’s game landed a spot on Steam, a popular online marketplace. From The Daily Dot Quinn was already a loathed figure among conservative male gamers who felt her Depression Quest hadn’t earned its success. The pre-GG harassment is important context. — Strongjam (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Barely. Even in these articles its a side note. It shouldn't be more than a side note here. There is a lot to go over, if we can't cut even this insignificant side note down to a line or two, what hope have we for the rest of this mess? Ries42 (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Article needs better prose but it doesn't need to be shorter. We're at 40Kb of prose which isn't WP:TOOBIG. — Strongjam (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Which puts us at the outer limit. We add much more and it needs to consider division. However, just because it doesn't need to be divided just yet doesn't mean we should keep around information with only tertiary relevance. Ries42 (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
As much as I feel like this is a neutral and needed change, for the time being there does not appear to be a consensus. Without one I do not feel comfortable making such a change, so I will drop it for now and look for other parts oft he article that can be improved. Ries42 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So if the evidence is simply "someone said it," shouldn't we attribute it directly? Especially since it's sourced to one single piece? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any need for significant cuts to the article at the moment -- especially not in the history section, which is one of the best-written and most informative parts. Some of the quote-heavy sections could use work, but I'm not seeing any real reason to make such major overhauls to the parts you're talking about here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Some things that are not really worth relating at all: "interactive fiction browser game", that the game was made with Twine, what its website was
Could be said with fewer words: players didn't like the game, she got harassed Rhoark (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

a modest proposal

Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

Remove every comment from anyone which is simply aimed at deprecating someone else rather than advancing understanding of the issues involved. State that "attacks were mutual" cutting out anything more than actual statements of fact insofar as any source has tried to look at the simple facts. I know this seems radical, and will cut the article size by 75%, but seriously fifty years from now, will the current article make any sense at all to readers? Collect (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Such a change could be done to a number of different results. I suggest drafting the changes, at least for a section. HalfHat 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

100 years from now I'd hope that the reader would at least understand that there was a wave of death and rape threats against women in gaming. To dismiss that by watering down or pretending that there were two factions, both of which engaged in equally reprehensible conduct and to the same degree, we'd have to remove the facts as discussed by the reliable sources. --TS 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Except, unless you've been very sheltered and unaware of G.I.F.T. [1] the narrative 100 years from now will be "it was normal in 2014 for ill-tempered young people to anonymously send disagreeable comments to each other, often known as "hate mail". " Are you unaware that violent threats (generally empty and meaningless) are a normal everyday occurrence, of little note to people who've been online for a while? Because they are. Spend 5 minutes on a lightly moderated site. "Violent threat made by anonymous internet user" is as meaningful a headline as "Two-legged man discovered". Bramble window (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The group of people you are talking about is small enough to be identifiable that I feel a portion of that statement is a BLP violation and have redacted it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't mean to stray into BLP territory. Bramble window (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The idea that it will ever be acceptable and normal to make threats of violence against people is indicative of why GamerGate is and will remain a small fringe ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"Acceptable" very much needs a citation. I haven't seen anyone on the GG side (which, of course, I do not personally identify with) claim that it's ever OK to make threats of violence against people. Everyone agrees it is bad behaviour. But "normal", in a violent society like the USA? Definitely, (sadly). Do you really conflate the concepts of "acceptable" and "normal"? It's unacceptable for a person to leave his dog's feces on a street, but it's also normal. Bramble window (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, even in "a violent society," telling a woman you're going to hunt her down, rape her and kill her because you dislike her video game is abnormal behavior indicative of a seriously disturbed mind. 99% of people in the world understand this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There are more than two factions, many of which are issuing threats based on mistaken attributions of who made threats in the first place. More and more RS's are figuring this out as time goes on.Rhoark (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"Attacks were mutual" does not even remotely reflect the situation. Artw (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
