Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Weaponize v. Ridicule

I reverted most of the change by @Lawrencekhoo: because 1) weaponize is what Chu uses, and 2) because weaponizing white male guilt is very different than ridiculing it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Full quote from source is "Gamergate is fully aware of the power of SWPL snark to skewer, deflect and demoralize allies joining social movements. They’ve fully weaponized it, with the #NotYourShield hashtag, whose purpose is to parade around the diversity of voices in Gamergate while accusing “anti-Gamergate” of being homogeneous privileged white guys." Using weaponized instead of ridiculing makes sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest including a partial quote since "weaponize" is a rather contentious term (completely fine in the context of a quote, however). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the article more closely and then the entry, and I'm having a problemwith including male with white guilt. I'm going to add quotes and remove male. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky, I changed that sentence because I couldn't understand what it meant – how do you 'weaponize white guilt' so as to stop people from doing what 'white guilt' would cause them to do. So, I went to read Chu's column to see what he was saying, and he's essentially saying that making fun of white guilt makes people less likely to do what white guilt would otherwise cause them to do. I think the sentence needs to be edited to explain this, otherwise it doesn't make sense. LK (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you still missed Chu's point. Chu is pointing out that "white guilt"/SWPL is fraught with problems. And those problems can be leveraged to silence allies - and the creation of silence harms less powerful/more marginalized people. The creation of the silence is the attack - leveraging the problems is the weapon. Ridicule is one of the things used as leverage. I dunno if the GGC entry is has the scope to explain all that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's probably no need to explain the whole thing, but what is here should at least make sense to the casual reader. I suggest editing it to something that makes sense. LK (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and WP:BLP concerns. Our opinion of Arthur Chu is irrelevant; the opinion of the editors of major web magazines that have published his essays is what matters.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please explain why we have Arthur Chu's opinion at all in an already bloated article. As far as I can tell from his bio, he is a game show contestant. He doesn't appear to be a social scientist or having any expertise that would lend weight to his opinion over anyone else. WP is not a indiscriminant collection of information. How is Chu notable for this topic? --DHeyward (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) What value is Chu to this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) It appears that he’s published seven substantial essays on technoculture and games in Salon: [1]. That’s a considerable body of work, comparing favorably to a number of academics in the field. Also several essays for the Daily Beast and for Huffington Post. Compares very favorably, for example, to Allum Bokhari, whom we cite, I think the problem may lie with his wikipedia bio. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Skimming through the potentially sourceable articles (salon) only four seem to comment on "technoculture" ([2] [3] [4] [5]) and all four comment on Gamergate. I think DHeyward's asking "what makes him qualified to comment on Gamergate?" The response "because he's commented on Gamergate" begs the question. There's an open thread discussing the reduction of a quote from Alex Macris, founder of The Escapist, an online games magazine. If length and abundance of quotes are issues to address (and I believe they are) I'd think Macris is significantly more relevant to a controversy involving games and games journalism. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) The articles that are not specifically technoculture are about the intersection of race and culture, which is the #notyourshield gimmick in spades. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) That's a fair point. If we keep the Chu quote I'd rearrange them - as it is we have Quinn (anti) then 4chan (pro) then Chu (anti) - I think anti, anti, pro (or the reverse) would be better. