Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Where we're at now

As of January 2, 2015 at 0245 GMT, this diff represents changes to the draft article since the protected main version was copied over there shortly after an admin fully protected it.

The main change you'll notice is that the lede is much shorter. There are also a few style changes, such as a standardisation of the spelling of the word "dox."

The GameJournoPros paragraph has been reworked. A paragraph about ethics policy changes has been moved to the "Industry response" section. A reference from the main Gawker website has been removed. There's been a little copy editing to make the article a smoother read (but we undoubtedly need to do much more of this).

If there's agreement that the draft version as a whole is an improvement, we can ask for this to be moved over to the main, though there's no real hurry as the most obvious problems with the existing main article have already been handled through separate "edit protected" requests.

It may be a good idea, though, for everybody to check that new shorter lede and see if it's acceptable. --TS 02:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is fine. But I really must raise a query about 'the end of the gamer identity' articles. I write that they were published on "28 and 29 August 2014" -> revert. I write that Kain describes it as odd when you see nearly a dozen articles within a 24 hour period pop up declaring the annihilation of an identity -> revert. It is written that Auerbach describes the articles as published concurrently -> revert. This is notable for inclusion, one way or another, so which? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Is the text in its present state better than the current main? I'm not asking for agreement that it's perfect. --TS 04:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears to be an improvement at least, i'd support it being moved over. If there's one thing I can critique not on content but on wording, it's the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. "Opinion formers" just sounds very odd to me. Couldn't that be "prominent supporters" instead? Weedwacker (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Looks good, I support moving it to main Retartist (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Support Masem's changes RetΔrtist (разговор) 04:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not too worried on the details on the body (to be hashed out more), but there's two things that stand out:
  • The last sentences of the first lede para that call out the group as unorganized. This feels out of place, and the lede remains clear without that point of inclusion.
  • The order of the major sections feels wrong. The section "political views" should come after we have described - in the limited way we can - what the GG supporting side is and their activities. Ideally, I think the right order for the most part is "history" / "GG Organization" / "Debates over Ethics claims" / "Political views" / "Industry response" - give or take some wording fixes. This particularly makes more sense that when we describe the lack of leadership in the GG Org section, it makes the sections on debate over Ethcis and Political views make more sense in saying "because this is unorganized, it's hard to quantify these, but here's what we can say...". --MASEM (t) 04:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Is the current draft version better than the existing main version? If we agree on that, we can ask an admin to move the current draft revision over the protected article. That doesn't mean the current version couldn't be better. Why not open a new section to discuss your proposal for a reorganisation? --TS 13:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting to see how the situation at ArbCom pans out before I'm looking to see any major changes here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft section reordering suggestion

To follow on TS' suggestion above, I am proposing that on the draft (the version I'm looking at is the same as TS', here [1]), that we reorder the major h2 sections as follows, without any other wording change outside of transition language:

• History
• GG Organization
• Debates over Ethics claims
• Political views (I feel there's a better title of this section, but that's a separate issue).
• Industry response

The reason for this is that both "Debates" and "Political views" are more analysis and criticism, and both are predicated on the fact that what GG wants is very limited by the very nature of the group that appearance unorganized, without leadership, and without a single clear voice, so much of these sections are opinions by observation. These are points that are/should be discussed in the GG organization section, which should try to describe who these people are to the best we can, and then go on into the critical nature of the GG side. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's workable, but wouldn't the "industry response" section belong next to organisation, as it's mainly about events rather than analysis? I do think there's a case for your proposal. --TS 15:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The current section for the Industry Response groups two different things: the response condemning the harassment, and the changes evoked at some websites (like disclosure policies), but it's also got some other things mixed in there too. The industry response condemning harassment should be moved to where we have the press condeming harassment as that is along the same lines, but the part about the disclosure changes should stay where it is. Further, we have some sources (I can't see them easily at the moment but one is the Peter Molyneux quote) that point out that while it was not a goal of GG, GG's actions have shown that the industry recognizes they have to fix their own problems with the treatment of women (both real and virtual) which would be a finalizing point on the article. However, in terms of moving the draft to mainspace, short of the reorganization, this editing can come after the fact. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Both are reports of industry response, not analysis. But I agree that we can defer the reorganisation, and decisions like this, until after moving the proposed draft version to main space. Incidentally I agree with others that recent changes to the lede by you and NorthBySouthBaranof are an improvement. --TS 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal edit protected request to move the draft copy over the main article

As discussed above, there is substantial agreement that this revision of the draft version of the article is an improvement on the current main space version, and can be moved over the protected version of the article.

The categories and protection notice should be uncommented.

Small cosmetic differences exist in the current main because of a style edit made to the article by an administrator while it was protected. This appears to be mainly a reordering of references. --TS 18:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence of such an agreement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I commented out the request tag. I may be taking this too fast. Do you disagree with the statement that the revision I cited above, while imperfect, is an improvement on the current protected article? --TS 02:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the lede was bad before, but the new one is worse for a lot of different reasons. The lede is supposed to function as summary of the entire article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Be specific with your disagreements with the draft lede. While I do not agree with all of the content, I agree with the above question by TS that it is an improvement on the live version. State your exact concerns if you want us to discuss them. Weedwacker (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I was deliberately aggressive in hacking out the later parts of the lede, in order to reduce the amount of repetition. I think it's reasonable to assume that in doing so I may have removed material that should be there. In your opinion, which part of the lede in the protected main article would need to be restored in order to make the article better than that article overall? Remember you can demonstrate by a bold edit or discussion; either is acceptable in the context of this ongoing discussion. The important thing here is that we're down to discussing specific wording in the lede. --TS 14:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of pending ARBCOM case and user conduct, not about improving the article. — Strongjam (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with the lede and with the article in draft. I'm consciously waiting to see how the ArbCom situation pans out before I opt to offer any further input beyond that, and I have a hunch I might not be alone on that. It would be good to wait until we get the decision handed down before we start making significant wholesale changes at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC) If you have actively chosen not to participate in a collaborative project, dont expect anyone to take you seriously when you then grouse about the results. (and big hint, the Arb Com is not and cannot make content decisions.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Arbcom will sometimes step in on content decisions if there is a clear divide, but they will usually ask for proxies to manage it (I was asked when there was an issue of naming of whether Ireland the island or Ireland the nation was the "main target" for "Ireland" to manage a development process.). --MASEM (t) 18:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC) If you want to hold your breath hoping that Arb Com is going to step into content area this time to help be your little white knight cause protecting poor defenseless gamergate from the impartial coverage it has gotten in the media, I am not going to try to stop you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Do you think you could dial back the vitriol a few notches?Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC) If people would dial down their nonsense about "bias media", i would consider it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I get that you are frustrated, but no one but you is responsible for your own behavior. Do you think antagonizing other editors in this way is constructive behavior? Is it helping the article? Is it what someone would do if they were here to build an encyclopedia? Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) You must be new here, this is his only operating speed. Weedwacker (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead change

The last paragraph:

"Gamergate supporters have been unwilling to move beyond the unorganized, leaderless and anonymous origins which has resulted in an inability to control the behavior and messaging of those acting under the Gamergate hashtag." What source says supporters are unwilling? The first paragraph of "Gamergate organization" makes it appear that supporters have not been able to, or "inability". Maybe it's both unwillingness and inability, but I see the lead summary as unclear.

"While some have said that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, some members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate, and others continue to harass those they perceive as opponents." Comma addition

Wqwt (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is under full protection at the moment, but there is a draft copy that is being worked on. I believe your current problems with the article have already been addressed there. Feel free to make any changes you feel needed there. — Strongjam (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See the "Gamergate organization" section, in which several sources discuss the fact that Gamergate supporters have affirmatively rejected calls to develop any sort of actual organization devoted to ethics in gaming journalism which might be able to help define a mission, create unified goals, establish identifiable membership and have the ability to reject and disavow fringe viewpoints that tend to discredit the movement. As per the reliable sources, Gamergate supporters don't want to lose their anonymity — and decloaking from the shield of anonymity and standing publicly behind one's views is a necessary component of real-world interactions in an organization. There are more sources we could add there if needed, but I think it would be overkill. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Media ethics professor discusses Gamergate

Kathleen Bartzen Culver, a media ethics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, discusses Gamergate in her end-of-the-year look at media ethics: In that, I see an inescapable link to this year’s most troubling ethics case: GamerGate. While many claimed this movement was about calling out ethical lapses in videogame journalism, I was astounded and appalled by the misogynistic and threatening nature of some posts. People — particularly women — were attacked for speaking out, often getting “doxxed” (slang for having your personal information documented or published online). I, like many, have had and still have hope that the participatory nature of digital media will help more people engage with news coverage, counter bias and correct errors. But GamerGate is challenging those hopes of mine. Much of the conversation — if I can even call it that — has been a toxic sludge of rumor, invective and gender bias. The irony comes from people who claim to be challenging the ethics of game journalists through patently unethical behavior. It seems that to some, journalists must have ethics but other public communicators are free from responsibility. Wrong. We’re smack in an age when access to the means to publish — whether on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere — amps up the responsibility we all have. Anyone with an Internet connection needs to consider the responsible use of our freedom to publish. Truth, bias, independence and minimizing harm are no longer questions merely for journalists. And every petulant gamer who will engage in doxxing, rape threats or other abuses needs to wake up, smell those obligations and stop polluting the public sphere.

