Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Is calling vandalism of her Wikipedia page "harassment" POV?

A lot of people have their Wikipedia page vandalized. What makes her case so notable? Why are those who disagree with and satirize her called 'harassers' and spoken of as if they were a monolithic entity? Where are the opposing views? --Euniana/Talk 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Her case is only really notable as part of the broader campaign of harassment so we only make a brief mention of the vandalism. As far as opposing views, reliable sources are, unfortunately, not generally critical of her so we don't have much basis for adding legitimate disagreements with her work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Her case is notable by Wikipedia's standards as it has been covered by various reliable sources independent of the topic. We follow what the coverage says; the reliable sources call the harassment "harassment" so we do too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Feminist websites (Feminist Frequency, Salon.com, slate.com, etc etc) are hardly unbiased. You can't use a site that openly champions a cause as a reliable source for critics of the cause, much less the outright namecalling that somehow proves anyone who disagrees with her is a muh soggy knees-tastic rapist bigot. Do we cite Syrian state TV when writing the page for Bashar al-Assad? 96.54.76.154 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We use sources that are known for their editorial processes at fact-checking. If there were sources like those describing noticing other types of comments about her work, we would include them as well, to provide a neutral point of view by reporting all major opposing views. In this case, all reliable media are describing the attacks on her as harassment, and few are reporting about criticism of her work or anything else; so we write the article with what we have. Diego (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If citing the very cite where she is employed, in an article she probably had input on, is not conflict of interest, I don't know what is. To use the word "harassment" in such a vague, open way is a very direct insult to anyone who criticizes her work and requires far better citing than a few tabloids with NPOV conflicts. Opponents is a mild word that would fit nicely, as would critics or a few other words that you could find in a thesaurus. Or, if it's more warranted, try to separate criticism and the actual harassment. 96.54.76.154 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This post just shows that you don't, won't or can't correctly interpret what you're reading. The article contains a dozen or so reliable, independent sources, including the New York Times, Slate, and the Toronto Star - no "tabloids", and no "NPOV conflicts", whatever that means. They describe the situation as "harassment", sometimes in the title of the piece, and we follow what our sources say. End of story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that, after looking back at her earliest page history, she was hardly notable enough to even have had a maintained Wikipedia page to be vandalized in the first place. Obviously, now, she is. But, in truth, she never should have had a page on here to be vandalized. It would be similar to me having my own page based on the fact I am vaguely known in various gaming circles for reviews and articles I have written over the past 10+ years for various small press sites, but I am hardly notable enough to warrant my own Wikipedia page. She was known only in a few select feminist circles and, from the looks of some edits that were removed, a few potential MRA circles as well. That's it. Until the whole Kickstarter controversy started, no one else knew about her in the slightest. So, the real question should be, why was someone without enough notability allowed to have a page on Wikipedia to be vandalized in the first place? UncleThursday (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To use a Java analogy, Wikipedia has a garbage collection routine in terms of notability issues (as well as other things). Any non-notable articles are routinely tagged and/or deleted. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not really the "real question" is it? That diatribe reads a lot like blaming Sarkeesian for someone creating a wiki article about her which was subsequently vandalised....the fact that she was harassed across a number of arenas somehow compacted down to an unnecessary bout of navel gazing. Articles are created often on wikipedia, and only when flagged are they taken down. This is a founding principle of Wikipedia open contribution system. Koncorde (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody add the following to her page:

Criticism

Because of the online harassment it is difficult to separate out the relevant and truthful criticism from the abusive insults relating to Anita Sarkeesian's video series 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'. Her video series provoked a huge outrage from various denizens of forums and Youtube, so online 'private detectives' shortly remarked upon what seems like quote mining parts of video games and lack of contextual knowledge, speculating that Wikipedia might have been a primary source of her research and that she hadn't actually played any of the games due to turned-off wireless controllers in her Kickstarter promotion video. In the same video and in a TV interiew she proclaimed that there was a huge research project ahead covering hundreds of games and that she is an avid video game player despite her earlier claims to the contrary in a video lecture some 3 years ago.

Further criticism was directed at Sarkeesian's sampling, saying that in order to say something useful she should make arguments regarding prevalence of a trope too, for which she should have used, for example, an annual chart of top 100 selling games instead of just picking out games that specifically showcase the trope itself.

