Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cited sources

I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but the decidedly biased sources being cited should be taken into account. Q ^{T C} 11:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The GameJournoPros list was covered by Ars Technica by the guy who created it. It was also covered by Forbes. Diego (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found bit-tech [1] too discussing journalist ethics and "the cabal conspiracy theory". Diego (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, WP:RS does not say that sources have to be non-biased because you'll never find that anywhere. All of these cries of "bias" are coming from gaters who aren't finding that this article is solely biased to their point of view. And that Breitbart shit has been repeated so many times on this page it's like a show that's stuck on UPN. Breitbart is not a reliable source because of their history of lying to make stories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we shall cover what reliable sources have said about Breitbart, as those have found it significant. Diego (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But to my knowledge [and correct me if I'm wrong] nobody involved in the scandal has actually denied the truth of what's written on breitbart.com. Everyone involved, like Kyle Orland in his article linked above, has acknowledged that this google group actually exists. If we have confirmation from the accused that the facts of what they're being accused of are true, and have reporting of the scandal both from those who think it is not problematic and those who think it is, does it really matter that the whole thing started on breitbart? This is nothing like some of the contentious allegations being made against Zoe Quinn, as absolutely no one seems to be calling them completely fabricated. The people accused are covering it themselves and agreeing with the facts of the article (although not the conclusions drawn from them) so this very clearly isn't some fringe conspiracy theory. If this is not enough coverage to include the JournosPros scandal in the article, I would like a clarification on exactly what would warrant it. Because as can be seen from the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals article there is clearly a point at which coverage of a scandal broken on breitbart.com is sufficient to warrant it being mentioned in Wikipedia. Not that I'm in any way claiming the GameJournoPros list scandal has received anyway near as much coverage as the Weiner scandal did, but just that the Weiner scandal proves that a point exists at which coverage of breitbart broken scandal become necessary. So my question to those against putting it in the article is: What level of coverage is required for this to warrant inclusion? Bosstopher (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just give up already, you can't include actual journalism on this site by a long respected journalist, but if a freelancer writes the owners of this article's view, they include it happily, also watch as this talk gets closed as any other dissenting opinion gets closed down by the owners Loganmac (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

These are a few facts that have been reported by Forbes, not Breitbart:

• Forums where the incidents were being debated were heavily moderated to remove discussion.
• Journalists took a conservative approach in covering the harassment to avoid giving it publicity (this one is confirmed by Ars Technica).
• These two facts above caused the Streisand Effect and calls of censorship.
• Yiannopoulos later gave it publicity to the mailing list, painting it as a conspiracy of journalists.

Is there something in these points that you don't agree represent the content from both articles from Erik Kain and the Ars Technica article that Kain links to? Diego (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me predict what will happen:

"It's not a reliable source 'cuz its not reported by OTHER reliable sources even doe we have multiple single-sourced points in dis article, but lets look beside dat.".

Happens every time. Derpen (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the Breitbart story has any credence in mainstream sources and it is undue weight to discuss it as if it does. We aren't going to permit fringe right-wing conspiracy theories in this article. Come back when you have a better source than one Forbes contributor blog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

See? I told you he was going to say that. They've gotten to such a predictable level.Derpen (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But there is a better source than the Forbes article. Please read the arguments and sourcing people present before reverting them. There is an acknowledgement by the guy being accused of being behind this, writing in a reliable source that the facts of the breitbart article are accurate. Orland fully acknowledges the existence of the google group but disputes ' the specific allegations and interpretations that a Breitbart writer made based on one of [his] posts." Where is the lack of credence for the facts of the story? I have no clue why you would go as far as to call it a fringe right wing conspiracy theory, when even the journalists accused admit it is factually accurate. Bosstopher (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Another prediction of what they will say:

"well ya see, dey still aint reliable sources despite that cuz.... uh... WIKIPEDIA."

They always bend those guidelines. Derpen (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not being very constructive here Derpen. Bosstopher (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I already predicted what NorthBySouthBaranof was going to say above. Derpen (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On Diego's point, there is no source that connects the behind-the-scenes journalism discussion to limit the coverage of the GG towards the increase in the debate and Streisand effect. In fact, considering that that was discovered much later, it's certainly can't be tied to it. This is not saying that what the Forbes article is saying can't be in the article, but where it is was being connected was original research and synthesis. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So for clarification: Does anyone object to this being referenced in the article using the forbes AND ORLAND sources, with both the claims of collusion being made and Orland's rebuttal being included? Can anyone who responds to this question please start their response with the sentence "I have read Orland's article." Bosstopher (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I object. We should not be using an individual's defesne against potentially defamatory accusations as justification for repeating said accusations. We have the briefest of mentions in Kain's article and nothing more: that's not enough to justify giving any sort of credence to a publicaion that makes a habit of publishing outright lies to get pageviews and attack political opponents. We should not be including Milo's potentially defamatory accusations if we can't find stronger sources noting them, their impact and their relevance.

Erik Kain, by the way, is cited at least 18 times in this article, more frequently than any single publication, let alone any single author. I know he's popular with the pro-GamerGaters because he's more sympathetic to their cause than most, but this is getting excessive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are more than enough references to Erik Kain's reporting here; we already place undue weight on his perspective of this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But I dont see why it should be treated as a serious and potentially defamatory accusation when those involved admit to the factual accuracy of what Milo has written, and base their argument on the idea that what Milo details has no serious negative connotations. Bosstopher (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it says nothing about their relevance. It does not legitimize the conclusions that Milo drew, and it does not connect them to GamerGate in a meaningful way that merits mention here. They admit the list exists. But that it constitutes 'collusion?' A conspiracy to control the GamerGate narrative? That needs much stronger sourcing. They have a right to defend themselves from unfounded accusations like the ones Brietbart is fond of making, and their decision to exercise that right should not lead to those accusations being repeated. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I just realised that I seem to have misunderstood what quite a few people have been arguing. I thought people were referring to the existence of the google group as a "right wing fringe conspiracy" not the conclusions drawn from it. Sorry for making incorrect assumptions. Bosstopher (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right. In addition to the above, there's this source. There's also the recent TechCrunch article. And Chinatopix. And tportal. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The ChinaTopix article demonstrably gets basic facts of the controversy wrong, such as completely misreporting the allegations against Quinn — I'm unaware of any other source linking the alleged conflict of interest to Steam Greenlight or to the mailing list. Those obvious factual errors preclude the article from being considered a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Techcrunch article doesnt actually mention the GamesJournosPros list allegations. Bosstopher (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Pocket Gamer discusses GameJournoPros. I think some mention of this is relevant, along with a mention of the DDoS attack on the Escapist GamerGate discussions since it is of related interest. Both are clearly relevant here and being reported on by multiple reliable sources. We can cite Ryan Smith's statement on the matter there as well as a sort of counter to Orland's defense of the mailing list.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue with the GameJournoPros list is not that it contributed to the initial GG problems since it wasn't know until 2 weeks after, but more that once it was discovered, that the claims that there was ethical problems in the journalism field were demonstrated with that list. While the collusion and actions of those on the list might have affected the initial events of GG (but we have no confirmed evidence to show this), the fact that there was discussion of such collusion fueled the ethics aspects. So this is an appropriate point to include, just not worded as it was originally added. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

All of that is Original Research, though. We have no source to support the claim what appeared in that list constituted 'collusion.' We do not have any source other than Breitbart that treats this list as particularly important to GamerGate at all. We simply can not cover every stupid lie that GamerGaters get themselves worked into a lather over just because it 'fueled' their 'concerns' about 'ethics.' We can't include Brietbart's accusations unless we have a much less irresponsible source's take on it to draw from. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a reporter reviewing what the opinion of gamers were and coming out that they felt it was "collusion". That is not original research by a WPian, that's a proper secondary claim by an expert reliable source. It doesn't prove that the collusion existed, or even if it did was it purposely meant to silence the story, simply that this was another reaction and issue that the gamer side appeared to have - that type of explanation is perfectly fine in the context here and helps to balance the issue without forcing it. And we're not using Breitbart's, we're using Forbes and TechCrunch. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the ars techinica article - and I've already explained why it would be irresponsible to use that to justify repeating the accusations - the only source I see that actually mentions Milo's accusation is one of the Forbes articles, which mentions it only briefly in a longer article on another subject. Bear in mind that all of Kain's writings in Forbes (which are ridiculously overcited in this article as it is) are listed as opinion pieces. BLP comes first. That means not repeating clearly unfounded accusations, even with weasel words about how 'some people think this suggests collusion' without high quality sources. We don't have those: we have a few brief mentions in a few weak sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no allegation against a specific person here that would put this into BLP territory. It's still only an accusation that they colluded, so yes, we do not report it as fact that they worked to keep the story quiet, but simply that there was emails discussing it, and when those came out, gamers percieved that as more evidence of media problems. Neither right nor wrong. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not allow us to ignore the policy altogether if we don't name the people being accused. To the GamerGaters this may be a vague claim about 'the media,' but we're still dealing with specific emails made by specific people which Milo believes prove some kind of misbehavior. And you are still sourcing this to a passing reference in an opinion piece. We aren't obligated to include every tangential piece of information just because GamerGaters think it's really, really important or repeat every sensationalized accusation by a professional muckracker that gets mentioned briefly in a column on another subject: the sources we have don't make a strong argument that the information is important and relevant, and especially when we're dealing with poorly supported accusations about living people, that means we err on the side of excluding. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that you would agree to include the content if the claim by Yiannopoulos involving living people is not mentioned at all? Diego (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If we don't mention Milo's claims about collusion there's nothing to mention. But we right now have one weak source that's mentioned these accusations - that's simply not enough to merit repeating them here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Following this, evidence from a private mailing list was discovered that suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence" within the gaming media and moderation of the public forums, as to determine if they could approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=ForbesEscapist/><ref name=KyleOrland/>. That doesn't include anything from Milo, and is sourced to Forbes and Kyle Orland, which is involved but has been published by Ars Technica (this is the same standard we used to accept Leigh Alexander's article for Time). There's also the piece by Pocket Gamer, which is listed as a reliable source in the Video games project list, and who analyses the mailing list and its role in an "echo chamber" within the industry. So, hardly "nothing". Do you have a policy-based problem with this content, which has nothing to do with the accusations? Diego (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, we should include something like that, also maybe include something from this interview from the original leaker http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/29/7694/breaking-the-chain-an-interview-with-william-usher Loganmac (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't include anything from Milo, and is sourced to Forbes and Kyle Orland, which is involved but has been published by Ars Technica (this is the same standard we used to accept Leigh Alexander's article for Time). It does, in fact. You're suggesting that we repeat the accusation that the existence of this email list 'suggests' malfesance, and you're basing that on one brief mention in an opinion column in Forbes and one decidedly third-tier gaming news source. As for comparing the use of the ars technica article to using Leigh Alexander's Time pice, that's absurd. We should not effectivley penalize BLP subjects for responding to accusations against them by using that response as an excuse to repeat them. Your sources for this accusation are extremely weak. We need much better sources to justify repeating these accusations, and to justify treating them as important enough for inclusion. When we're dealing with potentially libelous accusations of the kind that Breitbart is fond of making we can't take concerns like these so lightly. Do you have a policy-based problem with this content, which has nothing to do with the accusations? Yes. I've explained the policy-based problems with this content. You've just got a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that is absurd. Where does exactly in the green text I posted above or the linked Pocket Gamer article is there an accusation of anyone about anything? We have right now three independent reliable sources commenting on the existence of the list and analyzing it (without any kind of "accusations!"), so your assertion that it's a single "weak" source does not match reality, and your analysis that we "penalize" someone for quoting their public words as a reliable stance of their views is just surreal. If those are your arguments for wanting this information removed, they don't make any sense in terms of policy, so "you've just got a bad case of" WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Diego (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If your problem is with the "radio silence" thing, we can use the wording I first suggested for the article: several journalists debated on a private mailing list whether they could approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life. There, that is a hideous accusation of wrongdoing as I've seen no other. Is that an accusation of "malfesance"? (I had never heard that word before). Diego (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Where "is there an accusation of anyone about anything?" It's nothing but an accusation of 'collusion' coached in weasel words. The 'leaked emails' "suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence?"" What's our source that they 'suggested' anything? Pocket Gamer and an opinion column in Forbes. If you can't find a better source than that for potentially defamatory accusations, it's a good indication that you shoulnd't be repeating said accusations. This has gotten far too little coverage for us to consider it notable enough to be included in the article, and we don't have sources strong enough to handle the accusations responsibly. By choosing to mention the list here at all we are suggesting that it's somehow relevant to the topic. We have very few sources that are even acknowledging that this leak happened, so making an editorial decision to include it here and note the 'concerns' it raised gives Milo's accusations undue WP:WEIGHT, whether we mention him or his targets by name or not. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pocket Gamer and Forbes *and a full-length article in Ars Technica documenting the existence of the list and how it's connected to GamerGate*. Your claim that "someone is defending himself, so suddenly what he says has no weight with respect to the topic* is nonsensical, and certainly not in line with how we user reliable sources. Diego (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely relevant to the topic. If we had enough sources to support inclusion, citing it would be completely appropriate. But it's not appropriate to use the writers's defense against the accusations as a source to support including them: that is in effect penalizing the writer for defending against the accusations by repeating them. We need stronger third-party sources to support inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Kyle Orland could have defended himself by publishing a statement through his personal blog, and then we couldn't "penalize" him by using his words as you put it. By choosing to divulge his response through his publisher, one of the strongest online media on tech, both he and his house are recognizing its relevance and giving it enough weight to confirm its significance, enough for us to cover the factual aspects of it through a neutral sentence. Had Orland choose to avoid using the backup of his employers and self-publish his stance, you'd have a point, but with Ars Technica as a reliable source and several other independent sources confirming it, we have more than enough references now for this fact to be included with my wording above. Diego (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We need third-party sources that indicate these accusations' relevance. This is not a third-party source. You have a few very weak third party sources and one somewhat stronger source from an involved party. That's not enough to justify repeating Breitbart's yellow journalism. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the line of logic I'm using. The email list is known to exist, and the posts to that list are now known. We know who their identities are. We know they were discussing, at the wake of the initial Quinn allegations, about limiting coverage on the story. That's all facts, so no BLP issue up to this point. Now we have gamers pointing to that, saying, "collusion!" which is an accusation, and we have at least one source commenting that that is how gamers are seeing more evidence of problems with the current "system". It is factual the allegations exist and part of the furor that the gamer side has, but that's it. It is equivalent to how the accusation of Quinn's ex exploded into complaints about corruption in the media but without much validity, just that those accusations exist and part of the reason gamers are upset. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all facts, so no BLP issue up to this point. This is incorrect. Mentioning Milo's accusations here, even by weasel-wording our way around them, is a BLP issue. It does not matter that the accusations 'exist.' We don't repeat potentially defamatory accusations just because a columnist briefly mentions that they're being made in an article about another subject. You have one single source that mentions this ridiculous little scandal. That's it. That doesn't support your claim that it's important enough to include. Without the commentary of a much stronger source to give a proper perspective on how relevant this is, if it's relevant at all, we can't include it. WP:WEIGHT sometimes means not giving very minor views any weight at all. It does not matter why gamergaters are upset: what matters is what we can cite reliably. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if you guys are neutral as you say, the email leaks are mentioned now on a reputable source (APGNation, in an interview with the original leaker William Usher http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/29/7694/breaking-the-chain-an-interview-with-william-usher

Some nice quotes "Some of the members on that list actively used their platform to support and propagate a wide-sweeping media narrative based on lies and factual inaccuracies." "the leaked e-mails revealed that many of gamers’ suspicions were true" and "a grassroots movement of radicals attempt to infiltrate various forms of media and begin to utilize the platform to control who gets coverage and who doesn’t (as seen with The Fine Young Capitalists) as well as content-shaming developers into censoring their work, is the exact sort of thing that will eventually bring ruin to a lot of creative potentiality within the industry"

I can't believe long standing Wiki editors refuse to include this Loganmac (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that we're talking a sentence at most to discuss what happened on the list and how it lead to further charges of collusion, I'm not sure if we need it as other sources cover it quite well (And unlike the APGNation interview with a directly involved party TFYC, this was just one person that while involved on the list was not directly involved with the events so more a whistleblower than a party, so the interview doesn't help as much). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think APG would be useful just to note that he was the one who leaked it to Breitbart.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who leaked it beyond it being a person on the list (eg nothing was hacked, etc. and it was unlikely there was any NDA-style clauses with the mailing list, that they aren't private convos so privacy issues aren't violated) --MASEM (t) 22:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that the "private mailing list" junk was restored almost immediately after protection was lifted (yet another reason to rid this article of SPAs), not much of a surprise there. Even the watered-down version that is there at the moment is poor, as it is still giving undue weight to a fringe criticism. That the private list exists is not in doubt; that it's existence equates to nefarious ethical misdeeds is the fringe part. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the Orland source while being mostly a defence against the accusations of collusion, does admit some wrongdoings on his own part, (but not on the part of the mailing list as a whole). " Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers" "However, suggesting that Quinn's work deserved extra attention because she had been attacked was, again, overstepping my proper role as a critic and journalist. " "In short, some of the private thoughts I shared in the wake of Gjoni's blog post crossed the line, and I apologize for airing them. It was an error in judgment." While Orland very clearly and strongly denies the collusion charges, he has admitted some wrongdoing on his own part.