While I'll agree in the statement that "Attacks were mutual" is not really accurate, I am 100% in agreement in removing quotes that are only there to attack one side and add no understanding to the situation. We can summarize such quotes in the general statement that "the harassment was condemned by the mainstream media" but we don't need to go in how much the harassment was condemned with quotes. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it instructive that a fellow editor has cited something which is apparently called the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" to counter the fact that severe and credible death threats have been made and are being investigated by law enforcement authorities. It's internet memes versus facts, literally. --TS 12:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How many actual physical attacks on anyone in the world of gaming journalism have occurred? To me, the word "credible" in relation to "death threats" means "somewhat likely to happen in reality" and not "empty bluster". Remember, making non-credible death threats is also illegal so the fact that police are investigating does not mean that their target was ever in any danger. Is it confirmed on-record by police that they have ever advised anyone to leave their home in response to anonymous internet messages? Bramble window (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please stop making unsupported assertions that the specifically identifiable living people have been lieing about the attacks against them that the FBI is investigating. Such unsupported assertions lead quickly to BLP topic bans. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make any assertions, except for the non-identity of a police investigation with the existence of real-life danger which is simply an obvious fact. Do you know the difference between a question and an assertion? Are questions banned in talk pages? Bramble window (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no difference recognized in BLP between asserting and making thinly veiled assertions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify: I made no thinly veiled assertions. I have literally no knowledge of whether any attacks were planned or took place. I have no knowledge of what police might have said. My questions are literally questions. Bramble window (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
At some point, these continued attacks on fellow editors for discussing the veracity and verifibility of sources need to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be nice if they could at least agree to pause the attacks over the holiday season. Bramble window (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss whether a reliable source is correct in their conclusions. If editors want to discuss if a source is reliable they should head to WP:RSN. If they want to argue about if an otherwise reliable source got it wrong they should go elsewehere. Going forward I'm going to be collapsing such discussions as off-topic per WP:TPO and I'd encourage other editors to do the same. — Strongjam (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't do that. Discussion as to whether a source is relevant is relevant here. The RS/N is for more protracted disputes. Let's not give credence to those who seem to only want to attack editors who aren't agreeing with them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd welcome such a discussion about relevance to the topic, but discussing the veracity of long standing reliable sources does not belong here. — Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the early, unnecessary closure of this ongoing discussion. If an uninvolved party to this discussion disagrees, I won't protest further, but I'd consider it fairly disruptive and a further attempt to silence particular points of discussion on this topic.. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
If you think that anything is going to come from this other than you digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole of "mainstream sources are not reliable because they dont paint the picture i want them too" you are sadly mistaken and wasting everyone's time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Arcade#.22Greater_Internet_Fuckwad_Theory.22