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'm still not convinced he's notable enough to cite as an authority on "white male guilt" or #notyourshield. Nothing he's done has been peer reviewed and he isn't reporting on peer reviewed stuff and self-identifies as a liberal commentator/blogger leveraging his game show fame - he's passionate but passion isn't a substitute for demonstrated competence. I think we've identified exactly one harasser by name/gender/race and he has mental health issues. It seems a little ridiculous quoting a lay persons opinion about a faceless gaggle of harassers or the diverse set of #notyourshield hashtag users are really targeting "white men" (are we really quoting someone that appears to be saying privileged white men are #NotYourShield victims?). It's a bit much to make the leap Chu did when he described the targets of #NotYourShield were "privileged white men" when our own paragraph starts off, quite correctly, saying it was directed at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Fundamentally, #NotYourShield was an extension of the Ethics vs. Misogyny discussion and the point being made was gender wasn't a shield against the criticism being put forward by the GG crowd. The reanalysis that it was really victimizing privileged white men by Chu contradicts what has been said since the beginning. I find it hard to generally add privileged white men to the list of victims of gamergate without some more sources that speak more authoritatively about it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You might not be convinced that he’s notable enough to cite as an authority, but the editor of Salon is. So are the editors at Daily Beast and Huffington Post. We’re an encyclopedia; we follow the sources. For the rest, your analysis might be interesting, and perhaps Salon will publish it! But we can’t because it’s original research. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) RSs are evaluated in context: publisher, creator and content all affect reliability, standard wiki policy. DHeyward's criticisms of creator and content are very much relevant to what we do as an encyclopedia. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) We can quote Chu's own nonsense Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it. Really? These privileged white males are the intended victims of #NotYourShield GamerGate? Does this pass the laugh test? Gamergaters "weaponized" #NotYourShield by taking on the perennially lambasted "privileged white male?" This sounds like MRA garbage - where does that viewpoint fit into the article about misogyny or even the #NotYourShield section that highlights the targets being Quinn and Sarkheesian? Should we rewrite it and claim, like Chu, that #NotYourShield was weaponized to attack privileged white males? No, this gameshow trivia celebrity is like quoting highschool-dropout-turned-Hollywood stars that testify before Congress on matters of science. This source is not significant enough to include and if we do include him, half his quotes from his articles contradict real reliable sources and spew nonsensical categories of victimhood. Giving a celebrity space to write a column doesn't make them reliable sources. Might as well use twitter. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) And no, those editors don't consider him an authority on anything (except maybe gameshows). They gave voice to a minor celebrity in the form of space for a personal opinion column, not a gamergate or feminist content expert. No one cites his opinion. Well, except here. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Ridicule is not the best tool to use when arguing for whether or not a source should be cited. Regardless of whether or not you personally think who our sources include is worthy of mockery, they're reliable sources with a history of good, accurate content. We shouldn't shy away from citing them because of this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Oh please. What history of good, accurate content does Chu have? He's a gameshow contestant that leveraged 15 minutes of fame into an opinion column that is only good for discussing what Chu thinks, not objective facts. He's not a journalist or content expert, but rather a self-described left-wing blogger. His "analysis" contradicts the section and is only added, it seems, because "weaponized" is a militaristic pull quote. Without a "privileged white men are the real victims of #NotYourshield" section, though, we are not accurately describing his position of who it was "weaponized" against. Such is the problem with taking bloggers as reliable sources. It may be his opinion that privileged white males were gamergate victims but that's hardly a reliable or widely held view. In fact, I'd venture to say that particular view is even less widely held than the "but ethics" view. It's a fringe view and there is no reason to publish Chu's fringe view at all. Where his views are mainstream, they are adequately covered by other sources. When they aren't mainstream, they veer off into fringe. Are you seriously arguing that we need the "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" narrative held only by him? Hint: the mainstream view is that NotYourShield was an attempt to isolate criticism of Quinn and Sarkheesian from criticism of women and transgender people so that GamerGate wouldn't be labeled misogynistic and/or transphobic. That's clear from all the other reliable sources. None of them makes the Chu argument that privileged white males were even targeted, let alone victims. The two most widely known anti-GG people people at the time of NotYourShield were Quinn and Sarkheesian but the quote to justify "weaponizing" that "made sense" above is that the GG crowd was portraying anti-GG as privileged white men. That's about as far from from reality as one can get. He's not a notable source and he lacks the credentials to be a reliable source for anything other than his opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Arthur Chu isn't the reliable source we're citing. Salon is (who Arthur Chu is writing for.) Salon believe that Chu is a suitable writer for the topic, and I'm willing to believe them, given their history of good, accurate content. If you believe that we cannot use Salon as a reliable source, you'd best bring it to WP:RSN. