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.

Neutrality?

Enough. This is not a forum to air grievances, and years of discussion have led to the conclusion that Gamergate was a harassment campaign. WP:NPOV is clear. If you wish to submit specific additions or changes to the article, start a new section with your proposed change & sources to back it up. Per WP:FORUM I'm closing this. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Like all deeply polarizing issues, Gamer Gate has given rise to widely different narratives. The article as it is gives undue weight to one of these narratives (the "it is a case of Online Harassment" angle) and barely touches upon the other points of view, relegating them to an "Ethics in journalism complaints" section where they are hardly given a fair hearing. The article needs to be re-written entirely in a manner which clearly emphasizes the difference in narratives and gives them equal weight. The reputation of Wikipedia as a politically neutral organization dedicated to knowledge is at stake. For the moment there is just no consensus on what exactly happened during Gamer Gate and it will probably take many decades before a consensus may be reached. In other words, it will be the job of future historians reviewing the early XXIst century culture wars. In the meantime, the only honest thing to do is to acknowledge the lack of consensus and give the different narratives equal weight. Fi11222 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC) There are different narratives, but neutrality isn't formed by giving equal weight to each side. That creates a different imbalance, where minority perspectives are given undue weight - the cliched example is that it isn't neutral to give as much emphasis to flat earthers as we do to the (vast) majority who know that the Earth is round(ish). Similarly, while those within GamerGate have a particular perspective on what it is about, those outside formed a very different view, and that became the majority viewpoint. Thus in the article we need to emphasise the majority view as expressed in reliable sources, and cover the alternative only to the extent that it is represented in similarly reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Just wanted to make a clarifying addition to what Bilby wrote - the "majority view" means the majority view in reliable sources. CIreland (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I dispute the fact that this is a majority view. How do you measure majority in such a case? Besides, the idea that there are any "reliable" sources in this situation is not reasonable. All sources, including major press outlets have a vested interest in this kind of controversy, in particular because the honesty of journalists has been called into question during the controversy itself. Academics for their part, at least those who have taken an interest in this dispute, act no better than activists and cannot therefore be considered to be neutral (see e.g. the paper by Megan Condis referenced just above this section). As a result, this is one of the rare cases in which there are just no sources which can be considered reliable or impartial. We are in the heat of a dispute, the outcome of which is just not decided yet. Acting as if one side of the argument has prevailed and represents the "majority" is just a partisan position and unworthy of Wikipedia. As you have probably noticed, there is a culture war going on, the intensity of which has risen significantly over the past years. Any article that assumes that any of the issues pertaining to the culture war has been resolved conclusively is just dragging Wikipedia into the fray and making it a party to the said culture War. That is NOT what Wikipedia aims to be. Fi11222 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC) We go by the sources - thus the majority view is that expressed in the majority of the reliable sources. You can argue that all of the media and the academics are opposed to GamerGate, and are therefore biased, but ultimately they are all we have to go on. Wikipedia can only reflect what others say. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Before you do that, you have to demonstrate that the sources that you use are reliable in that particular instance. Sources can be reliable for a great variety of things but not for certain topics; in particular those in which they have a vested interest. That is why judges recuse themselves from cases which they have a relation to. There is a passage in WP:reliable sources which says that if no reliable sources can be found for a certain topic then Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. I believe that, in the case of Gamer Gate, this is pretty much the situation. So there are only two choices: 1) You consider Gamer Gate as an undecided cultural/social controversy and you treat all sources as partisan, reporting all the different narrative on an equal footing 2) You delete the article. Otherwise, you are just turning Wikipedia into a thinly veiled soap box for some activist propaganda or other. This does a lot of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. I think there is a serious case to be made for recommending this article for deletion. Fi11222 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Or choice 3, we take note that very similar arguments to yours are well-represented throughout the archives of this talk page and have failed to gain consensus support, watch the same thing happen this time around, and make no major changes to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC) The situation here is completely biased. The article is protected in such a way that very few people are able to express their opinion. Unprotect it and see what happens. The very fact that this article needs to be "protected" is a clear sign that no consensus exists. Fi11222 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Bit late to the party aren't you? It's protected because of disruptive editing. Not by those adding fair or balanced comment, or requesting even better sourcing or citations, but by people complaining about not letting Thunderfoot videos be allowed as sources or twitter feeds of quote mined content, selectively edited videos, or flame wars on reddit being considered reliable citations for extreme claims. I personally have no issue with discussing Gamergates supposed claims to ethics etc as part of a movement, but under no circumstances can the sequence of events not stress that the significant majority of the efforts on their parts was the harassment of Quinn, and prolonging harassment of Sarkeesian. If there are any reliable sources you can identify, anywhere, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @Fi11222: You're right - reliable sources operate within their own set of biases, and no source is truly unbiased. And when only one side of the argument dominates the reporting by respectable journalistic outfits and by academia, Wikipedia's articles are going to reflect that bias. Check out Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's a problem, but the alternative of deleting even more of the coverage of huge swaths of the world, which would only exacerbate the bias. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC) When systemic bias is being recognized, as you seem to be doing, isn't it a better idea to simply rewrite the article in a neutral manner and just list the different narratives? Fi11222 (talk) The article needs to be re-written entirely in a manner which clearly emphasizes the difference in narratives and gives them equal weight is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE, as is your suggestion that we should consider all of academia (!) unreliable and treat all culture-war disputes as being between equally-supported sides. There is, in fact, a general consensus on what happened among high-quality reliable sources; there are facts that are reasonably well-established, and analysis that comes from people with extensive expertise and reputation in the field. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC) The way the article is written at the moment is an abuse of WP:FALSEBALANCE. If it is called "false" balance it is because there are times when real balance is actually needed. In the current culture war (especially post 2016), it is clear the all of Academia and most of the press have become partisan entities in the said war. They are on one side of it and as such loose their credentials as "high quality" or "reputable" sources. If Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge this state of fact, it simply means that it too has become a partisan entity and risks becoming a casualty in the culture war. That would be regrettable. Fi11222 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC) The fact that the excitement has died down is a good reason to re-open this subject in a more balanced and calmer manner. Gamer Gate is in the process of becoming history and the best history is done when passions no longer get in the way. I disagree that the most important facts were the "harrassment" events. And most Gamer Gate insiders disagree too. They would say that the essential story was a dissatisfaction with gaming industry journalism and that the harassment of Quinn and others was caused by a small minority of disgruntled gamers which were unconnected with the main group of people who were questioning the way gaming journalism worked and the relation it had with game studios. I do not know who is right. But if you claim that "in no circumstance" you are prepared to accept that the harassment aspect was not as essential as it is portrayed in the current article, you are just displaying bias. How can you demonstrate that "the significant majority of the efforts on their part" was the harassment? How do you measure that? Of course, the press latched on to that aspect because it is sensational. A headline like "Two poor female game-developpers harassed online" will obviously get more clicks than "A group of nobody gamers have an obscure fight with game journalists". And then who would not expect a whole truckload of so called "academics" to jump on such a band-wagon? But what does that prove? There is absolutely no reason to believe that coverage by such "sources" would be unbiased. So what really happened? Was the harassment central to Gamer Gate or was it a certainly reprehensible but peripheral aspect of it? I do not know. To be fair, nobody knows and there are widely differing accounts. Many of those seem to be in good faith. The current article is giving a bad name to Wikipedia. It gives credence to claims that it has become a partisan propaganda outlet. This is a serious problem. Like every Wikipedia user, I have repeatedly been asked to donate. My first impulse was always to do it. But because of article like this, I never did. Fi11222 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC) It's cool that you and Alfalfa and the rest of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club claim it was about journalism, but it's fairly clear that this was complete bullshit. No one - literally no one - believes the "ethics in game journalism" line, so you can stop with that. Garmergate was about harassment - that's what nearly every source says. Until and unless you can find other sources, this is it. Sorry you were suckered. --Jorm (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC) The above is not a partisan statement? Just by itself this gem justifies that the article be rewritten enirely. Fi11222 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I am absolutely, 100%, entirely partisan and biased towards facts and reliable sources and absolutely against assholes and harrassement and misogyny. You got me!--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "Asshole" is an insult. Saying that you are "against harrassment and misogyny" is a partisan statemnt in this context because it paints the Gamer Gate people as being for "harrassment and misoginy" which they obviously deny. I am against harassment and misogyny too but it is not the point. One narrative about Gamer Gate absolutely wants to make it about "harassment and misogyny" while others claim it was about something else entirely. Why would one side be automatically right? Fi11222 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I noticed that my previous post was removed and I reinstated it. How rude is this? This is a talk section. Why should I not be allowed to reply to the previous post? Are you trying to prove that Wikipedia has indeed become a totalitarian propaganda outlet where dissent is censored? You are doing a convincing job of it with this kind of thing. Fi11222 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Unlike other web sites you might be used to, Wikipedia's talk pages are not unrestricted discussion forums. Talk page posts that veer away from improving the article and into soapboxing about the issue in general may be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC) My post contains only material that is about the article and it discusses what to do with it. If you disagree with it, fine. If you suppress it, you are just confirming that all is not right here. Fi11222 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Talk pages should be used for proposing actionable changes to the article - ie posting a potential reliable source, and posting wording supported by that reliable source. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I have seen many instances in which talk pages were used to propose entire rewrites of pages or even their deletion. This is certainly not an unheard of proposition. Fi11222 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)  Administrator note @Fi11222: your participation on this article talk page has become increasingly tendentious. There is a limit to the circularity that is going to be permitted here. El_C 18:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC) A reply to the Admin threat that was just added to this talk section: Look at what just happened here. I am a single individual expressing a dissenting opinion. I did not bring a posse of like minded friends to support me. I am just expressing my personal opinion in good faith. This is what the talk pages are for, aren't they? Now what did happen in response to my initial post? A group of people, obviously coordinated, came in a short span of time to oppose my point of view and create the impression that their is a consensus in their favor. Several of them were rude and one of them summarily cancelled one of my posts. These are intimidation tactics. Not people discussing in good faith. A debate cannot be settled in such a short span of time. People who summon their friends to support them are simply trying to stifle debate. There is no honest attempt at exchanging views here. Just a will to silence dissent. This is the definition of tendentious. Fi11222 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC) One more threat has been sent to my personal page. What kind of behavior is this? It really smells of totalitarian impulses Fi11222 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Oh, I just realized that this latest threat was sent to me by the author of the most tendentious, disrespectful and obviously partisan post above: "It's cool that you and Alfalfa and the rest of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club claim ..." Shameful disrespect and obvious bias all rolled into one disgusting phrase. Is that what Wikipedia has become? Fi11222 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC) I just received one more threat on my personal page. This time, I am being asked to "assume good faith". And what about my good faith? Why am I accused of "disruptive" editing and of being "tendentious"? All my posts above have been in good faith and in a measured tone. I never dismissed anyone nor used rude language. I have replied to the arguments offered with reasonable arguments of my own. I do hold a dissenting opinion on this article. Is that "disruptive" or "tendentious" in itself? Fi11222 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely as nothere. In a deleted post he stated that this was an experiment, that we were in a Cold War, and what looks very much like a death threat. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Way to prove everyone here right. "We're not about harassment but I will fucking kill you if you don't do what I say."--Jorm (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More nuanced than that. It's been rv/deleted but it was more or less if I see any of you in person someone will due. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw it. It was specific enough that I wonder if law enforcement shouldn't be involved. Some of us are pretty open about ourselves.--Jorm (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I messaged Wikipedia's Emergency contact team yesterday, as soon as I saw that. I think we can let them handle it from there, as they have more information than we do about the user's location & potential other accounts. Right now, WP:DENY is more relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

