Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Biased

This is heavily biased. GamerGate started after the Zoe Quinn controversy. It's about corrupt journalism in general, but the article can't seem to get that.

I strongly agree with this, there is plenty of information out there even statements of the people involved saying many of the points raised by GamersGate is true, i am shocked that this article is so small, makes me wonder if it was censured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's one narrative strand. Flesh out the article, whoever you are. kencf0618 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

extremely biased, can be seen as an article pushing an agenda. Needs to represent the other side of the argument with sources.

Until then this article should not be viewable. 59.152.99.3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this article needs to be semi-protected. Unless people are being abusive, we're fine and can police the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter Hashtags

Why is this notable? Countered (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends. In terms of the game-culture this is the event of the year. 3 weeks and counting where there is a war on the net. Many articles has been written and celebrities have engaged in the topic. --Torga (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a blog post. Generally there needs to be more than just a hashtag and a few headline titles for to make a topic notable. Countered (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that point. But i am unsure about the deletion to be honest. Over 300.000 tweets in the hashtag, 20 articles, time, forbes, al-jazerra writing about it. At some point these topics would go under a ordinary controversy that is listed on Wikipedia. --Torga (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It is a big controversy in the culture of gaming. However the article is biased and not at all neutral. It should stay up, but lots of work in creating this article more balanced should be taken. If not the best option is deletion --Torga (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not an explanation for why it shouldn't be deleted. Nothing about this stub is notable, and that's why it's been nominated for deletion. Countered (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the entire talk page has been lost somehow. I wrote a big long thing about this in the talk page discussing how to improve it. Was the article deleted? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the original version of this page was deleted last night. I'm going to go through the deletion logs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Figured out what happened; someone flagged it as an attack page for speedy deletion, it got deleted, then got restored because it wasn't one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Content

We should probably figure out how this is going to need to be laid out.

Background

Previous instances of corruption/unprofessional behavior in industry.

Previous instances of press and game developers being disrespectful to gamers. The John Romero incident is one notable example.

"Disrespectful"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the John Romero incident (where they made an ad that said "John Romero is going to make you his bitch" as an advertisement for Daikatana) is pretty infamous. There have been other instances as well of various game developers/journalists saying denigrating things or otherwise being disrespectful of gamers which lead to minor controversies and resentment towards some of said folk. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Past instances of harassment of gaming developers, and possibly Zoe Quinn in specific. Possible mention of controversy over Depression Quest coverage, which made her a target of ire?

Dunno if anything relevant about Anita Sarkeesian fits in here? If so, should be noted.

Past instances of alleged misogyny in gaming?

Brewing fight over social justice agitation in gaming press?

Blow-Up

Blog post by ex about Zoe Quinn re: romantic/sexual relationship with Grayson, reporter for Kotaku who had written about her in the past, and gaming developer who went on to hire her. Shouldn't go into excessive detail here, but need to give background as it is vital to understand both the accusations of corruption and nepotism and misogyny; per WP:BLPNAME we should probably avoid naming her ex and possibly the gaming developer. Grayson probably needs to be named due to official response from Kotaku likely appearing later in the article in reference to him. Quinn is too central not to be named.

Once again, we literally don't care about Zoe Quinn's romantic relationships and no mention of them beyond the debunked claims of "quid pro quo" re: Grayson can be countenanced. There are no reliable sources reporting anything remotely resembling allegations of "nepotism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean other than Forbes, Al Jazeera, Vox, Slate, and Time? Because all of them have made note of these allegations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. I've read all of those articles and none of them make claims of "nepotism." They make (brief) mention of the debunked allegations about Grayson (Forbes notes "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire.") NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not reporting on WP:TRUTH. We're reporting on what happened - it doesn't matter whether or not the allegations are true, any more than it matters whether or not the Shooting of Micheal Brown was murder or self defense, because people still rioted and protested because of the perception of racism, claiming that he was murdered by a white cop. Likewise, here, gamers threw around accusations of nepotism and corruption - it doesn't matter if they are true or not, because they still DID so, and ended up being noted in a large number of RSs for their accusations. Likewise, the counter-attacks of charges of misogyny and slut-shaming are not about WP:TRUTH, but about what people did - again, it isn't about whether or not the GamerGate thing is about misogyny or slut-shaming, but because people said that they were and, again, it was noted by numerous RSs. I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble with this. This is reporting on stuff that happened, not whether or not there was actual corruption. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." They discuss the Grayson allegations, and note that those allegations have been debunked. I find no reliable sources discussing anything about Zoe Quinn and a "gaming developer who went on to hire her." Your claim that "gamers threw around accusations" is irrelevant, because we don't include every random accusation ever made about someone by someone on the Internet. If the reliable sources don't see fit to mention them, they have no place in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"The reliably-sourced articles make no statements about Zoe Quinn and "nepotism." Even Jenn Frank admitted that the accusations involve nepotism

this month, Quinn’s ex-boyfriend published intimate details of their relationship online, and her sexual history inexplicably became the centrepiece of a large-scale, industry-wide debate about journalism, nepotism and ethics--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a statement that Quinn was accused of nepotism, and there is no reliable source stating anything about this alleged game developer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Response

Gamers charging nepotism, corruption and improper relationships on various social media sites and gaming journalism websites.

We need a reliable source to explain what the alleged "corruption" involves. What, exactly, is "corrupt" about the situation - that is, in what manner can any of this be described as fraudulent or dishonest? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of slut-shaming and misogyny being the real cause for claims by social justice folks and some of the gaming press.

Initial media blackout in gaming press, censorship, and accusations of censorship.