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Chu is a commentator giving an opinion. He's not an assignment journalist and he's only giving his opinion. Salon isn't endorsing his opinion, they give him space to express it. But Chu's value as a reliable source in Wikipedia is whether his opinion is notable (there are thousands of commentary in all sorts of reliable sources but we typically choose notable experts, not just a random "letter to the editor" type opinion. The fact that it's in Salon satisfies the published requirement of reliable source. Note that simply being in Salon opinion piece doesn't make a viewpoint notable or reliable otherwise we could cite all the commentary made by readers that gets hosted at these sites. Salon doesn't vouch for opinions. Even if you still think he's an RS, we are SYNTHing his "weaponized" usage in a way that contradicts his usage. we would have to add his "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" to put his view in context since that is what he is saying. I think his view is rather fringe and so we shouldn't add "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" into the section that says Quinn and Sarkheesian are victims of GamerGate. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This is Arthur Chu. Is he a reliable source about anything but Arthur Chu, other than gameshows? A resounding 'No.' Maybe a fun person to read but ultimately not an authority. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Who else do we remove on charge of 'not being an authority'? Nathaniel Givens? Erik Kain? Regardless of whether or not you like his 'opinion', he's a noteworthy, representative figure who's writing for a very reliable source. We do not remove cited articles because individual editors do not like the person who wrote them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Never heard of any of those guys or Chu ntil here so it's not about 'like.' His viewpoint that priviliged white men are the victims of NotYourShield is fringe. He's not involved in Gamergate except as an irregular commentator. His claim to having a notable opinion comes down to leveraging his gameshow appearance. --15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This section has veered into WP:BLP territory. It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not. That is the task of the editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and book publishers. It is not our place to discuss Arthur Chu. It is not our place to deride his abilities or to minimize his publications or to say his viewpoint is fringe: since it's appeared frequently in one of the Web’s largest and most respected publications, it's unlikely that the opinion expressed above (without signature) is pertinent. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopnen the above (I do think it's fine to include Chu), but to comment on Mark's reason: "It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not." That is exactly what we as a tertiary source are supposed to do, to determine what sources are the best to summarize a topic and include those, that's what WP:RS is all about figuring out. We do use how a person is reused in other sources already deemed reliable as part of our decision-making process to determine if someone is an authority, but we as WP editors can take other steps as well (And in fact this already has been done before on this past to remove Christian Hoff Sommers' opinion despite being sourced in RSes, as one example). And to that end, we might have to critically review an author's intentions and role (staying away from direct BLP issues) to figure that out. This happens all the time on WP, and is not a bad thing. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, Sommers was removed as she never actually addressed the topic of this article, speaking instead in obliques- WP:OR on our part to tie her statements to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added what Chu's point is and how it contradicts the rest of the section. His viewpoint that it was white male journalists and privileged white males that took risks flies directly in the face of misogynistic attacks that were launched at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Chu's view of race as a wedge issue or that white males were victimized by NotYourShield is unsupported by any other references. If anything, it's the exact opposite as white, male defenders of Sarkheesian, Quinn, Wu et al, didn't flee their homes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've replied below, but you mis-quoted Chu. He did not say white journalist took risks. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Strongjam. See also the new ThinkProgress article which quotes Wikipedian Sarah Stierch “It’s interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Wikipedia.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Strongjam

