Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

A suggestion on article ordering change

Looking over the draft (while we're still at draft, and presuming it will not be moved in soon), I really think there is a need to reorganize the material better but without changing the content. And right now, I'm simply talking about text cut and paste moves, no language change outside of necessary sentence flow.

Currently the article structure is this:

• History
  • Gamergate hashtag
  • Subsequent harassment
• Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and antifeminism
• Debate over ethics allegations
• Gamergate organization
  • Activities
    • The Fine Young Capitalists
    • Operation Disrespectful Nod
    • Operation Baby Seal
    • #NotYourShield
• Industry response

I would propose the following:

• History
  • Background (everything prior to August 2014)
  • Onset (this would be the activities within the first ~couple weeks of GG, encompassing Quinn/Sarkeesian; the only major text addition would be to explain that both ethics calls and harassment came from those using the hashtag)
  • Ongoing harassment (From Sarkeesian's bomb threat, Wu, and anything else ongoing including the swatting)
• Gamergate movement (or "organization" if we're still not comfortable with that).
  • History/makeup/organization (what is presently under "Gamergate hashtag"; this also includes, for example, Singal's observations on the lack of organization)
  • Ethics allegations (less any of the "but ethics" broad criticism like the current first paragraph; specific criticism of the specific ethics claims should stay with this)
  • Other activities (same sections as above, but I think we can look to trimming those down too)
• Criticism of Gamergate
  • Debate over ethics allegations
  • Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and anti-feminism
• Industry response/reactions

I suspect that there will be some with issues with putting the Gamergate movement/organization somewhat higher in the article, and doing some reordering around that, but when it comes to the narrative, it makes it much easier to explain the criticism (the sections I've listed above) once you've explained the makeup of GG and their stated desires. Right now, the way this is ordered, the narrative thought is difficult to follow, and this might be part of having too much focus putting the predominate view before the minority view/information. I am not proposing getting rid of any of the predominate view, but just reorganizing the points so that certain facets of the predominate view make more sense or are easier to explain after you've explained the minor view. (For example, the whole "but ethics!" line that the predominate view uses is difficult to understand until after you explain what the ethics claims are, why the press doesn't think those claims can be acted on, and then the complaints about the use of harassment to threaten/silence others.) Again, to stress, the only language change at the start would simply be wording for information flow; most of what I proposed is just moving the right blocks of paragraphs to the different sections.

For sake of minimal disruption, if there's even a reasonable belief this might work better, I would propose that I make the ordering change in the draft article and then revert myself on that change, only so that I can provide a fixed url that would show the skeleton of this re-ordered list to be clearer (and to avoid creating a draft of a draft of info that borders on BLP). --MASEM (t) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CRITICISM, The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Additionally, a separate section titled "Criticism" implies that criticism should be pigeonholed into that section only, which is similarly not a best practice. I oppose creating a section entitled "Ethics allegations" because it avoids entirely the issue that most of the purported "ethics allegations" are widely viewed as not actually having anything to do with ethics — which is why the section is currently titled "Debate over ethics allegations" to present the fact that almost all external commentators see the allegations as both meritless and not actually involving questions of journalism ethics but rather simply furthering a culture war. I'm not necessarily opposed to some reordering, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We could leave readers with a false impression if they only read a single section. In general Masem's outline could work if we drop the criticism section and incorporate it into the prose of the Gamergate movement section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind CRITICISM is an essay; further even within that, WP:CRITS states "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Here's the problem - there's no "positive" criticism to include. Reading through the rest of CRITICISM shows that separating out the larger criticism against GG as a whole as I suggest does not contradict that essay considering the nature topic at hand.

Additionally, denying a section title like "Ethic allegations" because it doesn't address the predominate view is not a neutral approach. In documenting what we can about the movement, we are not to care if the predominate view says what GG says is bogus when discussing the GG supporters/group. We need to write about the facts of the GG cause without any bias from the predominate viewpoint per FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no positive criticism then uncritically stating their claims is giving them WP:UNDUE weight and could violate WP:FRINGE by making the claims appear to be more notable or accepted then they really are. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind what I said about how the ethics section would be changed: the specific issues raised by the media about some of the ethics claims (eg how unwieldy asking for "objective reviews" is) would be kept with these specific claims as these are best where those aspects are discussed; the broader criticism that "using ethics claims to cover up harassment" factors would be later when criticism of the movement as a whole is presented. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That might work. Specific claims by GG alongside the specific criticism for those claims, with the broader criticism later. Although I think that we could work the "cover up harassment" criticism as part of the Ethics section, perhaps in a wrap-up paragraph. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That goes back to the point of the reordering: the criticism of "but ethics" relies on knowing the ethics claims, knowing the criticism of those claims, and knowing the backlash that the harassment has gotten and how some press see harassment is believed to be considered a tool used by GG to intimidate critics; only then the "but ethics" argument clearly make logical sense. The ordering I present makes those points ll in order before hitting on this core "but ethics" aspect. Trying to put it earlier is part of the reason the current narrative is very clunky. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The current Ethics section starts out with a brief description before the criticism already "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists." I just don't think we need a separate Critiscm of Ethics section, we document their claims (with an eye to WP:FRINGE) and the criticism, and wrap it up with the broader commentary. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally disagree with any suggestion to have a criticism section. I don't feel it would improve the article, its readability, or its neutrality at all to try and separate coverage into "supportive", "neutral", and "critical" and divide it up accordingly; those categories are obviously very important to many people involved in the controversy, but they are not encyclopedic divisions -- coverage is coverage, and should inform our entire article in accordance to its representation in reliable sources rather than being divided up based on our personal feelings about whether it makes the subject "look good" or "look bad". In particular, I find your assertion that the "political views" section should be a subsection of the 'criticism' section to make no sense at all; that should be its own section, with "Gamer identity" and "Misogyny and anti-feminism" as subsections of it, since those are the coverage of the politics behind GamerGate as covered by reliable sources. Likewise, it strikes me as bizarre to want to separate 'ethicla issues' and 'criticism of ethical issues' into separate sections -- we must cover the topic in one place as reported by reliable sources; if the ethics claims are generally dismissed in reliable sources, then the ethics section itself must make this its core thesis. Criticism sections are generally, I think, agreed to be terrible things, and I don't see anything in your arguments above that would change it here -- they generally end up serving only to provide dumping grounds for unrelated criticism (stripped of context, and therefore less useful), or to move any aspects of the article someone deems 'negative' out of the rest of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A "Criticism " section does not always mean negative criticism (you can have positive criticism); however, it doesn't have to be called criticism but it should be focused on analysis and criticism of the broad issues of GG. (Perhaps "Responses" as is done on Westboro, for example). There's a better way to gather the information in the article to put most of the broader analysis in one cohensive section. And let me stress - a criticism section has to be kept with this main article because that is what makes up 75%+ of the notability of GG; this is not an attempt to segegrate this off and then prime it to be moved, because I would be fully against that. (Barring anything major in the next few months, I can't see this article growing any more to necessitate a move).