Who, exactly, is claiming there was a "media blackout"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The words "media blackout" appear nowhere in the article. The article notes that video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships - that is not the same as a "media blackout." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the article on media blackout. Yes, the words media blackout were never used in the article; I 100% agree. Instead he noted that they deliberately didn't cover the issue - which is, by definition, a media blackout. As the article on media blackouts notes, they occur for a variety of reasons. I think you are unfamiliar with the term; it does not mean what you think it means. A media blackout is a lack of coverage over a subject, voluntary or otherwise. And, again, I'm trying to note these things as succinctly as possible; this is not proposed text for the article, but proposed things we should talk about content-wise. It was noted by several RSs that the dearth of coverage on the issue by the gaming press, combined with the perception of censorship, lead to the Streisand Effect. The Forbes article even uses that particular phrase. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's your original synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

We may note that Erik Kain in Forbes said video game publications don't feel comfortable writing about people's personal lives and relationships and that some gamers perceived this to be censorship; we may not extend that to claim that there was some sort of orchestrated "media blackout," because that phrase appears nowhere in any reliable source commenting on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The two things are synonyms; that isn't original synthesis, that's how language works, though I'm not proposing we use the term media blackout in the article as noted, save possibly outside of as an accusation by gamers (who perceived the lack of coverage as a media blackout). I made no accusation of an orchestrated media blackout; I'm not sure where you got that from. There are some accusations of it having been orchestrated, but I was not making such accusations. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment, criticism, death threats of Zoe Quinn.

Harassment of commentators on the situation (John Bain was mentioned in several places; not sure if the writer for Brietbart is worth noting, but he also got death threats).

Andrew Breitbart has been dead for two years; not sure how he could get "death threats." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Derp derp. It was a writer for Brietbart.com. Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Phil Fish's involvement be noted here? He did "quit" as a result, but he has done similar things in the past which amounted to nothing; possibly not include until we find out if he actually sold his company per WP:CRYSTALBALL? His harassment may or may not be notable; it was noted briefly in the RSs for a while, but does not seem to be a subject of continued focus; might be better to note that some of Zoe Quinn's supporters were harassed and not name them?

Kotaku response.

Response from game sites which changed their ethics standards in response to controversy.

Gamers vs Press

Fight between the gamers and the press. Not sure what should be noted here; gamers percieved disrespect for the press for speaking down to them and avoiding addressing issues of corruption, vs depicting gamers as misogynists who are clinging to a dying culture? Not sure what the best way of presenting this information is. Was noted in numerous RSs.

Definately the 24 hour window where the articles about the death of gamers. That was the moment it went from a confrontation into war. --Torga (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

She is tied up in all of this; where does she come in? Her involvement in commentating on women in games, the perception of ignorance and agitation, the harassment and death threats probably all are notable, but how should it be integrated?

Actually Sarkeesian was not a part of it specifically before she released her video in her series on youtube. Before that she was actually not part of the discussion. She was harrased, it got media-attention and fused into the gamergate case. --Torga (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I'm biased towards GamerGate but here goes;

Early on (around the end of August) someone threatened Anita over Twitter with rape and death threats, forcing her to move to a safe location. Although I condemn such an act, there are a lot of details that don't add up;

• The account that threatened her appears to be created solely to threaten her, as it was deleted shortly afterward,
• From what some people say, whenever you report death threats to the FBI, the warn you not to tell about it publicly. Anita did just that,
• The threats had perfect grammar and punctuation, and;
• The threats as a whole happened shortly after Anita released her then-latest video.

Some people claim that Anita or an associate of hers created the account solely to gain sympathy and attract attention.

Included are a couple of pictures regarding the Twitter account. The second one was from 4chan so expect some profanity and Jpeg artifacts.

• Picture 1
• Picture 2

The more recent incident occurred on September 5-6, when some Twitter user had the nerve to tweet child pornography to Anita's account. The account has since been reported, but some pro-Gamergate people claim that the account was made to discredit the movement. Again the account appeared to be a disposable account like before.

Speaking as a pro-Gamergate person, it appears that Anita is trying to stay relevant throughout this whole mess, to little effect. From a neutral perspective, it could easily be a troll with too much time on his/her hands.

Regards, 49.144.172.119 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just briefly, sorry, but the (very poor) arguments that Sarkeesian faked her own harassment are not viable, and don't warrant any coverage. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

But the arguments that she was harassed for real are not viable as well. --Artman40 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources which support this statement are...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The same which support the opposite statement. --Artman40 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful. There are a wide range of reliable sources reporting that Sarkeesian was harassed. It is thus verifiable in reliable sources, which is what we require for a point of view to be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite those sources, please. Until that your statements have no basis. 188.162.36.140 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already cited to the BBC, a reliable source, and many others are available. Stop making negative claims about living people without any basis in reliable sources, immediately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. It is a major source but these are again, based on Sarkeesian's tweets which are not reliable. --Artman40 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is meaningless, frankly. The BBC and the various other sources are reliable by our standards; our only prerogative is to accurately represent what they say. Period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. At least you were willing to review this. Thank You.49.144.172.119 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff?

FBI noted that they're looking into harassment of game developers, but allegedly was not in response to this controversy and just was coincidental timing. Should this be noted in the article? Possibly in the background section, because while it isn't directly related, might tie into past history of harassment of game developers?

The Guardian writer who ended up resigning after being attacked for writing a very pro-Zoe Quinn article while financially supporting for her via Patreon, as well as The Guardian's own response that they were the ones who cut a notice of disclosure because they hadn't felt it was relevant? Problem: Several of the sources involved with this ended up editing their articles after The Guardian edited their article to reflect that she had originally included a disclosure notice. Speaks well of their journalistic integrity, but makes it hard to source from the original sources which caused the whole thing. :(

What else? I've seen some other stuff mentioned, but I'm not sure how much of it is really notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a developing news event and should not be any more than a rough paraphrase of the Vox article, which spells out the whole ordeal neutrally and with due weight. If there are spots that need clarification from there, they can go up for discussion, but otherwise I think we'll start having BLP issues. @NorthBySouthBaranof, your edit overwrote mine—please be careful when previewing edit conflicts.  czar ♔ 22:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to put in stuff about the FBI, but that leads me to a path that we need to start with events from roughly this time last year, eg: [1],[2], which is about when the IDGA recognized there was harassment in the industry and were taking steps to try to help developers cope. The events happening now are a culmination of that. As thus, the FBI and the IDGA met in July this year [3],[4] - prior to all the happenings with Quinn now - to also provide support. Given that this is trending to be more than just about Quinn but the relation between players and developers, I think this BG will be necessary but it feels awkward to have presently in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding Sources

There are a lot of sources on this, but many of them are very biased. While using biased sources is possible, it is not preferable, especially when we're discussing factual information (reaction of gamers, public harassment, ect.).

Some potential sources:

Bright Side of News - They had one of the best earlier reports on the issue. Pretty neutral, lots of citations of sources, looks like a pretty good article overall.