Sarkeesian was also criticised for lack of courtesy, putting her video material together from Let's Play videos contributed by other Youtubers playing the game without giving due credit, a practice that is protected under fair use but nevertheless frowned upon. This has led to questions about what she has done with the $158,922 given to her to use on her Kickstarter project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

That's too detailed, and the links you provide are not reliable sources. Though it may be interesting to document how the general public reacted to the videos; so far the article only mentions in passing the reactions to the delay. We can check how the sources already included in the article are describing the reactions of fans and opposers, and add some of that. Diego (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian Does Not Play Video Games

At the 12:20 mark in This video: http://vimeo.com/13216819 Anita claims, contrary to her public statements, that she does not play video games nor does she have an interest in doing so. I think this new information needs to be included in this article. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what she said. Please stop misrepresenting sources as it wastes everyone's time. "I am not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that she has stated in her TEDxWomen talk, and others, that she has been a lifelong fan and player of video games. It is notable enough to see that she either a. hasn't been what she has been claiming since the controversy began or b. like any good marketer, says what she says to give herself validity when talking to a specific audience. So, using the marketing strategy, when talking to a women's study class in a college, most of whom probably don't game or care about video games in the least, she isn't a gamer because she knows the people she is talking to aren't gamers. When she purports herself as an expert on gaming and gaming culture, she is a lifelong gamer. Obviously, since the controversy, she will always use the lifelong gamer line, because it gives her validity to discuss what she discusses in her videos as well as gives her validity in deflecting criticism (valid and invalid criticism alike). Of course, blatant dishonesty and good marketing are often one and the same.UncleThursday (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a video of what she said when she was promoting her Kickstarter and whatnot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I like video games. I play video games. I'm not a fan of nor do I play first-person shooters. Not a contradiction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Whole transcript as I with my limited english skills picked it up from 12:45->:

Show me where she says I'm not a fan nor do I play first person shooters?

NeilN are you on a payroll from Sarkeesian for lying in such a trivial matter?

"It's a soundtrack of one song, except I'm doing video games -(using footage from games, not necessarily self-made)-. So that's not a fandom

• *The following sentence*

I'm not actually a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this.

It is very rare to take two very misogynist and sexist things and make them a positive. It's very few instances that will happen and I feel like this is one of those instances where I could successfully do that.

*Too many private detectives on the dance floor plays*

I didn't actually know Flight of the Conchords until I saw the actual video and so I was really excited and thought this is really cool and then I saw the video with them being serious and I was like wow that's really offensive. To me the song is positive just because I've only contextualized it in a way to critique male domination in our media and also video games.

• *The following sentence*

Like I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping of their heads. It is just gross hence this is my react.. response to that.

I really struggled with this because one of the issues I found in the video games is that when there are women present they are overly sexualized and they act just the men, right. Like Tomb Raider's a great example of that where they are very busty and they're just shooting up and being just as violent.

There's no other way of conflict resolution in most of these games. With vidding you're very sort of... I don't want to use the word limited, but you are sort of limited to the lyrics of the song, right. And you.. and you can.. you are transforming the song and you're changing the meaning of it but at the same time I was restricted to what.. the lyrics that I had here."

Nosepea68 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment campaign"? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was organised campaign behind the harassment.

The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals. And the talk about misogyny (Slate) is not backed up anything but the target of the harassment is a female. She was not harassed for misogynist reasons but because she was outright lying in the very first sentence she said in her Kickstarter Project promo video.

"Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again, no evidence that somebody even has had enough information to try to hack her said accounts. There's even less evidence that the editor she talked to had the required expertise to evaluate the evidence if Sarkeesian was to present any.

"and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so to an editor, hardly reliable.

"The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman.[19] Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers.[20] She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening."

There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all her confirmation biased subjective view! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. There is no evidence that the editors or Sarkeesian belong to any online gaming community nor has Sarkeesian provided any evidence that she have researched it say for example interviewing females that plays games.

To me it seems that when Anita plays the victim card it validates anything she says and then the neutrality of this article is compromised.

Peace, Nosepea68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs)