Things like "gamer identity" and "misogyny and anti-feminism" are not political views, that's part of the problem. I'm rereading that section now, and it just doesn't make a lot of cohensive sense, because it feels like we're crowbarring in some thoughts that are better elsewhere in a logical order. I know where the "gamer identity" text came from (I had that as background material months ago), but it doesn't talk about any political views, for example. Maybe if it was "Analysis of Gamergate", discussing the "culture war and gamer identity", "misogyny and anti-feminism" , "lack of GG organization/structure", etc. that might make it clearer without calling it directly as criticism. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're saying here; the section discusses the forces that shape the political views driving GamerGate, which (according to our sources) are primarily the gamer identity, anti-feminism, and misogyny. Certainly anti-feminism is a political view if anything is; but misogyny and gamer identity (when driven by identity politics) are also political views. Regardless, these are not primarily commentary sections, or analysis sections, or criticism sections; these are sections describing the subject of the article and its views, as objectively and thoroughly as we can (using, ideally, the most reliable sources we can.) That is something that an article on a subject like this badly needs. I do not see any gain for the article by transforming them into "commentary" sections -- remember, we're trying to keep people from using the article as a dumping ground for random commentary, since that was a problem in the past. "Analysis of gamergate" (when it comes from reliable sources) is something we must depend upon for every single section of the article -- it is absolutely not something we could confine to just one section. (As my example, above, of the problems we would encounter trying to separate the section on ethics into 'ethics' and 'debate over ethics' shows.) Ultimately, I see no improvement from your proposed reordering -- I think that the current ordering accurately expresses the history of the movement, then the politics behind it, which are by far the most important subjects here. I would strenuously oppose moving anything in the current politics section lower in the article; it feels to me like you feel that the GamerGate Organization section is more 'objective' or that you can write a section that will accurately depict 'what GamerGate really believes' to be contrasted with people's commentary, but note that the organization and hashtag sections also rely on commentary, since there is no central GamerGate organization. To the extent that there is a broad agreement about what GamerGate wants and what it stands for, it is covered by our current politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not every section needs analysis. In fact, we should start off with what information is not analysis and move up from that into the more secondary modes later. So starting with the current history and the history of harassment - which is all factual, no analysis needed, moving into what GG is and their claims, which is reporting what they say, though including some commentary on specific issues, and then moving into broad analysis of the situation, including why GG came about, the make up of the people, etc. - following the concept of Bloom's taxonomy in the presentation of this topic as it is very non-standard. And remember, I'm not talking about ridding sections, just reordering to make the narrative and logic flow better. And yes, we should be aiming to accurately represent what GG believes without any attempt at judgement in WP's voice - that's the primary impartial nature we need. We know we have tons of criticism against GG to include, but we can't let the volume of that public opinion sway the approach we talk to writing on the details specific from the GG's mouths. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your implicit assertion that we should give critics who claim to be speaking from within some "GamerGate organization" any particular precedent over those who do not when it comes to analyzing and characterizing what is behind the controversy. For one thing, GamerGate is structureless, and therefore such critics' opinions can never be more than their own personal opinions (which must be weighted according to their prominence and usefulness as a reliable source); for another, in situations where these viewpoints conflict, our duty is to focus on things in proportion to their representation in reliable sources -- not to portray "what these random commentators, who arbitrarily claim to be part of some hypothetical GamerGate organization, say their movement is really about." Beyond that, you are still making a false distinction between "criticism against GG, and what the analysis of these supposed critics says it believes" as opposed to "what GG actually believes, according to Real True GamerGators". This is not a meaningful distinction(note that you have to source your statement on what GG actually believes to somewhere, which is, inevitably, analysis.)

As an aside, I note that you have repeatedly said that you want GamerGate covered the way the Westboro Baptist Church is. If you go there and read its Church views section, you'll see it is sourced almost entirely to pieces that are clearly critical of the church; we do not simply rely on the first-hand accounts of the church's own beliefs, but on analysis and interpretation from reliable sources. We must describe GG's beliefs, goals, and politics in the same way, according to what reliable sources have said about them, without regard for what side you (or they) feel they are on; this is what the current politics section does. And in fact it is particularly important here, because unlike the church there is no central GamerGate mouthpiece, meaning that there are almost no concrete and reliable primary sources; but regardless, even if that were not the case, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources and their analysis when discussing eg. what GamerGate is actually all about. In this light, virtually all reliable coverage of GamerGate has said that it is about a culture war centered around people moved by gamer identity politics, gender-politics, and anti-feminism, who have either -- depending on your point of view -- used discussion about ethics in journalism (as it relates to the vast ideological conspiracy that many within GamerGate allege) in order to advance these goals; or who has discovered a vast unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents on those axes. This is, therefore, what we must lead with in describing it, and it is what the current politics section says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've argued before to avoid SPS sources for proGG statements - most of what we can say about the GG's claims about ethics, etc. are from sources that are critical of GG. We should rely on these sources to put the GG statements in context, but we also should not forget to include what the original statements are. Those people are one side of the controversy and we should be earnestly trying to document it within our RS policy in as neutral and non-judgemental a manner as possible, as is done on Westboro. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

But nobody is saying "the Westboro Baptist church isn't really about opposing gays." If there were people who claimed to be members of the Westboro Church and who argued that it was really about (say) ethics in games journalism, yet the vast majority of reliable sources dismissed that as tangential to its purpose and said that it was about opposition to gays, we would focus on its opposition to gays in its 'political views' section, and make that the focus of the article; this is especially true, of course, if that was what it was notable for. (In fact, the Westboro Church does have many views other than its view on homosexuality. The article notes them, but puts them very far down the article and gives them little attention, because they are not what it is notable for and not what most commentators say is the main driving force behind it.) Additionally, it's important not to fall into the trap of saying that "these people are a side in the controversy" as if that means we need to give them particular weight; our job is not to present all sides equally, but to present them in proportion to their representation among reliable sources. I would actually go so far as to say that they are not a side in the controversy as reflected by reliable sources; as far as I can tell, we don't have any reliable sources -- among those that describe them in any depth, or which give them any credit at all -- that describes the ethics issues as something distinct from the culture-war issues. (That is, there are some sources that argue that GamerGate is part of a legitimate culture war opposing a vast unethical conspiracy by feminists and other ideological opponents in order to control the media; but this is, indeed, already covered by the current political views section, though we cover it in a neutral fashion and therefore without giving undue credence to it. I think it's reasonable to describe it as a fairly WP:FRINGE theory, after all.) At this point I think that there is broad agreement among our sources -- on all 'sides' -- about what exactly GamerGate's ethical issues are about, what they mean, what perspective they come from and how they relate to the larger culture war. They disagree only on whether those accusations are accurate or whether the individual claims amount to proof of this broad conspiracy. Obviously it makes no sense to cut out the arguments that it does amount to proof of a broad conspiracy and try to present them separately, since, again, the media conspiracy allegations are a WP:FRINGE theory, which therefore must be given less prominence than the prevailing view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "equal" coverage, this is talking about impartial and neutral coverage, and writing an encyclopedia article that can be understood. If I was a reader with no idea about GG but wanted to be informed to learn what the GG movement is, this article does a poor job in its present state because its focused too much on making sure the predominate POV (that GG is bad) is shown, and does not present the GG side with what sources we have in any form of coherent, non-prejudgemental organization. Everything we can factually state about GG, including elements that could be seen as negative aspects like their unorganized, anon nature or their ethics claims, as well as their activities that can be documented, like the various operations to ad agencies, should be kept in one single section; after which we can then include the broad criticism of the group that builds on all those facets. (All this after we've run through the most visible facts of the harassment that has occurred). Keep in mind - in the topic of a Gamergate controversy , the GG movement is not a FRINGE view. If we were talking about gaming journalism, heck yes what GG claims is extremely fringe and likely would not be include, but to the core of this article which is about what has happened because of the actions of this movement, their views are not trivial. They're difficult to document, for certain, and very difficult to find anyone that agrees with them, but we still need to use whatever means to present the GG side as a legitimate part of the controversy as the key party of interest. This article has that information already, but in such a disorganized manner as to create the non-partial approach. Reorganizing in the manner I spoke of, without adding or removing any sourced content and only adjusting sentence for flow, goes a long way to present the GG side in a more encyclopedic and less judgemential light. That's the whole point when you come to Westboro, or Scientology, or any other group/person that has a broad negative public opinion out there; we don't base the article on the negative public opinion but around the group itself in as much a factual manner as possible and then include the criticism. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you came here to find out what the gamergate movement was, you came to the wrong place asking the wrong question. this is the article about the controversy created by the vile vile harassment under the gamergate hashtag and the underlying antifeminist/anti-woman culture war in the gaming world that the vile vile harassment brought into the view of mainstream culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Obviously, we are not going to have an article that separates the harassment facets from the movement (the notability are far too tied together to even consider that), and there is legitimately a question of coming to WP to learn about the movement and trying to understand their motives as to learn about how harassment became an issue. This is the right page on WP to discuss the movement and we are not doing a good job of that due to the current organization. And no, we're not here to talk about the "vile vile harassment" but just the "harassment". WP is amoral in that regards. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