Her post is published by the university Center for Journalism Ethics and is a reliable source. Should be useful for further discussion of the mainstream consensus that Gamergate isn't really about journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

False implication about harassment of supporters

The article currently contains phrasing a sentence in the paragraph about harassment of GamerGate supporters that states: "The BBC reported that a well-known trolling group was involved and was simply trying to provoke further conflict rather than actually supporting either 'side'." Aside from the fact that this removed acknowledgment of misogynist abuse against supporters, wrongly claiming the source indicates this was in the context of trolling, the underlying implication of the change that harassment of supporters has simply been from trolls is not in any way supported or implied by the article. I suggest the original material be restored as it was quite sufficient. Another paragraph already notes the trolling aspect.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Article: Analysis of discussion about GamerGate has indicated that misogynist abuse - and vitriolic messages in general - is not limited to either "side" of the argument ... there was credible evidence that at least one well-known trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other". So yeah. The first sentence is not reflected. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the source article does not say "both sides" at any point — rather, it says it is "not limited to either side," which leads quite clearly into the cited statement by Bokhari that a third side is working to provoke both. Using the phrasing "both sides" is unsupported by the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever your conclusions, I agree with this writing. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph of this article is long-winded, poorly written, borderline-unreadable trash. No one is going to suffer through those three horribly written paragraphs just to figure out what GamerGate is all about. My instant reaction upon seeing this drivel/rubbish was to Google for the term elsewhere. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is under full protection at the moment, but there is a draft copy that is being worked on. Feel free collaborate and fix it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 January 2015

In the first paragraph, it says "...video games as a media". This should say "as a medium" or "as a form of media" ;or something similar) since media is plural. Dylanvt (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Happy to handle any non-controversial requests for re-wording of the sentence to avoid the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 January 2015

Link to Gawker's current editor-in-chief Max Read.

--DrWho42 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While you just created that article, I don't he meets notability guidelines, outside of his connection to Gawker. I'm not sure if we should have an article on him. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Suggest wait for AfD to conclude. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Grace Lynn swatting incident

Duplicate discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The senseless tragedy continues: Ars Technica: 8chan tries “swatting” GamerGate critic, sends cops to an old address. This article cites both The Oregonian and the New York Daily News. Just when we thought the seriously nasty stuff was over. --TS 04:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Cite the news when you add the info. Sad news. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC) There's already an open discussion on this higher up the page. Weedwacker (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC) We are already discussing this above and the sources acknowledge that this is likely done by someone with no ties to GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate's legacy

With the end of the year, a number of reliable sources have mentioned or discussed Gamergate in post-mortems on the year that was. With critical distance from the main media explosion, these sources are analyzing what Gamergate ultimately meant or demonstrated.

• Bloomberg: "The year just ended was a banner year for misogyny—review the scandals of GamerGate"
• Houston Press: Why #GamerGate Failed: A Look Back at 2014's Most Ridiculous Movement: GamerGate was started and planned in plain sight by a vengeful ex-boyfriend and bolstered by an online community ready to tear into a woman in gaming. It jumped the harassment train that was already chasing Sarkeesian, and before her Dragon Age writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on and sadly so on. It was supported by a collection of social regressive media personalities and attempted legitimacy on an issue gaming and people in general ranked very low on the totem pole. Certainly far less than the larger discussion regarding gender representation in gaming and the industry. With no central voice or guiding activists to control or regulate the movement it devolved into actions like a bizarre, crowd-sourced book that actually used a cover inspired by Mein Kampf for a time. No one could ever nail down the "real" GamerGate we were all told was waiting somewhere to have his or her or its story told, and all that was left was to talk to the people who found themselves under a mountain of chilling tweets containing the hashtag #GamerGate. It never represented the growing gaming world, and its failure to understand that doomed it to irrelevancy.
• The Boston Globe: #GamerGate brought to mainstream attention a problem that had been bubbling under the surface of gamer culture for years: A small but vocal minority of gamers have a real problem with the medium’s broadening fanbase.
• The Boston Globe, Five takeaways from the year in gaming: Gaming isn’t immune to reactionary politics. Luckily, GamerGate has fallen out of the headlines, back to the under-the-radar online redoubts where it belongs. But even though it was an embarrassing episode that probably set back gaming as a mainstream pursuit, it was interesting to follow. When you stripped away the flimsy facade of complaints about “ethics in gaming journalism” (a phrase that became a deserved punch line-meme), GamerGate’s proponents were making an argument straight from far-right playbooks — that the “traditional” (gaming) culture was moving too fast, that minorities were being granted special benefits and fawning treatment, partly as a result of assistance from their complicit, overly “PC” majority allies. This was a decades-long culture-war skirmish wrapped in new packaging — nothing more.
• Wired: "Actually, It’s About Ethics in Journalism" Not only do we derive joy from mocking hateful, spineless Gamergate dirtbags who wish violence on other humans as punishment for seeking respect, we also enjoy turning your rallying cry into a textbook indicator that some very hilarious mansplaining is about to occur. Thanks for the LOLs this year, you guys (if not the basic human decency).
• The Washington Post: Although we’ve known for years that to many video games portray women in a distasteful, negative, and sexist way, it took Anita Sarkeesian being threatened with a shooting massacre, just for taking a stand against these portrayals, to make us realize that it’s time for the video game culture to change.
• The Irish Examiner: Though it was inevitable gaming would eventually have a conversation with itself about sexism, it was a shame it took the form of Gamergate, the clunky affix applied to the deluge of online vitriol directed towards several outspoken female gaming figures.
• The Guardian: Yet 2014 seems to have been the year that “Twitter” and “rape threat” became synonymous. It’s also been the year that sexism in video game culture hit the mainstream with Gamergate.
• The Hamilton Spectator: In August, the Gamergate controversy exploded in all it misogynistic gore exposing the virulent sexism lurking not so deep beneath the surface of gamer culture. The women involved had their personal information leaked online and were subjected to death and rape threats, some had to move or otherwise restrict their freedoms for fear of their safety. Gamergate is the direct result of women standing up for equal access and fair representation in an industry dominated by men.
• Metro, Metro GameCentral video games review of 2014 – things can only get better: Back in October GamerGate was at its poisonous height, a movement so illogically motivated it would almost be funny – if it weren’t for all the rape threats that sent several female developers and industry figures into hiding. Ignoring the fact that the incident that inspired GamerGate was quickly proven to have never happened the supposed goal was to enforce higher standards of games journalism; something which proponents decided would be best achieved by harassment and death threats.
• Digital Trends, Here’s hoping culture clashes take a back seat to great games in 2015: That term sprung up in response to a string of opinion pieces discussing the “death” of the less savory aspects of gamer culture. It was also closely connected to the public airing of a female game developer’s dirty laundry. From these events, GamerGate quickly became synonymous with a vague, undefined call for “ethics in game journalism.” Harassment, doxing, misinformation … these are the tools of the Internet’s cowardly anonymous. The long progression of events that led one thing to the other is immaterial at this point. What is important is the way GamerGate exposed what has long been a dark underbelly of the games-loving community. Certain people lean on the comfort of anonymity to attack those they disagree with, and oftentimes that comes out in socially unacceptable, even downright reprehensible ways. Harassment, doxing, misinformation … these are the tools of the Internet’s cowardly anonymous. Whatever the term “GamerGate” means to you, personally, it’s been weaponized by this nameless minority – make no mistake, it is a minority – that will to go to unseemly lengths in expressing their discontent.
• WBUR, The Artery, Dwarves And Dungeons, Science And Tech: The Year In Geek Culture: 2014 also brought us the deplorable Gamergate controversy, which flared across the Internet, got ugly, and spilled into the real world. Possibly initial legitimate concerns about ethics in the field of video game journalism—some gamers were making accusations about corruption and favoritism—were quickly discredited, and forgotten, when others made threats of violence, rape and death to those who disagreed. Two women key to the controversy, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, are local. As Wu wrote in the Washington Post, “Supporters say they want to address conflicts of interest between the people that make games and the people that support them. In reality, Gamergate is a group of gamers that are willing to destroy the women who have invaded their clubhouse.” Let’s hope those men who feel threatened by female inclusion in the video game industry find more productive ways to express their frustrations and grievances.
• Post-Bulletin: ‘Gamergate’ fallout may be positive in the long run: Much of the past year in gaming was marred by a quasi-Internet-driven movement known as "gamergate." The phrase was almost immediately associated with violent, social-media-driven comments directed at female game developers and writers, namely those who dared to speak out about the boys club that has long been the video game medium. Gamergate is convoluted, but it's driven by a fear that criticizing games for misogyny or a lack of social awareness will result in a politically correct makeover of the medium.