investigations records released

Just adding a new section since the above section seems to have a hostile tone in it, but the article has been updated to include the records of the investigation have been released, which may or may not affect the tone in which this article should be written, or if it should be rewritten to be more neutral or include the evidence found within the investigation reports that were just released today. Also might need to add that tag to the page that it involves something current since the investigation records were just released and will likely be researched over the weekend with many people checking in to this page to see if it is neutral and/or factual on the law enforcement section. shadzar-talk 05:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality???

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.

---

Around 2014, I was a close follower of the GG movement, and I remember being incredibly disappointed with the way it was covered in the mainstream media, and that includes Wikipedia. I haven't thought about it much since, but I was recently linked to this article, only to be horrified to find that it is just as biased as ever. The first sentence alone is problematic:

"The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate."

Harassment campaign? Really? I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to use inflammatory language like this. While it is true that many opposing Gamergate would refer to it as a "harassment campaign," absolutely no one within the movement itself, or even someone from the outside as a supporter/follower, would use this terminology, and it definitely should NOT be used in an encyclopedic article, because it smacks of bias. It's the same reason the article on Donald Trump doesn't begin "Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, neo-Nazi who lied and cheated his way into the office of President of the United States." Because while there are certainly a minority of people who feel that way, these words do not represent the facts. He would not describe himself that way. His base/supporters would not describe him that way. The same principle should apply here. Use language that is not incendiary and that everyone can agree on. If I could rewrite this article's opening sentence, I'd probably put it something like this.

"The Gamergate controversy was an online backlash to a perceived lack of ethics in video game journalism. While proponents of the movement argue that it arose solely out of moral concern, opponents have referred to it as a harassment campaign."

Bingo. So the opening sentence is two sentences now, but at least it presents both sides of the argument, and does not present either side as though it is the objective, unvarnished truth. Anyone who reads the above should be able to agree with it, because it merely presents the facts: how people on one side have described the movement, and how people on the other side have. It's not nearly as horribly one-sided as the current opening sentence.

I could go through this entire article and point out all the ways in which it is disgustingly biased, but I really don't have the time or patience to do so. I just hope that at least one administrator (because as it stands, they are the only ones who can edit this article) will read this and heed my advice, because I think a massive rewrite of this article as a whole is needed. I have always upheld WP:NPOV as a pillar of Wikipedia, and a large part of what makes it so great, and it does seem like this policy is applied most of the time. It's just a disappointment that for a small minority of articles, especially those concerning controversial topics, such as this one, the discussion seems to have been dominated entirely by one side, and the page itself fully protected so that the other side has little platform to voice their grievances. I want to see this article improved. Come on, Wikipedia. I know you're better than this.

Alex Devens (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is that you were a supporter of said harassment campaign and are sad that we're calling it what it was. Unfortunately for you, the cited reliable sources here are controlling, and your personal opinion that all of those sources are wrong is utterly irrelevant. If you have reliable sources about Gamergate that aren't covered here, you're welcome to present them. Otherwise, there really isn't anything to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2019 (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.