per all the sources , as it relates to the subject of this article - gamergate the so called movement is a NOTHING that accomplished NOTHING other than perhaps attempt to act as a transparent cover for vile vile harassment against women. and aside from the vile vile harassment is a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists who dont know what either "ethics" or "objective" actually means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Popular opinion/criticism, but not fact. We have facts about the movement we can discuss, and which are necessary to discuss, to understand why criticism is as harsh as it is. We should be earnestly trying to use what we can take from the reliable sources to document clearly what factual information there is about the GG movement to explain the people and their stated goals that are at the centerpoint of this controversy, to be encyclopedicly complete, and should not be ignoring the GG movement because of the claimed "vile vile harassment" they've done. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion whatever "facts not opinions" we may have from reliable sources about the "so called movement" are in fact almost entirely devoid of any relevance to the subject of this article, the controversy. WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What the GG movement is is absolutely key to this topic and in absolutely no way a coatrack argument. Refusal to cover what the GG movement claims to be (the group that is responsible, directly or not, for the controversy) in a non-judgemental manner, even with as limited an amount of sourcing from reliable sources as we have to do that from, is a direct violation of NPOV, because you are refusing to cover a major facet of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT for any article you can provide that has any measure of focus on the "so called movement" i can produce a dozen that have only a passing mention or directly comment on its actual meaninglessness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But the key thing is - there are many highly reliable sources that cover GG as a movement, with most then within a paragraph going on to criticize that for the rest of the article. That means that what GG is is important to their criticism and we should of course cover what GG is and their motives and goals so that the criticism of GG makes sense. You can't introduce "But ethics!" criticism without describing the ethics claims. We don't need dedicated articles that are solely proGG to provide this information, there are plenty of very critical articles against GG that do provide sufficient details for us to explain the GG side of the equation briefly, which we already effectively do, but just with poor narrative or logical progression that can be improved by simply reordering what we have without changing the balance of the article/sources. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said the sources for this are in the article sourcing what we know about the movement, such as the words by Singal, articles like [1], and [2], albeit briefly because there's not that much they can figure out but they try to at least. They talk about what the GG movement is from the view the GG movement, and then move on to analysis and criticism. So yes, there are sources. There are also sources that completely ignoring what GG wants to write one-sided approaches, but we don't follow tone, we are looking to summarize the whole story, so ignoring what we can source that we know about GG is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: use draft as of 17:12 GMT, 19 January 2015 as main

The main article has been protected for many weeks now and it's rather out of date. The Arbitration Committee has published its draft proposed decision so those who were holding their breath and expecting an unorthodox content-related decision can now breathe out.

I propose that:

1. Wikipedia being of its nature a perpetual work in progress;
2. The current draft (timed as above) being our current best effort and containing no glaring defects;
3. The current main article being protected from editing owing to frequent edit wars;
4. Stipulated on consensus (to be obtained) that the current draft is of no lesser quality than, and more up to date than, the current main article:
5. We agree that the named draft article revision (this one) should be moved copied over the current main version by an administrator, thus updating the article.

Your thoughts on this, please. --TS 06:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: This isn't a proposal to unprotect the article. Editing of the draft can continue during and after this discussion. The proposal pertains to a particular revision of the draft. --TS 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support — Yes, I think this works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have issues still (see reordering above) but it's fine to move into place for now. --MASEM (t) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This version seems good to me. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support.Avono (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The draft continues to have far too many issues, and many editors have been waiting to see the results of ArbCom before contributing significantly to fixing them. We'll have a ruling within a couple days, the proposed decision is up. Then we can fix the draft and article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Draft version seems better to me. Editors who have been waiting for ArbCom can collaborate if they wish, we shouldn't hold up Wikipedia on the chance that someone might contribute in the future. — Strongjam (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering a number of the supporters as well as people contributing are facing possible topic bans, the idea that we need to move on this now appears more than a little premature. We've waited this long, waiting another few days isn't going to make the situation worse while inserting a draft proposal that lacks input from many editors for a variety of reasons would. It will almost certainly result in edit warring on the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No one weighing in is at this time under any sort of restriction. Topic bans are not retroactive, and if anyone thinks votes in this discussion will be stricken down the road, they are in for a bit of disappointment. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • No one is "grave dancing." The issue that brought the page and its topic to ArbCom is still tendentious, and trying to push in a draft page that has limited interaction and reserved discussion because of the ArbCom case and the players involved (on both sides!) seems premature. There is absolutely no harm whatsoever in waiting until we see the results of the case before moving on the draft. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Cautious Support The Draft is better, but the article still needs significant work. Suggest following the draft being implemented that the new page continue to be fully protected and a new draft environment be created for future edits. Ries42 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To iterate, this is my thinking - we have a reasonable decent draft that still needs improvement but better than what is presently at main page, so let's fix that, and then allow more broader sweeps of the draft article to take place. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - No issues. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The reading is better, and while it still needs work that defines pretty much all of wikipedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Ries42's above statement entirely. I understand Thargor Orlando's reasoning but the pending decision is no reason to not introduce a better version of the article and continue to work to improve it. Weedwacker (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Are you advocating for the full replacement of the current article by the draft version? Couldn't it just supplement the current version for aspects that are out of date? It seems like the draft version is more opinionated and less neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: can you give some specifics about what issues you see? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Liz is currently a sporadic editor who has edited in batches separated by days' absence. If she hasn't responded by 1200 GMT on 22nd (Lunchtime tomorrow in London) and there are no further objections, I'll put up an edit protected notice and let an admin judge whether to perform the proposed edit. --TS 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until such time as someone can create a reasonable diff between the contents that is human-understandable, or can explain the various changes. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a diff of the changes. Although I don't know if it's reasonable. I might go through it later and try to explain the various changes, but don't have time at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that, but that's why I said "human-understandable." Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, I can review from that diff - I must have done something wrong. Reviewing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. No substantial changes are made. Don't care. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Freeform discussion

As nearly always happens on talk pages of this encyclopaedia that doesn't have votes, we've got an impromptu vote on my proposal!