Regarding this revert of DHeyward.

• "In contrast to the Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde that argue the hashtag was intended to be critical of Sarkheesian and Quinn" This needs to be sourced, and it's dangerously close to WP:OR with "In contrast to".
• "game show contestant turned commentator" Seems like an attempt to discredit the writer before we quote them.
• "Chu goes on and says that it's "white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....". I can't find this in the cited source. Is there another source you meant to cite?

— Strongjam (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article. Found the risk quote, but the elided bits seem like important context to me "it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." By elliding the quote you change the meaning of it. He didn't say it is white male journalists who take the risk of speaking out. He's saying that women and people of color who, if they speak out, take the risk of being attacked. — Strongjam (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He is absolutely saying that it's white male journalists that are taking the risk - and that the hashtag was to silence white men. The entire paragraph starts with "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who...." --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

He's saying they slowly, imperfectly and infrequently act as a shield for women and minorities, "who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." You change the meaning by cutting out significant parts of the sentence. — Strongjam (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Your first issue is the first sentence of that section that explicitly say it is Quinn and Sarkheesian that were targeted by NotYourShield. The source are Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde . read the firs paragraph of that section.

• That's his own self-description of what he is. He is not an academic or expert. He's a blogger that gained fame through a game show. Those are his words.

−:* You found the quote, yet after reading the entire article about his theory that the NotYourShield hashtag was direceted at silencing white males, you have a problem attributing a pronoun? The active part of the sentence is it it's white male journalists doing the acting. Basic reading comprehension is that they are also the ones taking the risk by speaking out. The rest of the article is about how bad it is to silence "white males." What meaning did you think changed? --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Then cite them in-line and then find a source that says Chu is in contrast to them.
• Where is it his own self-description, and why is it important to describe him that way?
• I have a problem with the cutting the quote up so much to change the meaning. It's putting words in his mouth he did not say. Which we've already established in an earlier case is a BLP issue.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see this edit by DHeyward (which was thankfully reverted) as anything but WP:POINT making behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the same article So what’s a really, really effective way to strangle any movement for change in the crib? The two-pronged approach of mocking privileged people for their pious hypocrisy in joining it and then letting marginalized people, once they have to stand alone, sink under the weight of being marginalized. This is the setting he is using for "white male journalists" being attacked. It's the whole point of his column and the fact that you need to change it's point to fit reality is the reason it should be gone as fringe view. He's claiming that the privileged white males are being mocked and attacked and that's his view of white male journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way about the article, but that doesn't change my mind about your edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: the point of the article is not that white male journalists take a risk by speaking out, it's that women and people of color take a great risk by speaking out and that #NotYourShield was a cynical (though unsuccessful) ploy to silence their allies. “And in the aggregate it makes it easier for women to get disproportionate harassment without resistance, and forces women to bear more of the burden of speaking out. And silencing women in the industry gets that much easier.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And that's pretty much mainstream view not fringe. See also, "White Knight" and "SJW", phrases used to try and mock "privileged people for their pious hypocrisy". — Strongjam (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The importance of speaking up in support for people who are unjustly attacked is proverbial and widely shared outside the caves of GamerGate; it's hardly fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

However, we cannot do that on Wikipedia. Personally as individual editors that the attacks they've gotten are an afront to moral code, but Wikipedia is amoral and neutral, neither sympathetic for victims or condemining those that harassed. It is not our place to speak up in support in WP's voice, though we certainly can use the press's responses that in their words speak to their defense. We're trying to be objective here. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a fringe view that Chu holds. Nothing more. — Strongjam (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph starts with To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism. How are you reconciling that sourced statement with Chu's view that NotYourShield was really about silencing white men? Why are there no other sources saying NotYourShield was designed to silence privileged white men? --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A) They're not mutually exclusive. B) The Telegraph talks about this exact thing. — Strongjam (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources (including Chu) agree that #NotYourShield was intended to deter allies of Gamergate victims from speaking out. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph doesn't mention white men (except as gamers) and certainly doesn't say the #NotYourShield is silencing white me (or anyone) - Quinn, in the article, takes the position that it silences minorities, but that's not Chu's view as he specifically laments privileged people being silenced. Again, what other sources besides Chu think that the #NotYourShield campaign was created to silence privileged white males? No source that I've seen says anything other than #NotYourShield was created as a counter to the "misogynist" label. That's in every source except Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Chu assumes that his readers understand the premise that racism and sexism are deeply related -- that the misogyny of Gamergate reflects a hostility to the Other, one altogether too familiar in matters of race as well as gender. This has been widely understood since the 1970s. To silence one minority is to silence other minorities; to try to drive one group -- women -- out of the computer industry is to target other minorities as well. “First they came for the socialists...“ MarkBernstein (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That may be a good argument. It's not Chu's, though. His argument is that #NotYourShield drives away privileged white male voices because #NotYourShield is used by women and minorities. Privileged white males are reluctant to speak out against women and minorities even to support other women and minorities. That's the whole point of his essay if you read it and is why he says privileged white males are necessary allies. That's a different view than the other sources. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chu puts no more veracity to the fallicy that #notyoursocks are actually women and people of color than anyone else. He is stating that it was a ploy to prevent people from standing up for the women targeted by Gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who #NotYourShield is, Chu only speaks about its effect on white male voices and how it silenced them. --DHeyward (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you point is here - 1) white male voices that are trying to support women and minorities being attacked by GG with weaponized white guilt ala #notyourshield? or 2) white guilt in general? If 1), you're not being very clear, if 2), outside the scope of this article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Redirect notice by Bosstopher