Others forthcoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need every one of these as a quote (we've already got more than enough quotes and we're still working on quote farm reduction), but a line or two noting that numerous sourced named GG as one of the worse incidents of 2014, with one good summarizing quote, is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe a number of these are usable to support some significant postmortem analysis of why the movement has been a catastrophic failure. We can, at this point, write a section examining Gamergate's legacy and impact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a number of these also point out that the movement had ethical components. I assume you'll be looking to include those points of view as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they generally point out that initial claims were ostensibly about ethics, but that those claims were all debunked and discredited, and the response to these claims being debunked and discredited was not a heartfelt apology for making false accusations, but rather a torrent of misogynistic harassment and abuse directed at basically anyone who dared to point out how wrong they were. That's pretty much what our article says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So that's a no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Clinging to debunked and proven-false "ethics" claims, and then harassing anyone who points out that your claims are false and harmful, means you aren't really about ethics at all — as the reliable sources above (and others) amply point out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So a no it is, I guess. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do any of the above reliable sources treat the ethics claims as valid or meaningful, as you apparently would like us to do? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just patiently waiting for the article to reflect the information that's out there. Hopefully it can get sorted soon. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they treat them as valid or not, they mention the claims, mention we can mention the claims too. We don't have to justify if they are right or wrong, but these RS give us the ability to discuss the nature of the ethics claims in more context. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly does matter. The reliable sources here treat the ethics claims as all the other reliable sources have: as debunked, false, thinly-veiled excuses for a harassment campaign targeting women in video gaming. That's how our article treats the ethics claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. We are impartial, we do not judge from opinion sources. Because ethics claims - even if mostly debunked by the press - are discussed by highly reliable sources for this article, we can include discussion of them, as well as later the statements that they are debunked, because we as WPian must stay impartial and non-prejudgemential. We cannot take any side on this article, and failure to do so is failing the impartiality required by NPOV. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Every reliable source says the claims are false. Therefore, we discuss them as false. Given that the claims involve highly-sensitive statements about living people, this is just so, per WP:BLP and other policies. Claiming that "we cannot take any side on this article" is a non sequitur — our article content is based on what reliable sources say, and policy dictates that fringe theories which are given no credence in reliable sources are only discussed in the context of mainstream viewpoints of those theories. Gamergate's "ethics" claims are a fringe theory, as amply demonstrated by the way in which reliable sources discuss them — "discredited," "proven to have never happened," "planned in plain sight by a vengeful ex-boyfriend", "the mask of ethics in video game journalism was meant to shield GamerGate from accusations of misogyny, rape threats, and sexism," etc.

I'm actively laughing at the fact that you're trying to use an avalanche of incredibly negative stories about Gamergate — demonstrating the clear and unambiguous consensus conclusion of reliable sources that the movement, such as it is, is a disingenuous tool of revanchist misogyny attempting to hide behind a shield of "but ethics" which has long since been stripped away to reveal the true seething heart of anonymous harassment — to somehow twist around and support your claims that "it's really about ethics!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, you are still very wrong. Impartialness is a factor of WP:NPOV, and we have to be able to distinguish between opinion and fact. Again, there remain very few facts that we can associate with GG overall short of what's in the current History section - it is a war of opinions here, that's why its a controversy. Further FRINGE states we give fringe views a neutral, fair treatment with the associated weight of ink they get from RS. So because ethics claims have been discussed, if not then debunked by the authors in the next breath, in these highly reliable sources, we can discuss them in a non-prejudging way and then later include the criticism of them; that's how we meet all content policies. End of the day we cannot appear to take a side in the GG issue, and everything you have said above is against that point. And that I'm "trying to use an avalanche of incredibly negative stories" to say its about ethics is 100% wrong. I'm trying to introduce the required impartiality into the article per NPOV. I don't necessarily believe at the end of the day GG is about ethics, but they have presented that as their case, and as we are an impartial encyclopedia, we should include any facets of their case that have been appropriately documented in highly reliable sources. Failure to do so is showing a partial view of the story. The fact that these claims are made in negatively-charged stories doesn't matter, they are stated in what everyone here is considering as highly reliable sources; most of what we know about Westboro Baptist Church, for example, comes from highly-negative sources about the congretation, but we still can document what the church claims about itself from them. That's exactly what we must do here. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No. We cannot discuss false claims about living people "in a non-prejudging way." That is fundamentally impossible and wholly unethical. Gamergate's claims of unethical behavior by specific living people have been debunked and proven to be false, and our article must so state. Period, the end. Your mistake is to conflate some religious debate over tenets of a holy book with anonymous Internet trolls making false and highly-defamatory allegations against named living people. Policy demands that we not present living people in a false light and that is non-negotiable — we must and shall present claims against those people as false, period, the end. Gamergate's founding mistake was to make false and highly-defamatory claims against specific people, and then cling to those allegations long after they were proven false. You cannot go back and undo that post-facto. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But the ethics claims mentioned in these RSes include non-BLP related claims that can be discussed without issue. Further, as per the initial Quinn incident, if there is an ethics claim that includes a BLP statement that is significant discussed and debunked in highly reliable sources (note, I do not think there is any claim that meets this level at this point, I'm just postulating here), there is no reason we cannot cover it as we, though with the same care we took with the Quinn accusation. Most of the ethics claims in the given sources are towards the industry as a whole, and not targeting any specific persons. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

These RSes don't mention any other such claims, actually. "A fear that criticizing games for misogyny or a lack of social awareness will result in a politically correct makeover of the medium" is not an ethics claim — it's a conflicting opinion about culture. That is to say, a culture war. Which is the point that many reliable sources make.

You're right that Gamergate has "presented (ethics) as their case," but that "case" has been tested by reliable sources and entirely rejected as disingenuous if not fabricated from whole cloth. It's not a matter of substantive debate anymore. As our article states, I'm sure Gamergate supporters believe their movement is about ethics. Everyone else says it's not, and that means, giving due weight to reliable sources, that our article will present the overwhelming majority viewpoint as predominant while noting that those within the movement disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the balance/weight and impartialness, which keeps getting lost here, and keeping in mind both facets are equal components of WP:NPOV. The predominate number of sources says that we will present the press's view that GG is really not about ethics as a major point, that is true. But because we are impartial and non-judgemental, we cannot present the press's view, that GG is really not about ethics, as a fact. It remains their opinion even if 99% of the sources state it. The GG view that it is about ethics is also an opinion, but we will impartially present both opinions as an impartial, non-judging entity documenting the situation, with weight appropriate to both sides (meaning very little but at least some for the GG side). And yes, some of the GG points they say are "ethics" are really about the culture but its still their arguments, even if misnamed/misguided. As long as high quality RS document them, we should be including them to be an impartial source. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep making this claim and yet never identifying any actual issues in the article where we are not impartially transmitting what the sources say. Please begin identifying where these issues are occurring or drop your stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's happening in these discussions, that's the problem. The draft article is moving too fast to state what the issues are, but its also something better to fix once the situation of GG is mostly stable (it's not yet). But attitudes on this page in the past have persisted to the article in the past (the past points have been changed enough), and so we have to temper the attitudes here. We're here to edit an impartial, neutral article on GG, not to comment on the GG situation ourselves, and when discussion here is not towards an impartial treatment, that is a problem. You're free to talk whatever smack you want personally about GG elsewhere in the Internet, but here we must stay neutral, regardless of any personal feelings on the matter. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here's Slate's take (from Jenn Frank). I think we're definitely a point we can culminate that an outcome of GG, forcing the industry to re-evaluate itself in terms of how it treats women, is one thing, even if this is not what GG wanted or intended. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say...

This page has improved a ton. It still could use some work, that's for sure, but it's way better than November. If I could, I would rewrite the lead something like: "GamerGate is a movement of gamers who claim to demand ethics in video game journalism. Misogyny and harassment has supposedly been drawn to the movement and the majority of media focuses on it, but most proponents claim that this is a minority group. Althought the movement began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku in exchange for positive coverage of Quinn's game, these allegations were proven to be false. However, there was much upset in the gaming community before this, including marginalization of gamers and unethical journalism practices. Some have blamed the timing of the situation, claiming that Gamergate would have been better received by the media had the movement started by a verifiable breach in journalistic integrity in gaming journalism." Obviously, it's gonna need citing, but this is just me trying to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarang (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot easily source any of the pre-August complaints to any degree. We know things like the Gerstmann issue and Doritosgate exist as data points but there's no sourcing to connect this up. If anything the only sourceable connections is the prior harassment Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Fish got. And it's not that these sentiments didn't exist, but we simply cannot easily source them, tying our hands in any manner in this way. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Misogyny and harassment have not "supposedly" been drawn to the movement — they are verifiably the most notable part of the movement. It is verifiably and undeniably the case that Gamergate-related misogynistic harassment of notable female figures connected to video games is really the only reason why Gamergate has attracted mainstream media attention, and there hasn't been a single mainstream media article about them which hasn't mentioned what the movement is famous for.