Well I can't make that go away, but instead I can add this discussion section. If you really want to turn this into a vote (and a vote is still a vote even with an exclamation mark in front of the word "vote") go up there and vote. But I want to encourage everybody to discuss this properly below. --TS 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to make two counterpoints in response to points made against:

• Firstly, arbitration. Arbitration isn't an excuse to stop improving the encyclopaedia. I'd argue it's the reverse.
• Secondly, every revision of every article has its faults, but if we intended to wait for the perfect version of every article to come along we wouldn't have started with a wiki.

The question we should ask is: warts and all, is the draft as of yesterday afternoon an improvement and update on the current main article? If you agree that this is true, then we can in all good conscience improve Wikipedia at a stroke by copying that revision over the main article. No ifs, no buts. The article would remain protected so there is no risk of edit warring. --TS 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There does not appear to be anything objectionable or controversial in the recent edits, apart from the now-indef'ed sock contributions that were quickly reverted. If people have objections, IMO they should be raised at the time the addition is made. That's why we have a draftspace version at all. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There have been issues, but they have been at times railroaded over; further, it made sense to see which if any issues on the content the ArbCom made before addressing them in the draft. Further, the story still changes as we get farther out from the original onset, so like the rest of WP , these remain living documents. The key with the draft now is simply to get a version that at least avoids some of the major issues on the main page ( like quotefarming), but we still have much more to address once that's done. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting off topic discussion upon request. Let's keep discussion about the subject (Draft Replacing Current Article) and not about the shadow of ArbCom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do get the impression that many editors thought the arbitration committee might make some significant pronouncement about or affecting content; as a nine-years veteran of arbitration cases, I had no such expectation and cannot account for those who thought that might happen. Now I think the excuses for inaction are dwindling. --TS 21:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I agree with Masem, and the issues with railroading. Without naming names, sometimes its exhausting to deal with certain editors. Editors who have stepped back perhaps hope that some of those exhausting editors would be encouraged to move on by ArbCom. That is definitely a reason to wait to see ArbCom's resolution before deciding whether its worth submitting themselves to the scrutiny of this article. Some of us have tougher skin though. Ries42 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) That makes a sort of sense, I suppose, though it amounts to people saying to themselves "I hope the arbitrators will make people who disagree with my edits go away," which is abit sad. The sanctions exist to stop or prevent misbehaviour, and they're clearly quite effective. In this case it shouldn't affect the decision, though. The only question is whether the more up-to-date draft version is even a tiny bit better than the current article. Also I think we're heading into "unnamed people doing it all wrong but I won't take them through dispute resolution" territory, which should be a thing of the past. --TS 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I was purposefully vague because I both don't think there is one side/person/editor completely at fault or responsible for the current state and I don't want to make accusations because they indirectly reinforce that state of things. Things have gotten better, yes, but there is still an atmosphere that can sometimes be on the razors edge. I am very careful about what I write both because of the sanctions and the state of affairs that forced them to be required. The ArbCom hearing hanging over the head of the article reinforces that atmosphere, even if the end result is zero action. I did not intend for it to mean "I hope X editor goes away" so much as I hope that if editor X returns they are not as difficult to work with and hopefully ArbCom will have that effect on any editor that may have been more difficult to work with previous to it. Ries42 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected article edit request: sync draft

After this conversation it's clear to me that there is no substantial objection to this proposed edit:

• Copy this revision of Draft:Gamergate controversy (timestamped 17:12 GMT, 19 January 2015) over Gamergate controversy.
• Uncomment the protection template and ensure that it corresponds to the current page protection parameters in the page log.
• Uncomment the categories and ensure that no vandalism has slipped through there.

Thank you.--TS 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rami Ismail on Gamergate

Rami Ismail, co-founder of Vlambeer, spoke about Gamergate at GameCity. I thought it was interesting and could be useful in the Industry response or the Political views section, he talks about the cultural issues. I haven't added to the draft though as I don't want to start turning it back into a quote farm, and also we use The Guardian quite a bit and I'm worried we may end up (or even are) giving them undue weight. Any ideas if we can use this to maybe expand on the cultural war aspect of the controversy?

References

— Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a good reason The Guardian turns up a lot in sources. Their reputation for editorial independence is strong. I do appreciate your recent switch from the Graun to Christian Science Monitor (another very good source) for another recent story, though. Diversity of sourcing held to ensure reliability.

I don't think this story would add much to our article's coverage. It's the opinion of one independent developer. -TS 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly have no issue with The Guardian, in fact they line up very much with my own POV. Just want to make sure we have a broad set of sources and POVs. Don't want this article to be "What The Guardian and Verge think about Gamergate" after all. On reflection I think you're right about this not adding much, I think it's an interesting opinion (probably because it just confirms my bias) but probably not notable enough for inclusion. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ismail has been called on before in RSes on his view of issues of sexism in the industry well prior to the events of GG (I think a 2008 or 09 GDC talk he gave), and this seems like a logical extension of his observations then. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

At risk of bring up the good old undue weight to Erik Kain problem, his article on What GamerGate is actually about seems to agree with Ismail that Gamegate's been a long time coming, but for very different reasons. "Mostly it’s about a toxic relationship that’s formed between the video game press and gamers themselves, one that’s been bubbling and brewing for years, not months." So there is more than one source taking the long term angle. Bosstopher (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of article mention in media

First, why?
When does a media source requiring to be a reliable source for wikipedia been a requirement for the usage of Template:Press? I have not seen anything where Frontpage Magazine is not a reliable source. Others may disagree with its political point of view, but that does not make it an unreliable source, just a biased one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Frontpage is regularly determined to be less than reliable by WP:RSN - have you reviewed the archives? No comment with respect to the press template, because whocares. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The press template isn't really part of Wikipedia, it's just an adornment we put on some article talk pages to make us feel good about what we do. If you can get consensus to put the FrontLine link up, go ahead. But it's not worth fighting over. The encyclopaedia is in that other tab. --TS 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if reliable, reading it doesn't give much to work with. It says "X won" but doesn't go into a lot of specifics. I'd keep it just to show that not all the press believes that "gamergate" is a "misogynist campaign against women," but I can't quite find a place to put it in the article. Can we agree to leave it in the sources for now and figure out if it can be directly used later? Ries42 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Frontpagemag is not a reliable source and should not be used in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism references the WP:RSN determination that FrontPage Magazine is "not RS for factual info." A Wikipedia search of the project space (beyond my capabilities at this location) would be required to locate RSN discussions on this. --TS 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The historical citation from RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WND and its associates are clearly among the least reliable types of sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment: FrontPage is a reliable source for OPINION, not FACT. That's clear. A lot of the views expressed in this article are opinion. Some editors feel that if the opinion is supported by a significant majority of sources, it should be considered a "fact". My question is this:

• Does an opinion, which has become considered a "fact" because of support from a majority of reliable sources, then become immune to opposing opinions from sources which would be reliable for opinions, but not for facts? Ries42 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:RS. This is reasonably clear. Frontpagemag is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article about arbitration case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is another press piece, broadly covering the arbitration case.

• The Guardian, January 23, 2015: Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles amid gamergate controversy

Some people are saying it's inaccurate but I think that, nitpicking aside, this is as fair an account of the political dimension of the case as I could expect.