The name of Zoe Quinn's twitter account is TheQuinnspiracy. The name of her website is Quinnspiracy.com and it's titled The Quinnspiracy. She very much uses the name Quinnspiracy as a label for herself. Is it specifically the phrase 'moniker' people object to, because if so please provide a reword instead of autoreverting. If its because you thought it was meant as a smear against Quinn, (like those 'who' tags that got strewn around the article a while back) you really should have spent some more time wondering why none of the millions of people watching this page for BLPvios, reverted it 5 days ago when it was originally added.Bosstopher (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I have to admit I wasn't aware of the self-use. Still, the question is: given the fact that "Quinnspiracy" couldn't possibly be mistaken to be her actual name, and the fact that her website and Twitter account aren't in themselves notable subjects, and as such not something that readers would be likely to expect standalone articles for, why would any reader type "Quinnspiracy" into the search box and expect to be led to a bio article on Quinn rather than here? The only purpose of a disambig hatnote would be to deal with precisely this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

While it likely wouldn't be confused as her real name, people could type it into the search bar looking for her, the same way they'd type TotalHalibut to look for John Bain, or PewDiePie to look at the article for Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, or even Cliffy B] for Cliff Bleszinski. Therefore I can imagine that someone wanting to learn more about Quinn after reading her website or twitter feed could very likely search for quinnspiracy instead of Zoe Quinn Bosstopher (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because her handle on Twitter is not notable doesn't mean that people won't search by it. And redirects and hatnotes are cheap. It is better to cover all bases (particularly here when we explain how she came to use the term herself to turn it back against the people that created it to harass her). --MASEM (t) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the notion that "hatnotes are cheap". Redirects certainly are; hatnotes are not. Hatnotes take up a disproportionate amount of the most valuable space on screen, easily distract readers and can draw their attention away both from the actual topic and from other hatnotes that may be a lot more relevant. Hatnotes should only be used where they are absolutely essential. Furthermore, I don't see how we "explain how she came to use the term herself to turn it back against the people that created it" in this article – there seems to be only a single reference to the term in the whole article. Finally, I still don't see how the fact that she uses the term is tantamount to her "going by the moniker". Using something as the title of one's website is not the same as using it as a name for oneself; as long as she isn't doing the latter, there is no "disambiguation" issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Article to help establish that behavior of GG is not new