Vox has a more recent overview of the whole thing; seems like another pretty good source, pretty neutral.

Al Jazeera reported on it and even updated the article after the fact, which speaks well to their journalistic integrity and fact-checking. Originally noted the issue with the writer from The Guardian who was accused of corruption/improper ties to Zoe Quinn. Not sure if there is an archived version available anywhere of the original version.

Forbes discusses the scandal and the Striesand Effect, the Fine Young Capitalists, Phil Fish, and a lot of other things. Pretty broad overview, potentially lots of useful info, big name site.

What Culture had a "10 things you need to know about the #GamerGate Scandal" article which contains an overview of the whole thing.

Business Insider has two articles - Covers some of the reaction and back and forthing between the gaming press and gamers, as well as an overview of the situation.

Cinemablend talks about some of the issues involved with accusations of using claims of misogyny as a cover for discussion of integrity, but I'm not super fond of reporting on Twitter hashtags.

New Media Rockstars mentioned it early on, not sure if they're a great source, but it has links to original material and an overview.

Time magazine wrote something about the conflict between gamers and the gaming journalists.

The Guardian has some coverage of this as well; it was actually their second article.

The first Guardian article is something I'm not sure if we should cite the first or not; the conflict of interest issue there is problematic, but it could possibly be used as a cite for the claims of misogyny? Seems appropriate seeing as the person ended up getting mobbed and quitting as a result.

Kotaku changing their policy re: disclosure and support of game devs via Patreon.

Daily Dot has some info from early on about the thing.

Gamezone talks about the larger cultural context a bit.

Slate wrote about the death of gaming journalism and the fight between gamers and journalists, and the rise of bloggers.

Bustle

The Daily Beast

The Raw Story

The Independent

The Mary Sue

Recode

The Week

Paste There are a TON of sources, and there are many more I didn't mention, but which are potentially useful by the looks of things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

Town hall has an article discussing the whole sociopolitical position pushing.

Cinema Blend has another article about the source of some of these things, as well as contesting its depiction as misogynistic in nature. Interestingly, it notes that the hashtag started with Adam Baldwin, which I've since found several other sources repeating and, looking on Twitter, it appears to be the case. This speaks very poorly of the fact checking on all the stories which claimed that the hash-tag originated with 4Chan. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This one source does not override all of the other sources; we may note both statements and allow readers to decide which is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:RS. If a source is doing a poor job of fact-checking, then it is not very reliable by definition. If we can verify that one source is right and another is wrong, then we go with the one which can be verified as a statement of fact. We might report what the other source falsely claims if the claims are notable, which it probably is - Zoe Quinn's response that it is all secretly a misogynistic conspiracy theory run by 4chan has been noted in numerous sources, though a large number have pointed out that it is simply untrue. The conspiracy theories of Zoe Quinn and some of the gamers are probably worth noting in a line or two, but we shouldn't present them as fact, merely as what the factions are claiming. However, my point re: the hashtag is less its notability in and of itself but rather that it is something which can be empirically verified and which has been misreported on in several sources, suggesting that said sources may not be reliable - if we can find something which is both easy to verify and wrong in their articles, it suggests that they aren't doing a very good job on fact-checking and thus probably are not reliable and thus should not be used. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Boolean logic; the NPOV policy requires us to weight viewpoints based on their preponderance in reliable sources. As our Verifiability policy states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing my point; the point is that if an article is poorly fact-checked, then it isn't a reliable source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And your evidence that the article is poorly fact-checked is...? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

adding one more (probably one of the first "gamesites" to address the issue though it seems they edited it since then: http://gamesnosh.com/zoe-quinn-scandal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.142.180.79 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable reliable source. See our guideline on reliable sources for help in how to identify reliable sources. Specifically, this blog has no identifiable editorial structure, no established history of editorial reliability and it appears to have been on the Internet for barely a month. It is a self-published source, which is not acceptable for any issue related to claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rock Paper Shotgun addresses the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

bias

this article is so biased and one sided. i think it should be gotten rid of. 99.253.30.53 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)swami

Please be specific. The article should be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Edit boldly and all that. kencf0618 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

AS it is now, the article doesn't even touch on the facts of its proponents, yet goes into detail on the misogynist accusations

We should have it divided into BOTH sides

We should include on the censorship outcry of proponents as Forbes' Eric Kain summarized it http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

"This perceived radio silence on the part of the press led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play.

Radio silence wasn’t the only thing encouraging cries of censorship. Moderators on forums at reddit and 4chan deleted posts and comments related to the Quinn controversy. One YouTube commentator, Mundane Matt, had a video on the subject removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice, apparently issued by Quinn herself. "

And the harassment wasn't only on one side, as he puts it

"The DMCA takedown caused well-known YouTuber TotalBiscuit (John Bain) to comment on the matter on Twitter. And while he maintained a fairly neutral stance, noting clearly that the facts were not all in, he was quickly lashed out against by members of the indie game scene such as Fez developer Phil Fish and others. Fish called TotalBiscuit a “gross nerd” setting the tenor for what snowballed into a much bigger debate."

Keep this neutral people, don't let Wikipedia fall into the censorship, also Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest articles should a mention to this since they're entirely notable because of this200.59.78.239 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Portals

Torga, I must insist that you cease removing the Feminism portal from this page. It is incontrovertible, from any number of reliable sources, that this controversy involves feminism. You may not remove the portal simply because you don't like it or you disagree with that critique of the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, if you really believe its that important. Note: I did the last revision before i saw this. --Torga (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty important that the article reflect NPOV. I'm not sure why you think it's "neutral" to be in the Video games portal but not neutral to be in the Feminism portal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So biased

I'm done with Wikipedia, this article looks like written by Zoe Quinn herself. If someone wanted to know what it was about, the only thing about what the proponents is "whose proponents state centers on the ethics of video game journalism" THAT'S IT

Then it goes about Phil Fish being doxxed, that Anita Sarkeesian made a video on Tropes vs. Women and stuff that has nothing to do with the matter. It cites TotalBiscuit but doesn't say what his opinion is.