Also does anyone know enough Hungarian to figure out whether or not this is a reliable source? [2]Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And, pray you, how exactly does this content equates the list to ethical misdeeds? Cuchullain, WP:BURDEN does not apply here, as the content is not challenged on terms of verifiability. Even Tarc acknowledges that the content is supported by the references provided. Diego (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I really see no issue with including this, as long as it is worded as a claim that there was purposeful collusion and that we do not explicitly state that there was (we do state the matter was discussed on the mailing list, but that's not the same as jumping to that conclusion). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the latest version didn't even include the claim that there was collusion. It only says that some journalists tried to avoid hurting Quinn by giving her publicity, and one commentator expressed the view that such conversation happened within an echo chamber that reinforced their beliefs. If someone thinks that this meek assertion is a BLP concern, they really should defend it in terms of policy, not mere hurt feelings. Diego (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN actually does apply here. By including this information in the article we are giving credence to the claim that it is important and relevant to the issue. Even putting it in weasel words and attributing the claim to a writer for a minor gaming site, we're still suggesting that there's a reason for people to think it's important enough to the 'ethics' debate to mention. We have very, very weak sourcing for that as of right now. We need to wait for higher quality sources to evaluate the claims and frame them responsibly before we can repeat them at all, even by attributing them to some gaming blog.

If I'm writing an article about a politician whose campaign platform involves improving the treatment of farm animals, and I can prove that as a kid he worked on a farm that was later found to use cruel and unethical practices in caring for their animals, but my only source is a minor one (eg Brietbart screaming hypocrisy or some low level blog who's repeating that rag's claims) then by including it, with no high quality reporting on the politician's involvement with the farm, his experiences there, and how they shaped his opinions, it would be irresponsible to include that information. Without quality reporting on whether this list's existence is important or shows bad practices in gaming journalism, we have nothing to counter Pocket Gamer's claims that it proves what Milo says it does. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those who want it included to prove not just that it exists, but that it's important. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The "claim that it was collusion" is not a relevant, notable, or important criticism, and is pretty much analogous to the "Obama was born in Kenya" stuff. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And the "claim that it was collusion" was not included in the content you removed, so you haven't provided a valid reason for removing it. Diego (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you don't understand WP:BURDEN, which is part of Verifiability policy, yet you're arguing about relevance which is a concern of neutrality. The burden of verifiability is met when sources are provided that are believed in good faith to support the listed content; everybody here agrees that the content is verifiable and thus BURDEN is met. Therefore, including the content or not is exclusively a concern of weight. If you don't think Ars Technica counts as a reliable source for establishing importance, no amount of sourcing will convince you, and it's clear that you're not listening to argument and policy but emotion and a pre-defined outcome.

You're now arguing that we can't assess that what reliable source Pocket Gamer says, but that's not how reliable sources are used: we trust them to establish the importance of the content they happen to note, and you're instead deciding that the content is a priori not important and therefore the source can't be trusted - that's again backwards with respect to policy. It's impossible to reason with you if you won't follow the advice encoded in policy and are merely linking to them without addressing what the rules say. Diego (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you mean that conspiracy theory which has an extremely lengthy page dedicated to it on wikipedia? Where are you going with this comparison? Bosstopher (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It does. yes, but also take note of Barack Obama, which makes zero mention of birther conspiracy theories. You can try your hand at creating Gamergate mailing list collusion controversy, if you think the sourcing is strong enough to support a standalone article analogous to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups." I think I understand just fine, thanks: this is absolutely poorly sourced material. We're citing it to a minor blog that agrees with Milo's latest scandal, because there are no stronger sources that deal with the accusations' veracity. I'm not saying we 'can't assess what "reliable" (heh) source Pocket Gamer says;' I'm saying that they are not a sufficiently reliable source to use to justify including this negative material.

Please stop trying to discredit me by calling me 'emotional.' Stick to supporting your position, not attacking those who disagree with you. Thanks. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call you emotional, but your reasoning; that's a difference there, it just means that your position doesn't stand as a rational argument. The weight of sourcing is not based on Pocket Gamer but Ars Technica, which you have dismissed because somehow quoting Kyle Orland would be an affront to him. I simply can't understand how you try to deny that article as a recognition of the relevance of the topic by one of the major tech sites in the world. Actually I can't think of a greater insult to a journalist than saying they need to be protected from the effect of their own words being republished; implying that he is not capable of assessing whether their public stances don't stand up is an offense to his professionalism. (BTW Pocket Gamer is listed as one of the reliable sources accepted by the Video Games wikiproject, but that's secondary to my argument). Diego (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, pure and simple. My reasoning is at least as logical as yours: you just don't want to hear it. Stop making disparaging comments about other contributors.

The ars technica article is by an involved party: if we had sourcing to support including Breitbart's accusations it would absolutely be appropriate to include them, but we need third party sourcing that treats them as important. We don't have that. What we have is one (and only one) of the accused parties responding to defamatory accusations being leveled at him by a notorious muckraking rag.

And it's not relevant that the Video Games Wikiproject sees Pocket Gamer as a reliable source, as this information is not about Video Games, but about living people. Wikiproject:Video Games does not have the authority to rule on what is and is not an acceptable source for information on living people. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling the claim that some have derived from the email logs that it suggests the journalists were working together is no way a BLP issue, because we are not making the claim, and the claim being one is being made by a secondary source, and it's a claim against a non-specific person, nor is it a legal or personal attack claim. If anything, the claim that the attacks against Quinn were from misogynyist users is more a BLP issue than this is (that claim is much more damaging and based on anecdotal evidence), and that's not going anywhere clearly. (And no, I'm not arguing we remove that, I'm just point out a comparison). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

These are accusations about specific named people, and without much stronger sourcing than some columnist on a minor gaming blog we can't even repeat them, not even if we leave out their names and not even by attributing them to said columnist. The sourcing for the misogynistic tenancies of the movement has much stronger than this, so even if your comparison were apt our sourcing would be strong enough to address any BLP concern there. We're not barred from publishing negative information about living people: we just need to meet particularly high sourcing standards before we can do it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question I did to Tarc: what exact negative accusations appear in this text that would require such stronger sourcing? Remember that the reliability of sources is relative to the content they support within the article. Diego (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Milo's muckraking is a non-issue: that's why nobody but a couple of opinon columnists and one of the parties he's attacking have even acknowledged that his accusations exist. We need better sourcing to include them here, even couched in weasel words. Why are we considering an opinion columnist on a minor gaming site a sufficiently noteworthy opinion to justify including this manufactured 'controversy?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every reason that the proGG side has given out has been initially presented on minor websites or SPS, and later picked up by sources. This is why we are having a tough time giving viewpoints from that side any coverage because there is no clear single RS that covers everything from them. Additionally, as we have already addressed concerns about the journalism censorship that the proGG side, this is not a brand new thought to add to that, since is about (what the proGG saw as) proported censorship. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every reason that the proGG side has given out has been initially presented on minor websites or SPS, and later picked up by sources. Then we wait. Simple enough. If these views are notable they'll be picked up by major sources in due time. Connecting this to cited sources about other instances of perceived censorship and using that to justify inclusion is OR. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the point: the issue has be picked up by other sources (like ArsTech and Pocket Gamer). It's not a minor opinion anymore, similarly coveraged as some of the other proGG points already in the article. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a very minor opinion. Your strongest source for Milo's accusations is a post by one of the accused defending themselves from them. You also have two articles by columnists: one from a higher quality source who barely mentions the issue, and one from a much lower quality source that repeats the accusations uncritically. None of these are third party news sources. That's terrible sourcing. Wait for the real sources to pick up on it. What pro-GG points are sourced this weakly, please? Because any negative information about BLP subjects with sources this week that's in the article needs immediate reviewing. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, there's no negative accusations in that text. All this time you're arguing against claims that didn't appear in the content you removed. That's not a valid basis for a claim of a BLP violation, when the problematic BLP assertions have not been made. Diego (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly what is problematic about this information. It's nothing but muckraking, and just because you can find an opinion colunist on a relatively minor gaming site who thinks it proves some of GamerGater's claims doesn't make it appropriate to include. We're referencing accusations of misbehavior against specific parties: the fact that we don't name those parties here isn't relevant. And please try to preserve the order of comments: don't place yours above another that's at the same indent level. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained repeatedly what is problematic about this information. No, in fact you have not, as nothing in the actual text of the last version you removed can be construed as a claim of misbehavior by anyone against anyone. If your complaint was about the content that was in the article and not some claims outside of it, you should be able to quote the words in the text that represented an accusation, and the part of BLP policy that those words violate. The wording was carefully constructed to avoid any hint of inappropriate conduct, yet you keep referring to it as if those were the words of Milo Y. himself. Diego (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

... an established and respected publication published [the] writing on this subject under its masthead. That's enough to allow us to use her article as a reliable source. We're not citing her opinion here, remember: we're citing the facts of the case. That's a very important distinction. Do you recognize these words? They seem particularly apt here, now being perfectly applicable to Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain how? That looks like a pretty tangential connection to me. If Alexander had been solely defending herself against whatever accusations the gaters were leveling at her, and if there was no decent source for those accusations other than Alexander's decision to defend herself against them, I'd have the same opinion there as I do here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Ars Technica is a strong reliable source and the article has been vetted by the publisher? How does the nature of the content published by that news outlet affect that? Diego (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, luckily my argument for not using this journalist's defsense against Brietbart's accusations as an excuse to include the 'controversy' doesn't involve claiming that ars technica isn't a reliable source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That part is true; as far as I can tell your argument against using Ars Technica for support is something like "we couldn't use it because it would offend the writer" or something akin to that, which I can't make any sense of. It's certainly a novel argument you're making there, that I've never seen outside this discussion; but I'm afraid that's not a very solid argument as it's in direct conflict with or WP:RS policy, which states that use reliable sources to determine what topics have weight and we write articles according to what they say, and against the logic you previously used to support the Time reference as reliable. That a reference has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is an argument for including it; that the source was engaged in open debate through the internet with an unreliable source is not an argument against. In fact, in such cases we typically consider that such coverage in the reliable source is ground for mentioning the opinion of the unreliable source as well. Diego (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not going to dignify your misrepresentation of my argument by re-re-restate my objection to this source. Go back and actually read what I'm saying, preferably with something approaching an open mind, and then try again. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well, see, that's the problem with your argument. I've actually went there and re-read all your posts to this thread, trying to understand what you said, and I still couldn't make sense of it; how quoting a journalist's public stance could be seen at all as penalizing them just because that stance was made as a reply to someone else, and much less how that public stance could do anything but increase the weight that we should give to it as something relevant to talk about. And all the time it appears that you're talking about something that wasn't there in the article (even quoting words that I removed myself from the disputed sentence!!!, like "suggested that some journalists worked together to maintain a "radio silence").

What I've noticed is that you're repeatedly accusing me of wanting to "repeat the accusations from Milo", when what I suggest is exactly the opposite, that we remove all trace and keep the content to the verifiable facts without any moral judgement - as a proposed compromise to address your valid concerns, even when Masem was fine with including those. Now it's my turn to ask you to re-assess what I'm saying, since you're misrepresenting my position and attacking it based on a straw man - something that I didn't defend. Diego (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Using an attacked party's decision to respond to said attacks as an excuse to consider them notable enough to repeat is absurd. If the most notable source you can find that mentions an attack is one of the people being attacked, that should tell you something about how much merit those attacks have. By even mentioning the 'verifiable facts' we give credence to the idea that they are relevant to this issue. The fact that so few sources have even taken notice of these accusations' existence, much less given them any real attention, suggests otherwise. By making the editorial decision to include this information - which at its root is a disparaging attack on members of a professional community - we imply that it is important information. It's not - if it were, there would be more and better sources commenting on the email list itself or the 'leaked' emails that are supposed to be proving what your opinion columnist says they prove. All of this is rooted in accusations of 'collusion' that are entirely unsupported: that one columnist in a relatively minor source chose to give credence to that accusation by citing it in his column is not enough to support including any such claims here. It does not matter that you are watering down these accusations with weasel words. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by the logic of Tara and Tarc, 25-40% of this article should be gutted because it reflects the "fringe" viewpoint of the proGG side which is very difficult to document. There's a reason people keep coming to this article and claiming bias, it is because while we cannot change the viewpoint given by the other side of GG, we are failing to do a decent job of documenting - to the best we can - the proGG side. This is a case of something that is fully documentable and is a part of an existing issue already documented by the article, that there is ethical issues in gaming journalism. I cannot see any reason not to include it - the sources are fine, it is simply a claim made by the proGG side that "hey , they tried to prevent discussion of it". That's it. This is the type of balance that while it won't make it 50/50 between the two sides, at least brings it closer to that. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-GG", whatever that is, is represented fairly already...perhaps overly so. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's nonsense to compare this to birther theories unless Obama comes out and apologizes for having a Kenyan birth certificate. Since he doesn't have one, but the creator of the google group did come out and apologize, it's an apples to bicycles strawman argument. Mentioning that the google group exists and that it was used to generate support for Quinn by specific journalists is both relevant and mentionable in the article. That there was some opposition to that support such that an open letter was never drafted can be taken many ways but it is notable. I find it extremely contradictory to observe that open letter support was not forthcoming yet we write the article as if all mainstream sources support Quinn as if the letter did indeed exist. Is that not troubling? --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if there is a small, fringe group of gamers that exhibited misogynistic attacks on Zoe Quinn through reddit/4chan and there is a small, fringe group of game journalists that colluded to come to Zoe Quinn's defense of her behavior (vis a vis the apology by the google groups creator). Everyone else is immaterial This seems to be the root of the animus. The article should reflect that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We definitely have sourced that many (on both sides) recognize that it was only a minority of the proGG side that lashed out at Quinn et al (which is important to balance the article), but I haven't seen anything that states to what degree, if any, there were purposeful attempts to support Quinn by limiting discussion of the matter; there's claims there were, but we can't say this was actually the case, and certainly not how many were involved. ---MASEM (t) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, the sourcing is pretty small, but if there is a few mentions on reliable sources, and the mailing list "proves" several complaints from the GG side, it should be included in a sentece or two, something to this effect by Diego https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=627647384&oldid=627645275 Loganmac (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Then if this is only about gamergate and the fringes, why is the opening sentence still a broad swath swipe with misogyny in the gaming world? The list creator himself (it was a Google group I believe of professional game journalists) apologized for asking other journalists to write an open letter in support of Quinn. That's sourcable to the list creator and administrator that at least one collusional item was discussed. The fact that all of our sources also seem to support that view but stopped short of an open letter is a huge red flag that coverage may not be neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