NYtimes article on documentary "GTFO". Probably can be used over at Sexism in video gaming too, but important that this shows that GG was not new behavior but symptomic of the current environment. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That gamergate is a manifestation of the longstanding misogyny in the gaming community has been noted by many of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the section on sexism/misogyny could be better improved to start with the history (which not only this source but others) note, going back at least as far as 2012 with documentable examples, and then noting how in the present, there was an opportunity to address that but the waves of harassment deflected the issue from the forefront. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to summarize this quote "While online harassment in the video game industry has made headlines of late — most notably, with the so-called GamerGate controversy, in which anonymous players threatened to rape and murder the game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others — “GTFO” (an acronym for an obscene dismissal) makes the case that these are not isolated incidents, yelled or texted today and gone tomorrow. “I do worry that the general public will focus too much on GamerGate and say, ‘Look at this crazy thing that happened,’ ” the film’s director, Shannon Sun-Higginson, said. “It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem.”"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the way I was envisioning it was better organizing the Sexism/Misogyny section to start with acknowledging that this existed before GG. As TRDoD points out, this is not the only source that says that, but a bit of reorg of that section, would help. It's not necessary the one statement to use from that. (Key here is that this is a NYTimes article so considered a very high quality source). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose reorganizing the section around this (since, after all, the article is about GamerGate, not all of history), but I do feel that many sources agree that GamerGate is just the latest manifestation of a long-simmering opposition to women in gaming and a deep thread of anti-feminism among some parts of the community, and that that broad background of misogyny is a big part of what a lot of sources focus on in describing where GamerGate came from -- in other words, I think most coverage along this line says that it's not like the misogyny and anti-feminism and so on came out of nowhere; #GamerGate happened because there were already a lot of people eager to harass women, attack feminists, and generally form an angry-mob-slash-political-movement opposing progressivism and what they saw as changes to the nature of gaming. There were already lots of embittered culture warriors on 4chan and the like eager to howl SJW and let loose the dogs of war, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with Aquillion comment here. Though I'd be interested what you think needs reorg'ng Masem. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I do want to make clear that I don't think reorganizing around this specific article is what is needed or appropriate, but there is a better way to organize that section that should focus first and foremost that there have been past issues (which this is one of several articles that highlight that) and GG being a visible manifestation of that, and then moving on to GG specifics. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This entry already says "Sexism and misogyny had been identified as problems in the video game industry and community prior to the events of Gamergate." and links to Sexism in video gaming. Not enough? What do you propose as the reorg? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a start. This is the first RS that actually makes the link, except it's focused on women as opposed to the general point that death threats and such are typical. Masem is right that we need to review and rewrite, not that this is some sort of "symptom of misogyny." Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On that Think Progress link in the "in the media" box

It should be pointed out, per [6] under "Think Progess", it is apparently not an OUTING, as the named names volunteered their information to TP to the article (at least, according to Mark). --MASEM (t) 07:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the OUTING policy says. They must identify On Wiki. In general, we have no idea whether the person claiming to be a Wikipedia editor is, in fact, that editor. Editors can identify themselves and their other accounts on their user pages if they so choose, but absent that, we have nothing that says they are related. TP is a blog and unsuitable. If we can't say what's in the article, we shouldn't link to it. Feel free to post the identifying information here if you are certain it is okay. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, OUTING only affects when a person's name/info is directly posted to WP - not via an external link. And nothing being added to WP wrapping around the article includes the information that would be restricted under OUTING. Even if this is the case of John Q Smith pretended falsely to be the WP editor in question, that doesn't affect WP policy in any way. (The only time it would be is if there was BLP directed at the WP editor due to this). --MASEM (t) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We apply the same standard as BLP (even BLPTALK allows links, but we delete them when the value to the article is not clear). What value is a link to a blog that personally identifies editors? Nothing article worthy and potential harm. If all the editors in the article posted thir information on Wiki, that would be obvious keep, but they haven't done and I presume it's because they don't want their account and Real life identity mixed in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be wise for DHeyward to take a step back and consider why it is he believes the Think Progress link is not feasible for inclusion in a list of media reports on this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe that? --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of its inclusion in the list- which is fine, but the correct approach in this case is to stop and think rather than act. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care why it was on the list. If it was a news outlet that could potentially be used as a source, that requires slightly more thought. But it's a blog and not suitable for the article. It OUTs editors that have not indicated they wish to be outed. Therefore it's value to the project is actually negative: it provides no article worthy content and potentially subjects an editor to more harm. Only reading the first few paragraphs points out a glaring falsehood as well. The smell test is what I said above: if you are sure that it's not an OUTing violation, quote the articles identifications. I doubt anyone would be comfortable doing unless the editors themselves did it. Why would we keep such a link? --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a multi-author blog which might not meet WP:RS. ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards ... It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation. And there has been a discussion on Wikipedia regarding this...