Is eldiario.es a permitted source?

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I ask because it covers the subject, and appears at first glance to be a straightforward daily (an online one, but not an apparent content farm). They have a named editorial team and claim to support "rigorous journalism". Their article (by John Tones, who claims to be a journalist) is what a gamergater would call more balanced than the line followed by the English-language press.

It doesn't endorse the view that gamergaters are inherently sexist, and it doesn't reject or claim to debunk that pro-GG claim that the attacks were the work of a small minority of them. Most interestingly, it directly links the initial "torrent of anti-Quinn opinion" with what the attackers thought was her "supposed unethical conduct" in the immediate aftermath of her ex's original screed, later to be disproven. In short, it states that ethics did indeed form the motive for criticism of Quinn. On Sarkeesian, they also state that the "opposition was direct and aggressive" to her video.

It describes as the first concern of the movement to convince the public that the threats are the work of a small minority (unos pocos). The second is to demonstrate as true that there is an illicit pact going on between the industry and press to gain publicity. A view that is consistent with the "but ethics!" claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramble window (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

More pressing is that this article is already packed to the gills with too many sources. A conflict primarily occurring in English-speaking online communities that already has too many sources in its OWN language absolutely does not need to dig into other language coverage for it's article. Also, from very brief machine translation skimming, this seems to offer nothing new or compelling that other sources don't. Parabolist (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You may have missed my point: the problem with the article is that the English-speaking reliable sources are extremely partial, to the extent that they stray into claims about not only the deeds of their enemies, but their very psychological motives. The POV that says "many of these Gamergaters apparently genuinely care about ethical concerns" is explicitly banned from the article because it supposedly "isn't present in the reliable sources". If eldiario.es is reliable, then that ban is no longer tenable. The status quo so far is that the (English-speaking) reliable sources are in unison in describing GG's purported ethical concerns as a sham front to cloak an entirely misogynist agenda. Also, given the prevalence of bilingualism in the USA, it's pretty much impossible that there aren't many fluent Spanish speakers on both sides of the debate. The gaming industry has deep roots in California, after all. Bramble window (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
please take your unsupported conspiracy theories elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
What conspiracy theory? I don't know what you are referring to. Bramble window (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
the conspiracy theory that all english speaking sources are colluding against poor little gamergate. your white knight crusade to protect them has no place here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe there's any collusion going on, so rest assured I am a non-believer in that conspiracy theory. Bramble window (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
you are a believer in something completely off the wall: the problem with the article is that the English-speaking reliable sources are extremely partial, to the extent that they stray into claims about not only the deeds of their enemies, - that all english speaking media has declared gamergate an "enemy" or something equally ridiculous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
"all english speaking media" does not equal "all english speaking reliable sources" in respect of wikipedia. A pro-Gamergate youtube video in English is technically "English speaking media". Every link which I have read to an English-language source regarded as "reliable" by wikipedia (academic or news media) has used "misogynist" to describe GG and has asserted as a known fact that GG's purported ethical concerns are false. Are you aware of an exception? So far I haven't found one. To me, the hostile words used by the English media to describe GG merits the use of the word "enemy". Bramble window (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There you are clearly wrong again. being descriptive is not "enemy" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to rephrase that? Bramble window (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As you state " Every link which I have read to an English-language source regarded as "reliable" by wikipedia (academic or news media) has used "misogynist" to describe GG " Given that everyone from The Guardian to PBS to the Columbia Journalism Review to Inside Higher Ed to ESPN has reached the same conclusion, one can either jump precariously to the absurd conclusion that those sources are all wrong and have mutually declared an "enemy" or that they are presenting accurate analysis based on the common definition of the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As to your question: yes, El Diario is a perfectly good source. Your summary of the article, though, isn't accurate. It's not clear from the translation if "First, and urgently convince the public and the press that the threats, which are numerous, are the work of a few bullies" is what the author thinks GG needs to do, or what the author thinks that GG thinks they need to do, but in context it definitely cannot mean what GG has been doing. As to the linking, what I'm reading is:
  • Although some of the coverages that are making the move Gamergate speak of an original debate about ethics in the press, its root is in fact a much more pedestrian... Emphasis added.
  • With the excuse of lack of journalistic integrity of the environment and an alleged preferential treatment towards independent video games ... [GG supporters] unleashed a tide of opinion against Quinn and his alleged unethical behavior. Emphasis added, translations by google.
It's not clear to me how you get from that to your claim of "ethics did indeed form the motive for criticism of Quinn". The author of the article has gone well out of his way to state the exact opposite is the case. (Just in case you're not familiar with the idiom, excuse in this context is the reason given to mask the real reason, which the author details in the preceding paragraph.) I'm more disturbed by the fact that you think finding a single source is sufficient for getting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint into the article.
You may be able to dig up a journalist who does think that ethical considerations motivated the behavior. That shows you found a journalist who had an off day; it happens sometimes. Given the amount of coverage we have to select from, I'd be expecting to see a half-dozen pieces expressing that viewpoint for it to be considered a legitimate minority view. Despite lots of motivated, net-savvy folks looking for those pieces, they're still nowhere to be found. This gives me high confidence that, for the population of adults who write for a living, the idea that ethics motivated GG is simply not worth writing about (probably because it's not remotely plausible, but I don't have to reach that conclusion here).
So yes, we're good to use the article, but as it doesn't add anything to what we currently already have, I don't see a compelling need to do so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

New Daily Dot Discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

The Daily Dot published a new piece on Gamergate in their Sunday edition.[1] I think it could be useful in the debate over ethics section as they distil down the Gamergate ethics position into the nice and simple "Journalists are too cozy with developers and are failing to provide unbiased coverage of video game news." We should be careful though as we need to be clear that they are dismissive of that notion, saying that there is little evidence of it being true. They also point out specific 'ethics issues' GG supporters raise that aren't really about ethics, such as the Bayonetta review.

The article also covers the 'SJW' complaints, the harassment, #notyourshield, the mailing list, the Utah threats, and the fallout. All in all I think it's a great overview that we can use in pretty much every section of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