at least one collusional item was discussed. I think you need to revisit the definition of the word Collusion. It's not a synonym for 'collaboration,' you know. There's no 'red flag' here; mainstream, non-gaming media is covering the issue in much the same way as the majority of industry sources are. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My definition is fine. When they discussed writing and signing a single, unified letter - that's collusion. When they all write the exact same thing after discussing it as an open letter, that's collaboration. Neither would be ethical, though collusion is less ethical. As for mainstream articles, it depends on what you define as 'mainstream.' Since the definition of 'mainstream' here seems to be any view that matches the gamer journalist view, then of course it matches. Other journalists, however, are not covering it the same way. The 'red 'flag' is that all the gamer journalist views match the open letter whether they signed it or not. If a bunch of game developers got together and discussed drafting a salary scale for programmers but didn't formally sign on to it but every game developer adopted it, there would be no hair-splitting about "collaboration" vs. "collusion." It would be called what it is - and they'd owe a lot of money in a class action lawsuit. --DHeyward (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. An open letter signed by multiple parties is not in any way shape or form 'collusion.' It would be essentially the exact opposite of 'collusion' as it would be an open, public show of support by named individuals, and not an attempt to suppress dissenting voices: nobody would have to sign the letter, and nobody would be prohibited from voicing opinions that disagreed with it. It would be collaboration, as they would be working together on and putting their names to a single work. Multiple people in the same field having the same opinions is not 'collusion' or collaboration, unless you're assuming that these journalists all wrote each other's articles collaboratively. "Collusion" is not 'mutliple journalists all saying things we don't like' any more than 'bias' is 'a single journalist saying something we don't like. This is exactly why we need to rely on reliable, third party sources for this type of information: you're advocating for including this information because you believe it proves something which it simply does not prove. Without high quality sources treating this information as relevant to the GamerGate issue it's impossible to use it responsibly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, the e-mails that have been leaked are very clear that the majority of people commenting on the idea of an open letter rejected it as inappropriate and after hearing from others, even the initiator of the idea admitted in-thread that it was probably a bad idea. So what took place, then, is one person offered up an idea on a mailing list, the idea was briefly debated, the general consensus was that it was a bad idea and nothing more came of it. If there is any "collusion" here, it is collusion against the idea of an open letter. If you want to include a sentence stating Journalists allegedly colluded to agree not to write a public letter of support for Zoe Quinn, go right ahead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So you think there is no problem when a group of journalists decide not to put their collective names on a document but then in virtual lock-step write articles that reflect that document? The list/group owner has written his views and also authored the letter. Is there a game journalist that has come out with different viewpoints than the list/letter writer? If not, there's a problem. It would have been more transparent to sign it than just parrot it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: Using an attacked party's decision to respond to said attacks as an excuse to consider them notable enough to repeat is absurd. Why? If the channel used in the reply is one of the major news sites in the world, how is that not notable? In special because the reference is *not* being used to support reporting about the attack, but the original behavior that has been confirmed to exist.

By even mentioning the 'verifiable facts' we give credence to the idea that they are relevant to this issue. Because those facts *are relevant*, as backed up by a reputable journalist publishing a whole piece in their news site attracting notice to them. Your opinion that we shouldn't use it because its somehow "tainted origin" as a reply to Milo doesn't change its relevance.

The fact that so few sources have even taken notice of these accusations' existence, much less given them any real attention, suggests otherwise. Irrelevant, as those accusations were not mentioned in the article.

this information - which at its root is a disparaging attack on members of a professional community I disagree, and you still haven't explained how "they tried to approach the controversy without attracting undue attention to Quinn's private life" is a disparaging attack.

All of this is rooted in accusations So finally we get to the essence of your argument - you're dismissing the content from reliable sources not because you think they're unreliable, but because they're reporting on something that you find objectionable and you think that "transfers" from the unreliable source to the reliable one. I'm sorry, but we don't get to make those analysis ourselves; if highly reliable sources like Ars Technica find some information on the internet relevant to the topic, it's fair game and expected that we consider those as relevant without embedding our own judgement in the process. We can assess the reliability of a given source, but once it's deemed reliable we have to abide with what the point of view that source has made.

you are watering down these accusations with weasel words And finally you again insult me and construct a straw man that misrepresents and directly contradicts what I've stated as my position. I consider the words I posted as a neutral statement that had nothing to do with Milo's accusations, so I request that you retract that personal attack that you made even after I warned you not to do it. Diego (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you consider it neutral. But I think that the sources you are using are not, and I think that the editorial decision to include this information - which suggests that it is important and relevant despite getting no mainstream coverage by anyone not directly involved in the manufactured scandal - and the decision to cite it to sources of defamatory information, are both irresponsible. But you are all over the place with this argument. You're saying that the defense against the accusations being published in ars technica is enough to make the information you want included 'relevant' to the article, but you insist that you don't want to include the actual accusations - just some related claims published by a columnist in a relatively minor industry publication who cites these accusations. You can't have it both ways: if you want to use the ars technica source to claim these accusations' relevance, you can't then claim that you're not really referencing them. If you're not referencing them, why is the ars technical article relevant? The pocket gamer source hasn't been 'deemed reliable' by anyone but WikiProject Video Games. When we're talking about a source that is repeating and citing accusations from a publication that is known for publishing outright lies, Wikiproject Video Games's word isn't going to cut it. It's just not a good source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

you are all over the place with this argument Funny that you of all would say that and consider it a negative. Practically all my comments in this thread are direct replies to you.

You're saying that the defense against the accusations being published in ars technica is enough to make the information you want included - Yes I do, - but you insist that you don't want to include the actual accusations Yes, but not because I don't think those are relevant but because *you* don't think they are. I and others would be fine with including Milo claims, as we think those are also well documented as his opinion, yet I was aiming to reduce coverage in order to meet your concerns of BLP implications by removing anything subjective. I was hoping that you'd be able to distinguish between negative judgement directed against living persons and general statements of verifiable facts stated in neutral terms, just as BLP policy does. Unfortunately you're not interested in making that distinction for the goal of compromise, a less-than-stellar solution that nevertheless we could all live with, which is what we're expected to achieve. Diego (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that you of all would say that and consider it a negative. Practically all my comments in this thread are direct replies to you. Funny that you would take this out of context and respond as if I was talking about the quantity of your comments when the next line makes it clear I'm talking about their quality. I said that you are 'all over the place' in that your argument is not consistent. Stop trying to 'win points' and respond to what I'm actually saying.

Unfortunately you're not interested in making that distinction for the goal of compromise, a less-than-stellar solution that nevertheless we could all live with, which is what we're expected to achieve. I'm not obligated to accept the inclusion of information I think is problematic in the name of 'compromise' just because you backed down from an extremely problematic version into a slightly-less-problematic one. There is very poor third-party sourcing for this. If ars technica was a third-party source, that might be different, but they're an involved party. The complete silence on the part of any major outlet other than a statement from one of those being accused is telling: this isn't being treated as an important, newsworthy issue, which is why we don't have good sources for it or a good justification for considering it notable enough to include. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny that you would take this out of context. Ok, mea culpa. I truly had read that as stand-alone and meaning "you're talking too much", not as as a lead to your next sentence.

I'm not obligated to accept the inclusion of information I think is problematic in the name of 'compromise' just because you backed down from an extremely problematic version into a slightly-less-problematic one Actually you *are* obligated to *do something* in order to reach a compromise. That's what WP:CONSENSUS is about, and it's policy. See the simplified flowchart - when you disagree, you must seek a compromise; if you disagree with the compromise I suggested, then you have to propose one of your own that you expect could satisfy my concerns. So far you haven't made a single proposal other than completely excluding all mention of the verifiable facts - anything that wasn't "my preferred outcome is the one that must happen" was outright denied by you as being totally out of limits. This is not how Wikipedia editors should behave.

The information about GameJournoPro is verifiable, the sources are reliable, and I want readers to be aware of its existence as a significant event related to the topic. I've done everything I can to make a proposal I thought you could could agree in some form. If you don't accept it, it's your turn to make a proposition that you think I could find acceptable. Otherwise, you'll be out of process and failing to follow WP:CONS. Diego (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If I were to remove every remotely pro-gamergate word in this article, and then 'compromise' with any protests by reinstating half of what I removed, would you see that as a fair outcome? I am not obligated to 'meet you halfway' between 'seriously problematic and poorly sourced content' and 'mildly problematic and poorly sourced content.' That is absolutely not in the spirit of those policies. It's still problematic, as two of the three sources (Pocket Gamer and ars technica) are primarily about Milo's scandalmongering, and it's still poorly sourced, as you have only two third party sources, one of which is a short mention in a longer article on another subject and one of which is a minor industry source. I don't have to work on incorporating information that doesn't merit inclusion just because you want it included anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, yes. Remove every remotely pro-gamergate word. Seriously. It would be vastly less insulting than pretending this is not an advertisement: "Feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian was already the target of harassment from the gamer community due to her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games project, but her newest video in the series soon got her involved in Gamergate." It's not even cited! It's original research! So if you're dead set on writing a biased article, just do it. But don't be dishonest and act like you're striving for an informational and unbiased view. That's complete nonsense. Lasati (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a caption that accurately summarizes the reliably-sourced text immediately next to it. Woodroar (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You know what. There were a couple of publications already used that linked the Patreon accounts of people involved. So would you have a problem if I cited those articles (hey, reliable sources) and provided a link to Patreon accounts of Zoe, Anita, Jenn, etc? I'm thinking that's the way to go with this article. Lasati (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If I were to remove every remotely pro-gamergate word in this article, and then 'compromise' with any protests by reinstating half of what I removed, would you see that as a fair outcome? If that was truly what you wanted AND it was based in policy or previous consensus AND the other editors agreed to make the change, then yes, that would be an acceptable outcome. In this case doing that is not valid because of the amount of reliable sources covering it, though keeping the strongest sources and removing the weakest ones could be a good solution if some editors thought one side was over-represented. When the positions of editors are confronted over subjective shades of grey, meeting half-way is a quite valid option encouraged by policy.

I don't have to work on incorporating information that doesn't merit inclusion just because you want it included anyway. So, it has come to this. If you won't step back an inch in your position and are completely unwilling to seek compromise and address my concerns, which I based in policy, there's no point in continuing this conversation. The only thing to do is moving to the next step in dispute resolution. Diego (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Is the Laurie Penny citation appropriate? kencf0618 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I didn't revert it just now because I didn't want to make two unrelated changes in one edit, but I'm off to take a closer look. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've removed it. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • She's a notable feminist author and journalist, so despite the strong language I believe that she should be cited as a non-gamer commentator. kencf0618 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the the article, it states (This article was previously published on Laurie-Penny.com—Comments are open and heavily moderated by the Don't-Push-Your-Luckdragon. Deal.) It's a self published source being published on a new source unedited and unreviewed and should not be used as a result. Tutelary (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreviewed, true, but neither Cory Doctorow nor Boing Boing are chopped liver. kencf0618 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but I'd submit BB can do a good job of letting the reader judge that, rather than presuming it'll apply transitively. Looks like a straight reprint. I think it's just easier (And clearer, if the reprint is why we're reading this) to cite BB. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A self published source doesn't not become a self published source when it's literally copy and pasted from her own website to BoingBoing (which sounds like it would be a questionable source in itself) . They literally took it off of her website and put it on their own website. It was not under their editorial control, and for such a big controversy like GamerGate, should be full heartedly dismissed as it's a SPS. Tutelary (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happens when something that was initially self-published is reproduced elsewhere: it's now being published by BoingBoing, not just by Laurie Penny, so it's no longer self-published. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not super thrilled with its use in the article, mind you. I will look through the talk page to see why specifically it was added, because we are offering her as an opinion but clearly one which stems from an analysis and one which is very pointed. So I'd like to make sure we've got the best quote from her if we decide we want to keep it. Protonk (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that there are better quotes in the article that make the same basic point without using the word "cunt" 3 times, like this one: "The people who are so unspeakably angry that women dare, they dare with their stupid ladyheads and evil ladyparts, they dare to come into their special boy spaces and actually demand a voice, they don't understand why not everyone can see how right they are, how noble, how absolutely justified they are in their cause." Kaciemonster (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That'll work. kencf0618 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's SPS, it's biased as hell and frankly her opinion it's irrelevant and barely important to video games Loganmac (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, a notable opinion outside gaming. kencf0618 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't post the quote to start a discussion on whether or not the source is relevant enough to include in this article, considering there's already a discussion about that literally right above me. I posted it because there is already a quote from the source in this article, and I wanted to suggest an alternative that was essentially the same but didn't use the word cunt.Kaciemonster (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny pulls no punches, so I didn't include that particular quote gratuitously or for shock value. WP:IDLI is not sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think something weird happened with the formatting and I thought Loganmac's reply directly below you was to me, so I was reacting to that. Sorry, Logan. I can definitely understand why you'd pick that quote in particular though. I just think that there are other quotes in the article that would serve the same purpose without including a gendered slur. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected

Fully protected for a few days due to edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is CLEARLY a POV dispute, how about adding a POV tag? Skrelk (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: This article is presently undergoing dispute resolution about WP:UNDUE, and there is a POV dispute on the article. It probably needs at least one of those tags. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourth time, if my count's correct. Does this topic have a cooling off period...? kencf0618 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins only, that will surely fix the POV Loganmac (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no actual POV issue to address; just the same, tired arguments by the same tiny handful of off-site agitators. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the preponderance of reliable sources suggests that the issue is about far more than harassment, and that censorship is a major issue which the article does not adequetely address, it is pretty clear it has issues. The consensus has been clear for a long time, Tarc. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is a distortion and cherry-picking of facts to suit your own minority point-of-view. This point-of-view will never be represented in this and related articles to the degree that you wish it to be, as this project does not gives undue weight to minor critics. The sooner you realize this, the sooner this topic area settles down. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will mention that NorthBySouthBaranof and Ryulong, both of which have taken potshots at "gaters", together account for over 30% of all edits to this article. I will provide direct quotations and links if necessary.--ArmyLine (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not here, you won't. One last time I'll tell you, for behavioral issues, the article talk page is not the right place, take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Why'd you tell him to do that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Better than having that kind of discussion here; and that particular approach is not quite what I told them to do per my referencing WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend following WP:PER for any potential edits to a protected article. Dreadstar ☥ 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