Only slightly differently worded repost of the above post by the same user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment" campaign? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was an organized campaign behind the harassment. The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals. "Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again. "and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so, hardly reliable. "The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman.[19] Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers.[20] She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening." There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all confirmation biased subjective views! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. I can add a subjective viewpoint also; I really want more female gamers to an online game I'm playing and I really don't think that gaming belongs to us, therefore there is no online harassment against women at all! By the way this 'harassment' started not because she is a woman, feminist and self-proclaimed avid gamer (evidence talk the contrary!). It started because she claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue. The other thing is her videos doesn't stand under scrutiny, they are full of logical fallacies and outright lies. She might be lying because she had no contextual understanding of the games, so it's obvious she did not play the game herself, but most likely used wikipedia and Let's Play as a source. Her ethics and integrity should be questioned when she has received $158,922 for a video project in which she uses material free under fair use act. Just see her disclaimer at the end of her videos. I can even show a source that proves the harassment is NOT pervasive: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2010/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2012/Global/ Now how many games did Ms. Sarkeesian pick on any of those lists? More sources: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html Even though that is a blog entry there is evidence in the screenshots that show she didn't do the massive research of hundreds of games but took the shortcut of using fair use to use already made videos by Youtubers that actually played the game. To many this looks like she is a con artist. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1l6lsw/internet_sleuths_uncover_anita_sarkeesians_past/ There we have more information of the Anita Sarkeesian dug out. For example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo Yes a video that has links to sources in description. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm <--- Anita Sarkesian (misspell) as contact person of a handwriting "university" scam. The other link seems dead link to webarchive. The editor should at least watch the videos Anita has made and then when they are not in written form accept good quality video rebuttals as sources of criticism. Could you even mention that there is lots of rebuttals available in video format from Youtubers that have actually played the games she used in her research project. And at least put some stress on the fact that many of the claims can be sourced only to Ms. Sarkeesian. Peace, Nosepea68 Nosepea68 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Nosepea68 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiding uncivil comment.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just go away, please. You are not going to successfully spread your campaign of vitriol and hate to this article. It's just a waste of your time and ours. Your points have already been asked and answered many times, and it's not worth going through them again, since your point is not to introduce neutrality, but to try to remove reliable information to make Sarkeesian appear to be the "bad" person in this whole event, which is just vile and counterfactual. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? Are you serious? This whole article contains BIASED information about MISOGYNY and SEXISM in gaming communities and gaming industry. Whole idea is just a radical feminism fad, there is no misogyny nor sexism there in the SCALE she says there is (words used pervasive, norm).

So, wikipedia can hold FOX news type of political propaganda as stated facts and reliable sources. Sure, but this article is far from neutral you have just turned on protect the victim because Anita Sarkeesian plays one.

Nosepea68 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings new User:Nosepea68. Your assertions lack reliable secondary sources. None of the claims you've made above are backed by sources which meet WP:IRS. This means that these claims are WP:SYNTHESIS, that is, your first-person views. The charts you linked don't back your assertion; they merely present a best-selling list for those years and draw no conclusions. The Reddit, blogspot and youtube sources are merely criticism and aren't considered reliable by wikipedia consensus or by consensus here on the page. Please find sources which meet the criteria to back your assertions, and you'll find a more receptive group of editors here. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it doesn't give credibility to Sarkeesian's views. In fact, it barely describes her work at all, just her opinions, which are stated as such. What it highlights is that 1) Sarkeesian was attacked with harassing comments and physical threats (you won't deny that, do you)? and 2) it reports on what others have said about misogyny. Your point that this is not a "campaign" (i.e. an organized effort) is a good one; you can propose an alternative wording for that sentence. Diego (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I will also add, Nosepea, that I do not know a female videogamer, especially those who like online gaming, who does not consider sexism in video gaming about as disputable as wetness among oceans or racism in the Ku Klux Klan. The only distinction is between those who cannot or will not stand it, and those who love their games so much they play on anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional note; the word campaign is used largely by many secondary sources to describe the wave of attacks and harassment. In that way wikipedia is reflecting the choice of wording used which is maybe a touch hyperbolic IF there was no concerted effort by anyone to attack her. Additionally, Anita is a victim of harassment - attempting to downplay the organisation of the harassment (via social media, reddit etc) and then to qualify her harassment as somehow justified because she "claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue" is circular logic. Quote mining meanwhile for stuff discovered (in the weakest possible sense) after the original attacks and then trying to contort them into a structured case invalidating her stance while building up a legitimacy of the criticism, and thereby the harassment, is patently the purview of Fox News investigation. OR, Synthesis, BusterD pretty much highlights all the failings here. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Digital Journal not a reliable source for the purposes of criticism of living people

The "Digital Journal" piece inserted in this article is a self-published source, without apparent significant editorial controls. The Web site admits that basically anyone can sign up and post blogs on the site. That is not the mark of something we want providing information about living people, much less negative attacks on living people. Surely some better source can be found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The Baron op-ed is shockingly bad and doesn't even represent Digital Journal very well. BusterD (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections

Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment

File:Tropes vs woman.jpg

Picture used for the Kickstarter bid

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. The campaign was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.

The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Amanda Marcotte in Slate magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse," in which "[e]very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her". Helen Lewis of the The New York Times reported that Sarkeesian was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters. Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts, doctored images of her were posted online, and negative comments were posted to her YouTube and Facebook pages. Her Wikipedia article was repeatedly vandalized with images of sex acts. Her website was subjected to denial-of-service attacks, and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information.

Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $150,000 to her project. This further enraged the harassers; one man made an internet game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, where users could punch her image until the screen turned red. The people behind the campaign awarded each other "Internet points" for the abuse on forums; Sarkeesian argued that they had "gamified" misogyny.

The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman. Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers. She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening."