I think everyone would be much happier if Gamergate was actually about ethics in gaming journalism, which means it wouldn't have been launched by false, nonsensical or irrelevant allegations against a female indie developer and wouldn't have devolved into a stream of ugly, violent, anonymous misogynist harassment of that developer and other women who have nothing to do with gaming journalism. A movement for ethics in gaming journalism is something pretty much everyone could get behind. Gamergate is not that, unfortunately. While you and others may fervently wish it was... well, it's not viewed that way by anyone outside the movement. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is clear, and only getting clearer. (I have been preparing to suggest an addition to the article based on the wide array of commentary at the end of 2014 which listed Gamergate as part of the "worst" things to happen during that year.) Wikipedia is not a time machine and we can't fix what someone else broke. The name and the brand, at this point, are what they are. We reflect what reliable sources say about something, not what supporters of that thing might wish people to say about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguably this is not true. There are ethics issues that have led to where GG starts; the dangers of MetaCritic, IGN's "10/10 it's okay" type reviews, accusations of favoritism, reviews ignoring game-breaking bugs/networking/drm issues, etc. As a avid gamer, I'm fully aware these exist, but its all in the undercurrents of the community and absolutely nothing that can be documented to any real degree, and particularly in connecting to GG. It is true that the methods - even outside of the harassment - that has been used by those claiming to support GG are considered unorthodox, impractical, and not the way to get a message across, but we should not pretend that there are no ethics issues at the core here, we simply are unable to document them to any degree. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, this is not "arguable." There is effectively no dissent among reliable sources that Gamergate was launched by false, nonsensical and irrelevant allegations against a female indie developer, and there is similarly effectively no dissent that the movement's only relevant "accomplishment" is to bring attention to a seething undercurrent within video gaming culture that promotes sexism, misogyny and vile, violent harassment of women in video gaming and others who have critiqued or opposed this undercurrent. That is the only reason Gamergate even has an article here. We cannot say that Gamergate is what people within Gamergate wish their movement was about — we must say that Gamergate is what reliable sources view it to be. That these two things are entirely divergent is neither here nor there — it simply is. As per the reliable sources, there is no evidence that Gamergate has done or said anything meaningful about the issues you discussed — MetaCritic, IGN, reviews ignoring bugs, etc. — and the only allegations of "favoritism" they've made, which targeted someone's sex life, have been thoroughly demolished, debunked and discredited. Meanwhile, they continue a harassment campaign against a number of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with gaming journalism.

Your claim that there is something "we can't document" about Gamergate that would make it look good is precisely the issue — if we can't document something, it doesn't exist for Wikipedia's purposes. That is entirely the purpose and meaning of the verifiability policy. Gamergate's legacy is this: mentions in Bloomberg as an example of how "the year just ended was a banner year for misogyny." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to document it - without any sourcing we can't. But it is very unhelpful to bury our heads in the sands to anything outside of what reliable sources says in terms of discussing how this article can be improved. That is, knowing the overall circumstances means that we can stay on the lookout for RSes that start to develop those arguments better. Yes, until they do, we're not going to add anything new to the article, but a good researcher will know all the angles including the ones that cannot be included at the time, instead of acting ignorant that these other angles exist. For myself, knowing what they say on KIA and other places means that I know what to look for in RSes that might be able to document their side to some degree, even if I know that the press will never take some of those arguments seriously. We cannot prejudge any side of this issue like the press has chosen. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As the sources below make very clear, we know exactly what Gamergate is at this point, and what its legacy will be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot take that attitude as impartial WP editors. GG is still for the most part unknown. We know what part of its legacy will be regarding harassment but that's it. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As the declarative statements in nearly every Wikipedia article lede suggest, one thing we do consider ourselves experts on is saying what things are. Earth is a rocky planet orbiting a star, lead is an element with the atomic number 82, the Bay of Pigs debacle was a CIA-backed attempt to overthrow the Cuban revolutionary government with John F Kennedy's assent, and Gamergate was a terrible blemish on the human race. We don't say maybe women in gaming were threatened with rape and death and maybe they weren't. That wouldn't be impartial, it would be lying. --TS 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

While I personally would agree that GG is a blemish, that's an opinion still. The most popular opinion, yes, but key is that it is not fact, and we can't edit as if it was fact. The lede and 90% of the article and draft does the proper job acknowledging that GG being a bad thing is the popular opinion, so this itself is not an issue on the current draft. But when attitudes are in place that want to turn opinion into fact (and that's an issue in both ways, including GG that want to factually state that the journalism side is corrupt), we have to be careful that is not reflected in the article. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That it is a blemish is an opinion; that it is viewed as being responsible for the vile and misogynistic harassment of a number of women in gaming and that its "ethics" claims have been widely debunked and are viewed by the overwhelming majority of commentators as little more than thin pretexts for said harassment are both verifiable facts. It is not my "opinion" that Gamergate is among the worst things to happen in 2014 — it is the viewpoint of a large number of reliable sources. Wikipedia content is, as Tony Sidaway said, precisely made up of the viewpoints expressed by reliable sources. That some people who support Gamergate disagree with those viewpoints is worthy of note, but it is not worthy of being treated as if it has equal validity with mainstream viewpoints within the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point - the difference between what is considered fact for an encyclopedia, and what is opinion. For example, when you write "the vile and misogynistic harassment", that's based on opinion. We cannot write the article in WP's voice in that tone. We can factually state there was harassment, it was ongoing, it forced women to flee their homes and call police for their safety. But we cannot describe that in WP's voice, in any way, as "vile and misogynistic"; attributing the attack described like that to the sources that said that, sure, that's fine, that reflects that it is opinion, but we cannot state it as a bare fact. It is absolutely necessary to discuss and edit this article with this clear distinction in mind, and that line is being toes or overstepped alot in the last few months. The article, draft or otherwise, is not grossly over this line, but one we have a stable situation when it comes to GG (such that the draft is not changing that fast with new sourcing/information) then we need to re-review to make sure that the article does not express any opinion on the GG matter in WP's voice. We'll let the predominate press sources explain their feelings in depth, for certain, but all as opinions, not fact. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

POV

I'm sure this has been talked about, but seriously, I don't know much about Gamergate and thought this article would help me understand it. It hasn't, because it presents a confused, one-sided picture. The opening paragraphs barely explain what the movement's actual stated goals are at all, and instead, they mostly just focus on the harassment of women. Since harassment and misogyny are obviously bad, it seems clear that the intended effect of these paragraphs is to discredit Gamergate and show it in a negative light. Maybe it deserves that, I don't know, but it seems quite POV, and that's against Wikipedia policy. This website's job is to explain, not to tell people what opinion to have. GranChi (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Granchi: - is the opening paragraphs at Draft:Gamergate controversy better? We should really implement those. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the draft opening is trying to say, it's genuinely awful. Koncorde (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I too am left confused about the topic and puzzled at the article's clearly biased approach. GeiwTeol 12:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes many editors are holding off on even bothering trying to improve the article until after the ArbCom case has concluded. Weedwacker (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia R.I.P.

Complaints about policy don't belong here. Try WP:VP instead. — Strongjam (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is a good example of why wikipedia falls apart due to taking verifiability and trusted sources over truth and original research. Many of the sentences in the article come from cited sources which publicly over Twitter support both Quinn and Sarkeesian, believing the entire affair an attack on women. Not surprisingly they are friends with other news writers, who use the original articles as study. The entire internet media report becomes an endless regurgitation of the same talking points over and over with no oversight or counterpoints. For lords sake you are citing people from comments on the article now? I suppose I should have expected wikipedia to eventually be corrupted. The page will be never viewed as biased, since all your trusted sources are biased. Of course what I say here will never be mentioned in the actual page, because everything I say here is either from an untrusted source or original research. Therefore I am a crazy person who wears a tinfoil hat to bed every night. Have a good day wikipedia, I hope your editors get their kickbacks in the mail soon. Kau-12 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Any real points to make, or does the article just not agree with your own point of view? Neither Quinn or Sarkeesian are 'news writers' so I'm not sure what point you're making.Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC) @Kau-12: You mentioned a quote from an article comments section being in the article, could you please state which quote you're talking about? With regards to your comment about public support, pretty much everyone who's written about Gamergate has an opinion on it and supports someone or the other, either publicly or privately. If we took your approach we wouldn't be able to cite anyone. Please note that people who have come out publicly in support of Gamer Gate over twitter, such as Allum Bokhari, William Usher and Cathy Young have also been cited when they have written for a reliable source. Bosstopher (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Do I reopen an edit request if it went unanswered and archived?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorWho42: Yes you do --RetΔrtist (разговор) 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--DrWho42 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2015

wiki-link to Max Read --DrWho42 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until the completion of the AfD process. — Strongjam (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fair.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Intel pledging $300M to support diversity following GG

[2] This would be part of a section on the "result" of GG's actions of the industry seeing and trying to fix the problems it has with its own treatment of women as brought out by GG, per some of the above sections. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's big news. Just added NY Times as a source for this, I'm sure more will come. — Strongjam (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wired If you are still looking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From Doxxing to Swatting

I've just added the below to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting. The escalation from doxxing to swatting is definitely noteworthy:

On January 3, 2015, twenty Portland, Oregon police officers were sent to the former home of transwoman and former GamerGater Grace Lynn following four months of on-line harassment. Her tweets deescalated the situation, inasmuch as she proactively checks for on-line harassment daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencf0618 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not saying this isn't something serious, but there's no evidence in the sources of this being tied to Gamergate. One of the sources cites an anonymous 8chan /baphomet/ (?) sub board post which appears to be about satanic goat worshippers who like to raid people. I know quite a lot of people were upset with this person when she didn't deliver on a kickstarter project. [3] [4] No qualms with its inclusion on the swatting article, though I think the language could use some clean-up. Concerns about how this would be included in this article as it would seem circumstantial. Weedwacker (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The oregonlive ref connects it directly to GamerGate; since they're a reliable source, that's sufficient to include it here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Earlier this month, she began proactively searching for her name. On Friday, she found an 8chan thread showing that users were planning to send a police SWAT team to her house. They said they weren't members of Gamergate, but Lynn said they are supporters of the movement. [5] The source is reporting on her opinions, so if it's included it should be stated as that. Weedwacker (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and given that the source took those opinions seriously enough to include them, and to headline the article "Gamergate," we can similarly report that Lynn stated her belief that the attackers were linked to Gamergate. Also, please don't insert unreliably-sourced claims into the encyclopedia. TechRaptor and Wikipedia are obviously not reliable sources, and I'm not sure there's any consensus about CrowdfundInsider — at any rate, the fact that it cites RooshV's "Reaxxion" brings the article into serious question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you object to a direct citation of the kickstarter stating it failed, and me merely mentioning that? That seems to be good enough for Wikipedia's article on it. I agree techraptor is not a reliable source, there's no consensus on crowdfundinsider but it has been used on other articles here. Weedwacker (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Stating here that the Kickstarter failed is fine, but relating it to the swatting issue anywhere in articlespace would be original research unless there's a reliable source which has done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have stated it as such, and since original research does not apply to talk pages, I am not arguing for the mention of such in articlespace just stating it here. Weedwacker (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A single local news source about something concerning someone from the area hardly warrants inclusion on this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure it does. It's published in The Oregonian, the largest newspaper in the state of Oregon. That's hardly a minor source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. This story is just "something happened here possibly connected to something else that has gotten national media attention!" A very weak connection made by an "in our area" story just does not cut it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Made the NY Daily News as well. — Strongjam (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also now in The Verge: 'About 20' police officers sent to Gamergate critic's former home after fake hostage threat and KOIN: Portland Police respond to ‘swatting’ incident. The reliable sources reporting on this are multiplying. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Verge states "It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out." While the Daily News garbles it a bit, they basically say this is Lynn's claim that it has anything to do with GamerGate. It should be understood that 8chan had posters well before GamerGate and people have recently flocked to 8chan for reasons only loosely connected with GamerGate such as the recent /pol/ shenanigans. Lynn, while being against GamerGate had also been campaigning against 8chan in general that had some success with removal of the site from Patreon. Another thing to keep in mind is that the old GamerGate board on 8chan is under the control of a GNAA troll who openly admits to inciting threats against prominent opponents of GamerGate to make GamerGate look bad. If we use two reports in non-local news as a basis for including this then it should be in the context of sources strongly pointing to it being unrelated trolls.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• But the actual swatting took place on a separate board for general anti-social mayhem, and users joked about Gamergate supporters "taking the fall" for the attack. It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out. I do think that this is notable for inclusion though, as the victim is a former GG supporter turned critic.starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• When it gets some significant national coverage in reliable sources, it might be worth revisiting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This story now has several references in reliable sources including The Oregonian and the New York Daily News, as we can see. --TS 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent source: ibtimes.co.uk: GamerGate trolls send police to wrong address in botched swatting attack. --TS 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Clarification request - Gamergate hastag

In the draft, under "Gamergate hashtag", we have this line:

"As of October 2014, it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 internet users supporting Gamergate"

This is rather vague - I really don't know what it's referencing. 10,000 people supporting which side? Or 10,000 people talking about it in general? What does "supporting" mean in this context? Can someone clarify?

Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Our article cites CJR on this. CJR is referring to an article in Deadspin which says "By most metrics, Gamergate comprises an insignificant fraction of video game fans. On Reddit, for example, the main staging ground for Gamergate has reached 10,000 readers, representing .17 percent of the more than six million readers on the general gaming subreddit." [6] --TS 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible way to word it, then. It assumes both that the supporters are only centralized on a subscribed reddit or Twitter, and that those who subscribe or use a hashtag are supporters. There must be a better way to word it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bund

I found a new source from a liberal swiss newspaper[7] that offers a non partisan view of Gamergate including these interesting tidbits

1. Wikipedia Vandalism
2. How Gamergate members see every negative press mention in the mainstream media as a conspiracy against them (thus justifying the conspiracy category)
3. How involved Journalists and Critics see gamersgate as a loud minority.
4. Jimmy Wales telling both sides to calm down.
5. A Big Group of gamers distancing themselves from the organised Harassment. A small number of members feeling that the gamergate hashtag is compromised who therefore want to start a new hashtag.

its a start to the recentism issue. Avono (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's from October (not necessarily a problem) and the article consistently misspells Gamergate (also not necessarily a problem, given it's a German language newspaper). What does it add to the topic, in your opinion? --TS 03:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such misspelling, it's probably your translator. I'd say the five points Avono above are what he thinks it adds? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• 2. Die Aktivisten und Unterstützer von Gamergate wähnen sich im Krieg gegen eine mediale Grossverschwörung, die «Gamer» als Sexisten brandmarken wolle und Vorwürfe um Interessenkonflikte der Spielepresse ignoriere.
• 3. Betroffene Journalisten und Kritiker sehen dagegen eine lautstarke Minderheit von Verschwörungstheoretikern am Werk and Der eigentliche Streit entzündete sich aber an einer Reihe von Artikeln über den Begriff «Gamer»: Verschiedene Onlinemagazine konstatierten, die Gameridentität werde von einer kleinen Gruppe vereinnahmt, die sich durch pubertäres und reaktionäres Männlichkeitsgehabe auszeichne.
• 5. Ein Grossteil der Spieler distanziert sich allerdings von den organisierten Hassaktionen. Einzelne Vertreter sind sogar der Meinung, man müsse den durch die Hasskampagne kompromittierten Begriff «Gamergate» aufgeben und ein neues, einendes Banner finden.

Yes, it was my translator. Don't we already cover these points in much greater depth, and with due weight, in the article? Some of the major mainstream press commentaries came after that Swiss article was written. --TS 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Tony Sidaway: - I believe (2) is not covered in too much detail in the Draft. Given the mess of the article I'm not sure where (5) is covered. I see (5) is covered but I'm not sure whether it's in the correct place. I covered (5) for the misogyny section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the culture war stuff from the point if view of Gamergate supporters could be expanded from Jesse Singal's piece in New York magazine. [8] He pays some attention to the conspiracy theories. I thought we used him as a source. If we don't use him for (2) we ought to be, because he really did a good job of investigative journalism. --TS 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is there (refname NYMag,) we source it mostly to talk about how hard it is for journalists to nail down what GG is. Could be used more for the conspiracy bit though and as well anti-feminism section. — Strongjam (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged

"The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku." How is the relationship alleged when both have admitted to it? GameLegend (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The word allegation is correct in this context. It does not reflect on whether it is true or not, just that the ex-boyfriend made the claim. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people misinterpret the term to signify a dubious claim. Perhaps we should use the plain word "claim" here, because "alleged" seems to be a frequently misunderstood word.

The current draft version at Draft: Gamergate controversy has the following phrasing:

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.

The word "claim" would fit equally well instead of "allege" in the above, I think. It would be less prone to misinterpretation. --TS 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as we don't lose that the follow on allegations by others about the positive review were false. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Both should be made very clear.

Making it seem as if the basis of the conflict were allegations in the 'unproven' sense is as dishonest as saying there was a positive review. GameLegend (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The "allegations" about consenting adults having a relationship is of non-encyclopedic value, whether the "allegations" are true or not. The only matter of any potential public interest would have been if the relationship impacted what was printed in the press. It did not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship." It's already in there, because of its impact on what was printed in the press. Bosstopher (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue is the actual importance of whether a particular allegation is true or not. I've wrestled with this idea personally, but frankly, it would be inappropriate to say X is a true claim even if technically it is. Even if objectively true, if X is at best tertiary to the issue at hand, it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to say, in the voice of an encyclopedia, that X is true. Thus, the fact that X is true is important only so far as it cannot be separated from other allegations that are in fact false. When it cannot be, it would be inappropriate to label all allegations included as false because all allegations include X. When X can be appropriately separated from the actually false allegations, though, it is both appropriate and frankly the responsibility of a good editor to label such allegations as false. It is a very tight line, and it surely does require some... finesse... with the english language, but it is a requirement for good editing to walk that line and not fall on either side, while hedging on the side of "do no harm."