One bit to add once unprotected

NPR on the Intel stuff. Last line is the one of interest that gives an RS that the Operation Disrespectful Nod continues to plan to do the same campaign on other sites. (This we knew but could not source appropriately.) --MASEM (t) 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR article uses Reddit as a source, and does not refer to it as Operation Disrespectful Nod. The source could be used to state that "GamerGate supporters are continuing to organize an emailing campaign asking advertisers not to advertise on various websites they oppose', or something to that effect. But it must be worded neutrally, and not written to sound like "GamerGate supporters are continuing their harassment campaign to pull advertising from journalists they consider objectionable" Skrelk (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not word it as such, more like "The GG supporters have affirmed plans to continue this email campaign on other sites that have published controversial articles." We've already got sourced details on Op. DN in the article (neutrally) so this would be fine. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine Skrelk (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Skrelk's "websites they oppose" wording — it's more specific than "controversial." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"That have published content they believe to be inaccurate, or 'anti-gamer'"Skrelk (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions ruling

I looked at the ArbCom log, and I could not find a ruling authorizing discretionary sanctions for this article. The linked ArbCom case regards BLPs. Although this article does involve living persons, I don't believe the BLP ruling was intended to be interpreted so broadly as to cover an entire article simply because living persons are discussed. At least, the ruling should not cover sections that are not directly discussing living persons.Skrelk (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It does extend only to the BLP aspects, but not anything else otherwise. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what Masem said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding more Adam

A while back there was a discussion about Using the APGNation interview to source the opinions of Adam Baldwin on the controversy. Barry (is it ok if I call you Barry?) and Logan both agreed that this was acceptable, but then everyone sort of forgot about it. The guy has a photo in this article and is recognised as a big player in the affair, may as well cite what he has to say. [3] Here is my proposal (As you can see I am not the most prosaic of writers):

There was active discussion of these events on 4chan and Reddit, and figures like Adam Baldwin (who was the first to use the hashtag #GamerGate on Twitter) highlighted the issue to the population at large. Baldwin gained interest in the movement after watching a YouTube video on the topic, which he believed highlighted "collusion and conflicts of interest" in gaming journalism. Baldwin has also raised concerns regarding Social Justice movements in gaming, stating "Whenever I see the term social justice, I think injustice, because it’s not justice."

Can anyone else think of anything that can be gutted from this article.? Bosstopher (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just cut his photo out of the article here then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be fully in favor of that, they are serving no purpose. Artw (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any real need to depict Adam in the article; he's a major figure to gaters, perhaps, but a pretty minor one judging from how little he's mentioned in the reliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well when I filled the article with photos he was the only other "pro-gater" figure I know we had photos of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be citing APGNation: apparently someone asked about its use recently at Wikiproject Video Games and it was roundly rejected. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interviews are fine for statements from the subject of the interview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an exception in WP:RS for unreliable sources that publish interviews. What policy are you basing that statemtn on? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing over a technicality in the letter of the policy. General practice is that interviews are reliable for noting the opinions of the interview subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about how interviews can be used, but it doesn't follow that interviews published in any source are usable regardless of the source's reliability. Other sourcing requirements still apply just as they do to any other type of source. That's not a 'technicality in the letter of the policy:' it is the policy. For example: no reliable, mainstream source is giving Adam here the time of day about Gamergate. Ordinarily that would mean that his opinion was not notable enough to include - that is, unless we allow ourselves to do an end-run around WP:RS by making an 'exception' for interviews published in otherwise unreliable sources. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We probably *should* mention he originated the hashtag in the body of the article, that's relatively uncontroversial and we shouldn't have to go to a caption to see it. Since it's ended up giving the movement it's name possibly some mention of that in the lede would even be appropriate. 19:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it actually is controversial if he actually did - he was the first to us, but there are claims (however true or not) that some on the GG preped that term for him to use, making that far too much of a tenacious fact to include in the lede. It's fine in the body, and that's it. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We're going to include a conspiracy theory that a famous actor was prepped by a bunch of unemployed neckbeards (/v/'s main demographic), who slaved over the perfect catchy phrase to represent their movement, and then handed it over to him with utmost secrecy so he could use it as a hashtag? [to clarify unemployed neckbeards is not meant as an insult, there is nothing wrong with being an unemployed neckbeard] Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not going to include the conspiracy theory aspect but becuase of the iffyiness of Baldwin's connection to the hashtag, it should absolutely not be highlighted in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post states: "Exactly who coined “#GamerGate” is up for debate. Actor Adam Baldwin claimed credit, but Quinn also tweeted screen grabs from 4chan chat logs she said show the campaign was orchestrated there." [4] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is not a reliable source https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 but since 4chan and the IRC kept public logs, you can see there was no actual planning to make him involved, GGers were just as surprised of his involvement as anyone else. It'd be hilarious if somehow you guys include that getting Baldwin was an evil ploy by 4chan. Also none of those screencaps show anything even related to #GamerGate as a hashtag before Baldwin tweeted it. And the only time Baldwin is even named in the IRC is because of Alec Baldwin which is hilarious that major publications haven't pointed out that overlook Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the WP source and the issue. The argument isn't that there was planning to make Baldwin involved; rather, that there was planning on 4chan to attack and harass Zoe Quinn using the hashtag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "Famous Actor Who Said Stuff About Gamergate" is Baldwin's only connection to the entire affair, then he probably does not need to have his image included in the article, as it makes him appear to be more of a major player than he is. If that leaves is with 2 images of one side of GG and 1 on the other, then we can live with that . It isn't the Wikipedia's fault that one side consists of largely faceless & anonymous voices. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well he is also sourced as having coined the term GamerGate, but I'm not really sure if that warrants his photo place.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have enough sources mentioning Milo's involvement beyond just the Liana Kerzner piece that has way too much weight in this article. I don't see anything wrong with having Not-Alec Baldwin's photo here, though. He did give the controversy its namesake.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin coined the term, and it's particularly notable that a Hollywood actor is involved in this. And if you want more notable people, as someone else stated, Milo is the most "followed" of them all, but since you guys don't want to include the GameJournosPro thing, then I guess his picture would be pointless, since the only mention he has here is because Liana K attacked him Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Baldwin was the first person (as best we can source) to use the term on Twitter, but there is very strong doubts if he actually coined the term. The present wording avoids going down the rabbit hole of whether this was a fabrication by the proGG side by simply just asserting the clear fact, Baldwin's use of the term and support for that side. That's all we should say about him, and thus that doesn't make it significant enough for the lead, compared to the involvement of other major players here. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New summary source

From The Verge (which I know some are going to called bias). I don't see anything immediately new that needs to be added (the only thing that caught my eye being the DARPA/DiGRA aspect but that's a lot of buzz without any apparent impact yet, so I would keep it out for now). --MASEM (t) 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained descriptor of misogyny

This article calling misogyny 'ingrained' is clearly based on this quote:

sexism and misogyny are ingrained in video-game DNA, widely tolerated when not being openly celebrated

From this article by Rus McLaughlin on VentureBeat.

I question whether this singular affirmation means that Wikipedia ought to just agree with him, as if his claim is actually reliable.

What if other gaming authors disagree with this, and express that misogyny is not ingrained, not tolerated, not celebrated? Would McLaughlin's claim trump those somehow?

I find it hard to believe that such a sentiment has not been objected to with counter-publications, I think we should check for those before communicating this.

Doing a cursory search for example, I can even find a disagreeing article on the same site, also writing for "GamesBeat":

Why Gaming Culture is not inherently Misogynistic by Joe Yang.

Due to a lack of consensus on this issue, I do not think we should call misogyny an 'ingrained' factor, because if something is ingrained, I think that is like calling it an inherent trait, and clearly Yang disagrees with McLaughlin on this, and the authors hold equal weight since they publish on the same site. Due to that, I am adding this as a reference too, and discussing the controversy on this article. Ranze (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rehashed time and time again. Please read the talk page archives. There are lots of other sources or quotes we can use instead if you don't like that one, but the gist of it is that sexism is viewed as a longstanding problem in the industry — there are a wide variety of reliable sources describing it as such.

"Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." -Washington Post [5]

"Online trolls have long attacked women in the video game industry. But during #Gamergate, it's gotten so bad that two women left their homes because they feared for their own safety, and the FBI has said that it will look into the harassment of game developers." -NPR [6]

I can find more if you want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am the editor who introduced that word, and it was just to replace the previous "long-time misogyny" which was much worse. You may have a better idea on a better descriptor from those sources, so please propose it, as neither the old nor the new term have a consensus behind it. Diego (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that your rebuttal article doesn't really claim that sexism isn't a problem in video games — rather, it argues that the misogyny does not stem from bad intent by gamers but from structural issues in the community.

If nothing else in this article catches your attention, it should be this: gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic. Its institutions, its structures, hierarchy, its payscales, and its distribution of power may be misogynistic, yes, but gamers themselves are not misogynistic. Their beliefs and rituals are not inherently misogynistic.

That isn't claiming that sexism isn't a problem in video gaming — in fact, it's more or less admitting that there's ingrained issues of misogyny baked into video gaming. I actually tend to agree with his point that the misogyny is primarily structural rather than purposeful... but that doesn't make it any less of a problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NBSB, the view that this is "longstanding " is essentially original research as no single source makes such claim. As you say, this was extensively discussed, and no reference was provided that supported wording it that way. Any part of the article can benefit from new perspectives, and consensus can change. The Venturebeat article states (in bold!) that "gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic", so if reliable sources are adopting different and opposite views, we can't state anything in Wikipedia voice as if its description by the media is homogeneous. We could say something like "seen by a majority of journalists as an ingrained problem", "an ingrained problem of misogyny in an otherwise not inherently misogynistic culture", or other wording along those lines. Diego (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"long-documented" and "longstanding" are effectively synonyms, Diego. Not sure why you're trying to pick such a nit, but yes, we have sources that directly describe it as a "long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable" problem. Pardon me for paraphrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As you said, the full argument is laid out at the archives. I see there that you suggested a change later in the lead to "the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community" that was not acted upon; we could include that improvement now through an edit request. Diego (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no shortage of sources on the relationship between misogyny and game culture. We can find a different one (or multiple) for the same claim but it's not as though that source stands alone. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of those sources are editorials from the gaming press at issue. I don't see any neutral studies, or analyses coming to that conclusion. You can certainly say that misogyny has been present in elements of gaming culture, and that it represents a long standing point of contention, but calling it ingrained, or inherent is a bridge too far, and unsupported. Skrelk (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources from the gaming press admit that it has been an issue within the industry as a whole (in fact, most are about misogyny in games from the developer standpoint, and less from the gamer side), so that would be a completely appropriate self-describing source. I would agree that if the point was about misogyny in the gamer community and not attributing any bit to the development side, we'd want something more than gaming press to report that since that's non-impartial view. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the lead were to be rewritten to clarify that the misogyny being referred to is is in the development side, and not the gamer/consumer side, that would make the article more neutral, but I'd question the accuracy of a statement that developers are overwhelmingly misogynstic. Skrelk (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's not true either. The lead is written properly to say that the sexism and misogyny is an industry problem, placing it both on developers and consumers. In the earlier part of the industry it was clearly more on the developers side, but as with the growth of social media, the aspects of that from the consumer side has become more apparent as well. Neither side is "clear" of that charge, so ingrained is accurate. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think "inherent" is the right description. Ingrained is fine. As for sources aside from editorial comment would we like for sexism in the games industry and the culture at large: We could take something like Mia Consalvo's article in Ada (among others in the same journal). There's a much older article here also on the same subject. this is more about the industry than the consumers, but it's descriptive enough. Dmitri Williams has a more general look (and one focusing on the connections between games and social issues) here (I don't have full text but I think I read it a long time ago). etc. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes again on Alexander, Intel, etc.

Link Willhesucceed (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, look and he references his Radio Nero talk at the end. Does this mean Radio Nero is to be considered reliable for interviewees' opinions? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• That narrative of gamergate should be slotted under 'fiction', not referenced in the article, but oh well. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The more I see of Kain's work the more concerned I am about using him in this article. We have a plethora of much more reliable sources. Not that I think Wikiproject Video Games is the sole arbiter of what sources can be considered reliable in this article ,I note that on their list of 'situational' sources they say: "Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces." I don't think we should be including any information in this article at this point that can only be sourced to Kain, and I don't think we should be quoting him directly alongside more reliable industry voices. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Kain too problematic for you huh? Loganmac (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How observant of you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