The campaign also led to speaking engagements on related topics. In 2012, Sarkeesian was a speaker at the TEDxWomen conference, discussing online sexual harassment and the nature of online communities. In June 2012, video game developer Bungie invited Sarkeesian to its offices to present on the creation of female characters in games.

Kickstarter Project in numbers

Original goal $6,000

Incentives:

• Damsel in Distress - Video #1
• The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
• The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
• The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
• Background Decoration - Video #5

1st Stretch Goal $15,000

Incentives:

• Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6 (at $7,500)
• Women as Reward - Video #7 (at $9,000)
• Mrs. Male Character - Video #8 (at $10,500)
• Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9 (at $12,000)
• Man with Boobs - Video #10 (at $13,500)
• Positive Female Characters! - Video #11 (at $15,000)

2nd Stretch Goal $20,000

Incentives:

• Better video gear to improve professionalism
• Zelda, Peach and FemFreq stickers to over $50 donations

3rd Stretch Goal $26,000

Incentives:

• Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum (at $24,000)
• Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games (at $26,000)

Incentive videos 12 in total (10-20 minutes in length each)

Project was funded $158,922 on June 16th 2012

Video series

Production

Title card used in the Tropes vs Women videos

Sarkeesian initially planned to release the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series in 2012, but pushed it back explaining that the additional funding allowed her to "expand the scope, scale and production values of the project". On January 2013 Sarkeesian launched a Tumblr web page called "Bits of Tropes Vs. Women in Games" previewing samples of the first video.

The first video in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series, "Damsels in Distress (Part 1)", was released on March 7, 2013. The delay led some critics to question how she was using the money. Jesse Singal of The Boston Globe noted that the production values of the new series were high, saying "so far, she appears to have put the money to good use." Fruzsina Eördögh of ReadWrite also confirmed that the production quality of the videos had increased from her previous works, but didn't think the improvement justified spending the total amount raised, and said that disclosing the project finances would also help other video bloggers.

Parts 2 and 3 of the series were released on May 28 and August 1, 2013. The second video was briefly removed due to abuse of YouTube's "flag" system, though it was quickly restored.

Damsel in Distress Trope Series in numbers

• Number of episodes: 3
• Minutes of video analysis: 73
• Games referenced: 192

Videos released

• March 7th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 1
• May 28th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 2
• August 1st 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 3

---

All the added information should be from reliable sources as they point to Anita's self-maintained material and Kickstarter numbers.

Nosepea68 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The added detail may be relevant in a separate article about the campaign but not in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And I thought showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist "issues" in biography would be appropriate because the the big difference in incentives and actual produced material. For example Sarkeesian promised 12 videos and classroom Curriculum for a mere $26,000, she got around $151k (Kickstarter takes 5%), so she was over-funded 26 times, had a professional video gear before she started this project, promised to play the games and do in depth well researched analysis, that all requiring enourmous amount of work. What she did was download Let's Play videos, used cut scenes and wikipedia articles about the games. I know there's no wikipedia reliable sources just because there's no way to make say screenshots in Anita's video and show exactly where it is taken from a wikipedia reliable source.

There's much more on this Tropes vs. Women in Video Games I have found out I could start an article about it. What should I name it? Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games looks daftly long. Will there be a link from this article to the one focusing on the video series funding, incentives and production if I manage to make a neutral one about that?

Nosepea68 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would name it Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, similar to Potter Puppet Pals. And yes, I would think adding a link to it from this article would be a no-brainer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This information looked so trivial that at first I wondered why anyone would want to include it in this or any article. Nosepea, thank you for making your intentions totally clear. No, the material is not appropriate in this biography, and it's unlikely to be worthwhile even on an article on the series, were one created. It's indiscriminate information. And I doubt that such an article is really necessary at this stage anyway, particularly if it's just going to be used as a vehicle for "showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist 'issues' in biography".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why I asked first instead of putting it in the article. If I would have put it in, it would have appeared in the history of the edits, but I didn't do that. IMO people should grow awareness about crowdfunding loopholes that some people use to fund their lives (low first goal -> publicity -> over-funding -> profit), instead of putting it to the purpose they are asking it for. I for one don't understand even why this person have a wikipedia page at all. She's not that significant or famous.

Nosepea68 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also a massive load of OR, Synthesis and POV as the proposed wiki has an intent behind it to present a POV. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being a n00b, OR is acronym of? Only understand POV from Koncorde's reply. And where you see my point of view merely representing numbers of her promises before the production as opposed to what she actually produced with reliable sources? People with opinions can produce neutral text, don't you think.