When I read this article, I realize we are not doing the job of providing an educational resource on the GG situation as should be our goal - this article does it beter. No, I don't think we can justify coverage that is nearly balanced (word count wise) between the ethics and the harassment issues, but here's the thing that the DD article points out and other sources have allude to - when you remove the harassment and consider the other events around this, there is a lot of issues that include both ethics (valid or not), and the nature of the gamer identity changing, that we are letting the harassment side get far too much weight on this. We are here because of the harassment, but the strong reliable sources have also gone into good detail describing their issues they see with GG as a movement outright of the harassment - that these are people struggling (whether it is morally right or wrong) with trying to hold onto the male identity that VG has. We don't
What's been happening and its clearer to see from articles like the above is that we've been so focused on condemning the harassment - which is not a trivial matter, mind you, but perhaps excessive weight relative to the analysis of the reason, which at the end of the day is more fundamentally important from an academic view. And to describe those reasons will require expanding a small degree of presenting the GG issues. This is not to present the GG side equally, but to set a narrative stage to describe the analysis of the situation; by going by the what the popular press is saying, which is written for the purposes of news reporting and not for an encyclopedia, and which has downplayed the GG rational, we are not including enough to be an appropriate educational work.
There is going to be a part of this article that has to be news-like , and that's going through the actual events of harassment, the attempts by GG to pull ads, and a few other things. That's required, and the like. Further, we still definitely have to cover how badly the harassment was seen by the press in general, no question. But we should be developing the article to start to include the social analysis aspect that is really what is of long-term interest here, which the DD article starts to get into, and per the DIGRA stuff, we can expect more in the future. The "how" is important, but the "why" is much more from an encyclopedia. Which the point that I'm saying is that to get to the "why" we might have to give a bit more to the fundamentals of what GG is doing. Do we need to do this now? No, not until there are more of these analysis articles to determine that. But we should be aware that we are likely going to have a analysis section that goes into depth of the reasons why GG happened, and to that end we should be organizing the article towards that , and getting away from the idea that we should be trying to exactly mirror the news and structure the article better for eventual expansion. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. You say what I'm thinking. The question is, do we leave the article as it is now, which basically only talks about the harassment, and seriously downplays any other angle until there are better analysis articles, or maybe we at the very least stop with some of the comments that act as if the harassment angle is the only notable part of this issue.
Or, do we continue to act as if nothing else is happening. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that the "most reliable mainstream reliable sources" (in quotes because its a long phrase, not because I'm trying to lesson its importance) are almost exclusively covering the harassment angle. There is not dispute there. With that being said, we can source, albeit with slightly less reliable than the "most reliable mainstream reliable sources," but still sources that can meet the "reliable sources" criteria, some of the other parts of the gamergate controversy. We haven't been succeeding in that yet. I think we can do better, and I think Masem hits it on the head where we are failing. Ries42 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
One marginal reliability article does not change the overall representation of the subject from the dozens and dozens of highly reliable sources . the majority focus of the vast majority of the reliable sources is still overwhelmingly harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Except, however, when you take into account RECENTISM, more and more of the sources (which there are fewer of) are better pushing the idea that GG was an attempt to address ethics overwhelmed by a significant minority that harassed others. We are letting the recentism from the onset of GG that all admonished GG for harassment to overlook that there is actually discussion in reliable sources that comment and critique (beyond more than "but ethics!") the reasons this who situation developed; it arguable that while harassment was the public aspect, it forced the industry to look at all the dirty laundry it has out there in light of what attention they got, it forced people to think about why gamers want to exclude women and minorities, and other factors. It is the why that the encyclopedia should be built around, though the historical record of events is still critical to include. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not even the more RECENT articles are giving "but ethics" any credibility or time of day. The more recent articles may be more "Harassment + Discontent with being subject to social critique". I think are article fairly follows that proportionality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This article (the DD one) proves that wrong. While it mentions the harassment briefly at the start as part of an overview, the first half is about the ethics issues, and then goes on to note the tainting done by the harassment. It takes a far different view of the situation, now that we're 4 months out from the start, than what we've got which is based primarily on sources form the first 2 months. It doesn't ignore the harassment but it doesn't put it front and center and instead about the issues and concerns about (not from) this group and how it is reflecting on the industry and forcing the industry to reflect on itself - it focuses more on the Why than the what. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to base your position on one marginally reliable source, then fine, but dont expect others to take your position as reasonable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying we need to change because of one source, but the few articles that trickle out about GG nowaday are showing a trend that avoids RECENTISM. There's a better model here for how to present this article, one that I would anticipate that any academically-focused study will adopt more than "it's about harassment", but until those other sources come, it's not a point that I can convincingly argue that we must change it to this way. I will, however, argue that it is a fair model of an a approach that we can do better voluntarily (but do not consider this a formal suggestion/poll to start that, I'm just throwing it out there), even if no additional sources come out. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not "an attempt to address ethics" so much as an attempt to discredit social critics of video games. As the source details: To Gamergate denizens, the gaming press is unethical because it acknowledges social issues in video games. When Gamergate proponents claim a concern for “ethics in journalism,” this is nearly always what they are talking about. These are not truly ethics issues, but ideological differences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Ethics is clearly misused, much in the same way most people misuse ironic. Sure, there are many issues that are not "technically" ethics, but there are sources that talk about conflicts of interest, lack of pertinent disclosures, etc., which while not technically "journalistic ethics" issues, should not be summarily dismissed either. Ries42 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the best summation of the issue in a single sentence: The Gamergate movement wanted desperately to be about gamers’ perennial dissatisfaction with gaming media, but what it mostly seemed to result in was the harassment of individual women. Precisely this. I agree that this is a good source for explaining some of the motivations and perceptions of Gamergate supporters, and also of the cultural impact of the movement's activities — the description of the international-headline-making USU massacre threat as the moment Gamergate died as a cultural debate is cutting and truthful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a worrying way to think, you can't base a source's quality over if you agree with it. HalfHat 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:TRUTHMATTERS Rhoark (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Even that first quote says it better than this WP article. The movement is talked about as wanting something that isn't the harassment of women. That is almost unheard if you were to listen to some of the editors here. That same line would be met with "No, Gamergate is only about misogynistic harassment, because that's what the reliable sources say" if muttered in this talk page by someone marked as "ProGG" in that editors head.
The ultimate result isn't necessarily what the movement wanted, that quote implies. That quote even implies that the intent of Gamergate wasn't the "harassment of individual woman," even if that is what occurred. It "resulted in" harassment, it didn't "intentionally cause misogynistic harassment."
That is an important distinction that is a lot more neutral than is presented here. Ries42 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Dot piece comports well with our article, actually. As we describe in the lede, the movement deeply believes it is about dissatisfaction with gaming media (or as we put it, "ethical issues in video game journalism"). However, basically none of the movement's claims about "ethics" are viewed as meaningful — rather, at best they're viewed as sociopolitical disagreement with the perspectives and ideologies of some gaming journalists. As per the source, The heart of their complaints had less to do with the ethics of how mainstream gaming sites were reporting, but what they were reporting. To Gamergate denizens, the gaming press is unethical because it acknowledges social issues in video games. When Gamergate proponents claim a concern for “ethics in journalism,” this is nearly always what they are talking about. Meanwhile, far and away the most significant thing Gamergate has actually done is bombard outspoken women in gaming with misogynistic harassment and threats. Therefore, what the movement actually is about, as perceived by outside observers, is a highly-disingenuous set of purported "ethics" claims serving as a shield for a campaign of misogynistic harassment and threats against outspoken women in gaming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
But that's not the point here. As noted by other sources like the recent GamesIndustry.biz one, regardless if GG set out to make these changes, the industry has been forced to review itself due to what the events around GG has exposed. The bulk of the press is about the harassment, no question, but for an encyclopedia article, we need to look past the primary events and go for the analysis, which the Daily Dot article does better than we presently do. And that means we have to consider the harassment the reason GG became a story, but not the primary focus of the article in the long run. Who and how the harassment was done, and the immediate reaction to that, and the impact on GG's attempt at legitimacy because of it, that's necessary to describe but the article should not be written around that as a central focus, but instead the impact of GG's existance on the industry that includes the results of see how the harassment was handled by various parties, etc. How do to that now, I don't know so I can't say what immediate changes have to be do, I'm just pointing this out as a direction to think about and how to work at prepping the article for a structure based on this approach instead of the current one. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the industry has been forced to review itself — in the exact opposite way that Gamergate wanted.
Perhaps this emphasis on kindness will produce the one concern for gaming that Gamergate failed to demonstrate: empathy for other players. Gamergate laid bare the emptiness of entitlement—the belief that cultural products are only for them—that the inclusion of other identities and experiences in games is somehow taking something away. ... Sarkeesian once described Gamergate as a “sexist temper tantrum.” In essence, Gamergate is about who gets to play in the sandbox. Now at the end of 2014, everyone does, whether gamers like it or not.
In this piece's perspective, Gamergate is a reactionary backlash against social criticism — particularly feminist criticism — of video games and video gaming culture, and has succeeded only in drawing international attention to the culture's own hostility to social change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that I think it sums up the issue nicely is part and parcel of judging the quality, along with the obvious depth of research involved and the fact that it provides a broad perspective with distance from the major events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that description is quite fair. It describes what has happened without making blanket accusations of acting in bad faith. Rhoark (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a general comment, while this site isn't as reliable as a lot of them used, I do think the fact it is more recent now that it has largely finished make it much more relevant. HalfHat 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You make a good point about reliability, it's published by The Daily Dot under The Kernel, which isn't without its own rocky history. It seems generally reliable to me, but if something came out from a more established periodical we should definitely favour that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a good and interesting read, but it would make a terrible model for a Wikipedia article. We don't editorialise. Nevertheless I think we do already cover much of the material and many of the viewpoints expressed here, in an appropriate fashion, and that's quite reassuring. --TS 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we need to be concerned that there is some citogenesis going on with this article. Her phrasing about Operation Disrespectful Nod is as follows:

Alexander wrote a strident piece in Gamasutra calling for the end of core “gamer” culture. In response, Gamergate proponents successfully bombarded Gamasutra’s main advertiser, Intel, with emails claiming the website was promoting bullying of gamers. A clueless Intel hastily pulled its advertising from Gamasutra, then declared it wasn’t taking sides, then restored its advertising after a subsequent email campaign from non-Gamergaters.

Our phrasing:

Gamergate supporters were critical of articles that spoke of the "death of the gamer identity" such as Leigh Alexander's piece in Gamasutra. In response, supporters organized "Operation Disrespectful Nod," an e-mail campaign to advertisers demanding that they drop several involved publications. After receiving complaints from Gamergate supporters, Intel withdrew an ad campaign from Gamasutra in October, though it later apologized for appearing to take sides in the controversy and began advertising on Gamasutra again in mid-November.

The very next issue she covers are the Biddle tweets, which mimics how we mention them, and again we can see her phrasing:

In the oddest tangent yet, Gawker’s then-Valleywag editor Sam Biddle took to Twitter to ironically suggest we should “bring back bullying” in order to silence Gamergate denizens once and for all. Biddle was subsequently reprimanded by Gawker owner Nick Denton after Gamergaters successfully targeted Adobe, persuading it to remove its logo from the website. Adobe later clarified it wasn’t actually a current advertiser at Gawker, but it wanted nothing to do with Gamergate’s agenda. “We reject all forms of bullying, including the harassment of women by individuals associated with Gamergate,” Adobe wrote. As for Valleywag, Biddle left it for greener Gawker pastures, but not before his editor, Max Read, lambasted Denton’s response to the farce: “We got rolled by the dishonest fascists of Gamergate.”

Our phrasing does not include every detail, but there are some key similarities in word choice and presentation:

In mid-October 2014, Sam Biddle, an editor for the Gawker affiliate Valleywag, made a series of tweets that concluded with a call for a return to the bullying of nerds. This led to Mercedes-Benz and Dyson temporarily pulling advertising from Gawker and Adobe Systems requesting that Gawker remove their logo from a portion of the Gawker website. Gawker reported losing thousands of dollars as a result but editor-in-chief Max Read said his only regret was that the site had not adequately called out Gamergate's "breathtaking cynicism and dishonesty." Adobe later clarified that it had never been a Gawker advertiser and explicitly disowned Gamergate.

Her discussion of NotYouShield also closely mirrors our own. She describes it as:

Quinn herself screencapped instances of 8chan[sic] denizens planning their own troll campaign: the subsidiary hashtag #notyourshield.

#Notyourshield was intended to seem as if it came from multicultural gamers against feminism, proclaiming that they, too, were women and minorities and that feminism couldn’t use them as a “shield” against justifiable criticism. The problem, as Quinn pointed out, was that it was a hashtag entirely engineered by 4chan members adept at creating troll campaigns using fake hashtags on Twitter. Quinn argued that the point was not to give a voice to women and minorities who supported Gamergate, but to deflect attention away from the #Gamergate hashtag once it came under fire for fueling misogyny and harassment.

We describe it as:

Following Quinn's release of chat and discussion logs she got from 4chan, Ars Technica and The Daily Dot said that these logs showed that the #NotYourShield hashtag was manufactured on 4chan and that many of those posting under #NotYourShield were sockpuppet accounts impersonating women and minorities. Quinn said that in light of Gamergate's exclusive targeting of women or those who stood up for women, "#notyourshield was solely designed to, ironically, be a shield for this campaign once people started calling it misogynistic."