I hope you guys are proud for killing Wikipedia. Everyone agrees that BOTH sides of the story should be in, this is ridiculous200.59.78.239 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, we're not including opinions, we're including facts - and the personal impact on Fish and Sarkeesian are both sourcable to the overall issue. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there's heavy criticism of claims of harassment. While both Anite and Zoe claim to be harassed, and many articles cite it as a fact, the amount of harassing messages seems to be completely overhyped. There's not really any way to source the number exactly. What's the criteria for calling something harassment? Is one angry tweet enough, or does there need to be an organized campaign? Right now it's somewhere in-between. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When secondary sources, reading what they can from forum posts and twitter feeds, and the like, call something "harassment". To what degree, yes, we can't say, but it's completely fair to say that both women have been harassed online in a public manner, as reported by reliable secondary sources like the Guardian. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that the harassment was not one way, which is not really presented in the article; Zoe Quinn's supporters harassed John Bain, for instance, for speaking out against censorship, and sent a Breitbart.com reporter death threats. Also, I'm still somewhat hesitant about the bit about Phil Fish, as it doesn't really present what happened in context - Phil Fish called the people who were angry at Zoe Quinn a bunch of rapists, so it was less harassment and more a flame war which escalated to doxxing. Zoe Quinn herself has a record of open aggression on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article also does not make note of what happened to The Fine Young Capitalists, which got mentioned in a number of reliable sources and resulted in a member resigning from doing PR from them due to the aggression from the SJW camp. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article essentially avoids talking at all about the "Gamers are dead" articles, TFYC's accusations, the Escapist's policy changes,Kotaku's advertisers pulling out, any claims of harassment against the Gamer Gate folks, anything about the #GamerGate or #Notyourshield hashtags.

It also ignores the Forbes articles and Al-Jazeera, fails to sufficiently discuss the Slate article, and makes no mention of the Escapist's articles regarding the subject.

All of these are verifiable facts which should be discussed, but have been avoided due to (what appears to be) severe editorial bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodamnfat (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleting information that tries to balance this article.

This is the fourth time someone deletes information that can give another perspective on Gamergate that actually can make this article more neutral. --Torga (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Some understanding of basic Wikipedia procedures is required to edit articles. Your source (now removed) includes the obvious "It is important to note that anyone can create an account on 4Chan and state nearly anything" so their account of a named living person is not suitable for use. That highlights the reason this article should be deleted—it's just he-said-she-said gossip where nothing has actually happened. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has happened? News sites like Kotaku had to basically make public announcements and supposedly crack down regarding the whole controversy. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 12:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Johnuniq is specifically talking about Quinn reporting to have all these logs, and 4chan responding to that. In the essence of WP, we can't say anything beside "this side claims this", "that side claims that". One edit removed was the claim that 4chan "debunked" Quinn's logs, which is not 1) factually reported by third parties and 2) is a biased statement as only a third-party is going to be able to make that assessment, as well as whether Quinn's logs actually are valid and show what she claims. In that sense, at the current time on that specific issue, "nothing has happened". --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that it is noteworthy independent of Zoe Quinn's general claims that it is all a misogynistic crusade against her. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Too much one-sided

Currently the article is one-sided. It focuses mostly on claims of harassment, without going into detail what the nature of controversy was. Even left leaning newspaper like The Guardian, despite its defence of attempt influence gaming in line with their ideology, admitted that there are legitimate concerns regarding gaming journalism and ethics which were raised during this controversy, and this should be reflected in the article. There are more sources with more explanation like Al Jazeera that should be used as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There's probably even more than just the journalism ethics - it's this long-running sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developers that has been an issue since last year; this is just the culmination of current events. However, we don't have any good sources that connect all these chains together, yet. (This [5] is close, but not quite). --MASEM (t) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"sense of entitlement that some fans have towards developed"-Oh dear, I believe the word is "consumers". Who demand a good product they are paying for. Now of course, some see or want to use games as tool of political engineering(see for example the paper "The New Laboratory of Dreams: Roleplaying Games as Resistance in Women's Studies Quarterly" where the author openly admits that games should be used for politically engineering players to accept certain views), but this is whole different story and not something to discuss here as this is not a forum.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to like, every cultural thing ever. Video games are now mainstream. They're going to be culturally critiqued. If you don't think games have been used to politically engineer players before, you've never played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - the whole series is basically pro-war, pro-American propaganda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems you have a very serious POV if you use words like these. As for me, having grown up under communist regime, I have seen enough games that were meant to "politically" educate" than entertain. There is a reason why people abolished that system.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games stopped being about just entertainment, oh, about the time the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium was established. Which would be 1973. The first video games I ever played (Oregon Trail, Carmen Sandiego, Number Munchers, etc.) were defining examples of applying the art of video games to educate an audience. And they were massively successful at the time.

Video games are no different from any other art and entertainment form - they are subject to cultural criticism (in the sense of commentary, deconstruction, critique and analysis) from both within and without its community. As video games become increasingly popular and, yes, increasingly mainstream, it should be no surprise that they will increasingly be commented upon, deconstructed and analyzed. The ideologies and preconceptions of individual games and genres will be debated and dissected. That's what happens in culture.

The idea that video game simulations of war could be construed or overtly designed as political propaganda is hardly a novel or fringe idea. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When people issue death threats because a dev decides to rebalance a weapon in a game, that's entitlement. And it's not consumers, its fans - the vocal minority - that are the problem. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is biased because the sources are biased. I hate the way the article is written too, but it just goes to show how one-sided video games journalistsm is. You have some sources like Townhall, Slate, and The Escapist who are acknowledging Gamergate's issues, and the Forbes articles have been balanced fairly.72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When you have one side that primarily only presents their opinion on forums, twitter, and other self-published sources, it is very hard to present a 100% balanced coverage. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizng Wikipedia's policies. It shows why gamers are frustrated, when they feel like they don't have a voice. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't had the privilege of being born into a wealthy first world country where I would enjoy such games. However the discussion doesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of criticism in the article of people investigating the controversy and allegations of harassment. For neutrality purposes both sides should be represented and reasons for controversy explained. Let's not dilute the subject by off topic discussions.

While the discussion is interesting oesn't bring us to closer to resolving the issue here-overwhelming dominance of critical sources without explaining in detail the nature of controversy(details of which are covered by reliable sources like Al Jazeera).Let's focus on this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples of corrupt reviews?