Frankly, whether you ascribe that this topic is about "harassment" or "ethics," the truth of X is at best tertiary, and not central to either topic and should be kept that way, save for my note above, of when such allegation cannot be appropriately separated. (Note, as I wrote the above before RedPen's comment: While I in general agree with RedPen here, I reserve the right to disagree if such reasoning is taken to an extreme. There are some times when X may have encyclopedic value, but I agree that for at least 95% of the cases, here, X is inappropriate.) Ries42 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For instance, I agree with labeling X as false as far as it leads to it did not impact whether a review was published following X. Whether X impacted anything that was printed is a bit grayer. Regardless, it is inappropriate for WP to explore that, it is more appropriate for another medium to discuss those possibilities, should they exist. Ries42 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed before, about a month ago. There's a difference between multiple sets of allegations that the article (and draft) fails to properly separate, making the whole thing factually inaccurate and confusing and still hasn't been resolved and probably won't be due to the entrenchment on the issue, encyclopedic value aside. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only two allegations which are relevant to this issue: the allegation by Gjoni that Quinn had a relationship with Grayson (true, but we can't present their relationship as "wrong" in any sense, given the fact that the breakup drama amounts to a lovers' quarrel and is of no public interest, as demonstrated by the way the reliable sources treat it) and the allegation by others than this relationship led to positive reviews or coverage (wholly and entirely false, as per the reliable sources). Whatever other allegations Gjoni may have made are irrelevant, as demonstrated by the fact that reliable secondary sources have wholly ignored them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I (mostly) agree with NBSB here. I would probably completely agree if he just said "Did it lead to a positive review". That is patently false, if for no other reason that said review does not and never existed because Mr. Grayson did not write it. Whether it lead to "positive coverage" is a bit more sticky because there is some dispute over the timelines and I personally would have more difficulty labeling that definitively false in Wikipedia's voice. With that being said that dispute does not belong in the WP article, and without a proper, reliable source that challenges said allegation, it would be inappropriate to focus on that distinction here. Ries42 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, my above comment was made toward NBSB's original comment, not his slightly edited version that exists now. Ries42 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a precision of wording issue. The only 100% "false" accusation is that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to get positive reviews of her game - no reviews exist, so this obviously can't be the case. On the accusation that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to garner general positive press has not been proved false, but it has been readily dismissed or not considered as having much truth, since the only piece about DQ involving Grayson was the that game dev bit that DQ was written up in, with Kotaku'e claim the relationship started after this event. There are those proGG that do not trust the Kotaku timeline in this matter, thinking the January article was too close to the April data claimed as the start of the relationship (with their claimed evidence that Quinn and Grayson were at least friends in social manner prior), and no one has actually providing any clear demonstratable evidence that this Game jam article was or was not influenced one way or another. Of course, most reliable sources don't take this position, but it is fair that in terms of language precision, that allegation was not proven false, but simply debunked, refuted, or any other wording that says "it really didn't happen as suggested by the allegation", but not 100% with absolutely surety as "false". There is a singular false allegation, but the "allegations" GG has made as a whole (which GG also include the other claims Gjoni made in his post) have generally been either refuted/debunked or treated as non-nonessential or petty in regards to the larger GG matter - but not all "false" (we have no information either way to affirm or deny these issues). The goal should be to make sure it is clear we attach "false" to the plurality of accusations, but be clear that the popular press opinion is that they are all for the most part refuted or the like. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources unanimously dismiss the idea that there were any ethical issues created by Quinn and Grayson's relationship, and treat any such allegations against them as false and malicious. The end. A sampling of those sources, as entered into evidence at the arbitration proceeding, is here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Our article must and will treat this as a settled matter. Whether "proGG" people "trust the Kotaku timeline" is a matter of no consequence whatsoever. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what some people might believe because they're ideologically committed to a particular point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Really NBSB? This fight again?

"sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false," NYTimes - Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews" Telegraph, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not." BBC, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

"how she had seduced him for favorable coverage (the wench!). In reality, though, the writer in question had mentioned Quinn in an article once, before their involvement, and had never reviewed anything of hers. Boston Globe, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: ... Semi-Confirmed?

"It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there." Washington Post, Positive Reviews: False, Sexual Favors to Advance her Career: False, Positive Coverage: You can probably say this leans toward them saying that was false, but it is not explicitly stated that way.

"during which false accusations about indie game developer Zoe Quinn led to personal harassment and death threats against her and those who offered public support" CBS Chicago Local, States "false allegations" but does not say which false allegations it is talking about. As there are false allegations (and true allegations) it would be hard to definitively state it is refering to the non-false allegations and only the confirmed false allegations without more.

"angry boyfriend’s post led to accusations that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a video game critic for the gaming website Kotaku." Bloomburg, doesn't even label them false, just says 'accusations' of a romantic relationship.

"Zoe Quinn was accused by an angry ex-boyfriend of sleeping with someone in order to get good reviews for her game. And despite the fact that she was able to refute these allegations, it kind of stirred up quite an online backlash towards her." ABC, Refuted allegations of "good reviews".

"was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges" Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned

Am I splitting hairs? Maybe, but every single one of those references ONLY refers to positive reviews. Only one can possibly be read to possibly include false coverage. And at least one semi-confirms that positive coverage may have resulted from the relationship. What those references do not do is what you say they do, which is label all allegations of positive coverage as false. Ries42 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're splitting hairs. The upshot is that reliable sources unanimously reject the allegations against Quinn and Grayson and repeatedly note that their relationship did not create any ethics violations. As those allegations are the only ones mentioned in reliable sources, they're the only ones we consider meaningful and the only ones we will mention. That's all there is to it. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They repeatedly make that point in one way, using very specific language. There were no "positive reviews". They didn't make it in "every way possible". The fact is, there is a very specific wording that is common in many of those articles. We should use a very similar, very specific wording. "False allegations that the relationship lead to positive reviews" There isn't any argument over that type of wording. When we try to extend that to "positive reviews" AND "positive coverage" we are saying something that the reliable sources are specifically not saying. What they do not say is just as important as what they do say. Ries42 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They are synonymous to everyone except you, and the unquestionable point made by the reliable sources — that Quinn and Grayson's relationship created no violations of journalism ethics — is obvious to everyone who is not a committed die-hard Gamergate supporter who just cannot stop clinging desperately to the idea that something they believe in is true, when it is absolutely 100% false. Gamergate's founding mythology was exploded months ago by literally every major news media outlet on the planet, and I'm sorry, but that's just the end of the story. The rest of the world has long since moved on and we are not going to rehash long-discredited attacks on living people just because some people can't deal with the fact that their ideology is built on a foundation of sand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Synonymous, but not identical. Different words, although similar, can have different meanings and connotations. While in everyday parlance the distinction may be minor, as editors of an encyclopedia it is important to use the most correct word when using a similar, but not necessarily correct, synonym may lead to a misrepresentation.

To your edit(s): Please leave your bad faith accusations somewhere else. Show me the source, and if the source doesn't support your allegations, don't instead start using ad hom accusations at me. Show me where a source supports YOUR wording, and we're done. Ries42 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's fault that Gamergate supporters hitched their wagons to a false narrative, launching their "campaign" based on unverified attacks, an ex-boyfriend's ranting blog, false assumptions and thinly-disguised slut-shaming and misogyny. We're done here because the reliable sources are done with Gamergate. All of the movement's efforts have succeeded in nothing more than convincing Intel to invest a small country's GDP in supporting diversity in gaming, including Anita Sarkeesian. I know that must be hard to deal with, but the solution is not to yet again bring up long-discredited attacks on Zoe Quinn. We're just not going to go there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How does that have anything to do with this issue? Ries42 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your single-minded obsession with negatively portraying Zoe Quinn suggests that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to further some sort of off-wiki dispute or obsession with her. You have precisely one contribution in your entire editorial history not related to Gamergate. That's what it has to do with this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a bold allegation. Also a complete fabrication. The dispute here is simple, is there a difference between "positive reviews" and "positive coverage". One, there is CLEAR support for. I have completely agreed to that multiple times. The other the support is very dubious at best, and it would be a misrepresentation to say otherwise. Your inability, or unwillingness, to see that only says things about you.

To your EDIT: Everyone starts somewhere. In fact, I have not made a single edit to an article related to Gamergate. If you want to get technical, 100% of my article editing history is completely non-Gamergate related. I have participated in discussions only. Ries42 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we arguing about the draft article? Because at the moment I don't think we even touch the positive coverage aspect of it. Which is probably how it should be as it doesn't get much weighting in our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Amen. But apparently, according to NBSB you're a ProGG zealot if you believe that. Ries42 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the most bizarre things about this talk page is the amount of times massive arguments have broke out between editors on issues where they completely agree about article content. Bosstopher (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The obsession with the details of Zoe Quinn's sex life are not relevant to the subject of corruption in videogame journalism. I'm sure that most (if not all) journalists have relationships with game developers and representatives of game companies. Why people have obsessed about one woman's sexual history instead of looking at the larger picture of collusion between journalists and game companies is baffling to me and, at best, seems voyeuristic and more than a little disturbing. If this kind of relationship is so central to this narrative, why are people not investigating the sex lives of journalists to see if they HAVE positively reviewed the games of other companies or developers? No, it is only Quinn whose life goes under the microscope.

Unless such behavior has crossed the line into criminal behavior, I don't see the relevance of presenting details about the sex life of someone whose participation in the controversy has been as a victim of harassment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this page (for the most part) disagrees with you. I would state that some details are relevant simply for the fact that many reliable sources place the origins of this "controversy" at the point where the "zoepost" was released. The zoepost then lead to the ethics allegations and harassment of Quinn and others. I think you could make the case that perhaps there have been other investigations into the "ethics" side of this whole controversy, but those investigations have largely not been notable or covered by reliable sources, if they exist. As such, there isn't too much about them that could be put into this article. Ries42 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wingfield's opinion on Gjoni's blogpost

Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson

Currently we are using a New York Times quote to comment on Gjoni's blogpost as a "strange, rambling attack". The quote comes from a Bits blog post by Nick Wingfield from Oct 2:

In a phone interview, Ms. Alexander, who also consults for independent game makers, said that “Intel was fleeced by a hate mob.” She said she wrote her opinion piece because of the online treatment of Zoe Quinn, an independent game maker who was the subject of a strange, rambling attack written by a former boyfriend in August.

In context it's not clear whether the quote reflects Wingfield's own or Leigh Alexander's opinion.