This one-off article probably doesn't merit mention in our article yet, because in the grand scheme of things Wikipedia hasn't been a big part of the controversy. That may change if many reliable sources start discussing the arbitration case. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --TS 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: This is being discussed below, would you mind re-factoring to include there to avoid the duplicate discussion? — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding lead section

The lead section seems to be very conclusional, as if GamerGate has ended and we are looking back on it. This is not the case at all; the news continues to report on the topic, for instance. I also have some issues with some of the claims made, such as "false allegations of ethics violations" which doesn't have any citation. What false allegations? At least a news article saying GamerGate has made false allegations would be appreciated. If Pro-GG wikipedia users aren't allowed to put stuff in without context, then why should Anti-GG users? BlookerG ^talk 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The false accusations in question are detailed in the history section. The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources that have commented on them, as detailed in the history section. Please focus on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources are very "conclusional". They have looked at GG's "accomplishments" and likely hood of being able to have any future impact and made their determination. We follow them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RedPen, that seems to be at odds with WP:SYNTH as I understand it. We report on the sources, but synthesizing it like that seems to be toeing the line, or maybe crossing it, seems to violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and maybe even WP:NPOV. I guess the argument I'm making is that a lot of this article might have issues with Synth, as a lot of hte article reads like the "bad example" of :The [Gamergate] stated objective is to [ethics or something], but since its creation there have been [harassment of peoples]. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What text proposed or currently in the article do you believe violates WP:SYNTH, the elements of which are 1. Multiple sources 2. Combined 3. reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please be sure to define each of the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to get into specifics, but it seems like the areas this might be an issue would be things like the lede: Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. While not directly sourced, we source all of those comments. SYNTH would likely prefer something more along the lines of: Supporters of the movement say/argue they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. The majority of commentators, though, have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. Says the same thing, but separates the synthesis to remove the implication in WP's voice. (Note, I did remove some more... aggressive words, like overwhelming. I thought we took that out) Ries42 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics. There are three elements to violate SYNTH - 1. Multiple Sources, 2. Combined, 3. Reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please detail where something violates SYNTH by detailing the section and the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Ries42 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the content, not the contributors. You are alleging synthesis. I'm asking you to show it to me, using the three point test for WP:SYN. Could you please do so? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Second request. Ries42 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no syn in the single sentence as there are multiple sources which address all 4 of the components. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But it does have language that falls into wording to watch, like the "overwhelming" that was removed above. It creates a tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also notice there are mentions the end of the history section of at least some of the attackers potentially being trolls who want to stir up trouble, who don't support either side of the GamerGate debate and are tweeting abuse mostly through new twitter accounts to hide their identity. The lead says that the media has been focussing on attacks from GamerGate supporters, but there is no mention of the trolls. This seems to conflict. BlookerG ^talk 17:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The media has been focusing on attacks from GamerGate supporters. There are notable other opinions, however - specifically, the ones pulled out by the quote you reference. For example, Ice Cream, generally, is sweet. However, there are also savory ice creams, like [3]. The media has been focusing on ice cream as sweet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, would putting "Some supporters say ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority of commentators say Ice Cream is sweet" because that's what the media has reported on a fair and impartial lede from a neutral point of view? Ries42 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it would provide massively undue weight to savory icecream. See, for example, Ice_cream, which does not even mention savory ice cream. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Now you've gone and confused me. I thought you were just making an analogy and I assumed were not intending to use "real life" stats in it. I.e., you made it a given that ice cream was notable for being savory. You then made the other given that media attention is that ice cream is sweet. My question was that, with those two items as given, wouldn't the above lede, that "X says ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority says ice cream is sweet" be inappropriate for the "theoretical" ice cream article (not the real one). Ries42 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The analogy is that the media, and so our article, covers sweet ice cream even though savory ice cream may exist. The sources, and so our article, covers the toxic gamergate even though non-toxic gamergate may exist. It is not relevant to the overwhelming discussion of the topic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly the response I was looking for. On this line of reasoning, does the fact that a non-toxic gamergate exists, although perhaps not notable on its own because of its lack of media coverage, become notable because the toxic gamergate is notable. Further, following that reasoning, can we make broad generalized statements against the toxic gamergate (which I feel like everyone agrees with, even myself), but have issues because although this article isn't intended to cover the non-toxic gamergate, it effectively lumps them in when generalizing? I feel like this is the crux of a lot of issues with this article, and if we can find a way to make that distinction clear that it will in general significantly improve the article. Ries42 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - just because you have an obnoxious notable uncle does not make you notable. And any "effectively lumping together" is because all parts of GG have refused to any type of organization or leadership or mission that would allow any "unlumping" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Un-lumping would require WP:OR for the most part. — Strongjam (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that no source at all has defined the line between what is the GG controversy and the GG movement, because the controversy is about the movement's actions. It's not that the movement is not notable, but its that the controversy and the movement are, presently, the same topic. And because that movement is so central to it, it is not a fringe aspect of it, it just has not many sources that attempt some objective qualification of the movement. Per NPOV and UNDUE that means what we cover won't be a lot but the movement's aspect needs to be covered in a non-prejudgemental manner. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is totally unrelated to any suggestion to improve the article. I will close and hat it as unproductive in 15 minutes barring policy-grounded objections. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is about what the topic actually is, and thus how that is properly represented in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