If we are going to say this is about corrupt reviews, shouldn't we link to some that are demonstrably corrupt? And if we don't have any of those shouldn't we be throwing "allegedly" in front of that claim? 67.170.87.35 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a BLP issue in that the review would identify whom the accusation that Quinn had encounters with, and we would not allow that. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a BLP issue to identify Grayson, given the Kotaku article; but more to the point, there isn't actually any review that he wrote, because that allegation is demonstrably false. He never wrote a review of Quinn's game. He wrote something about a game jam that Quinn was involved in, before the relationship began and did not write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship. [11] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I forget that Kotaku did clear the air on that. So yes, not a BLP to mention Grayson, but we do have to be careful on the wording. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: it is not a BLP violation to name names which are found in reliable sources. What we try to do is avoid naming names which don't add to the article. See WP:BLPNAME. That is to say, we don't name her ex, or the game dev who hired her after their relationship, because that isn't especially important to understanding what happened. We name Quinn and Grayson because it is necessary to understanding the article. Note that just because something reflects poorly on someone does not mean it is a BLP violation, but the name needs to be notable and important to understanding what happened. As most of these people aren't notable in and of themselves, they don't need to be mentioned because adding their names does little to add to the story. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we literally don't care that a game dev hired her after their relationship. That is literally none of the public's business even if it happened and the fact that not a single reliable source is discussing it should be a clue that it's not suitable for Wikipedia either.

The reliable sources are discussing the allegations of a journalistic conflict of interest, because that's a matter of clear public interest and the allegations did deserve a fair investigation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple RSs have noted it, actually. It is potentially relevant because it was part of what set off the whole thing. It has not been focused on as much as the Grayson thing, so should not be given undue coverage, but that it involved a male game developer has been given mention in a very large number of sources, with a few of them going into depth about the issues of conflict of interest it raised, as well as the general ethical issues attached to such. However, the idea that it is "none of the public's business" is wholly irrelevant; we report what appears in RSs. What you personally believe to be the public's business is irrelevant, and given that some segments of the public feel that it IS their business, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Part of the cost of being a "celebrity"; your affairs suddenly become of public interest. I mean, I guess you could say that Quinn isn't really notable independent of all this, which is fair enough, but... well, this whole mess is pretty big in terms of coverage. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming that "reliable sources" have discussed it, and yet you have provided not a single example of an actual reliable source which discusses it. Please link them here.

Hiring someone you know at a private business does not constitute a "conflict of interest" and it literally happens tens of thousands of times every day. It's called business networking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most workplaces would fire you immediately if they found out that you slept with someone immediately prior to hiring them, and would most likely terminate them as well. Indeed, many workplaces bar or frown upon workplace relationships, especially between supervisors and their subordinates, as they inherently present a conflict of interest. He is very lucky he is self-employed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, "he is self-employed" would be precisely the point. He owns the business and he can hire whoever he damn well pleases. There is no "conflict of interest" because the business owner holds both interests. Which is likely why... no reliable sources have commented on the matter, which means this is moot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

There's a typo under "Response". An "Aurbach" where there should be an "Auerbach".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Source issues, undue weight

1. Opinion articles are not the best sources for stuff, especially not for factual information. Several things are quoted to push a specific POV here; we need to avoid that, and these are people's opinions. Worse still, they're actually verifiable as incorrect in some cases, and thus are not particularly reliable because of poor fact checking.

Yes, such as the claims that there was any violation of journalistic ethics involved with Quinn's relationship - that is verifiable as incorrect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Zoe Quinn and others claiming it is all a big conspiracy against them is probably noteworthy, but we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to their claims of a conspiracy theory.
2. Same applies to gamers claiming that Zoe Quinn and the SJWs are part of a conspiracy - noteworthy and notable, but we shouldn't present it as if it is true, nor lend it WP:UNDUE weight either.
3. We need to note that harassment has been going both ways - The Fine Young Capitalists were attacked and doxxed as well, John Bain was attacked, and both were done by Zoe Quinn's faction. Should be noted as it was noted in several RSs. As-is, the article implies it was one way. Indeed, part of the reason that Phil Fish was attacked was because he called people who were complaining rapists, and Zoe Quinn herself has been involved in the harassment of others.
4. We need to avoid too much "back and forthing". It is going to be somewhat inevitable, but we should try and avoid it in excess. We should present what happened, not try and counter things immediately; I think breaking out things into separate paragraphs would probably help with this. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming community reaction to the issue. Have a paragraph which describes the gaming press reaction. Have a section describing Zoe Quinn and her companions' reactions. Chronological/topical ordering will probably help with this. The article should flow naturally, not read like a bunch of people sniping at each other on the internet - we're talking about people doing that, we aren't doing it ourselves. This is Wikipedia, after all.
5. The article is weasely in the accusations against Zoe Quinn. Given that they are sourced in literally dozens of RSs at this point, and given that there is no REASON to be weaselly about them, what it should be needs to be made clear - it was an angry post by her ex presenting evidence that she cheated on him with Grayson, a reporter for Kotaku (and formerly Rock Paper Shotgun), as well as other gaming industry figures. That is PRECISELY what it is, and it gives the reader the full context. "alleged a level of impropriety" is just garbage, and the whole passage is terribly written. Given that this was the flashpoint, and given that the focus is on two different aspects of this - the SJWs claiming that it was pure misogyny because it disclosed that she cheated on him (i.e. slut shaming by an ex), while the gaming community was upset about the who she was cheating with (i.e. conflict of interest, nepotism, and pay for play) - it is important that we present this factually and not weasel about what it was. It is vital to understanding the whole controversy.

The accusations about Zoe Quinn are as described in the reliable sources.

We don't care about who "cheated" with whom - there's no marriage involved here and thus any claim about their relationship status is necessarily hearsay. A non-public-figure's personal relationships are not of the public interest except insofar as it involves matters of public interest - such as journalistic ethics.