Two weeks later another article by Wingfield is published in the more prominent Technology section of New York Times. This article also appears in the print version. Here Wingfield uses a milder wording as before and describes Gjoni's blogpost as a "rambling online essay". We should prefer the wording of the second article over the first, because it's less ambiguous, more recent and was published more prominently. - preceding unsigned comment by User:Maklaan at 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, the Bits Blog is less reliable than the later Technology article. Wingfield's opinion also has more "distance" from the controversy. Leigh Alexander is already 'proven' to be partisan against gamers, as per the Gamasutra piece she wrote which this GamerGate article depicts. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"rambling online essay" is okay, as long as we don't lose the fact that it was fundamentally a character assassination. That it was effective in its context is undeniable. The victim of the attack is still suffering and may blamelessly suffer throughout her life. We should be careful to avoid understating the savagery of the attack on Zoe Quinn, and the extent to which the attacker was complicit in the ramifications for months beyond the original malicious attack. We don't rely on that particular article to support the fact of the savagery or it ramifications. --TS 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we might also add Eric Johnson's discussion on Re/code, Her accuser comes off more as an angry, unbalanced ex than a responsible watchdog. Or The Verge's description of it as a screed. Or The Age's discussion: It's such a wretched, sleazy business that there's little surprise this latest septic eruption of Internet misogyny escalated from a jilted boyfriend, a programmer by the name of Eron Gjoni. He had been dating a game developer called Zoe Quinn and then in the way of these things, Eron and Zoe were dating no more. We've all been there, and like many of us Eron did not cope well. He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things. Or Vox: Eron Gjoni, who had dated Quinn, posted a revenge blog accusing her of cheating on him with Nathan Grayson. [18] The point is that Gjoni's post was not a dispassionate note but a highly personal diatribe by a deeply involved person — reliable sources view it not as some sort of altruistic whistle-blowing but as an act of spiteful drama-dumping revenge. If you'd prefer that we paraphrase that clearly-expressed sense of the reliable sources, I'm not opposed to doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm looking for opinions with has more "distance" from the controversy ... also known as ... mainstream media. Of which, I believe only the Age qualifies above, but does the Age say anything specific? I went to check, so He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things is not necessarily referring to that exact blog post. The exact wording to describe the blog post is he unloaded his grief online, alleging that his ex-girlfriend had sex with a critic who then wrote a friendly review of her game. (Note, this didn't happen). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Age's summary is most on the mark. I don't think either "strange, rambling attack" or "online essay" is a decent summary. Neither one gets to the point of how personal the blog post is. It (1) accuses ZQ of serial infidelity and (2) publicizes a large number of private break-up related conversations, (3) under the flimsy pretense of "alerting the community" -- an ingenuity that became typical of GG itself. I agree with NBSB that it's an incisive drama dump that poses as "altruistic whistle-blowing." Shii (tock) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii, NorthBySouthBaranof per sources below "rambling online essay" or one of the proposals by Ries42 do reflect the media's opinion better. If you were still opposed to it, could you give further explanation. -- Maklaan (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As per the sources below and here, here, here and elsewhere, no. "Spiteful, rambling essay" would be fine. Gjoni clearly intended the post as an attack on his ex-lover, and the description of that is apt and necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think "spiteful" is too harsh, especially considering you want to include it because "Gjoni clearly intended the post as an attack". The majority of sources does not make that implication. While the sources you posted did use the word, there are many more and better sources, which choose a milder or even neutral wording. Keep also in mind, that it's a WP:BLP issue and we should be careful to include harsh judgments. There is also a WP:SYNTH problem with "Spiteful, rambling essay".-- Maklaan (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

i am not sure what world you are from, but "spiteful" is a mild description for spewing allegations about your ex all over the web because she dumped your sorry ass. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Redpen, if you feel compelled to write in such an insulting and pejorative manner to other editors about living persons involved in the article's subject, I think you ought to step away for a while. Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

not even close to BLP issue. There are multiple sources describing this particular rant as "spiteful" and i [[[WP:PROVEIT|challenge you to find a single reliable source that describes spewing personal info about an ex who dumped you as anything counter to a "spiteful" act.]] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Starke. TRPoD, there is no need to make personal comments against me or other editors. Regarding your post:

No, It's not about what world I am from, but what world the media is from. Does "spitful" reflect the media's broad opinion? If it only reflected a minority opinion, shouldn't we leave it out because of WP:BLP? -- Maklaan (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• How much discussion on this blog post do we want to have exactly? More than one comment may be WP:UNDUE or else we may be making it more that what it is. Whats next, dueling quotations on what everyone feels about it? Its unimportant to the big picture and it would be irresponsible to give thezoepost more than that, for fear of BLP issues related to Ms. Quinn or Mr Gjoni. Support the updated NYTimes wording, but Oppose adding anything more beyond that. I may support an different wording if it is proposed in alternative to the NYTimes wording, but I don't quite see that above. Ries42 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the coverage of GamerGate in reliable sources indicates that the controversy fundamentally grew out out of harassment against Quinn in particular in response to that blog post; it eventually expanded to other targets, especially Wu and Sarkeesian, but the blog post is still at the heart of the subject's coverage in reliable sources today. Obviously, we have to be careful not to become part of the attacks against Quinn (or any other living person), which means that we have to be very careful to use the most reliable sources in that section and remove anything defamatory; but I don't feel it is possible to cover GamerGate coherently without going into extensive detail on how Quinn was attacked. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

other options:

• Long Diatriabe
• rambling 9,000-word essay
• an angry online rant
• rambling blog post
• a big rant
• a 9000-word rant
• a nearly-10,000-word screed
• a vicious attack
• a dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats
• the blog post that sparked the controversy set a misogynistic tone.
• 9,000-word screed

"Rant" seems to be the descriptor of choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Long diatribe" (NYTimes) "rambling online essay" (NYTimes) both seem to be the most reliable sources here, and look to be the most acceptable, neutral descriptors. "Rambling blog post" (ABCNews), "rambling 9,000-word essay" (Businessweek), seem acceptable as well. If anything rambling seems to be the most common descriptor. The other ones seem to be a bit less reliable and/or perhaps a bit less neutral. My issue being there may be BLP issues against Eron Gjoni to attack him too much with how we choose to describe the essay. Ries42 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I can gather mentions of its length and ramblyness pop up more than anything else, although stuff like "screed" and "rant" both pop up a significant amount too. To avoid sampling bias in the quotes people are selecting, below are descriptions of the Zoepost from the first 50 sources used in the mainspace article :

Bosstopher (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I think we should avoid is deciding to take the "average" words and make a WP voiced comment on what the blog post is. Saying "it was a long, rambling rant" while maybe the most accurate after looking at every source, is never said exactly by any source. The closest, reliable source we can get to that wording (which mentions both its length and 'rambling') should be the one used.

• Propose "rambling online essay" by NYTimes. It includes rambling and an "online essay" is more indicative of length than Guardian's "rambling blog post," although BusinessWeek's "rambling 9,000-word essay" may work on both points as well. Ries42 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I say we just avoid trying to find a good quote everyone is happy with and WP:ASSERT that it's a rambling blog post. I've given it a go in the draft article — Strongjam (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with this. You've just asserted, in WP voice, that it is a FACT that it is a rambling blog post. The only fact there is its a "blog post" the rambling part must be attributed because it is a subjective opinion. The point of this is to find the most neutral, but still subjective, opinion and source it. With that being said, we have a source that calls it a "rambling blogpost," the Guarding. Add a source, and you're golden. You can either say, "described by the Guardian as a "rambling blog post"" or perhaps "a blog post that several commentators have described as "long" and "rambling" of which we have several sources for those descriptors. In no event, though, should any subjective descriptor be in WP's voice. Ries42 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-reverted, but I disagree. It's widely described as rambling and there is no dispute about that in our sources, it's a perfect candidate for WP:ASSERT. — Strongjam (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources on rambly. Zero sources identifying it as "concise" . WP:ASSERT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD and Strongjam: The blogpost is not factually "rambling". It's an opinion (held by many commentators). Because it's an opinion Ries42 suggestions follow the guidelines of WP:ASSERT, while Strongjam's edit does not. Strongjam's edit would imply the blogpost being "rambling" is a fact. -- Maklaan (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is factually rambling (long and without clear direction.) There is no dispute about that, reliable sources accept that as true. Per WP:ASSERT that's a fact. — Strongjam (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not factually rambling. It is a commonly held opinion that it is rambling. It is a fact that it is a blog post. Per WP:Assert When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. An opinion does not become a fact simply because it is commonly held by a group. While opinions can become fact, generally there needs to be an empirical or objective reason for such. For instance, it may have previously been an opinion that the earth was round, but it has become a fact after it was objectively observed or proven. While we can agree that the opinion is not subject to serious dispute here, an adjective such as rambling is "commonly considered to be subjective" and as such, should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds that opinion. Ries42 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Just because it is an opinion, though, does not mean we need to counter-source it with an opposing opinion. To my knowledge, there isn't a reliable source that makes such a counter argument, and even if there were, it would likely be WP:Undue and in the vast minority. However, the lack of a counter opinion does not raise the initial opinion to the level of a fact. Ries42 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is FACTUALLY a vicious attack per FOX News . It is FACTUALLY a 9000-word rant per the SMH It is FACTUALLY rambling by ABC News and to anyone with 2 brain cells who looks at it. WP:ASSERT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just yell ITS A FACT and WP:ASSERT as if that ends the conversation. Its like you haven't even read Assert. I quoted it above and here, with my own emphasis added When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. There is no way to objectively define something like this. It doesn't exist. Its an opinion that its rambling, even if it is a commonly held opinion. Facts are concrete. The earth is round. The sun is hot. The post was made on a blog. Facts. Facts can be subjective, but generally only in the first person. If Person A says they're sad, this is a subjective fact. If Person B says Person A is sad, no matter how true it might be, it is still an opinion because Person B can never truly know Person A's mental state. Ries42 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going down that rabbit hole "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post described by everyone who read it as a rambling attack". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep citing essays, as if they say exactly what you want. You're wiki-lawyering more than I am. I'm pointing out that the things you're citing as authority don't say what you're saying they do, after reading them. You don't get to cite an essay, as if you're correct, then call me a "wikilawyer" when I then say you're using that essay incorrectly. The fact remains, for that wording, you need a Citation. Especially if you're going to call it a "rambling attack" which is much less supported than "rambling blog post or online essay". Further, "everyone"? That's a huge assumption that requires an equally huge amount to back it up. Hell you could keep most of that wording and just change some things slightly to be neutral. "Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post described by many commentators as "rambling" and "long". [Citation]" No need to use inflamatory words. Ries42 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it that hard to distinguish between fact and opinion? "posted online" = fact. "____ words" = fact. "rambling" = opinion, because not everybody might read the post and think of it as so. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