While Leigh Alexander's Time article is still up? Ya, that's not happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a false equivalency. Does Leigh Alexander's Time article has a similar editorial status to Kain's contributor pieces on Forbes? Or do you just think she should be excluded because she's 'biased' because gaters don't like her opinions? -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of egregiousness. If Leigh, with her abundant COI, which is easily discernible from her opinion pieces, her jobs, her Twitter account, etc., is allowed to contribute to this article, someone who's not toeing the line 100% but who's very well-respected in the industry is certainly allowed a place. None of what Erik writes in any of his articles is Crazy Land. Everything has been acknowledged in other sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's still a false equivalency. I get that you dohn't like Alexander, but her use in this article is irrellevant here. This is not about how many pro- or anti- gamergate sources are used in this article. This is about our policies as they relate to this specific source. Forbes contributor pieces simply do not have the same weight as other Forbes articles, because of the nature of their contributor program. In addition to the Wikiproject Video Games list I referenced earlier, there are many discussions in the archives of WP:RSN that discuss contributor blogs' reliablity (or lack thereof). They are not vetted or fact checked in the way that regular Forbes articles (and the articles of most reliable publications) are; they only represent the author's own work, with very little or no editorial oversight. It is very plain that at the best this should be treated as an opinion piece, not a news source. It's at least above a self-published source, but that still isn't saying all that much. He may be considered reliable for video game coverage (I haven't seen a discussion on that pointed out) but we're not just talking about video games here. We're not using him as a source for when the next big AAA game is coming out. He's not automatically reliable as a news source just because he's been used for gaming-specific news in the past. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The guy has written for Forbes, Slate, The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Week, Techonomy, and Mediaite. I'm pretty sure he knows how to write an article. It's also not like Forbes lets their contributors throw whatever they want onto the website. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's all great, but what he's writing here is an opinion blog that is not under any sort of editorial control. I'm not saying he 'doesn't know how to write an article,' I'm saying that this is not a news article with Forbes's editorial stamp on it. That's why contributor blogs are not universally regarded as reliable sources and have to be evaluated individually when they're used. The problem isn't the quality of his writing, it's that this is a distinctly low-tier source because of the nature of Forbes's contributors program. We shouldn't be making making such heavy use of one journalist's opinion and we certainly can't use it to source anything but his opinion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's a bit preposterous to claim that there's no editorial control. Forbes has a reputation to protect, unlike, say, The Huffington Post. If Erik Kain has been writing for them for this long, it's because he's been doing a good job. They also have "producers" which deal with the contributors' pages. I don't know what that entails, but it is input from at least one other person on the articles. Finally, if hexun.com thinks he's good enough to use as a source, he's good enough; they're the largest financial website in China. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the consensus we have on this source. Here's an article that describes how the contributor model works that might shed some light. And even if we didn't have any standing consensus on Forbes contributors, a good general rule of thumb is that any source that has a 'does not represent the opinions of' disclaimer is an opinion source, not a news source. Currently he's already getting too much weight in this article, especially given that he's not particularly notable for his commentary on gamergate. We should seek to diversify the opinions we're using, rather than piling in ever more citations to Erik Kain. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that, but just a quick note: if there's anyone that's considered reliable at Forbes re: the video gaming industry, it's Kain. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If that were true I'd expect there to be a note to that effect in that source list indicating he's an exception to the projects advice for editors to 'find alternatives to contributor pieces,' but that's beside the point: he's not just reporting on video games here, he's reporting on a social phenomenon. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The ultimate question is whether or not he is a reliable source. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, but he frequently cites secondary sources and makes note of what he is discussing and where he is pulling information from. Frankly, he does more fact-checking than a lot of the supposedly professional journalists, many of whom make factual errors. The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source and as a result made at least two factual errors, one of them hopeful, the other one pretty major (they claimed that Grayson had not had his professional ethics attacked, something which innumerable sources contradict directly, including Kotaku itself) and that's being generous to them. Is Kain making lots of mistakes? Is Kain referenced by other people as someone who matters/knows what he is talking about? The answer to the first appears to be no, and the answer to the second, doing some Googling, appears to be yes. He seems legitimate enough. I dunno. Our ultimate goal with reliable sources is to make sure that the information they are giving us is, well, reliable. Do we have any really good reason to doubt his reliability on this matter? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: Incidentally, where are you seeing the 'does not represent the opinions of'? I don't see anything like that I go to his articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker in their coverage, for instance, appeared to rely almost exclusively on Zoe Quinn as a source Oh, good lord, this again. "They just took her word for it all and didn't fact check!!!!!" Gters all think they're authorities on journalism, don't they? It's a profile of her. That doesn't mean that they didn't fact check. I can tell you with confidence that information that is sourced only to Quinn and not independently verified will be phrased in a way that makes the fact clear, and that anything that isn't is a statement that The New Yorker has verified to the point where they feel comfortable making it uncritically. Your claims of 'factual errors' are spurious. We don't pick apart sources, find wording we disagree with, and use that wording to discredit the entire source, and we especially don't do it in an effort to frame an opinion columnist as The Only Neutral Journalist. Kain's pieces are clearly labeled as opinion (The exact quote is "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.") I do not have to prove that Kain is making factual errors here: my argument is quite simply that he is an opinion columnist and must be treated as such, and that his opinions must not be given any special weight in comparison with others just because he's one of the few sources available that the gaters like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting quotes here

• "people say conservative actor Adam Baldwin started #GamerGate, and he certainly was the one who came up with the hashtag, but it was Leigh Alexander and the flood of similar articles following hers that truly sparked this backlash against the games media"
• "Now we have writers at video game publications perpetuating this stereotype for absolutely no good reason other than to keep a flame-war burning"

It should be added if weight is needed sometime Loganmac (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you being so confrontational?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We already give Kain more space and quote him more often than any other single writer in this article. I realize that he's basically the only reliable source you want to quote because he's the only one that consistently agrees with your position, but this is getting kind of silly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Chill out, it's OK, just leave that quote out. Wouldn't you say it was problem that all reactions to Intel were negative in that paragraph? I tried adding some neutrality. And no, I disagree with him in a lot of things, like where he says boycotts are bad. And no he's not the only reliable source I want to quote. Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's another Forbes writer: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think only Erik Kain was found to be RS at Forbes blogs Loganmac (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Each contributor is given individual weight. Erik Kain has a long standing of knowing his stuff (see the Mass Effect 3 fiasco, for example), but I don't see a reason to exclude this opinion, if it's needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Paul Tassi also wrote an article about the same subject matter on Forbes today. Seriously, Leigh Alexander should not be being used as a source for factual information here. As far as Kain goes, given that he has continually cited other sources and demonstrated that his material is well-researched, I don't see any reason to not use him as a source. He has done a better job of fact-checking than a lot of other sources have. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you shut up about your and the movement's perception that anything Leigh Alexander writes is biased and unusable on this page? It's just the same shit repeated every other day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is usually cited in concert with other sources and at least once in concert with Kain. Aside from the note about the allegations against Quinn in the lede where Kain is also cited, she is only ever cited for general background information or her own opinion. It is possible that certain details could be supported by other sources, but I see no real reason to reduce our current use of Kain or Alexander. We should keep in mind that Alexander is personally very close to this controversy and thus is not sufficiently independent to be considered a reliable source for much outside her opinion. She should not be cited on her own for any claims about GamerGate itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how people keep saying she's close to the controversy. Is it just her "gamers are dead" piece or was it something else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate has a habit of rendering women who comment on its ongoing harassment campaigns 'involved' in said campaigns. Alexander is considered by some to have a "COI" because she was harassed and obsessed over by gaters because of her articles on the movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is shaped more by the fact that she was an editor at Kotaku and still writes for them in an official capacity. We can argue about the other gaming outlets, but I would like to think we all agree that Kotaku's reporting on the controversy should not be taken as independent coverage given that their reporter's involvement with a game developer was the catalyst for this whole thing. Alexander not writing the pieces for Kotaku does not change that she has deep ties to the outlet and remains tied to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's even lamer. I don't agree that Kotaku is an automatically unreliable source just because the Gaters have leveled provably false accusations of malfeasance at it, actually, but that's neither here nor there, because it's completely unreasonable to expect Kotaku's supposed conflict of interest to 'taint' every author who writes for the site and follow them when they're writing in other reliable publications with their own editorial staff and their own reputations to maintain. You do realize you're essentially claiming that you know more about journalistic integrity than Time Magazine, don't you? If she's good enough for Time, she's good enough for Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an unactionable request. There are four Kotaku sources. One is the key article that states there was nothing between Quinn and Grayson that influenced a review, refuting the accusation- there should be zero question about the inclusion of this. Two are pre-events, pointing out the only other two times that Quinn was discussed. Neither are a problem here. The fourth is an opinion piece of the "death of gamer" and is just as "biased" as all other "death of gamer" pieces - that is, they are opinion pieces - and thus used only as such. Kotaku is otherwise not used to present any other factual information, so there's no issue with that; we have no Kotaku "reporting of the controversy" in the article period. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed no real use of Kotaku as an independent source, only as a primary source for its own reports. Alexander is also not really being used on her own for anything contentious. I am just saying that any attempt to treat her as an independent source on GamerGate would be mistaken. Our use of her writing right now is pretty much in line with what I think is acceptable. Anything more would be inappropriate. Just because she is writing for other outlets does not take away from her own connection to the controversy. Would we consider Fox News reporters independent in a controversy over Fox News coverage just because said reporter wrote a piece on the controversy for another outlet? People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexander's piece in Gamasutra (a site devoted to video game journal) would certainly not be an independent source, now that it's also targetted as the cause of Intel's ad-pull. But her piece in Time magazine - which we should be assuming has had editorial controls and others making sure that what she wrote in that represented the tone the magazine wanted to give - should be considered sufficiently independent. Yes, if we can replace something she said with something like the WA Post or the like, yeah, I'm all for that, but that specific article is fine to use. The argument "People who work for the group or individuals embroiled in a controversy should not be considered independent of the controversy." would mean nearly every single source would to be eliminated since even the more neutral sources like WA Post and the like are written by people that are video game journalists, just not for video-game only sites. That's not going to happen obviously. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add one thing - Alexander's Time piece was written before the Gamasutra piece and before she was embroiled in this. That, importantly, identifies the Time piece as acceptable, but should she come out with another piece in Time, we should be careful with that. Ah, another one who thinks they know journalistic ethics better than Time Magazine. A reliable source is a reliable source, and Gamergate's decision to harrass Alexander and campaign against Gamasutra does not change that Time Magazine is a reliable source. But more broadly, we can not allow gamergate to control who is and is not considered a reliable source by recusing any source the gaters targets for publishing unfavorable opinions about it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that a second Time piece by Alexander would be unusable, I said we'd have to be careful with it. It would depend on the content; knowing Time, it likely would not be an opinion piece but a restatement of events to date and as long as it was repeated was we know was patently true, would be fine to use. But she is no longer independent as a key actor in the whole mess, so we would prefer those that are more independent than she presently is if we have a choice of sourcing to use. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the way things are going we're eventually just going to run out of independent sources other than the few who don't get targeted because pander to the gaters. That list of sites to email advertisers about keeps growing. If we're going to consider Alexander an 'involved party,' thought, then Kain certainly is as well: he's actively engaging with the gaters online, guesting on streams and so forth. Or is it only negative or involuntary 'involvement' that causes a COI? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm considering her involved as that her specific gamasutra piece is the center of attention of other sources. Kain's pieces for Fobres - while well read, are not targets for anything, so he remains independent, as well as the bulk of other sources. (I'm aware that there's lists on the GG side of journalists and others they don't consider fair, but we are free to ignore that for purposes of WP's independance) Arguably, the only people right now that are not independent are Quinn, her ex, Sarkeensian, Grayson, Stephan Tolito (as editor for Kotaku), Phil Fish, and Leigh Alexander. There might be one or two more but these are the main ones. If this continues to a point where that list grows so much that we cannot have anyone covering it, that... would be interested but a near impossibility. I am not worried about the bulk of our independent sources "disappearing" as you claim. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that only negative or involuntary 'involvement' (eg harassment by gaters) confers a conflict of interest, and being chummy with gaters online does not, but now it's because 'other sources' are writing about that harassment? Either a source is reliable or it's not: we don't single out individual contributors to exclude because they've been targeted by a movement whose entire MO is targeting people who say things they don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do. Sources are evaluated on case-by-case basis, though we do consider the works that they appear in. Standard practice here. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:RS does not give so much leeway for 'evaluation' that POV motivated editors can discard any source they don't like on flimsy justification about 'involvement.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in policy which says that when a source becomes the center of attention of other sources, that makes the source "unreliable." Your argument has the entirely perverse effect of encouraging one side or the other to make a source they don't like "unreliable" merely by attacking that source, which you claim makes that source "involved." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "unreliable", I said "no longer independent". We can use "dependent" sources with caution, but we'd prefer that if the same info can be sourced to independent ones, we use that. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's absurd and has no support in Wikipedia policy anywhere — you're effectively creating a heckler's veto by allowing harassment and criticism campaigns against people to affect how we consider that person's work.

I can find umpteen Reddit posts, YouTube videos and tweets calling the Washington Post biased for its coverage of GamerGate — are the Washington Post articles now "no longer independent" too? Where does this rabbit hole end? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To both NbSB and TaraInDC - Please see WP:QS under WP:V policy, specifically that because her article is a central facet of the details of GG, she has a conflict of interest; also see WP:IS essay that gives other policy reasons. This makes her a dependent source for WP purposes. This does not mean we cannot use her future work for sourcing but it does mean that if we can source a fact she stated in her piece to an independent source, we should replace her piece with that source. But if she's the only one stating a point to be included, that's still fine. No, just because reddit threads claim a source is biased does not change its status here; I am strictly speaking when a person becomes a necessary part of the neutral GG narrative as Alexander has. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of policy creates an unacceptable heckler's veto on otherwise-impeccable reliable sources and I reject it entirely. Basically what you're saying is that "The Washington Post hasn't been the subject of enough criticism and harassment yet; but if we wait another week, maybe then it'll get attacked even more and will then have a conflict of interest." Your position encourages criticism and harassment of sources by making it so that if the criticism and harassment becomes newsworthy, that source is then considered "involved" and "dependent." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so we're only going to aide Gamergate in silencing the women it singles out for intense, hateful, personal harassment? This is absurd. This is an entire movement centered around attacking people who say things it doesn't like, and you want to give them the power to award a 'conflict of interest' to anyone it pleases. There is a very detailed footnote that outlines specific cases where a source may be ruled 'questionable' because it has an 'apparent conflict of interest.' Can you point to specific wording in that note that would apply to a journalist who was harassed by a movement most notable for using harassment as a silencing technique? -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You both are overdramatizing what I'm saying and showing the problems that I pointed out below that you want to ignore the process of good encyclopedia writing to pile onto the GG side. Remember, I didn't say Alexander's future articles would be unusable, just not preferred if there are other sources that say the same information. You need to detach from the emotional aspects of this and remember we are writing a clinical article about this. If you can't do that, you should not be writing on this article. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To add for NSNB: the reason this is a conflict of interest is that the site that Alexander is editor-at-large for has its ad pulled due to Intel's action, and as such she has a conflict. I very much doubt that WA Post will ever be under that type of scrutiny to worry about. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These tone arguments are utterly unconvincing. Your section below about your 'larger concern' was nothing short of inflammatory and your decision to lecture all the editors on this page who are in your view "decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG)" while ignoring the squadron of SPAs and POV warriors is extremely telling when it comes to your own biases. You are, to my knowledge, the only one who had broken the 3 revert rule on this article leading up to its umpteenth protection today, and we both know that isn't the first time you've done so. Please don't presume to tell other editors they're not sufficiently 'detached' to edit this article. Please stick to discussing the article and refrain from speculating on the mental states of the participants. Leave that to neutral parties. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But I'm aware that editors like you are refusing to adapt the proper neutral stance to this article, and this is another example of this. Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the fact there are SPA and meatpuppetry attempts here, and will also continue to make sure that those attempts to sway this article are not given in to. But you're only lecturing the non-SPAs and non-POV pushers. Instead, as has been pointed out more than once, you're pandering to them, and reverting edits that they don't like. That, combined with the edit warring, makes you look like a hypocrite when telling me that I'm not 'detached' enough from the article.

Alexander and Gamasutra now have a conflict of interest, and as such, their sources are not pristine -not unusable, but just not the favored ones to be used. This is long-standing practice on WP. I'm asking for a particular portion of that extremely tightly written definition of "Conflicts of Interest" that relate to Alexander, not another assertion that it's there. What you're advocating here is actually a very dangerous idea in the long run: making Wikipedia complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob. I don't see how the policy as it's currently written considers being the victim harassment for expressing an opinion some find objectionable a conflict of interest in and of itself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not just "lecturing" the non-SPAs. I've been debating the SPA and meatpuppets too. It's a tug of war. And "making Wikipedia complicit in the silencing of dissenting voices by an angry online mob" - well, I wouldn't describe it like this but we also have to be clinical about this, and that means that if a source gets "tainted" because the GG side triggers a series of events that make the source a conflict of interest for future articles, that's what we have to do. But remember you keep ignoring what I said: future Alexender pieces can still be used, they just become dependant sources because of the conflict of interest, and we put more value in independent sources than dependent ones. If Alexander is the only one to report in a factual manner about a GG event written in a neutral way, even on Gamasutra, there's nothing stopping us from using it; the only change that happens now is that if, say, the NYTimes writes on the same event later, we replace the sourcing for the factual aspects. We are not silencing those that get targetted by GG, just making sure we're aware that we'd like to use other sourcing if it is possible. That's far far far diffeerent from what you or NBSB are trying to claim I'm saying. In addition , your language still shows the emotional charge we cannot take on WP. I know harassment is wrong, but we have to be clinic and not write this article with that attitude; we include that of course becuase that's what the sources say but if we are prejudging any party in this before editing, that's not appropriate for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be modifying your position somewhat from some posts to others, with some being emphatic about Alexander's "COI" and others less so, so I'll just say that based on current policy there is no sound argument that Alexander's existing Time article is in any way probematic, and that at the absolute worst a possible 'conflict of interest' might require discusion: my reading of the policy does not in any way indicate that she is to automatically be treated with suspicion.