See the example given above by Ries which addressing one case of peacock wording. It attempts to complete dismiss anything objective about GG and "glorifying" the moral-wrongness of the harassment (including the use of the word "terrorism"). It makes the article take a side about which way WP is taking GG which we cannot do, and then when it introduces the objective information we have about GG, it immediately negates that with public opinion. The facts the lead presents are all correct, but the wording is specifically chosen to attack the GG side. --20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I chose not to read anything by Ries42. Please restate any objections clearly, referring to policies and explaining how they were violated or are complied with better by alternative text, in your own words. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree. We are discussing issues with the article, which is perfectly acceptable. BlookerG ^talk 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the article itself, it provides a big ego boost to Anti-GG users by basically saying the opposition is way more in the wrong. I focus on the lead in particular because it's the section the most people will see, a summary of a long article. All of the reliable sources seem to have a very Anti-GG opinion, so maybe my issue is not Wikipedia orientated. We should strive to find some more Pro-GG sources that are actually reliable. I also find it funny that in the History section, the line about "false allegations" regarding Grayson publishing "a positive review of the game" on Kotaku uses Kotaku itself as a source to show that Kotaku's in the right. There are a bunch of other sources on it too, so I think this one should be removed. Basically, I feel this article needs a hell of a lot of neutralising. Seeing as I've had to justify myself on my reasoning behind wanting to change the article, could you justify why you're ignoring Ries42? BlookerG ^talk 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: the reason we use Kotaku as a source for that is that is the primary source which then other sources build on. It is completely appropriate in this specific context to use them with the other sources present that voice their agreement the allegation was false. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be editing our articles based on who is going to like them or dislike them, rather based on what reliable sources say. If all of the reliable sources are saying things one way, then so will Wikipedia - and you state that all of the reliable sources have a specific slant, which means, unfortunately, that we will mirror that. Wikipedia does not lead opinions, we merely document what other people say. Kotaku is a valuable source that we should link to with respect to that citation - if they were the only source, I would agree that it needed further qualification, but since so many other sources agree with them, there is no need to remove what is a valuable citation or change the language. Finally, I am ignoring Ries42 because I find that reading him makes my day less good. Given that I'm not interpreting consensus or editing the article, I feel that ignoring people who make my day less good will improve everyone's day, on average. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the case that reliable sources widely view Gamergate as being in the wrong. That reliable sources hold such a view is an indisputable fact. That some people disagree is interesting and should be noted in our article, but it cannot override the clear consensus of reliable sources and it must be subordinated to this clear consensus of reliable sources. Whether it gives an "ego boost" to anyone is not our concern as encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not how we write articles; public opinion is not the same as fact. That GG has a hugely negative perception is important, cannot be ignored, and the negative criticism of GG has to be a majority portion of the article. But, we cannot act like the public opinion is the factually "right" answer, nor that the pro GG is "wrong". The controversy continues (albeit much slower than it started), and there's still no conclusion reached. As such, while the predominate of the opinion of the press will be the bulk of the content, it cannot be the tone we take with the article. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing ARE wrong. Claiming that "objective reviews" is an "ethical question" IS wrong. Stating that "Objective reviews would be those that only rate games on objective criteria like 'is it fun'?" IS wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying "harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing" are right, nor was that what Masem was arguing. Its easy to strawman certain views and say they're wrong. Sure, "objective reviews" are not an "ethical question," but "conflicts of interest" are. Ries42 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They may be wrong, but first) WP is amoral, we cannot write articles based on this being "bad actions", meaning we can't take sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing, and second) no single source has established factually that those that are asking about ethics changed have engaged in any of these activities directly, nor can we presume that. We can include all the opinions that because the ethics side of GG has not done enough to separate themselves from the harassment side as to be implicitly responsible for the harassment, but we cannot make any presumption that what the group that calls themselves the GG movement has done anything wrong for purposes of writing the article. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not " taking sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing". We are merely reporting that the sources have reviewed GG and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that what they have done is wrong. Our reporting those conclusions is "amoral". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are, by the means of the use of weasel/peacock words to prejudge the GG movement's side of the issue, as one example above, and by failing to cohesively describe their ethics requests in an objective manner (instead sprinkled throughout the article making it hard to follow); the argument against changing these has been because the predominate view ridicules the GG side we don't have to give them any respect. Being neutral and amoral we can't take that view or attitude; we should be documenting the group objectively to the best our sourcing policy lets us before letting in the wave of negative criticism about them set that part. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to be gamergate apologetics doing something that they have failed to do for themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor are we here to criminalize them just because the sources have opted to. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's original research, and not acceptable. We can use the sources that are vastly negative of GG to show how much criticism the group got and condemn the harassment/etc, but that's it. We treat what actions were done in a neutral tone, either praising nor condemning even if the moral high ground says otherwise. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not original research. It is what the sources report - you know the threats against Sarkeesian speaking at Utah are literally criminal terrorist acts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I completely agree with Masem, but to be blunt... what criminal charges were filed and what criminal convictions were sustained? Has there been even one criminal prosecution during this whole event? Ries42 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that threatening to gun down an auditorium full of people is not a criminal terroristic act? (Here is a hint, I would DEFINITELY NOT suggest that you try it to find out for yourself)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you saying it is not a criminal act. But I'm also not saying it definitely is. To use a little legal mumbo-jumbo, it actually may not be, based on a rather large list a things. The legal analysis for legal criminal threats requires certain things, including actual fear, and the fact that the FBI declared "no threat" and the fact that there was no "fear" based on the threat all lend to the possibility that said threat was not actually a legal, criminal threat. This link is to a California Criminal Defense firm that goes over a lot of ways a "threat" may not actually be a legal, criminal threat. Note, he is analyzing California law, and the threat you are referring took place in Utah, and I don't know exactly which Utah or Federal laws will apply. I said all of that to get across the point that a "criminal threat" is actually a very high burden to meet legally, and it is certainly possible that the threats that occurred in Utah may not be actually criminal in nature. You can argue it was criminal. Many people can. But it isn't factually criminal without at the VERY least indictment, and even then, it isn't confirmed criminal without a conviction. Here, we don't have any facts of that. Ries42 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your blithe justification of terrorism leads me to the same conclusion that Hipocrite arrived at. Good bye. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I did at all, but thank you for the accusation. Ries42 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? I'm afraid I don't follow. What would you like done to the article? Would you like us to characterize the threat of a shooting as something other than criminal? I'm honestly asking, but I don't understand why you put so much effort into trying to argue that this wasn't a criminal act? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The actions are certainly criminal or approaching that in nature, and that itself we can't pretend to say anything less because it is a fact that issuing a fake threat like that equates to a crime. The problem is, we have zero idea who are the people doing the crime, outside of the fact that they often tie themselves to the gamergate hashtag. We have zero evidence (though I don't dismiss the possibility) that those that have harassed and threatened are the same that are arguing about ethics, despite the fact that a number of press sources go "Gamergate is guilty of this", more or less. There are several sources that do a very careful job not accusing GG as a whole for these things and stating that it is somebody using the GG hashtag, but then proceed to say that by implicitly supporting these (for example, continuting to call Quinn et al by disingenuous names, or not doing enough to styme the harassment) that the group is guilty as a whole, which is okay as an opinion but still again not fact. To that point, when we write about the GG movement objectively, we cannot presume that they have done anything wrong. Some of their actions, alone, speak for themselves, and others we'll definitely include the press's take on their faults, but we cannot presume this group is, in its entirety, out to harass women and others that speak for them. And that's what is the problem in this article - it's written with a tone that the GG supporters are bad people and that the press are right. We can't take that position at all. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that Wikipedia should take that view in the encyclopedia's voice, only that that view must be presented as predominant in our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of that was pretty much a direct reply to RedPen's comment that "The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them". The point of the topic there was to show that the reported actions themselves are not factually criminal because there is a difference between something that is factually criminal, and what may not actually be criminal (but may still be wrong). Criminal is a specific legal conclusion, one that isn't "given" at any point pre-conviction. With that being said, it is certainly not necessary to remove all mentions that characterize the threats as criminal, merely that they should not be in WP unsourced or be in WP's voice as facts. Someone can have the opinion that they are criminal, and that can very well be in the article. That was the nuance of the dicussion as I saw it. Ries42 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand. You're saying that WP cannot state in its own voice that threatening to shoot up a college campus because someone is giving a speech is a criminal act? I think you could not be further off the mark. I'd maybe understand if you were saying certain individuals could not be characterized as criminal due to the lack of any self-evident facts suggesting such, but to suggest that a threat of mass violence isn't a criminal act seems a bit far-fetched and quite an odd position to stake out. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you think its odd. Frankly it IS odd. But the law is a weird and at times contradictory beast. You can't have a "criminal act" without a criminal. You can say something is criminal in the abstract, sure, but criminal acts require context. For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal? It is easy to say a "terrorist act" is criminal, because technically it could be. However, its complicated by International law, but let's just say its a given. Terrorist Act = Criminal Act. Something has to then be proven to be a terrorist act, in order to be a criminal act as well. Lets assume that Joe Blow is the person who made the Utah threats. Completely made up person. Joe Blow is indicted for making them. He goes to trial, and for some reason, he is acquitted. Joe is not a criminal. And in that hypothetical situation, Joe's "threats" are also not criminal. However, if Joe IS convicted, he is then factually a criminal, and his threats are factually criminal acts.