I think we have to consider the possibility that Miss Romano did some significant portion of her research on Wikipedia. Additionally, while some may not consider this an issue, Romano is a sustainer for Feminist Frequency. That means she makes regular fixed donations to Feminist Frequency and has apparently done so for the past three years. Several pieces she has written on Sarkeesian have included this disclosure in the past. In this case, she references Sarkeesian extensively and that includes linking primarily to her own pieces on Sarkeesian when addressing a given issue whether it concerns Sarkeesian or not. Romano even links to Sarkeesian's latest Tropes vs. Women video right at the beginning in addition to embedding it in the piece itself further down. One link also goes to Katherine Cross, who is reportedly the secretary for Feminist Frequency.
The Daily Dot is a reliable source, but we should be careful about how we use this piece.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If anything, it just suggests its use should be oriented towards facts or points of view that are not already substantially represented in the article. Rhoark (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be bit of contradictory dancing on shadows here: the daily dot is better than ours we should follow it more - the daily dot mirrors ours so we shouldnt trust it because its likely a mirror - except for the parts where she varies from us so we should put lots of credence there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We should always be aware of when a source may be basing its material off Wikipedia. In the event that material is not clearly based on Wikipedia it becomes more usable, but here we also have to be mindful of the fact that the author references herself and Sarkeesian a lot. The extent to which she references Sarkeesian is pretty suspicious in light of her years-long financial support of Feminist Frequency (she liked Anita before it was cool). We should be careful about how we use sources that may having conflicting motives in their coverage or that may be repeating details found here. That is simply the correct approach.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
But Ethics!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What the hell kind of a response is that?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the guy that then feels the higher moral ground to educate people on policy yet throws around these snarks like they were constructive to anything else but to further his meme. Loganmac (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Romano, Aja (December 21, 2014). "The battle of Gamergate and the future of video games". The Daily Dot. Retrieved December 22, 2014.

Protected edit request on 26 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion
Protected edit requests are strictly for changes for which a clear consensus is obvious.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I found http://gamergate.me/ and thought it could be a useful external link for the article. Chewbakadog (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose there is no reason per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE to include it, and per WP:ELNO Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
(edit conflict) Per WP:ELNO, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." This is not an article about viewpoints. This is not an exaustive list of the reasons not to link to the blog in question, which transcend this reason. This merely makes it inapplicable to edit around protection to add. Hipocrite (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, an article about a controversy is an article about points of view. This link clearly fits the description of "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Rhoark (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If they were knowledgeable, reliable sources then they would probably be able to find a better platform for their articles, I'd hope. Parabolist (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
nope - its just some random long winded blog. fails WP:ELNO -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What part of WP:ELYES does the link meet? And why would we ignore the parts of WP:ELNO that it does meet? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Certainly it is not official, but many websites around the globe consider it as a good resource for reference. But as per WP:ELMAYBE we may still consider this to include as it contains information from various sources and have rich media. -  abhilashkrishn talk 05:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Was it intended that this edit request be hidden? I believe this may be an editing mistake.JAK0723 (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Policy prohibits this link — As per WP:BLPEL, External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Material at that website clearly violates the policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please provide examples of violations on the website in question? It would be very helpful, and would support your view, if you could do so.JAK0723 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Literally the second article on the page contains any number of such violations as regards Anita Sarkeesian. And no, I'm not going to repeat them here or link to them. They are patently obvious. Any number of pages on the wiki also qualify as blatant violations. That's as far as we need to go, because it's not going in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a link to the website's dossier, rather than the homepage, would be more appropriate? It does not appear that the content within this individual page is opinionated, as other articles on the website may appear to be. JAK0723 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. Lots of wonderful lovely unreliably-sourced and wholly-anonymous negative claims about Zoe Quinn, among others. We're not in the business of repeating or spreading anonymous gossip, scandalmongering or claims of wrongdoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Since it's not an official site, that leaves the question of the nature of the site itself - a large portion of the site is a blog and open wiki, with no recognized authority. Alongside the BLP issues highlighted by North, the link does pass WP:EL. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit suggestion is clearly a mistake. Even with talk page consensus, which isn't going to happen on this topic, it's hardly ever permissible to insert links to anonymously controlled websites into Wikipedia's content. I don't even see what anyone would hope to achieve by doing so. To assert that certain text, for the moment, exists somewhere in the web at the time of writing? Why don't we include a link to our own Sandbox page while we're at it? That too is full of content of unknown provenance, subject to change. --TS 10:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • The template indicates it should be used "for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus", and this is neither. Flagged template as answered. Woodroar (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit to the lede by Ksolway

Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Ksolway's version of the article's opening paragraph reads:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about ethics in games journalism and the effects of feminism on gaming culture, came to public attention beginning in August 2014 because of claims of ongoing harassment and threats, primarily targeting prominent feminists in the video game industry. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, but media commentary has primarily focused on the attacks by Gamergate supporters, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against targets such as women, the diversification of gaming culture, recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video games as a media, and the way in which these things threaten the traditional gamer identity. [3]