But your editing here has been disruptive. Talking about 'being clinical about this' and informing a fellow contributor she's being "emotional" aren't going to change that. Not that I agree with your assessment - I think it's just a lazy way to discredit me - but I don't see anything in wikipedia policy that implies that edtiors must be automotons. At most there are rules about civility, but you can be incivil without being emotional and vice versa. I'm not aware of any 'no showing emotion' clause.

Just as with the dismissive response to this talkpage discussion, which left me wondering why I didn't just blindly revert and call it good, I am beginning to regret my decision to err on the side of 'not starting drama' by refraining from simply reporting your edit warring. Your discussion below, while couched in 'neutral' terms, was quite simply inflammatory. You seem to have made this personal, and your decisions to frame me as being 'emotional,' 'not detached,' by telling me again and again that I'm somehow trying to 'skew' this article and 'pile in' sourced information that you think is too critical of gamergate. Everyone has biases. It's inevitable. But when an editor refuses to acknowledge their own while repeatedly pointing out those of one side of the discussion, that becomes disruptive. The accusations from the POV warriors are bad enough, but coming from you, an edit-warring admin who is positioning yourself as a 'neutral' party in this discussion, it's downright insulting. No more lecturing me about my bias, please. See to the plank in your own eye and let someone who's not involved hand out the yellow cards. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever say that the current Time article by Alexander is a problem? No. You're overreacting with far too much emotion which is the problem here, and putting too much emphasis on the harassment angle. I'm not dismissing that as an issue in the larger GG debate, but in writing this article we have to be hands off about it, and cannot let that drive us to paint one side in a very bad light (beyond the basics that the sources give) , which you have continually pushed. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some in this section and elsewhere have, and as I said I think you've been vaguer in some comments than others, so I wanted to lay out my position in full as plainly as I could. Who's overreacting?

I think your concern about "paint(ing) one side in a very bad light" isn't very helpful, though: we should be framing this as a WP:WEIGHT issue, not a problem with 'piling on against gamergate.' If you think ideas or issues are being given too much or too little weight, explain how and where, but there's no point where we go 'nope, that's too much negative information about the gaters' and call a moratorium on further additions that might be perceived as negative. Your concern about 'piling on' seems rooted in an assumption of bad faith about other editors who you have been suggesting are doing this deliberately to 'bias' the article, and that isn't a fair assessment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out at least one specific case below: the quote by Amanda Marcotte in the "attack on women" section says nothing that hasn't already been made clear by RS - that the harassment was seen as misogynic. The earlier discussion of the implied nature of the harassment isn't going to disappear, but this quote only exists to pile on more. That's the problem here, and when you and others argue that, paraphrase, we have to make sure this article doesn't succumb to those that harass women, that's putting an emotional bend on the writing which we cannot use as an encyclopedia. We're not here to correct the injustice (nor correct the sourcing imbalance), even if it should be obvious it is wrong. We call that side out once on it because the bulk of the press does do that, and that's all that should be said on that aspect, and then move into actually trying to acknowledge the issues within whatever balance we can make from the sourcing (knowing that the anti-GG side will be better covered here). This is fundamental to writing articles on controversial topics on WP which I've been through before and know how clinical everyone needs to be, and that's just not happening here. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's one case, and one that I haven't even been involved in. Hardly damning evidence that justifies telling everyone who is either 'anti' or just 'not pro-' gamergate that they're 'piling on.' Working on actual, actionable problems is much more helpful than making vague accusations. When you're telling a large number of editors, over and over, that they are biased as if that claim alone is enough to make whatever change they are working for or against invalid, you're only contributing to a combative editing environment where you imply bad faith on the parts of the contributors you are saying are 'piling on.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. SPAs are not immediately bad - often they are but we are supposed to assume good faith otherwise. In this particularly situation we need to be aware there's a lot of people attempting to swing the article towards a proGG slant, and we can point out why we can't do that, but we should not immediately dismiss them just because they are an SPA or IP, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of as well, and a sign that one may be emotionally charged to a point that they are unaware they are biasing this article or creating a battle ground. I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The other damning evidence here about the attitudes of some editors is the immediate assumption of bad faith towards SPAs. That would be a neat trick considering I don't even bother checking a contributor's history unless they show up and immediatley start crowing about how "Know Your Meme" is more neutral than this article. Oddly enough I'm seeing you do a lot of this: telling someone they're 'bad' rather than showing them. Can you point to places where I have dismissed someone who was credibly editing in good faith as an SPA without addressing their complaints?

I don't have any personal care about which way GG ends up going (save for the death threats and harassment part) , so I'm able to see the problems that are happening here with clarity, and there are clearly others that are seeing this too. And once again, informing us you're unbiased doesn't make it so. You keep ignoring this comment, but I'm going to keep making it: you are the one who's been breaking 3RR. Your claim of neutrality is simply not credible. You're involved. You have a point of view. You are not neutral. Being invovlved sin't inherently bad, but claiming you're not is dishonest. Who are these 'others?' Why are you so intent on framing yourself as neutral, and why are you trying to paint so many fairly reasonable editors as POV warriors? Are you aiming to be the last man standing when the "activists" get topic banned? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It follows that with "The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: . . . the creator of the work (the writer, journalist) . . . Any of the three can affect reliability." So that means whether the journalist is a third-party is an important consideration. No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either.

The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd. On the other hand, talking to GamerGate people or talking about GamerGate on a radio show does not affect the independence of a source. Note that I am not talking about bias here, which appears to be what some are talking about above. This is a matter of professional independence. Alexander cannot be reasonably considered independent of Kotaku when she is a writer and former editor at the outlet and Kotaku cannot be reasonably considered independent of the controversy. Staff at Kotaku have actually said they are not covering the issue as they would like because of the controversy implicating one of their journalists. Even if they do not adhere to that perfectly, the fact they consider it a legitimate complaint suggests we should as well and that, by extension, means we should regard Alexander as having a conflict of interest and thus not treat her as a third-party source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, using Alexander is fine per WP:RS, unless you can point to specific wording that would give her writing in outlets like Time a conflict of interest. Trashing her isn't going to do it: you need to connect all the trash talk to specific sections of specific policies that you think relate to your arguments. Even if Kotaku were unreliable - it's not - writing for an unreliable or COI'd source does not irrevocably 'taint' you and prohibit any of your writings elsewhere for the rest of your career from being used on Wikipedia. Hell, even Milo has some publication credits in real news sources that might conceivably be usable somewhere on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy has been pointed out why you are wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. As above, I'm asking for specific wording that relates to Alexander's writing in, for example, Time. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the author of a piece can be considered reliable is a key consideration that affects a source's reliability, not just the publication in which a piece appears.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire reason we consider certain publications reliable is because of their editoral oversight. We trust them to select the right people to write their articles and to fact-check and review them to ensure their accuracy before publication. Major publications like Time and The New Yorker are better at this than us, which is why we are able to use them without needing to perform extensive original research vetting each article that's added to an article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. If a an editor with a strong bias (I am not saying Alexender is this in the present case) writes in an RS, the "reliability" of that source not not automatically bless the article as fair game for us to use. It could be okay if the bias does not show itself, it could be a problem. Sources are evaluated case by case, not work by work. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this is that gamergate loves dismissing sources because they're 'biased.' I think that's far too easy and too vague a complaint, and it's one that's been leveled against far too many journalists already. While there may be other cases where there could be legitimate concerns, we're talking about using Alexander as a source at all in this subthread, remember, calling into question all of her writing on gamergate including her piece in Time. In this case, it's clear that there are no legitimate reasons to call the editorial oversight of Times into question. What I'm trying to discourage is the gater 'let's see what we can dig up' approach to discrediting women with unproved opinions. That's not the approach we should be taking. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading yet again, this has not about "using Alexander as a source at all", it is about being careful in the future with any sources from her. They aren't invalidated by the dependence of her to GG, they are just not the best sources to use if there are others out there. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No one can really consider a writer and former editor for Kotaku to be a third party when the whole controversy started out because of allegations regarding Kotaku. For those who respond that the allegations are false, even if that were entirely true it would not change the fact that Kotaku is not an independent source regarding this matter. People with official ties to Kotaku and long-standing professional history with the outlet should not be considered independent either. The idea that someone who writes for Kotaku in an official capacity and was once a high-level staff member there can be trusted as a source about people criticizing said outlet is absurd You are not the only person in this discussion expressing 'concerns' about Alexander. This subthread (among others) has very plainly been about Alexander in general, not hypothetical future articles she may write. You're the one who introduced the topic of hypothetical future articles: prior to that we were discussing the validity of her existing sources exclusively. If you need further proof, scroll up and find the very first time Alexander was mentioned in this discussion thread. And yet you're telling me I'm the one 'being emotional' and 'misreading.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Editorial oversight is only one part of the equation. Independence from the subject is important for all sorts of reasons in determining reliability. Were Nathan Grayson to write a fully-vetted piece for The New Yorker attacking GamerGate would we be treating his piece the same as the countless people with no connection to the controversy? Of course not. That would be stupid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a weak argument, though, because it's absurd. There's no reason to think that The New Yorker would ask Grayson to write anything but maybe an opinion column (which we would obviously treat as such wherever it was published). That's one of the reasons they're a respected news source: they don't do that kind of thing. You can't argue against a respectable publication's editorial oversight by asking 'but what if they did something no respectable publication would do?' -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If they did do it, that would not suddenly make Grayson a reliable source on the controversy. The reputation of an outlet on its own is not sufficient to cover for other problems with a source. Alexander's independence is a reliability issue that is distinctly separate from any considerations regarding Time magazine itself. No amount of editorial oversight changes the fact that Leigh Alexander writes for Kotaku and was previously an editor at Kotaku. She is too close to the controversy to be considered an independent source. Just because she wrote the piece for Time magazine does not take away from the fact that it is her writing and not a Time staffer's writing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A better way to say it is that Alexander's piece in Time has to be evaluated for three factors: we know Time does have a reputation so they aren't going to let Alexander get away with slander or outright falsification, so their reputation is a net positive; Alexander (prior to the Gamasutra piece) is slightly biased as a video game journalist on one side of the debate, so that's a net negative; and finally the content of the article is presented about as factual as one could expect and not written as an opinion piece, a net positive. As such, the Time article by Alexander is probably fine. But we can't just judge on any one of those points alone. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, it is not about bias. It is about independence. Leigh Alexander is simply too close to the subject. Hers is not an outside view of the situation, but one that is going to be informed in large part by personal and professional loyalties. That is why independence is one of the criteria for reliability because we need an outside view.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the current assessment of her as an 'involved party,' but there's absolutely no argument for calling her involved at the time those articles were written. Gamergate didn't freak out and start trying to ruin her career or get advertisers to drop support of Gamasutra over her writing until afterwards. A single provably false accusation of 'nepotism' against one of her colleagues at one of the publications where she writes does not render her 'involved.' Would you argue that, because Alexander wrote at Time and gamergate is obsessed with discrediting her, anyone else who writes for Time is tainted by her involvement? We're not playing six degrees of Nathan Grayson here: if we let any connection with an 'involved party' affect the usability of a journalist as a source, we're going to run out of journalists really quickly. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time they were written she was only involved as a member of the group (not an individual) of one side of the debate. There would be a slight bias but for the most part the Time article should be considered mostly independent because of Time's reputation, and the fact that her piece was meant as more factual than opinion (compared to the GAmasutra one). But take the hypothetical and extremely unlikely case that Time allowed Alexander to publish a full-on emotionally charged rant without labeling it as an opinion piece. If Time let that through like that (and without apology later), that would bring future articles from Time from any editor possibly questionable as an "independent" source, because Time should never have published something like that, and without clearly marking it as an opinion, implicitly stating their side in the overall issue. Again, this is likely never going to happen with Time (they'd not allow that type of article in the first place, and even if they did they would clearly mark it op-ed), however, this has what has happened to Gamasutra - not only being part of this now, but the fact that the piece from Alexander was not marked op-ed (which they do have ability to do), meaning the staff shares the same POV. Doesn't invalid Gamasutra as a source, they are just very much no longer an "independent" source for covering this at the time being. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that you guys have written over 5600 words total arguing about the validity of a source that doesn't even exist. Bosstopher (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's really not true. Masem has for some reason been talking primarily about a hypothetical source since about the midway point of the discussion, but that's by no means the only topic here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is zero harm in discussion. And I have to use the hypothetical because presently there are no articles that exist that might be an issue, but we do have to be aware that going forward we are going to have to start watching the use of some of these sources. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's really no point in saying that, though, because until an article has been written we have no way of knowing whether or not we'll have to be 'careful' about using it. Saying so assumes a) that Alexander will begin writing problematic articles and b) that editors will begin using them in problematic ways. So it's a distraction, and one that has unnecessarily complicated this discussion to the point where you've been accusing me of 'misreading' a discussion which you have decided is now entirely about hypothetical articles and not existing ones. As the discussion about her existing sources is in fact ongoing, your repeated injections about hypothetical future sources are just muddying the waters. Please stop worrying about sources that haven't been written yet and focus on the ones that are actually being challenged. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So we've got a whole lot of text above. Can someone tell me (preferably in 4 sentences or less) why Alexander is not considered a reliable source on Gamergate writ large? Also if we're considering the Time piece relatively more reliable than the Gamasutra piece I'd like a pithy explanation of that decision as well. Protonk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of reliability, it's the "dependence" now; since her piece at Gamasutra is central to Intel's decision, she and Gamasutra are dependent sources as directly involved parties, still reliable but future articles of theirs should be replaced with more independent sources if they exist for the same facts, but otherwise still fine to use. Her existing piece in Time is fine, since that was before the Gamasutra piece; it might have a bit of bias as a game journalist, but that's it. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: This "dependence" refers to this piece and the relationship was asserted because Intel pulled ads after the piece was published? Protonk (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the right piece, but only became an issue after Intel pulled their ads and it was established that Intel's reason to pull was over that specific article. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So how does that make the original piece dependent in any way? Had intel not pulled ads what would've been the problem with using the piece? Protonk (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said the original piece is suddenly now dependent, but that in the future, now that Gamasutra's finances (and ergo Alexander's job) has been impacted by this, future articles should be considered dependent. Mind you, the original piece itself is very opinionated (in contrast to her Time article), and we have not actually used it save to identify it in the Intel ad-pull aspect. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes a little more sense, though I'm not sure of the logic whereby an organization which has its ads pulled by a company is now more problematic. If a newspaper wrote about a local coal company and then the coal company pulled ads, why would that lead us to believe that future stories from them should be treated with more suspicion? Protonk (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They are dependent, and WP values independent sources over dependent ones, particularly if we start getting into contentious claims. For example, and strictly in the hypothetical, if Gamasutra suddenly had a piece today about questionable business practices at Intel after the ad-pull issues, that would be very suspicious - not immediately one to reject, but we'd really like to see confirmation from others knowing that Gamasutra has been financially hurt by Intel's decision. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very specific hypothetical where the general result is to claim that articles on "gamergate" from GamaSutra are now dependent because intel pulled ads over an opinion piece. Sure, if GS suddenly decided to investigate intel that's certainly a factor to weigh, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about writing on game culture which GS has done for years. Now they're party to it because an advertiser had an opinion? Given that intel likely pulled ads due to an email campaign (and one is in the works with NVIDIA as well), that's a line of reasoning which terminates by proscribing sources from any outlet with advertisers susceptible to public pressure. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not speaking to any potential site that there's current email campaigns to remove ads from - until it actually happens, and the site is affected in a financial matter. It presently only applies to the specific situation with Gamasutra and Intel as relating to GG. Gamasutra for all other topics remains a perfectly fine RS. But because Intel cost Gamasutra money (loss of advertizing revenue) as a result of the actions of the GG side, we just need to keep in mind they are no longer an uninvolved party. That's why the other sites are still not in question because they haven't been touched financially by anyone's actions yet. And to what Tara has been saying, this is all the hypothetical; nothing needs to change now, but we just have to be aware what might come going forward. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Devil's Advocate thinks she's involved because of the accusations with her co-worker at Kotaku, Nathan Grayson, and that all of her writing should be used with that involvement in mind. Masem thinks her existing writing is fine as it's being used in the article now and we should be 'careful' about any future articles by her. I think her existing writing is fine, period, and that handwringing about future biased articles seems like an excuse to take a jab at her credibility. I personally don't feel that the Time piece is any better or worse than the Gamasutra piece, but there are fewer excuses for 'concerns' about Time from the gamergate crowd, so it's simply easier to use that source in an already embattled article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not merely that accusations were made against a co-worker. What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. People closely associated with that outlet can generally be expected to be involved. Regardless of whether they had hung him out to dry or circled wagons around him, one cannot consider those associated with Kotaku to be independent on this matter. Independence is a criteria for reliability. A reliable source has to be a third-party and Leigh Alexander is not a third party because she is a regular writer for them and a former editor. You snark above about how you think my reasoning suggests that Time magazine is suddenly not reliable, but that is completely different. Alexander has, as far as I know, never written for them before, let alone on a regular basis, and has never been a member of their staff. That is not the case with Kotaku.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What Grayson was accused of cuts at the core of Kotaku's credibility as any reporter for an outlet engaged in journalistic impropriety taints the whole outlet. No, it doesn't, because those accusations proved to be completely baseless. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get how this works. Whether the allegations were correct or not, the allegations in themselves mean we cannot take any reporting from Kotaku or anyone very close to Kotaku as being independent. It is those allegations of journalistic impropriety at Kotaku that started the whole thing off and that means people with close connections to Kotaku, such as Leigh Alexander, should not be treated as third-parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You claims have been thoroughly debunked. Even Masem doesn't regard the existing articles by Alexander as problematic. There's just no substance to your argument.