Nosepea68 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OR is Original Research, Synthesis is a subpart of that same issue. So far you have produced anything but neutral text. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nosepea68, given your past disruptive edits to this article and clear, continued antipathy towards the subject it's pretty obvious that it would be almost impossible for you to write an article on the series that met Wikipedia's guidelines. I had hoped otherwise, but at this point I'd advise you to let things be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that this is a "crowdfunding loophole" is unsupported by any reliable sources. Kickstarters are *supposed* to turn a profit for the person who does them, that's sort of the point - create something that people want to pay for, and make a living from doing it. You've not presented any reliable sources suggesting that anyone didn't know what they were paying for when they funded Sarkeesian's project.

Moreover, the "cost per minute" is original synthesis and completely irrelevant - nobody gives a second thought when a Hollywood movie costs $1.78 million per minute. I have created the separate article you submitted through the AFC process, but with significant edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My intention was never to blatantly put "crowdfunding loophole" in the article, but to present it a way that a skeptic normal IQ person can draw their own conclusions. Even after the edits, I'm totally satisfied in the separate article of the video series. About Hollywood, I think the movie companies there take their profit from box office and actually deliver a full product for their "post-production crowdfunders".

I feel very passionate on matters that involves "separating fools from their funds", like pyramid schemes, quacks, homeopathy and other things I see unethical for example collecting money to children with cancer and take most of it to expanses. We've had several dodgy "non-profit" fund-raising organisations in Finland giving only a fraction to the cause and one major pyramid scheme Wincapita. Most of them (people behind those organisations), after the online "investigators" have unfolded the fraud, have been brought to justice and convicted for collecting money without a permit as described in Finland's Money Collection Act . Because that act, crowdfunding in Finland is basically illegal for anything else but non-profits. That said, I now have to admit [to myself] my national legislation is skewing my view.

Nosepea68 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well color me surprised. And I owe you an apology. Good job on producing pretty neutral text for the new article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this talk from "Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections" to this point be cropped and linked (to talk history?) as it is quite irrelevant now as there's separate article of the video series. Nosepea68 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Posts

I can't help noticing that Amanda Todd's article is titled "Suicide of Amanda Todd." Why? Because that is the only reason she is notable. Why is this article not titled "Anita Sarkeesian cried about people being mean to her and she was given $150 000"? That is the only reason she is notable. The reliable sources quoted in an effort to make her look important do not mention her "work", they merely talk about her claims of abuse. The fact that, as mentioned above, she has been caught lying about her level of interest in video games should be enough for her supporters to see her as the fraud she is and turn their backs, yet here they are desperately trying to make people believe she's relevant. Strange.

After this post was deleted, I reposted it with the following addition:

The preceding was deleted outright despite the validity of the comparison. There are absolutely no reliable sources that praise her work in a general sense. All they do is talk about the abuse she claims to have suffered. Amanda Todd suffered much worse abuse (for less valid reasons) yet her article is only about her suicide. Especially given the fact that Anita is a proven liar (in regards to her interest in video games), she should not have a self promotion page.

This was again deleted with a message stating that this is not a forum for unsubstantiated claims, it is for suggesting improvement to the article. First of all, what claims are unsubstantiated? In a 2010 video Anita does say that she does not like video games and the RS only discuss the harassment she claims to have suffered. She is otherwise unknown. Second, a suggestion has been made. The scope of this article should be (if it should exist at all, which it shouldn't) the incident in which she was given $150 000 for claiming to be the victim of a massive attack campaign.

Not liking the content of a post is not a reason to simply delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.113.148 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the big lie, that Sarkeesian say she doesn't like video games. She said she doesn't like first-person shooters. I hate to break it to the violence addicts out there, but there are video games out there beside first-person shooters and GTA; and just because I don't like FPSs does not mean I don't like video games. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, she said "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." Just she because she went on to say that she doesn't like first person shooters specifically doesn't change the fact that she made a general statement on her dislike of video games.108.181.113.148 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of hard work, mathematical equations, or vegetables, does this mean that I don't work, add-up or eat vegetables and that my opinions are less valid? Her disliking video games, based on her experience of them being violent and trope filled does not mean that she is not a gamer, or play games any more than Ebert giving thumbs down to violent action movies makes him any less a movie critic. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Work and leisure are two different things. People have to do things they don't like to earn a living. Who in their spare time would engage in activities designed purely for pleasure that they don't enjoy? The obvious nature of the preceding makes me question the motivations of the previous poster.108.181.113.148 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Me? Some games you play just to have something to do. Or just to fill in some time. The same way I might play certain maps on Call of Duty I don't necessarily like, because I know there will be gratifying elements, or competed Black Ops just to see the end of the story - in spite of being infuriated by the actual game. She also said "fan" which is different to enjoying. You can enjoy something without liking it. Final answer from me anyway - wikipedia is not a forum. Koncorde (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Great attempt at semantics play, but reasonable people can see the duplicity in her claims at different times to different audiences. Given the reliability of the sources (her mouth), and how it reflects upon her "work" and character, this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.113.148 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Semantics, say you? Seriously, I'm a fan of movies and have a large VHS/DVD/HDDVD/Blu-ray collection. Other people I know aren't fans of movies like I am...that does not mean that they don't watch movies. The fact that she's not a fan of games does not mean that she doesn't play games. Big logical fallacy there. DonQuixote (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Big logical fallacy there." Her words are very clear, yet people torture logic to convince themselves (and readers) that they say something else. Is she the victim of an organized bully campaign, or the beneficiary of a promotional one?