• See this entire RFC at WP:RS/N in 2013 whether ThinkProgress was reliable. There was no official closing, but by my count, about 12 editors said it reliable, and about 15 said either (no/use sparingly/use for opinions attributed as opinions). There is definitely no consensus that ThinkProgress fully meets WP:RS. We've got so many media organizations mentioning this article already, we don't need a borderline RS like ThinkProgress. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is absolutely the issue. Whether it's a violation of outing policy is irrelevant to the broader point that ThinkProgress is not a reliable source at all. Supporters at the RS/N discussion above relied heavily on a "NewsTrust" rating, which is a crowdsourced independent thing that would have no bearing on the source's reliability, which does not seem to actually exist given its terrible record on the facts. Not convinced it's a BLP violation, but it's definitely not a useful sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Extensive masthead: check. Editorial process: check. Commitment to fact checking: check. Sounds reliable to me. Interesting how the opinion of some editors on this topic shifts when the forum is right wing , MarkBernstein (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the editor directly? I believe that editor has been active. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have contacted the editor in question and they are aware of the article and it being linked to from WP, and have no apparent issue with it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Does that settle putting the link back in the "in the media"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I only have a small reservation in that the article is more about the ArbCom case and the overall situation of all articles under the GG banner than this specific page, but that's nitpicky (it would probably be better over at Criticism of Wikipedia ) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Just a Blog break

As it's just a blog, I'd hope we wouldn't. Why open that door? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As MarkBernstein notes, it's not just a blog. quote: "Extensive masthead: check. Editorial process: check. Commitment to fact checking: check." That is has a blog that it is noted for is not disqualifying for the things it fact checks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no commitment to fact-checking I'm aware of, actually, as I noted in that RFC back when it occurred. The RFC above, if we're being generous, would not say there's a consensus for that sort of inclusion. Breitbart would be a better source than ThinkProgress, and Breitbart is understandably terrible. If we're trying to be careful and aware of the sourcing and keeping things high-quality here, we should be leaving this out of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you back that claim up? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of anything that has changed since the information I left in the RfC/RSN discussion that is linked above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Think Progress and Epistemic Closure

From the About Page [7], which is the first place one would look for editorial policy:

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

ThinkProgress is editorially independent. All editorial decisions are made by the editors of ThinkProgress. Editorial decisions are not influenced by those who financially support the site, either through advertising or contributions to our parent organization.

...

ThinkProgress is committed to accuracy. We check our facts and seek multiple sources. Any errors will be promptly and transparently corrected.

It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read. The Twitter stream for "Gamergate Wikipedia" is filled with references, it’s got 1700 Facebook shares, it’s generated secondary coverage in Slate [8].

If we were interested in the stated purpose of that box -- if the boxes at the top of this article were not dishonest -- then there is no question that (a) "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" applies here, and (b) this is background that any editor new to the topic ought to know. But of course, not all new editors are new in the same way! Still, including this reference will not harm the next batch of sock puppets, because they lived through the events described therein. It won’t hurt the next brigade of throwaway accounts from 8chan and KiA, because they're already coached and instructed. It might help anyone else, though, who arrives here. I can't see the downside. It’s certainly more useful than that isolated German article which is featured because it’s thought to be sympathetic to Gamergate, while we ignore Der Standard and Neues Deutschland and de Volkskrant and Le Monde [9] and Social Text.

There's also a simple matter of public relations. The list above is already woefully scanty and obviously slanted. It’s much smaller, for example, than my little scrapbook of major media discussions of [Infamous] at [10]. It could be really embarrassing, couldn't it, if this were pointed out in public. Let’s do this right because it’s right, not because we’re shamed into it. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)