Incidentally, can either of you point to the section on 'dependence' in WP:RS or WP:V? Wikipedia:Independent sources is, I note, an essay, and I see no mention of 'dependence' in the main policy. I can only recall 'independent sources' being particularly important with regards to notability concerns. Once Kotaku had been cleared (and remember, the fact that these allegations are false has been published in sources entirely independent of Kotaku) then there should be no concern about conflicts of interest, because there was no longer any reasonable justification for regarding the site with suspicion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors

This was locked while it had two big red cite errors in the References section. The errors are keeping it in two error tracking categories. I wonder if it would possible for someone with superhuman powers to fix the errors, so that this doesn't stay in the tracking categories for the next year or so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (commented out the Escapist one and fixing the cite name one as needed). Nothing else touched. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are my hero, thank you. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Pipelink "Steam" to "Steam (software)"

In the section Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment, first paragraph, first sentence: Could someone add a pipelink from "Steam" to Steam (software)? Trivialist (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Makes sense to me. Done. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: change "Twitter hashtag" in lead to "hashtag" due to widespread use of hashtags outside of twitter

Request in title, this shouldn't be controversial. - Skrelk (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Added template to plop this into a tracking category. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone has a problem with this, it can be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure of the rationale here - is there any indication that #GamerGate has been used as a hashtag outside of Twitter? Artw (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale is the term "hashtag" is more general than twitter, or at least shouldn't just be referred to in text as a "twitter hashtag". My read is the change is purely stylistic. I would've done it but I don't like editing protected pages while I'm involved in a talk page discussion. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Go to any Youtube video on GamerGate, most comments and the title use the hashtag, it's common sense, GGers don't stop using the hashtag on twitter, it's on Facebook, Reddit, chans,etc Loganmac (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I intended that as purely stylistic, since hashtag is very generalized now. Skrelk (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the only hashtags being refered to in the source are twitter hashtags and not "generalized" ones, this change should be reverted. Artw (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still just a hashtag. Even if it's only on twitter it's just a hashtag. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also a few of the sources cited refer to the entire movement as #GamerGate in the title, not just the twitter aspect. Bosstopher (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing 'as a hashtag #gamergate' is a little awkward. Do we need to point out it's a hashtag? Can we just say "sometimes referred to as GamerGate or #gamergate?" We talk about its use as a hashtag, with an internal link link to the article, further down in the article anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I didn't realize this before, but did Dreadstar actually protect this article from editing for a whole year?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar stated that full protection expires later today. Looking at the log, it appears the article is move-protected until next year i.e. it cannot be renamed without administrative approval.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So I did misread it. It's hard to tell what the expiry is supposed to be with the UTC date (I don't know why he's set the move protection to expire though).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was confused because someone said it on Twitter before I saw you say it here, but they were apparently talking about the previous and rapidly-shortened full-protection by Cuchullain as though it had just happened.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request No Footnote

The bit on the New Yorker in the attacks on women section has no footnote. Can someone put the footnote back? Bosstopher (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done This is needed to met policy. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloated article

The article could do with about 75% less text and opinion. Let's just stick to the facts and then link to further analysis, shall we? How do I tag an article as in need of significant revision for conciseness? Oathed (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what content the article has too much of instead of vaguely complaining about it? As in what exact pieces of content need to be cut out instead of just saying "this is too big".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps cut out the Laurie Penny bit? She's pretty much just saying the same thing all the sources before her are saying only this time with swears. Bosstopher (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We could cut out all the bits where we pretend GamerGate might have some kind of valid point. Being stricter about WP:UNDUE would lead to a much more compact article. We'd probably need to expand the FAQ to document everything exhaustively for when POV pushers come around complaining about bias though. Artw (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You What? Bosstopher (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I sense facetiousness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On whose part? [I did that wrong didn't I? I suck at who grammar so much] Bosstopher (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I beleive the article could be significantly streamlined in that manner. Artw (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the gamergate article is that it's hilariously overblown when compared to the actual notability of the controversy. The article has 72 sources, and there's no way it could possibly need that many to make it's point. The background section doesn't serve any purpose except to give a history of the gaming industry and the general state of affairs up to the start of gamergate. If the article needs 4 extensive paragraphs describing the state of gaming industry drama before it can get to the point, then maybe the gamergate controversy should be a small subsection in an article about that. The article as it stands basically serves as a play-by-play for the ongoing drama of the controversy, with new details being added every single time someone decides to say something about it. Most of the things that are given their own section (basically everything under the backlash and social media campaign section) deserve, at max, a couple of sentences each. Everything in the misogyny and antifeminism section should be worked into the actual article instead of given individual breakdowns and analysis. The legitimacy of gamergate's concerns section doesn't deserve more than 2 paragraphs. Quotes are used in places where paraphrasing is more appropriate, and individual words are quoted from sources, I'm assuming for emphasis, but seriously. We get the point. Everyone keeps arguing about whether or not the sources and "sides" of the controversy are given fair weight, but the content in the article right now is giving the controversy itself more weight than it deserves. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we shouldn't write that much about it despite the fact that people have written a lot about it? I'm just going to address your issues one by one.

1. Notability was taken care of with the article passing AFD.
2. There deserves to be some sort of discussion of what led up to the "controversy".
3. That's how current events work.
4. This is debatable.
5. Same.
6. Same.
7. The issue with heavy quoting is because of the pro-gamergate SPAs who insist that we are not accurately portraying their opposition (or lying about it) so we have had to include explicit and exact statements to prove that we at Wikipedia are not lying.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean "notable" in the normal sense of it. As for "that's how current events work", it's horsecrap and you know it. We don't want to chronicle a blow-by-blow because that makes for a worse article--we're forced to do it for the same reason we have all the damn quotes. It's not optimal and it's not wrong to say so. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's hard to tell what people mean when they're not specific. There are perhaps parts of the article that need trimming, but these calls that 75% needs to be cut out is circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the entire point of what I wrote. It's notable as AN incident of sexism and journalistic integrity in gaming, not THE incident. I also didn't say that that there doesn't deserve to be any discussion on what led up to the controversy. What we don't need is 4 long paragraphs describing the history of gaming journalism, what a "gamer" is, and a handful of previous incidents of sexism in gaming. For a background section for gamergate, a description of current tensions and the state of the industry before it happened would be enough.

Yes, that's how current events work, but nobody is saying anything new. The article doesn't need a new section or paragraph every time a random journalist decides that they need to weigh in on the drama, and most of the sources don't say anything distinct enough to warrant having so many references on this article.

I understand the issue with the quoting. It sucks, I get it, and the amount of patience some of you are maintaining is impressive. Regardless, a random reader doesn't care about what debates are going on the talk page, and all they're going to see is an unreasonably long article detailing a whole lot of feelings and the events of gamergate hidden underneath somewhere. The article as it is now is a chore to read, and any reader would be better off reading any of the articles referenced to get a more concise rundown. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually need to establish what the situation was as of July 2014 to understand why the accusation towards Quinn set off a series of events. This is more than just an "event" article, it about the philosophical issues that have now since arise since the initial events. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "philosophical issues" existed before gamergate ever happened. This is just another event demonstrating the preexisting problems in the gaming industry. I'll say it again, you can establish the background without going into excessive detail about the history of gaming journalism, incidents of sexism, and that people that play games call themselves gamers. As it is right now, most of the article is of interest only to a small group of people, namely the people editing it. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course they existed before Gamergate - but the reason GG blew up as a "group" and as an event was that the alignment of all these issues at the point that Quinn was accused was the perfect storm, so understanding that there have been issues in journalistic ethics, that the identity of "gamers" have been challenged, etc., provide the required background how a refuted claim about professional impropriety turned into a introspective review of the entire industry. That is the story here and why this background is necessary from an encyclopedic viewpoint. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We need this detailed backstory so we can repeat the gamergate narrative to our readers as though it's the truth? "An introspective review of the entire industry" my fat ass. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not such much that "big" but the point is that there has been proverbial soul searching by the game journalists and dev sides (for better or worse) in light of what they have been accused of, with some agreement there have been problems (eg that game journalism has become indistinguishable from PR from a few sources, for example). We cannot state that the claism the GG side have made are truth, but the fact that there are game dev/journos that are talking seriously on those claims is what should be included in the article, and the reason why they are talking about that as part of it. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

These are primarily mentioned in sources as examples of things GajerGate could be interested in if they were really concerned with journalistic integrity and not silencing women. Artw (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "introspective review of the entire industry" happens every single time a woman says something about video games and gets harassed because of it. We saw the same exact thing happen with Anita Sarkeesian and Jennifer Hepler, and it even happened the first time Zoe Quinn got harassed. Even still, 4 paragraphs discussing the background of the industry in detail is ridiculous overkill. All that needs to be said is that there'd been previous incidents of sexism and harassment and questions of journalistic integrity before moving on to the first incident involving Quinn. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, let's try not to get superheated in this thread too... :)

OK, here's the problem as I see it: There is a lot of rhetoric from GamerGate about what they say they are for or about. But all the action of GamerGate has been the things we talk about that are documented in reliable sources — vicious harassment campaigns based on false allegations of a conflict of interest involving Zoe Quinn and others; misogynistic and juvenile sex jokes about Zoe Quinn; a vehement belief that those who are discussing issues of gender, race or class in gaming are malevolent "social justice warriors" out to somehow destroy video games (how these people will do so is unexplained); and an effort to get advertisers to drop gaming publications that published articles they don't like.

So what can we do? It's really, really easy to say you're about something and that you oppose something. But looking from the outside in, all that is seen are the actual results of what people waving your banner have done. And those external sources are in agreement that what they have done is largely (not entirely, but largely) unconstructive. And if your response to this is "well, all those sources are biased against us," then you've articulated little more than a conspiracy theory — and you haven't done anything to show here's what we have done that is constructive and that the biased media is ignoring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of the background section in my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit in an attempt to get the article towards a NPOV, but I was mostly working off the material in the previous analysis section using the existing sources. Despite my intentions it is, if anything, skewed towards the anti-GamerGate perspective of this just being about male gamers angry about more women being involved or games being more about serious issues and less about high-octane thrills.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and it's nothing in TDAs edits, is simply that prior to the harassment of Quinn, what the proGG wants was not apparently problems before save for elements of why DQ was not received well by players (the start of using games to push political messages) and the possible corruption of the press (which really only bore out in a couple isolated incidents, Gerstmann, and Doritosgate). I'm not saying these aren't valid concern, but the conclusion that some antiGG press has arrived at: claiming that the proGG latched onto these points after the harassment of Quinn and the backlash from the press as to try to give this a legitimate reason , is not too far out of the realm of possibility. We obviously can't treat it like that, but it is because there's little to talk about from the proGG side before the Quinn harassment that may seem like it's balanced. It is because the narrative as events actually happened does not make it play out well. The only real way to fix that balance would be to remove the intro but put it into the article later, but I'm not 100% if that works. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the nature of the content or the balance of the article. I think as it is now the general message, for lack of a better word, is fine, and reflects the sources used. The problem is that there's too much content. We've managed to lose what gamergate actually is underneath the excessive quotes and extraneous detail. I've offered suggestions on how to condense the content in this article as it is now to make it more clear and concise. I'm more than willing to discuss that more in depth with you or anyone else interested, but I have no desire to get into a discussion on the article's neutrality. It's already been discussed multiple times, and it's honestly frustrating to see every concern on the talk page shifted into a discussion on POV when there are other problems that can and should be addressed. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is - no one has any really good definition of what gamergate is, due to the nebulous nature of what has happened and what has been said. We know it's a controversy, but the bounds are vague and unclear. I think what we've all gotten to to balance the first line of this article is the best definition that we can make but that leads to why this is broad and detailed to try to give some insight to a reader who has zero knowledge on the VG industry or its present state. (There are some of the related POV issues involved that are bloating this, but as stated, better discussed elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more important to focus on what happened than just what it is. A reader knowing nothing about the gaming industry should leave the article knowing about gamergate, with only enough background/extra information to have the basic context they would need to know why they should care about it and why gamergate was able to happen in the first place. The background information really only needs to serve the purpose of showing the reader that there's been a history of harassment in the gaming industry, including previous incidents with Quinn, and a few (sort of) examples of questionable ethics/conflicts of interest in gaming journalism. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But the reliable sourcing has ID'd other factors involved here that I think are balanced statement - the "death of gamer identity" angle, for example, is perfectly legit, and legitimately became recognized as an issue as journalists listened to what proGGers were saying. Now, the lead should be set so that the reader gets an idea of what happened in a very broad stroke and set up the structure of the article, and I think we've got one that does a good job as to explain why we have a good sized BG section before the crux of the matter. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't legit, just that it doesn't belong in the background section. Like you said, the death of gamer identity became recognized as an issue after gamergate became a thing, and totally has a place in a section about what resulted from gamergate. The background should speak for itself, and describe the tensions in the gaming industry prior to gamergate. Right now the only purpose it serves is to justify using a bunch of opinion pieces referenced later in the article. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New sources

Slate

Arizona State University

MCV

Forbes

Iltalehti and its translation

Verge

Willhesucceed (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The ASU piece is based on a research student's comments, so ... no. (However, if there was a peer reviewed paper down the road, I could see that). The Iltalehti piece is restating what we've got already about the Intel debate, so not really needed. I've brought up the Verge piece as mostly rehashing and nothing really new but still possible.