I'd make a suggestion as to how to incorporate her clear lie, which clearly demonstrates her disingenuous nature, but the article is so glowing that I have no idea where to begin. I'd recommend a criticism section but the conversation on how stretch the definition of a reliable source to include everything laudatory and contract it to exclude everything critical has already taken place ad nauseam. And to all those who keep repeating "Wikipedia is not a forum", I firmly agree. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote irrelevant attention seekers who push extremist agendas

So, rather than trying to redefine the term "not a fan of", while ignoring the contradictory claim of being a life long gamer, does anyone have any suggestions for how to incorporate the fact that she lied to get those donations into the article? I'd love to hear them

Someone just deleted my last posts (reposted above) and left "Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" on my talk page. How are the video documented words of the subject "unreferenced" or "poorly referenced"? Including her contradictory claims in the article is a valid suggestion. Deleting this just makes it appear as though fans of hers are trying hard to make a fan page, rather than an unbiased one.

Sure enough NeilN deleted the above posts again, this time leaving on my talk page:"Accusing her of lying and calling her an irrelevant attention seeker who pushes extremist agendas is not acceptable" Seeing as how my claim is backed up by the best possible source, her videoed mouth, I can say whatever I want on this talk page. Claiming I'm making unreferenced claims is even less acceptable, seeing as how I have truth on my side.108.181.113.148 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a misconception here; it's not that we don't believe what you're saying, it's that it needs to be easily backed up by reliable sources. A YouTube video is not considered a reliable source for a large number of reasons, but, to sum it up - we're not a tabloid. Unless reliable sources have reason to believe Anita Sarkeesian has been dishonest, we can't echo that belief.

That being said, please heed the warnings on your talk page, as allegations like the ones you've made are unacceptable under our policies. m.o.p 03:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here (not sure how to use link functions properly)(at around the 12:30 mark) http://vimeo.com/13216819 is a video in which she says "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw ,years later, is a video in which she claims to have been a gamer from the age of five and that she "loves" video games, in numerous interviews and talks.108.181.113.148 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The first video is copyrighted, and we generally don't use fair use materials unless we absolutely have to. It's also still not from a reliable source.

The second isn't produced by any official source, so it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion.

Again, I understand the point you're trying to make - a contradicting statement was made. Whether it was or wasn't isn't the thing at question here. It's not quite the truth that's disputed, it's the reliability of the sources; without a reliable source (e.g. Gizmodo, Kotaku, any big names in the field) that supports the allegation, it comes down to synthesis, or drawing conclusions from our own original research. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies want to ensure that, if our readers are getting information, it's not tabloid-level stuff that you can't verify; we want our information to be backed by solid citations, and we want to avoid drawing our own conclusions.

I apologize if the policies seem constrictive, but, especially in areas where living persons are involved (due to U.S. libel/slander laws) we absolutely cannot publish such allegations unless we're damn sure it's supported by extensive third-party sources. m.o.p 03:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources such as YouTube are not permitted when it is just some person expressing their opinion. However, when it is a video of the subject it is a perfectly good source when used to quote them- I've seen this done plenty of times. I'm not saying she should be called a liar in those terms, but quoting her as saying one thing and pointing out that she has said something contradictory is legitimate. Perhaps copyright laws come into play for the first video. That is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that Destructoid is not allowed as a source for criticism, despite it being syndicated and award nominated. BTW, the same people who disallowed Destructoid as a RS also tried rather hard to mince words and argue the fact that Anita has indeed contradicted herself (see above). This leads me to believe that lack of legitimate, reliably sourced criticism is not the primary reason for this article being excessively laudatory.108.181.113.148 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the last sentence is meant to imply that this is being rejected due to a hidden agenda, but I can assure you - as an uninvolved administrator, it's purely because of sourcing.

That being said, I'm unaware of Destructoid being disallowed as a source... link? m.o.p 04:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Archives 2 and 3 have extensive discussion which I believe boiled down to Destructoid being a situational reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming you specifically are biased, but there have been arguments made by others that leave no doubt. As stated above, Destructoid was rejected on archive page 2 under the "criticism" and "article fails to mention criticism" sections. If Destructoid is a "situational" source, you would think that criticism of a person who fancies themselves a video game critic is just the right situation for them, right?108.181.113.148 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that, NeilN.