It's like saying XXX is committing libel against me. It may certainly be true. I can accuse XXX of libel. But without a judgment, it isn't factually true that XXX committed libel. It would be inapprorpaite of WP to say on XXX's profile that he committed libel against me at any point prior to an actual judgement. WP could say that I accused XXX of libel (maybe, idk if BLP might be at issue there with just an accusation), but that's the nuance. Ries42 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal?" No, but we're not talking about the person. We're talking about the act. It doesn't matter who threatened to shoot up the school, doing that is still a criminal act. What you seem to be suggesting is that a crime is only a crime if someone is caught, which is, again, an odd thing to argue. This is a remarkably pointless semantic debate and, again, you're mostly reasonable, so I can't begin to fathom why you're arguing this point. If we can't characterize a mass shooting threat as criminal without a debate, then what are we even doing here? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not an "if you get caught" thing, although I understand that may be closer to the truth than is wrong. Its simpler than that, there cannot be a criminal act, absent a "crime". We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal. Its still an opinion until its a fact. Hence why I said, in hypothetical, or in abstract, we can refer to something as "factually" a criminal act. But we can't describe something as factually a criminal act unless there are facts that show that it was actually criminal. Yes, the words are absolutely deplorable. Horrible. I can go on and on with my opinions of what they are. What I can't say, though, is that they are factually a criminal act. In fact, we have two-three big facts showing that they may very well NOT be a criminal act. I.e., the FBI's determination of no threat, the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian canceled not because of the threats but because of the gun control laws of Utah, and the threats themselves were never actually show to have caused an actual, real apprehension of fear. That isn't to say these AREN'T criminal threats. I want to be clear, it is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that they are criminal threats. But it would be incorrect to factually label them that. Ries42 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this doesn't seem to be based in any sort of legal reality. "We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal." Really? Tell that to any number of detectives attempting to solve homicides. Furthermore, the FBI determining there's no real threat to safety is not the same thing as them saying no one sent in a threat. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and then use the lack of a fire as your defense against punishment. If we can't assert in wikipedia's voice that the threat of a mass shooting is criminal behavior, what can we assert? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. Criminal is both an adjective and an opinion until it is a proven fact. It can only be proven by a conviction. A detective can have his opinion. He can say "that damn criminal scum" that he is going after for a homicide. But a homicide can still not be a criminal act, if it is determined there are mitigating factors or other things. If that detective caught the person who was the cause of the person's death that he was searching for (Person X for clarity), but we find out that Person X acted in Self-Defense, and the dead guy was going to kill Person X if Person X didn't kill him right back, is Person X a criminal? Did a criminal act take place? Was there a crime?

That's how the law works. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not criminal because of fire, shouting fire in a crowded theater is potentially criminal because it can induce panic and cause injuries to others because of that panic. The actual shouting of "fire" could be the criminal act. But you seem to be mistaken about something, you used it backwards. If there actually IS A FIRE, then shouting fire in a theater is NOT a criminal act. You can use the fact that there WAS a fire as defense against punishment. As to your hyperbole: we can assert facts. Opinions, even ones that seem 'common sense' should be attributed. It doesn't have to be a quote. It could be as simple as "the FBI labeled these threats criminal". If the FBI said they were criminal, then cite the FBI at the end of the phrase. If they didn't, then cite someone else. Ries42 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is my stop. Back to the recent changes for me. I'd suggest someone come in and hat this entire conversation as it's drifted far off topic. I'd also suggest Ries focus less on trying to win a semantic debate and more on opening his mind up to the fact that he is arguing that threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified. He seems to be under the impression that there are "mitigating factors" in which this act would be ok. There are no mitigating factors where it's ok to threaten to shoot up a school; even if it's an empty threat, it's still against the law. I'll WP:AGF that you aren't here for an agenda, and say this: no one is suggesting every Gamergate supporter is a criminal, or even that any Gamergate supporter is criminal. We are suggesting that threatening to shoot up a school is criminal, no matter who did it, and asserting that in WP's voice is obviously ok. This is the word's very definition: "Of, involving, or having the nature of crime." Threatening to shoot up a school fits all three criteria. Best of luck trying to convince other editors otherwise. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a strawman and I feel an inappropriate twisting of my words to say I am arguing that "threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified". My argument is simply that there is a difference between opinion versus fact. You can't call something a fact, one way or another, unless its a fact. Whether something is for a fact criminal or for a fact not criminal (like not guilty ≠ innocent) is determined for a fact by conviction. Both (criminal or not criminal) are conclusions that are not supported by the facts as they have been presented. Both (criminal or not criminal) are opinions that do not belong in WP's voice as fact, and should be supported by the source that holds that opinion if it is in the article. I never said nor do I believe it was "perfectly legal or justifiable" I said it wasn't, for a WP fact criminal, it is an important distinction because I believe that some of the issue with this page is that opinions are being stated as facts and that doing so is making the page poorer in quality than it can be. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on PetertheFourth's recent edit to the Draft

Edit in Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=643769425&oldid=643701035 Peter, you removed the second part of a phrase because you said it is redundant. Specifically the phrase was "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" regardless of the actions of supporters" and now it reads "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" " which while technically correct, completely changes the meaning of the sentence. I disagree that the last line is redundant.

The line "regardless of the actions of supporters" implies that the tag's reputation as "toxic" will 'stick' so to say, whether the supporters do good or bad, and that is why people are leaving. Removing this loses the meaning as to WHY supporters are leaving, which is very important to the context of the phrase. I'm hoping you'll agree. Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I can see where confusion could arise here. Would the rephrasing "but stated it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" and not because of other factors" or "not because of the actions of supporters" work? It seems to be very sloppy grammar wise to add the 'regardless' at the end, and I believe it would be clearer to phrase it as one of the two I've suggested, as well as establishing Nathaniel is disagreeing with some of the earlier points. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe change the second line to "no matter what supporters accomplished, negative media attention had made the tag "toxic"". I think that gives the correct paraphrasing of the source and is better grammar. Ries42 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

it was not the media attention that made anything "toxic" - it was the repeated toxic actions waving the GG banner that made the tag toxic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. " Regardless of what gamers did or didn’t do, they were successfully painted as vicious thugs, and now the term “Gamergate” is toxic." According to the source, the label is toxic because gamers were "successfully painted as vicious thugs." I think "negative media attention" is a fair if mild paraphrasing of this point. Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paraphrasing. I think it's closer to what the source says, but critiscm is welcome. — Strongjam (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a comma, otherwise I think it works. Can I ask why it has an "undue" tag? Can we remove that? Ries42 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD added that a little while ago. I don't feel that strongly about it (I think the bigger problem is the undue weight to Kain's WP:NEWSBLOG articles.) I'm okay with the tag coming off as there is no active discussion about it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would you mind removing it? Ries42 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm trying to get a feel of what gamergate is all about, but barely a few paragraphs into the article and I'm starting to have some serious doubts about how certain elements of the story are being presented and how sources don't convey the text used in the article. For example take a look at this paragraph from the History section: (emphasis mine)

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.[8] This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.[2][8][9][10][11][12][13] 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.

When a bit of text is overinked inline such as this is (7 times) I would expect that each of the sources would confirm the same facet; the allegations about the Kotqku reporter were false -- because that's what the article says!. All of them except one mention the Kotaku editor's remarks denying the charges, and the lone standout (whose usability as a reliable source is questionable at best, being an editorial piece) doesn't even try to reconcile the gamer gate allegations. This is a serious abuse of the sources, using Wikipedia's voice to state to the reader that the allegations were demonstrably false, when the sources themselves did not make this claim. This is easily fixed by simply removing the word "false" and let the reader decide for themselves if they believe the Kotaku editor and the those who accepted his findings, or those who are making the allegations.

Considering the epic disruption this article has caused I'm not surprised that there might be POV editors involved, but I am surprised to see what appears to be a glaring error so early in the article. Does the rest of the article play this way, or am I just missing something?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The allegations are demonstrably false, as most of the cited refs state in various wordings, and as these additional refs (and plenty more) make clear.