Slate's piece is interesting in that it's more about how GG has shown Twitter to be unbridled, and there might be something to be said that GG has exposed .. flaws? with social media-driven campaigns if there were more sources long this line but would not include presently. The MCVUK piece is good in that it expresses that there are people purposely trying to stay out of it, but I'd like to see more sources on the same line as it doesn't presently fit elsewhere. Forbes is from Kain again, and pretty much supports the opinion that there needs to be proper discussion between journalists and GGers which I think we had elsewhere so usable. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Auerbach and Kain seem to be making fairly similar points about the need to get beyond a mutually toxic atmosphere. There are probably similar sources in that vein, so I think it would merit adding material touching on that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Between that and Quinn's own call for discussion at #gameethics definitely could be something, I'm just not sure where to fit it in. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week follows up on its previous article, particularly arguing that GamerGate's goals are incoherent — which goes along with Slate's discussion of how GamerGate can't seem to figure out what it's trying to say because it's taking place in 140 characters or less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to note the author's properly attributed opinion in the article when protection expires.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be really careful about that Week article (having read it before) as while it has some points, it's definitely written with a stronger bias than others, though I think using it + the Kain piece on the nebulous nature of GG is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes' Kain discussing the publisher "control" of reviews of Shadows of Mordor in light of GG. I do not know if this is yet usable, though it highlights the ethics in game journalism point of the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How so? Article only mentions GG to point out they're not concerned with this issue. Artw (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Realisticially , I think this article should point out that the concerns about journalism ethics are not novel claims, pointing to self-ascribed problems like this, Gerstmann's outing, and DoritoesGate (plus the effect of MEtacritic, etc.) in lieu of an article elsewhere on WP that describes these things. It is important that the industry has pointed out this problem (calling the journalism more like PR nowadays by several) so this does not invalid the GG claim on this. But, how to include without forcing I don't know yet, hence why I am just dropping the link for now. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If we used it to support GameGate in that way I would call it a blatant misinterpretation of a source. Artw (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no GamerGate claim on this and that's the entire point of the article — the article's author says "Here's an example of a real journalism ethics issue. GamerGate isn't going after it. Why is that? This is a missed opportunity to make an important point." I agree with Artw that if you're proposing to use the source to support the idea that GamerGate's journalism ethics concerns are legitimate, it blatantly misrepresents the content of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's useful as a discussion of what GamerGate isn't talking about — the article's author explicitly asks why the GamerGate movement hasn't gone after what the author sees as an actual, flagrant violation of journalism ethics. GamerGate hasn’t really sprung on this the way they would if, say, IGN or Polygon or Kotaku were accepting branding deals for their reviews. In other words: There's an opportunity here to make a real, substantive point about journalism ethics, and GamerGate is willfully ignoring it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be really careful - as WP editors we can't address the "negative space" (eg why hasn't GG gone after this, why wasn't Grayson harassed as Quinn was if it was really over journalism ethics, etc.); if others note this, we're fine, but it is definitely original research to say the absence of something is prove of something. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says, though. If you're proposing to use this source to say something about GamerGate and "journalism ethics," then you can't possibly ignore the fact that the author calls out GamerGate and says they aren't involved in discussing the issue and calls for them to become involved in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

True, I was just saying that in general we have to be careful. I have a feeling some will argue that using a Kain article to make this possibly controversial claim would be an issue, but this is the type of language that we would then at least mention all other factors being equal. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Verge article, though it has a very decidedly biased tone. It might be useful to a point I identified earlier, that what GG is going through is a problem in the larger culture war (outside of VG) but might is the operative word. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For good background information on Gamergate and the culture of harassment in tech these two links are great:

Trouble at the Koolaid Point
‘We Will Force Gaming to Be Free’

No idea if they meet your criteria for inclusion, pretty sure they don't - but they are worth a read. The second one has a lot of links that may be of interest. Artw (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Asian sources / Patreon / Quinn

http://www.huxiu.com/article/43065.html

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/01/patreon-pressured-pull-sarkeesian-effect-documentary/

Running the first article through Google's translation service shows that it's reliable and detailed. Everything matches up with the record elsewhere. I link it because I'd like to use it, or Bright Side of News, as a source for gamers' earlier concerns about Quinn's Patreon patrons (beyond just Jenn Frank), many of them video games journalists and game developers.

It's also covered implicitly in http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats and http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/07/the-gamergate-question/

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What information does the article include that isn't covered in Enlglish language ones? Machine translations lose a lot of nuance. English-language sources are generally preferred, all other things being equal. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it's more than just Jenn Frank who's funding her, i.e. other members of the gaming press and developers are doing so, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess, featuring phrases such as "Another game circle feminist warrior, female game commentator Anita Sarkeesian also unfortunate gun." I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of it, but it doesn't seem useful to support anything meaningful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess" - Good thing the English Wikipedia is home to 1,544 different native speakers of Chinese, right? Why not ask for help? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to use the source, so maybe you should ask someone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

But you were judging the desirability of a source based on a poor machine translation that did not accuratey reflect the contents of the piece. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the previous posts in a thread before commenting in that thread. I did exactly what the person who proposed the article said they did — ran the article through Google's translation service, which according to them, "shows that it's reliable and detailed." On the contrary, I got a garbled mess that can be said to be neither reliable nor detailed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm well capable and willing to accurately translate the piece to English, provided that I can have reassurance that I won't be accused of BLP policy violation simply for being the messenger once I post the translation on the talk page. The piece is quite detailed in how it covers the entire history of the debacle, which can help with the verifiability of this article and fill in any missing gaps.

Having a quick Baidu search, the entire incident is well covered on Chinese websites, with articles from the IT specialist section of this news website, and this mainstream news website (in fact, QQ.com is one of the biggest mainstream news portals in mainland China in terms of readership). These are all websites that the general population takes very seriously, both sites being government registered news outlets per the information laws of the People's Republic of China (it is illegal to market yourself as a "news outlet" without government permission).

Finally, may I remind you that while machine translations work decently between Germanic languages such as English and Dutch, Chinese is a Sinic language, and that the technology for machine translation to Chinese is hardly there yet, of course you're going to get gibberish. Regardless of how much money Google attempts to pump into developing machine translations, many scientific journals guesstimate that it will be at least 25 years until we can get reliable machine translation between Germanic and Sinic languages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned that you might be accused of violating BLP by posting a translation of this article I would suggest that you not do so. We are not likely to be using any extraordinary new claims that are only sourced ot this article and have somehow been overlooked by the many, many sources that we already have. This is primarily an English-language movement, so unless the article has some insight into the effects the movement is having in Chinese-language communities or how the Chinese speaking world is participating I don't think it's likely to be any more useful than the many high quality sources we already have.

I think we're all well aware of the limitations of machine translations, but when a machine translation is the point of reference for the person initiating the discussion it's entirely fair for other participants to use and comment on it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just been seeing overzealous accusations of BLP vios being thrown around all too much lately, not specifically on here, but all over the Wikipedia project. It's precisely the reason why I find BLP topics tedious and bothersome.

I didn't specifically say that the article contains potential BLP problems, I just don't want to be the target of any lynchmob. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that brings up the question of whether or not this is a reliable source to begin with. The translation says it's a "submission," the only byline is "game grapes" and it comes with the disclaimer that "Articles for authors independently views do not represent the position of the tiger sniffing network." (Oh, machine translation...) This would suggest that it's not a staff-written, edited/fact-checked article, but more akin to a self-published user blog. A machine translation of the Frequently Asked Questions page seems to support the proposition that articles on the site are basically self-published. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the author's own editorial, he doesn't write on behalf of the website. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an identifiable byline, or is it an anonymous username? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is written by 游戏葡萄 (pinyin: Yóuxì pútáo; lit. 'Game Grapes'), which is described as "A games industry media business with discerning integrity and foresight", that can be contacted with the email hi@youxiputao.com. Their writer's page refers to themselves in the first-person collective pronoun (我们), which suggests that this is a company hired to write articles on the behalf of websites, and not an individual. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After a bit more digging, I've discovered that "Game Grapes" is officially registered as, and is operating as, "Beijing Coolgame Technology Co., Ltd.", with the ICP registration number 13050684. The company address is located at "中国 北京 朝阳区景华南街1号 旺座中心公寓西塔1208室，100022" (Unit 1208, Wangzuo Central Apartment Blocks Eastern Tower, 1 Jinghuanan Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Postcode 100022) and their telephone number is 010-53370644. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has become strangely quiet for some reason, is there a follow-up to this or what? Is there an overall verdict on these sources? Based on what I can read, the Game Grapes article is written by a company which specialises on the industry, provides a detailed and complete chronology of events, and provides strong fact-checking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been a specific proposal to add anything. Furthermore, I disagree that there's any evidence of strong fact-checking from this source. Moreover, who is supporting Zoe Quinn through Patreon doesn't seem to be a relevant issue and isn't discussed in any other reliable sources. As best I can tell from the machine translation, it's an anonymous claim of "leaked documents" which is not particularly convincing. There is no statement of who is supposedly supporting Quinn's Patreon... which means all we could say is "according to XXX site, some developers and journalists supported Quinn's Patreon." Absent any context, it's unclear as to why we care in this article that some unnamed, unspecified people supported another person.

I again note that for a movement whose supporters are claiming isn't about misogyny and isn't about harassing Zoe Quinn, there sure seems to be an awful lot of interest in adding information about Zoe Quinn to this article. Interesting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It sure has better fact-checking than the selection of western MSM reliable sources that have been criticised within the old talk page archives for being inaccurate. Based on a quick look through the archives, many of the issues that were brought up were based upon the argument that MSM sources took people's word for fact, instead of stating that "X claims that Y". The Chinese article does not engage in such poor journalistic writing style, so that already is a plus for this article. The authors, being from Beijing, don't have a stake in the entire dispute, so they don't have any reason to take sides or puff anything up.

I'm sure some editors here might question why we even need to rely on a Chinese source to cite these things. My argument would be that because this Chinese piece is not influenced by external pressures like western writers would be, they can be fairer in their representation of both sides in their report. If being fair should be achieved, it would be a good idea to see how outsiders tell the narrative, and what better way to do this than to use a source from the complete opposite side of the world, away from the contemporary cultural influences of western journalism?

Anyway, I'll summarise the overall gist of the piece. I'll keep my wording short and simple, and if there's anything left out from the Wikipedia article, we can decide on whether it can be mentioned.

Summary translation of article

• Eron Gjoni wrote his piece, and this triggered a response by gamers
• The allegations that Quinn misused "her body" (direct quote, the media uses this innuendo because "sex" is a bad word on the government censor list) to get favourable reviews for Depression Quest arose purely from speculation amongst internet users, following the Gjoni piece
• Nathan Grayson wrote about the failed Game Jam, but never actually reviewed Depression Quest; despite this, internet users came to the conclusion that this proves the intimate relationship between developers and the media, and thus corruption in the industry
• Kotaku, Polygon, Rock-Paper-Shotgun, IGN, Destructoid, The Escapist and other sites remained silent on the issue, leading to the belief that she was being protected
• On August 17, Mundane Matt released a Youtube video on the issue which was brought down by DMCA filed by Zoe
• Another Youtube user known as Internet Aristocrat, formerly known as Jim81Jim, released a video on August 18 tapping further into the gossip scandal which further incited the situation
• Youtube celebrity TotalBiscuit (John Bain/the Cynical Brit) published a few comments on Twitter on his opinion regarding the whole issue; although keeping his comments within a neutral standpoint without specifically taking sides, he was attacked by various indie game developers including Phil Fish as a result
• Any comments on Reddit regarding the incident with Totalbiscuit were censored by moderation staff, with users being warned and banned. One Reddit administrator was fired because he leaked that the censorship arose on the personal request of Zoe
• Sites including NeoGAF and 4chan began censoring comments
• UK site Gamesnosh published an article on the scandal which was quickly taken down; the article was even removed from the Wayback Machine internet archive (web.archive.org)
• These incidents led users to believe that there was an active silencing campaign being undertaken, leading said users to begin forming groups to engage in actions
• Players started to write comments questioning the manner in which Depression Quest was greenlit on Steam and audited for Indiecade, and according to Quinn in an interview, she recieved intimidation and harassment due to this; she uses screenshots of discussion on Wizardchan as evidence that she is being targeted by a hate campaign. Wizardchan members deny the allegations
• Quinn and her PR manager Maya Kramer opposed TFYC in Feburary 2014, Matthew Rappard of TYFC claimed being the victim of doxxing and harassment. Quinn denied the allegations on Twitter
• Phil Fish comes forward to defend Zoe
• When game developer Wolf Wozniack made Twitter comments critical of Zoe (not going into detail of what the comments were, potential BLP), Phil Fish attacked him and forced him to apologise and withdraw the allegations
• Quinn's Patreon account was compromised; leaked information reveals that a considerable proportion of her benefactors were in the media business; this was considered by angry players as a lack of journalistic ethics
• Quinn was doxxed on August 19; Phil Fish was later doxxed, announces his departure from the industry
• TFYC IndieGoGo page was hacked
• The reason /v/ (lowercase) supported TFYC was in attempt to cause difficulties for Quinn, in addition to removing prejudices external people have towards 4chan
• The hacker involved in the incident self-identified as /V/ (uppercase), however 4chan members deny responsibility; Quinn ridicules the claims that it was a false flag, stating that it makes no sense for her to hack herself
• Reports of Anita's latest death threats incident was published in Polygon on August 27
• From here onwards, the authors of the article write their own personal interpretation: "Without a doubt, Gamergate is a war between players and the media, filled with confusion and stifling emotions leading to destruction"; "It reflects an era of change within the games industry and independent games development"; "Gaming transformed from an entertainment form exclusively enjoyed by adolescent males to one generally accepted and recognized by the public as a major form of art"; "Emergence of the internet ... changes everything ... Games magazines are no longer the sole authority of game reviews, with forums and discussion boards present for players to flame at one another ... with the advent of social media, ... players, developers and investors are closely linked, with games media bridging communication". "Following the outbreak of Gamergate, Leigh Alexander published 'Gamers don't have to be your audience Gamers are over', however the gamers will not end, because games will forever belong to those who play and love them"

Note that the above is written in the order which the article writes the events, and is not in chronological order. In addition, these are in the original words of the writer translated into English, any personal commentary by me is in parentheses only. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)