There, a multitude of reliable sources describe the allegations of ethical violations as unfounded because the writer in question never reviewed Quinn's work and wrote nothing about her work after beginning the relationship. [12] [13] [14] [15] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. First off, this is not a court of law. Secondly, it isn't "hearsay" - there is actual, physical evidence. Indeed, no source questions that he was her boyfriend - every source that mentions it mentions that he was her ex. That is simply not in contention at all. Really, no one has questioned the actual events he described at all, precisely because he outlined them quite clearly - the contention is pretty much entirely over their meaning. We aren't reporting on all the allegations because most of them aren't notable, not because they're not true. Thirdly, Zoe Quinn has attempted to make herself a public figure, who is at this point mostly internet famous for this. She certainly isn't notable for her game. Fourth, we determine the "public interest" via significant coverage in reliable sources - that's what notability is all about. Your odd claims about "what we care about" are simply false - we report about all sorts of stupid sex scandals on Wikipedia which were nothing BUT sex scandals, because they were noteworthy. You have grown enraged when I pointed out Monica Lewinsky and the Princess Diana/Prince Charles stuff, but they were just sex scandals and the latter one was absolutely nothing BUT a sex scandal, as there was no interest save for the fact that the people in question were famous.

There are indeed reliable sources which claim that they were unfounded. There are other reliable sources which have claimed otherwise, because they were (supposedly) friends beforehand, and the issue is game developers being too chummy with journalists, and using them to promote their agenda. Kotaku defended him, and that should definitely be made note of, but the idea that they were "unfounded" just because Kotaku claimed that they totally didn't do anything wrong, really, so stopped complaining doesn't mean that they were "unfounded". Doubly so given that they then changed their code of ethics for their employees. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to compare Zoe Quinn to Monica Lewinsky or Princess Diana here is as ridiculous as it was on the talk page for her biographical article. I won't belabor the point, because it's obvious that there really isn't a comparison in any way, shape or form. This article isn't about Zoe Quinn's sex life and the same BLP rules apply here as apply in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You continually take offense at my pointing out that you are simply incorrect by citing articles which are about precisely the events you claim which we do not cover. You continually cite BLP without reading BLP, which notes that if stuff is important to understand what is going on (and it is, seeing as the whole claims of "it is all misogyny" center around it, as do the claims of inappropriate relationships with journalists) and it is reliably sourced (and it is), in it goes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

1. We have tons of sources; we shouldn't need to cite biased ones. Several of the sources currently referenced suffer from pretty severe bias. It isn't impossible to use biased sources, but if we have a choice, it would be better to use unbiased ones over biased ones. Biased sources are less likely to be reliable, and we've already had at least one instance where an originally undisclosed conflict of interest in a biased article resulted in a journalist quitting after they got flak over it.

Every source has a potential bias; the CinemaBlend article that you promote above literally wears its point of view on its sleeve. That doesn't render it unfit for use; it simply means we must cite its statements and attribute its opinions. You can't possibly be claiming that the Time article is somehow unacceptably biased while the CinemaBlend article is somehow perfectly balanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course every source has a potential bias; all sources have this issue. That's not what I'm getting at. Some sources are more neutral than others, and then there are sources which, well, are like Paste, which outright states as fact that the people behind it are a bunch of misogynistic trolls. That ain't exactly what I'd use as a go-to reliable source on an article about a controversial subject. Would you suggest using an article which described the people protesting the shooting of Michael Brown as a bunch of jungle monkeys as a reliable source? I'd hope not. Same thing, more or less. Do you think using Breitbart as a source for this article would be a good idea? I mean, maybe we could use it to present what they had to say (and the guy ended up getting death threats for the article), but I'd prefer not to use it as a RS for anything factual because they're a severely biased source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The CinemaBlend article outright states as fact that all of the mainstream media reports on the issue are false and biased. Please explain how this is "neutral" while Paste is not.

We don't use Breitbart because that website has a long history of factual inaccuracy, partisan bias and outright falsification of facts. There exists a consensus on Wikipedia that it is unacceptable as a source for anything related to living people. There is no such consensus that Paste is unacceptable. Therefore, yes, we can use Paste but not Breitbart. If you wish to challenge either of these consensuses, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a place to open discussions on the suitability of disputed sources.

Wikipedia weights points of view based on their prevalence in reliable sources. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This means that if a majority of reliable sources express the viewpoint that GamerGate is largely driven by misogynistic views... then yes, we are required to make that viewpoint the most prominent one. Wikipedia is not a place to right perceived wrongs in mainstream media coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We can only use a given source if it is reliable on a given subject; we rely on The New York Times for world events, but we rely on scientific papers for subjects such as global warming, even though they are frequently in the news. Paste Magazine itself notes that it doesn't really fancy itself much on the subject, and the bias in the article is pretty clear, seeing as it is proposing a bizarre conspiracy theory. I'm not terribly familiar with Paste in general; looking over the site as a whole, it seems to have a bunch of lists and light entertainment news. Pretty much all "reliable sources" have variable levels of reliability depending on the subject matter and the specifics of the content; we use the Wall Street Journal for some business reporting, and they have a very good reputation for some kinds of reporting, but we don't rely on their op-ed section to tell us about Obama's latest tax policy. There are sections of the NYT we'd never cite for anything other than self-citing, and there are others which are great.

Incidentally, re: the article in Time: do you know who Leigh Alexander, the person who wrote that article, is? Leigh Alexander writes for a bunch of these folks - including Kotaku, one of the companies which has been accused of being unprofessional - as well as does PR for game developers. On the one hand, a lot of game journalists write for a bunch of places. On the other hand, well, what is she going to do - say that the people who pay her are totally corrupt, and that what they're doing is wrong? A conflict of interest is one of the things we look out for when we're looking for reliable sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues with claims&sources

There quite a lot of problems with this page. 1) It's totally one-sided 2) It names a couple of cases as 'proof' where it only has been claims, and not verified (eg Quinn and the others). While I don't argue against there having been proofs for some women in the industry having been harassed, a lot is still what it is - claims. Disputable claims at that. Newspapers and gaming websites present it as fact, but it's a still one-sided story. 3) Sources. So far NO newspaper or site mentioned has actually really much dug into it - they all copy&paste the same drivel over and over regarding gamers being 'male pigs' and 'misondrygenists'. There are people out there counter-researching, but due to the Wikipedia 'source requests' it's impossible to 'proof' the counterresearch, because no newspaper or knowledgeable site even tries to produce the counterstory. 4) 'Warediting'. I forgot the correct name for that. I won't even need to look at the article history this is happening.