Judging from a quick skim over those discussions, most of the points seemed centered on the fact that Destructoid/The Escapist are blogs and not reliable enough.

I don't agree or disagree with that judgment, but, seeing how neither of those sources have put out much new work on Ms. Sarkeesian since consensus was gained, it's safe to say the decision stands unless we can get new consensus that says Destructoid's blog pieces can be used to cite BLP-sensitive claims adequately. Which, I might add, would take quite a bit of community involvement, since prior consensus involved a few dozen editors.

One of the issues that we face in this area regularly are that blogs are generally assumed to be the opinions of individual staff that don't carry as much weight as, say, an article published in the Times (which is assumed to have the organization's backing). While Dtoid might have a bit more blog-centric approach by design, this doesn't quite help when we want to use it to source statements that could be interpreted as libelous. That's what this really all revolves around - making unsubstantiated, or weakly-substantiated, claims about living people can result in litigation due to Wikipedia's servers being hosted in the U.S. As such, we have to be very careful when dealing with such matters. m.o.p 05:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: litigation is not the only reason we treat BLP very seriously - there are also things like academic integrity and the desire to stay an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. m.o.p 05:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Libel is making untrue, damaging claims against a person which are known by the claimant to be untrue. Quoting claims by a third party do not constitute libel, especially when the third party's claims are based on fact, which Dtoid's are (they say things like 'Anita claims x, but y is in fact true). The more opinionated portions of their articles could easily be left out. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but it is also not meant to be used to promote people. Virtually all professionally written historical biographies contain criticism of the subject, from George Washington to George W. Bush. Honesty and painting a complete picture are the objectives of a professional historian.

However, I acknowledge that the conversation regarding the reliability of Dtoid has happened- I strongly disagree with the decision, given their syndication and recognition by awards, and they specialize in video games. The problem is, critics of Anita come and go while there seems to be a few regular Wiki contributors who seem to want this article to contain no criticism of Anita. For that reason, I give up.108.181.113.148 (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never even heard of her and honestly don't care about the criticism of her at all. However the policy on BLP is clear, and you have not in this entire argument backed it up with a single source other then your seemingly original research. --SKATER ^{T a l k} 06:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Her words aren't a reliable source? I guess because the medium used to show them was YouTube. Whatever you say, kiddo.108.181.113.148 (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ever thought the reliable source doesn't exist because everyone else understands that "not a fan" and "a lifelong gamer" are not incongruous? What you are asking is for us to take two statements out of the context of the videos, make our own assertion that they are referring to the same things and therefore establish a contradiction, and then synthesise an argument. All of which would be Original Research. As you feel so passionate about it, why not contact some of the reputable tech blogs and push your pov onto them. Maybe a reliable source will take up your crusade. Koncorde (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a brilliant argument I desperately want to review yet again.108.181.113.148 (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing with Sarkeesian is that her criticism doesn't "exist" because she is blocking it everywhere. Her 'lectures' can't be recorded and she rarely allows any Q/A for the audience after them, and of course there's no reliable source but Youtube. It's well known that people with weak arguments or lack of confidence in their own arguments or something to hide can't tolerate opposition, criticism or interviews from opposing facet.

I know I can't provide any evidence but the slur she got in her Kickstarter video comments was specifically selected comments at least at the start i.e. comments were moderated, some would say she doctored the evidence of misogyny. I would also say that the comments were not sexist or misogynist, but aimed at her as a person. The comment section was also the only way that anybody could criticize her, so it was a ketchup bottle effect (squeeze, squeeze, *splat*).

I tried to add a comment on Feminist Frequency facebook page asking if she would debate anybody about the topics she's using and it briefly disappeared. After it was removed I could no longer comment there. Maybe my comment was too sexist to her taste. You can test it yourself if you have a facebook account. Just remember to take screenshots, I forgot that and it was too late.

Nosepea68 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Er...no. The reason that criticism doesn't exist is because no one reputable has published it in a reliable source such as a journal or book. An amateur on a comment board is not a reliable source for any type of criticism, positive or negative. See the talk page archives as this has been pointed out several times. DonQuixote (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There actually is reliably sourced criticism of her. Anita thought Destructoid was notable and reliable (fair) enough to sit down and do an interview with. They then deconstructed her arguments in a very factual way. We could also use her own statements -when asking for money to do a series on video games she's a "life long gamer" and "loves video games", but when speaking years earlier, before hatching her plan, she says "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." This is obvious deceit, despite what some rather odd people had to say above.