I've reverted the change because it's not at all a good summary of the article body, nor of what the reliable sources tell us. --TS 10:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems fairly factual to me. The source I linked above jibes very well with it. Bramble window (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ksolway's version seems more neutral and supported. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah no, absolutely not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't explained it at all, also if you comment on the merits of a change please actually make points. Say what differences make it better/worse than the previous, don't just assert boo or yay and make vague comments. If it has a few specific flaws but it has some advantages, you could combine into a third option as well. Honestly I haven't even really looked at it, let alone the careful comparison, I'm too sickened of this whole thing to do the comparison needed, and without it my inputs would be worthless. HalfHat 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The primary flaw is that nobody is debating "ethics in games journalism" with Gamergate, which makes it inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. Instead, the debate has centered around sexism in video game culture, most notably the violent harassment that has targeted outspoken women. That's the international conversation around Gamergate, as per the reliable sources. Moreover, stating that the verifiable harassment is "claimed" is a classic weasel word which is also not supported by the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
If there wasn't a debate on ethics in games journalism then all those games review websites wouldn't have been forced to introduce ethics policies. It looks like my opening sentence has the consensus, so I will change it back. Also, there hasn't been anyone found guilty of harassment, so it cannot be said that there has been harassment. There have only been claims of harassment, by those who feel harassed. Nor has there been any demonstration of sexism in video games. Ksolway (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, they have been found guilty in their trial by the media and postmodern feminist-leaning sections of academia, meaning: by the sources that matter to Wikipedia. Mere innocence in the eyes of the law is not of interest to Wikipedia. Bramble window (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, everyone who perceives Gamergate as unconstructive misogynist twaddle is a crazy radical post-modernist feminist oppressor. It can't be possible that many of us saw what Gamergate was doing to people and determined that it was unconstructive misogynist twaddle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Judging by what I have read on this talk page I think Wikipedia is completely doomed. Its model is based on the mob rule of popular vote, so if the majority of people think that you are a witch then you are a witch. That's the philosophy of wikipedia in a nutshell. Any sane person knows that it doesn't matter how many reporters claim that a person is a witch, it doesn't mean they are a witch, but apparently Wikipedia policy has nothing to do with sanity. Of course, you, as the witch, don't get any say in the matter, and have no right to defend yourself, on the grounds that you are a witch. Ksolway (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
you are at least partially correct, if all of the reliable sources identify you as a witch, you will be portrayed as such in Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not the place where you would prove that you are not a witch. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
We follow the sources and give weight to items in proportion to the coverage. "but ethics" and the changes about disclosure are mentioned in passing at best, they are not the lead. WP:LEAD. The problem with being revolting consumers when all you got is a hashtag is that you get everything that comes under that hashtag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The user in question reverted again, and still has declined to engage in discussion. Perusing his website linked on his user page, it is apparent that he has a distinct ideological interest in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be the actual lede of a neutral article. This is the only movement I've read about where it reads "X is a movement that has been criticized for Y but says it's actually about Z", it's laughable writing, oh well Loganmac (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, when you write an encyclopedia article about something like this, the critical information to people in the future is what happened, not what was said. The article as it stands is about the controversy caused by a loose coalition of mostly anonymous people, who have no way of assigning a central message or goal, which is why we don't have an article on Gamergate (group). What people need out of an article about an event is what effects it had. When someone discusses the unfairness of their boss, generally it doesn't matter if they're also pissing in your soup. Parabolist (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No that's wrong and you know it, every article no matter how bad the cover it gets, has what its proponents say are for first. Sources, while bashing the movement (partly because they're involved and they're losing money because of GamerGate) say everywhere that they're concerned about ethics in video game journalism. The article right now reads like "Scientology is a scam but its believers believe in Lord Xenu", which is just awful writing. And what's important for people it's not for you to judge and not for us to pander to, most people that look into internet culture just want to know what's the reason it started Loganmac (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You keep trying to make this article about Gamergate The OrganizationTM but it is not. As an "organization"/"movement"/"revolting consumers" gamergate is non notable. This is about the controversy sparked under the hashtag of gamergate - a controversy about vile vile harassment that has led to a broader discussion about sexism - but NOT any discussion about "ethics" (except as a smokescreen for the harassment / and analysis that gamergaters wouldnt actually know "ethics" if it hit them on the head) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The draft is back

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've made an effort to copy the current contents of the article to Draft:Gamergate controversy again. I commented out the categories and the protection notice, but please do check to see if the result is otherwise correct. As previously established, editing on the draft can be productive. --TS 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_16&oldid=1077398908"