Like a lot of things - Wikipedia really needs to look at the procedures etc. This way, a lot of potentially falsified information is getting in (or noteworthy info missing), create an biased view upon something - while the Wiki should be neutral, non-biased. Just my 2 cents. MicBenSte (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, what is the argument for the other side to justify their actions? Ignoring sourcing requirements for the moment, so in hopes of possibly finding a source? There is one "fair" argument I've seen, that is that there are some people that don't like the idea of video games being used to push a political agenda (I think I saw this in the LA Times article), which is a fine opinion to have and one I think we can source with reliable ones. But after that - I've got a hard time thinking that any reliable source is going to try to understand why the need to issue death threats and target certain people for doxxing, short of psychologically analyszing these (Which is not going to give a nice picture most likely).

The two cases (I am assuming Fish and Anita here) are well-established to be true. I even saw the start of Fish's doxxing when they hacked his Twitter account, and Antia's is a repeat of previous harassment. The sources reporting on both cases are the highest RS that we have for video game coverage so no reason to doubt them. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're missing a LOT.

From what I've been able to gather from all kinds of sources, the following all happened:

- The Quinn-incident happened first. A nasty business that was, the ex-BF going public with stuff. A large part of the stuff got debunked, and some people started to think Quinn was part of a plot.

- Verified threaths and harassments against Quinn were made. As far as I am aware, those are under investigation.

- In the meanwhile for a long time the Fine Young Capitalists had been working on a project to facilitate women being able to work on games. However, shortly after the threaths against Quinn by so far unknown parties, for some reason Quinn lashed out against FYC, and a lot of her followers started to insult, harass and threathen FYC.

- [redacted]

- The news about the Quinn' harassments came out. Quinn claimed continued harassments by 4chan and her 'infiltration' of 4chan.. However, those claims are irrefutable debatable, since tens of people who are regulars to 4chan have both laid out the structure of 4chan, as well as noting that the 4chan chat is noteable avoided - most happens on the forums/talk pages. Any 'OP', as Quinn claims to have witnessed, is more inclined to go through the forums, then through chat. Thus Quinn's 'proof' in that regard is highly debatable.

- Gaming media reported on the 'Quinn case', and started to point fingers

- 4chan (I'm not sure exact which subforum it was, either /b/ or /v/) raised money for FYC. Over $15.000 according to the interface host.

- Due to the tone of the gaming media and the reactions of devs of games and others on social media, people started to wonder for real if there was no corruption in the gaming media. Social media and others went into high gear to investigate the ties between several people originally involved in the 'Quinn Case', [redacted].

- [redacted]. A part of the regular media also copied those articles, who are in hostile tone a lot alike.

- The 'war' started due to the latter.

Due to the fact that the gaming media themselves are under scrutiny, and a few have even fired employees over misbehaviour, I highly recommend to in this case denote a lower 'trusted' rating for the gaming media, since they themselves are involved and have several dubious cases against them when it comes to independence in this.

PS: If anyone notes I've made an mistake, feel free to correct me with an additional note - this is what I that quickly remember off the top of my head. MicBenSte (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up, Wikipedia is not a forum and we're not here to discuss this situation in general, especially when it comes to negative information about living persons. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if a bulk of what you wrote gets removed and possibly rev deleted; you may want to consider removing it yourself as a show of good faith.

What I believe User:Masem meant is this: what is the argument to justify their actions as reported in reliable, third-party published sources? Because that's what we're here to do: document what reliable sources say about the situation. We're not here to present a false balance, so if the vast majority of the sources take one particular side then we'll state that, and we can also state that a minority position is a minority position. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even moreso, I'm just looking for reasons that doesn't have to be from RS sources, if only to help potentially find more RS sources that cover those facets. I can understand (though I personally can't see the justification for the actions) the arguments some offered about bringing political messages into video games and complaining about that. But that's a small fraction of the argument put forth by the other side. But that's the only "reason" I've seen. The rest seem to follow from the nature of who and what 4chan is and the group-think that often occurs there that is recognized by other media, and hence why any further arguments are being ignored by the press, because they see it as "more of the same" nonsense. If there is a legit argument that the other side has beyond the above one, I'd love to know what it is and look for sources to help support that better to help balance the article. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Woodroar, why should any of that be rev deleted? It doesn't contain grossly insulting or degrading material nor oversightable information. If you believe some of it to be a BLP violation you can selectively remove it yourself. Diego (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, the argument that there's nepotism and conflicts of interest with respect to advertisement in the gaming press is different from the complaints of political content in games, and it has been well articulated in reliable sources. Diego (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's right, that's a point too, and we can include that for sure as well. I just feel that when it comes to 4chan, there is also a lot of "me too"-ism and getting on the bandwagon, which is why the media will often trivialize 4chan's intentions in other stories. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. It's a strange feeling when you can easily verify the development of ongoing events from the sources where they're happening, yet there's no reliable source that will cover them in a way we can use. Diego (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think it is best to not try to expand this article until the whole mess has settled down and more sourcing looking back on it as neutrally as possible can make heads or tails of it. We can report the core, documentable matters of why this story is getting wide coverage (harassment and death threats of developers) which is going to make it appear biased but no more biased than how the media is reporting it. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV view expressed here is all well and good - but can someone please tell me what this GamerGate article is about?

• If it's about the harassment of Zoe Quinn - then that should be in her article.
• If it's about the alleged harassment, by unknown people whose links to Quinn are unclear, of FYC then that should be in her article.
• If it's about harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, then it goes in her article along with all the stuff she gets each time a video is released.
• If it's about journalistic ethics, then it should go under Video Game Culture or similar article if it's sufficiently notable (I really don't think so).
• If it's about a flame war on the internet over the use of SJW / Gamer / 4Chan - then I'm not sure that this article can really be supported by secondary sources as pretty much all the secondary sources only talk about the subjects in the terms of the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. I also don't think a flame war on the internet is any more notable than any other.
• If it's about social activism, then that should go under gamer culture too.