provide a single source that describes it as "consise" or "direct" or anything counter to "rambling". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"not everyone"? ummmmmmm no. there is no one who would not agree to "rambling".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? I don't agree. There, you are now, for a fact, wrong. Sure I'm not a reliable source, but you can't make blanket statements like "there is no one who would not agree" to X, and be correct. There are plenty of people who would not agree just to spite you. And don't then make a conspiracy theorist remark in response to try and discredit me, the ad hom here is getting sickening (I am mostly refering to NBSB's baseless remarks above, but others have done so too). That doesn't have any logical sway here. The point is, that no matter if someone is spiting you or genuinely disagreeing, you have no way of knowing that for certain. As such, you must defer to the fact that such adjectives are opinions and source them appropriately. Don't be needlessly dense it is not difficult to do so. The alternative is to label an opinion in WP's voice as a FACT. Only someone with an agenda would prefer to do so instead of attributing an opinion to the person or persons who hold it. Ries42 (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT give one source that describes it as "concise" or "direct" or any synonym for "non-rambling" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Irregardless of any source commenting whether something is 'direct' or 'concise' (opinions which would need to be sourced, after all), WP:PROVEIT that you could describe ANY writing as "rambling" as a FACT, without providing a source that holds that OPINION. Show me it has ever been done before without being sourced to the person or persons that hold that opinion. Ries42 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm new here. In all honesty, the drama surrounding this article is what sucked me into the addicting and beautiful mess that is the creation of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, here are my two cents: the current version of the draft article including the "rambling online essay" phraseology feels superfluous. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of self-published essays online are "rambling" - one needn't look much further than this very talk page for evidence of that. Therefore, it feels silly to modify the sentence by adding that information, when it adds little, if any, value. I'd suggest one of two paths. One would be to shift the quote back to something more in line with what it was, describing the post as a "rant" a "screed" or some descriptive phrase from the list culled by Bosstopher. This way, the appositive phrase informs the reader of the overall tone of the blog post, rather than a simple judgement on its style. The second path would be to strike the phrase altogether, and simply have the sentence read: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." If we aren't adding a quote of value to the sentence, I'd suggest not adding one at all. "Strange, rambling attack" is illustrative of the content of the post and represents something unusual and noteworthy. "Rambling online essay" is vague and offers no real new information to the reader. If we're opting to be vague, at the very least we should be concise. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with with either leaving it out or choosing "rambling" or "rant", though I still prefer "rambling". If the sources thought "rambling" was superfluous in describing a blog post, they wouldn't have used it. To me the words "rambling", "rant" and "screed" have a similar meaning and all express a slightly negative opinion. From the discussion above I take, that "rambling" would be accepted. Unless there are other editors coming forward to use "rant" over "rambling", I would leave it at "rambling". Further I prefer keeping the media's opinion about the blog post in. The blog post is important for the controversy and the majority of media choose to comment on it. -- Maklaan (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To further explain why "rambling online essay" is better than "strange, rambling attack" as shown above, the same writer, Nick Wingfield, wrote both articles. The "rambling online essay" was written two weeks later. Additionally there is some concern that a rather involved party (Leigh Alexander) may have directly influenced the first wording, or that the wording may have been hers and not Wingfield's (see above for discussion). As such, the later wording seems to be the more "accurate" from the author's POV and why it would be better to take it. If there is something from another author that is more appropriate, we could discuss replacing Wingfield's quote with that, or removing it all together; however, if we're choosing between Wingfield quotes, the "rambling online essay" one is clearly superior because it reflects his most recent opinion. Ries42 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I concur. That seems to make sense to me. I just felt the need to butt in and suggest that we worry less about slightly conspiratorial things like "concern that a rather involved party (Leigh Alexander) may have directly influenced the first wording", and more about what ultimately helps the reader understand what the popular sentiment is about this blog post. If that's the logic this is based on, as per Maklaan's comments, I'd say I'm swayed. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are several sources that "credit" the tone and tenor of everything that followed as being set up by the "zoepost". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, precisely as per TRPoD. Gamergate would be a much different thing if it had been launched by something other than false allegations against an obscure indie developer which were, as per the sources, spawned and egged on by an angry, spiteful revenge blog from that indie developer's ex-boyfriend. It is precisely why the "ethics in gaming journalism" claims and issues were fatally tainted and overshadowed from the very beginning by misogynistic trolling and harassment. Gamergate's inability or unwillingness to repudiate, disavow, apologize for and move beyond these and other false accusations — and, in fact, its continuing insistence that they aren't false — has, as per the reliable sources, been largely responsible for dooming it to the movement's current status of an irrelevant, incoherent fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) See there the biggest issue with the way this is being handled. The false allegations are the existence of a review, which the sources you deem reliable say are the basis of the controversy. The true allegations are the existence of a relationship between a developer and a journalist, which Gamergate itself says is the basis of the controversy. Yet you feel this one word that makes all the difference, should be determined solely by one side of the story, hiding behind cherry-picked reliable sources. What you're doing with this article is up to you, but for the love of god, stop trying to justify it with these fallacies. It's embarrassing. GameLegend (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC) The fact that a developer and a journalist were in a relationship is not a matter of public interest, as there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about it. Journalists are not now and never have been ethically prohibited from forming personal relationships, intimate or otherwise, with other people. No code of journalism ethics demands that journalists behave as monks, nor does any code of journalism ethics require that journalists publicize their private personal relationships. It is true that the relationship created the potential for a conflict of interest, but the fact that Grayson did not write about Quinn's work after engaging in the relationship is self-evident proof that no such conflict of interest existed. The mere existence of the relationship is a non-issue. Furthermore, even if there had been an ethical violation, it would have been Grayson who would be guilty of misconduct, not Quinn — who is not a journalist and is not subject to codes of journalism ethics. Targeting Quinn rather than Grayson clearly exposed for the world to see that the attacks were not based on any legitimate issues of journalism ethics, but on salacious gossip and the desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "if it had been launched by something other than false allegations" If you were equally troubled by it if the allegations were true, why even mention that they (the allegations attributed to Gamergate by others) were false? GameLegend (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking here, but yes, I'm stating that if Gamergate had actually been about investigating ethics in gaming journalism rather than using false pretences to attack outspoken women in gaming and further a revenge campaign by an ex-boyfriend, it would have been something different entirely. Sadly, that's not what we got. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC) You seem hellbent on the use of the term 'false allegations'. If you have a problem with any allegations regarding relations between journalists and the subjects of their writing, I don't see why feel the need to use the word false every other post. The allegations that there existed a relationship between a journalist and the subject of his writing are true. No honest attempt at an objective recollection of the events would completely and utterly overwrite and marginalize a group's own objectives in favor of a premise solely based on cherry-picked reliable sources whose coverage has such enormous plotholes you could fit a comet through it. If like the CBC, you were at least honest enough to admit you're not trying to be objective and just push an agenda, I could respect that. But this justification of the editors' behavior here is a joke and goes a long way into reaffirming the believe that Wikipedia is unreliable. GameLegend (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm "hellbent" on clearly stating, as the reliable sources do, that neither Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson have done anything which would contravene journalism ethics. That someone writes about someone journalistically and then, later, engages in a relationship with them, that is not an issue of journalism ethics. It is not even an "allegation," it is merely a true statement of no particular public interest to anyone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Why do you keep juggling words like that? Is it so hard for you to admit that you have an obsession over the use of the word 'false allegation' as opposed to the true allegations there are? GameLegend (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC) The dictionary definition of allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong. There is factually nothing illegal or wrong about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship. Ergo, to state such is not an "allegation" at all. It's merely a statement of fact, and not a fact of any particular public interest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC) If GamerGate is indeed about desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge - then certainly, Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship has been of public interest, because Zoe Quinn has been harassed for it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)