The Telegraph — Users from the messageboards Reddit – a sprawling series of communities – and 4chan – largely the trolls in the internet’s basement – hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews. already cited

The Washington Post — It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there. already cited

Wired — an unfounded smear campaign involving the sex life of a female game developer

Canada.com — GamerGate faithfuls still cite Zoe Quinn and Kotaku Journalist Nathan Grayson as the motivation behind their movement, despite the allegations of collusion associated with Quinn and Grayson’s relationship being (repeatedly) proven false.

The New Yorker — Baldwin, seeking to point out an example of unethical journalism, linked on Twitter to a video claiming that a video-game writer had promoted work by the independent game-maker Zoe Quinn while the two were in a relationship. (This claim that has since been proved false.)

BBC — The posts detailed that Ms Quinn had had a relationship with a journalist at prominent games site Kotaku - 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.

PBS NewsHour — Zoe Quinn, a game developer, was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges spurred a wave of rape and death threats online.

NY Magazine — There was no Kotaku review of “Depression Quest,” the supposed “scandal” of journalistic impropriety that allegedly touched all this off. already cited

On The Media — All of the accusations of sexual favors for jobs and favorable press have been debunked. In fact, the ex-boyfriend who made this very public website that kickstarted this whole thing has gone in to clarify that these accusations are unfounded. That people insist on harping on this developers alleged infidelities simply has nothing to do with the integrity of the gaming industry or the gaming press. cited in draft

Other sources to this effect: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], etc. etc. If we need to add and update sources, we should.

There's been extensive previous discussion of this issue in the archives, here, among other places. The sources say the claims were false, because it's easily demonstrable that they were — Grayson didn't write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship, the end. I think several of the sources cited in that line are used to source the discussion of what the claims were, not to source the fact that they're false. I agree that we can and should add many of these additional sources to suppor the phrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sources you present are not cited in the text above, whereas the sources that are cited, don't support the text they are supposed to be supporting. You can't just say, well we know the sources are out there, and then slap up any source. It's sloppy and it goes against the core values of scholarship, not to mention just plain old wrong.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we should add more sources, although I note that several of those above are already cited in the text, and I've called them out as noted.

Not all of the sources already cited in the text are there to support the "false" part — they are there to support other parts of the sentence and paragraph. If you think we should add more sources specifically supporting the "false" wording, and move/remove the others to a different section of the page, I would certainly support that.

And now that I take a look at it, the draft article has already had some of the refs for that wording moved around and upgraded. We've been stuck on a protected version on this main page for quite awhile now. I think we can pull the Slate reference out of that section, as it doesn't appear to support, really, anything in that sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I just lost a bit of text in an edit conflict. I'm fine with this then. Im dead. Can you close or collapse this please?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom article

Mentions of the wikipedia edit warring have been appearing in news articles about GamerGate for a while, but usually just in passing. Although more focused articles about Jimbo's role exist [9] [10]

Today Guardian has published a piece on the Arbcom case, which i think given that events on wikipedia are very much part of the Gamergate controversy avoids MOS:SELFREF. But there are two problems. The first one is that the article is incredibly inaccurate. First of all its based only off of the original version of the Proposed decision, and doesnt note any of the changes made. It claims bans have already been put in place, this is incorrect. It claims 5 anti-GamerGate editors were proposed topic bans regarding all feminism topics, this is incorrect only 4 were, (and only 3 have had the topic ban pass). While Masem who claims to be anti-GG was proposed a topic ban later, it did not mention prohibiting edits to Also given that the article is pretty much just based off of a blog post by MarkBernstein who's accused Masem of running an evil cabal of 8channers, it seems unlikely the author was referring to Masem. So given how much of a wreck the article is and how much of it is just plain wrong, is it useable?

The second problem is: if it is usuable who's allowed to put information from it into the article? Would it mean that everyone who took part in the Arbcom case would have to keep WP:COS in mind when editing anything referring to it? Would it just be parties to the case? Bosstopher (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source saying that The Guardian is inaccurate? If The Guardian writes about it, with their history of Pulitzer prizes, reliability, and editorial oversight, than I am pretty sure we should report it exactly as Guardian says. Obviously we have to mention this is the Guardian's opinion, and cite it as such, unless you think that's WP:UNDUE. I'm not completely certain. In all seriousness though its probably just undue unless we have more articles writing about the ArbCom case in particular. I vote for passing the buck. Ries42 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We know the Guardian article is wrong because the ArbCom case is still open and all remedies have yet to be voted on completely. Trending towards the conclusions made, yes, but not there yet and some remedies can still flip on votes. Even given that, there's still not a heck of a lot appropriate to the GG topic here from these articles - a topic about the criticism of Wikipedia in general, possibly, but I yet to see any real point of substance of what WP's role has been in GG to date. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to use reliable sources that still get things wrong. If the Guardian chooses to publish something asserting the moon is made of cheese, we wouldn't include that in an article either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe everyone here missed the fact that Ries42 was being sarcastic. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the "In all seriousness" afterword would have indicated that. I was indeed being cheeky. Ries42 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. To be fair, it's been impossible to tell as of late here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the arbcom really merits inclusion in the article based on one source (which printed prematurely.) Argument might be made for including something about Jimbo based on multiple sources, but I'm not convinced. Seems like a minor detail at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The arbcom case is definitely not a minor detail. Copulative (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, no aspect of how Wikipedia has handled GG - short of Jimmy Wales' statements and even then to a small degree - has affected the GG situation, or at least what has been reported in RS. The case is important to WP, but from the topic of GG, it has little immediate relevance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with you, considering how much controversy the Wikipedia article itself has generated. Copulative (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know in GG circles there is a lot of controversy, and here, I'll just point to the archive page count, but we have nothing from reliable sources that say that WP's article has had any role in the GG controversy. If anything, the stuff about Jimmy talking about the GG's try at their own version of a GG article, that's all about criticism of Wikipedia that involves the GG issue, but not a topic of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What about this portion from the The Guardian article? "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate" Copulative (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How has the actions we have done here in the long-running debates and through ArbCom have had any direct influence on the GG controversy/movement? The only thing I think that even approaches a point of use is an explanation of how this and other GG-related articles have seen an influx of people likely siding with GG to try to change the way these articles are written, as part of the activities of the GG group -- but there's zero sources for that at all. To GG, this is a non-story, but it is a possible story in discussing WP in the media or criticism of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It has direct influence because when someone doesn't know what Gamergate is, they're going to Google it and the first thing that pops up will be a Wikipedia article called "Gamergate controversy." Copulative (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the issue the GG side has with WP, that's very clear, and that's why we've had lots of new editors trying to participate. But this is not at all documented in any reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the Arb page, the article is essentially correct; all they whiffed on was quoting Mark Bernstein saying "No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts", as there was only one; TDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2015‎

A diff of Tarc's comment for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any big problems in article accuracy, sadly. Artw (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I literally listed all the factual errors in the article, at the top of the section. There's a substantial number even excluding the Bernstein quote.Bosstopher (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who didn't take part in the ArbCom case can add info from the article without breaking Wikipedia rules. Copulative (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really sad a source as respected as The Gaurdian published something that poor. Anyway it seems undue to go into any of the specifics anyway while there is only one source. HalfHat 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• You know what, I actually think this article is very good for something. Specifically, its factual errors point out that its author may not be deserving of the amount of weight this article has given him, and it seriously brings into question his reliability. Currently the Draft has three articles written by Mr. Hern. I believe there may not be anything directly questionable about those articles in a quick review, but perhaps they are not as rock-solid reliable as previous discussions have led us to believe. Ries42 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)