However, this will never be accepted into the article because the great Anita is above reproach. Biographers everywhere would be proud.108.181.113.148 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be very blunt in order to illustrate a point: if someone points to an article in Home & Garden that criticizes the theory of Relativity, I'm going to laugh in his face...particularly if that article was obviously written by an amateur "physicist".

Now, back to the issue at hand, Destructoid is a reliable source when it comes to video game news and such, however it is not a reliable source when it comes to literary theory, bio-chemistry, or cultural and thematic analyses. So, please, stop whining about how an amateur work of analysis, which coincidentally agrees with your amateur analysis, isn't considered reliable in terms of cultural and thematic analysis and go out and find a reliable source written by an acknowledged expert and published in a reputable journal that criticizes Sarkeesian's work, whether it be positive or negative criticism.

Finally, please stop using the above false dichotomy. It's not an either-or. People pointing out the flaws in your arguments aren't supporters of Sarkeesian...they might just be neutral in this regard and are merely pointing out the flaws in your line of reasoning. DonQuixote (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Except Anita is making a critique of video games, and Destructoid is making a critique of her critique of video games, which, as you admit, they're a reliable source on.108.181.113.148 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll argue that 'Anita's work is based on gender issues in video games, not about the games themselves. Destructoid is not a reliable source on gender issues, so they are not an acceptable source here.' However, their article, found here, http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml basically says 'Anita claims character a does b, but in fact they do c and d.' The critique is about the facts of the characters' involvement in the games, not the underlying gender issues. That being the case, there is no reason to exclude them as a source for criticism.108.181.113.148 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

An article that boils down to "I have a different opinion about this game, and this character"...? Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

An opinion about the characters from a reliable source in video games can provide a NPOV. It could be used at the reception section of the Tropes article, which is not subject to BLP rules. Diego (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a point if it were she claims a does b but instead c does d. It's not. It's she claims a is b, but a is not b because of reason c. In other words, analysis. I can do a little bit of amateur analysis myself. Just looking at the first example, Anita claims that the fairies in Rayman fall into the Damsel in Distress trope. The article mentions that the fairies are the most power characters in the game and goes on about other unrelated topics. And these are mutually exclusive how? That is to say, if an author chooses to created a character that is the most power being in the universe and then chooses to entrap that character, that character is still in distress in spite of his or her great powers. But that's neither here-nor-there because such analyses aren't the purview of Wikipedia editors. Similarly, the author of the Destructoid article is not an acknowledged expert. So, please, find an analysis written by an acknowledged expert. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're being Exceptionally selective. First of all, the author of the article is an associate editor of a syndicated publication that has been recognized by awards associations. This gives him enough credibility to interpret the roles of the characters and their significance -more so than someone who admits to not being a fan of video games. But he does explain Anita's ignorance of the games and characters she talks about: he quotes Anita as saying the character in Gravity Rush should have armour or motorcycle pants because she keeps falling from great heights, but this ignores the fact that she has a force field which allows her to do so as part of her powers. There are a few examples in the short article that makes one wonder how much effort she put into analyzing these games.108.181.113.148 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm being "exceptionally" selective because context matters. The author of the article has no qualifications in cultural studies, and his amateur analysis also belies the fact that he has no experience in it either. This is painfully obvious in the example that you quote. The force field is an excuse after-the-fact. That is, the character was created in the manner described and then the force field was used as an excuse to justify the way the character was created (not the other way around). The article is chock full of such amateur analysis. The fact that it agrees with your amateur analysis doesn't make it reliable.

The point is, is the author an acknowledged expert in cultural studies?--no. Is the publication a reputable journal of cultural studies?--no. Again, context matters. I would no more trust Destructoid as a source of cultural analysis than I would trust Home and Garden as a source for General Relativity. In fact, even at WP:VG they don't trust Destructoid (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources: "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such."). DonQuixote (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"The force field is an excuse after-the-fact. That is, the character was created in the manner described and then the force field was used as an excuse to justify the way the character was created (not the other way around). The article is chock full of such amateur analysis." Who's the one providing amateur analysis? No, Anita just didn't get how the character worked. Besides that example, Anita is quoted as saying no female characters have been featured in Assassin's Creed. Dtoid points out that a female is "arguably the most complex, and strongest character in the entire series to date."

When a historian is writing about a period in which economics were significant (The Great Depression, The Long Depression), they consult an economist. When an economist does a study on the economic conditions of a historical period, they often consult a historian for context. Anita lied about her interest in video games for credibility and simply went on a rant about them without consulting video game experts, which Dtoid is, for context. Dtoid is trying to correct that mistake, and their authority is both recognized and relevant. BTW, I have not made any analysis, amateur or otherwise- I don't even play video games.108.181.113.148 (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)