Complaining about the current state of the article is pretty much redundant if the content of the article is based on an amorphous blob of personal opinion, heavily editorialised social media content which is not what wikipedia is about. Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a larger issue here, that all these events are tied to, and it might be about general "Harassment in video game development", with "Gamergate" being a subsection of it. Events of this nature started last yet (COD devs getting death threats for rebalancing the game there, for example), and this is more of the same, but now taking the political/ethical-driven nature. But I need to see dust settle to make heads and tails of the right order. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV, and recentism. Video Game Culture is likely the main place, and even then there's an argument that this has absolutely nothing to do with games. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be giving undue weight to opinion of one of the sides, which treats all criticism of nepotism and politicization in gaming as "harassment". While no doubt some harassment did occur(from both sides), not all criticism is harassment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we have to be careful be clear that honest criticism is not harassment, and we can point to examples which (I'd have to check sources to make sure) TotalBiscuit found himself on a DCMA claim after scathingly reviewing one game but otherwise giving his honest opinion, and why his comment about the same when Quinn had criticism about her reportedly removed under a DCMA claim. Expanding the scope beyond GG would help to identify that there are common themes that have been running through the gaming industry and culture as a whole for a few years, and this is a turning point with GG. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that explain what GamerGate is about, like Al-Jazeera, Forbes or even The Guardian(which while noting clearly that it takes sides, admitted that not all of criticism is harassment and there are legitimate concerns). We can base the article on them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they talk about "GamerGate" but the level of conflation with other unrelated matters leave it very much lacking in definition. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions

In the interests of fairness and openness, I think we should open a section here to discuss proposed additions to the article, so that we can come to consensus and avoid further edit-warring when the article is unprotected. Any editor should feel free to propose wording below, with appropriate sources, for community discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I know I'm rehashing a bit what I said earlier, but I wish to propose to at least take a look at https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 (not my blog, got linked to it by someone) and http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ (I know Forbes is currently under discussion due to the writer/blogger issue as a source). As far as I can tell, the former source has about all facts spot-on and verified mostly but is an 'unverified source', while Erik Kain of Forbes has most of it correct and is - for now still - an 'verified source'. How long that is going to last, is up to the appropiate discussion board.MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:Regarding the sources - as RS, they're not what-is likely. For now, the two pages I linked are one of the few who have *some* manner of the dignity and at least try to portrait the truth. Other sources mostly are highlightning one side of the story or the other, and/or do so in an unacceptable manner.

Note: some developers and others moved from the #GamerGate tag to #Gameethics to discuss ethics in the gaming industry as a result of the muddied #GamerGate debate. Worthy of trivia note?MicBenSte (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the Forbes article is presumptively a reliable source - though I would note that, like most of the sources on this issue, it's opinionated. Medium is an open-access platform and its content has to be treated as a self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change

I am proposing this change to the second graf of the background section, based on Masem's version:

The incident led to broader allegations on social media that games developers and gaming media are too often closely connected. Others have observed the increasing focus on social representation and culture meaning in video games by some video games writers. The pejorative term "social justice warriors" has been used by those critical of the current state of the industry to refer to those game developers and journalists that have introduced such content into video games. Keith Stuart of The Guardian summarizes that many gamers have become dissatisfied with the game industry, leading to a schism between game developers and game players:

...The community is angry. They see conflicts of interest and corruption in every tweet and conversation between journalists and developers; in every positive preview. They want transparency in the games press. They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself.

Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff notes that the controversy is also seen as attempt to silence feminist and other outsider voices in gaming:

... The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women. "The ‘official' line is that it's about a demand for more transparency and better ethics in games journalism," Keith Stuart, games editor for The Guardian, told me in an email. "This in itself is absolutely fine — as I wrote in my own piece, we should all be skeptical of the media. But whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."

This presents both arguments - the "gamer" argument and the "critics" argument - evenhandedly. The Paste piece would be moved to the Reactions section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, uses non-reliable sources, has POV giving undue weight interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that Vox Media is not a reliable source? On what grounds do you make this claim? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you dropped the unreliable pasty article.Thank you. However you haven't addressed the other issues, you have cherry picked comments that push POV by giving undue weight to interpretation of the events to one of the sides, without neutrally presenting arguments of the other. Too much focus is on allegations, and the lengthy opinionated quote claiming the other side are "army of trolls" obviously is not suitable for neutral representation of the issues.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The first blockquote is an interpretation of one side's argument. The second blockquote is an interpretation of the other side's argument. We may not have one without the other. Please feel free to suggest your own second blockquote if you think you can come up with a better one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a neutral lead without any opinionated blockquotes which can be given later in responses section, for example those covered by Al Jazeera which found them notable to mention.The lead should list arguments of both sides without giving any favors to either one as well as short background info--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to propose a rewrite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a source-extremely biased and emotional language. Doesn't seem to me as reliable as RS

I have reviewed one source used called "Why We Didn't Want to Talk About "GamerGate", Garrett Martin, Paste, Sept. 4, 2014" It consists of extremely biased and emotional language, combined with insults, I will quote some parts:

• "Something idiotic and ugly and depressing and laughable"
• "They call it #GamerGate, because they have absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever"
• "That’s who is behind this entire situation: anti-woman trolls"
• "All the conspiracies and trumped-up claims of “evidence” of collusion among developers, press agents and the press spread by the #GamerGate founders are lies and distortions"

Based on the above, the article seems mostly to be a personal essay full with emotional outbursts, insults, and a very engaged POV. As such I wouldn't think of it as Reliable Source, that can be presented as representing objective information. I suggest either removing it completely, or attributing the opinions in full in responses section below.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will agree that we should not be using the Paste article as part of the "factual" aspect of the problem. It's an opinion and can be used for Reactions. I'll try to see if I can a neutral source that summarizes it better. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

At least in terms of establishing the nature of GamerGate, I read through and found the Guardian article to be very fair, identify three issues from the gamers side, and thus have remove the Paste statement in favor of the Guardian one. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(And to be clear, while the Guardian does show support for the "SJW" side and against the GamerGate side in the last part, the article attempts to lay out the issues on both sides fairly before applying the writer's personal opinion and notes that not everyone rallying under the GamerGate side is necessary in the harassment category.) --MASEM (t) 19:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I must ask that you self-revert your edit to this protected page, Masem. There is no consensus that the Paste article is inappropriate; it is an indisputable reliable source and its opinion does not disqualify it from use in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I am not opposed to looking at how to rewrite that section and using your version as a basis, but we should discuss and come to a consensus on the rewrite beforehand, and I object to removing the source entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Paste source can be used elsewhere, but it should not be used in the section that is trying to lay out the facts of the case, due to the immediately of which side it takes. It can be an opinion piece , certainly. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece isn't laying out any "facts" either, Masem - you've used it to articulate one side of the argument about what the controversy is about. We can certainly use the Paste piece to articulate the other side of the argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian piece, by the end of the article, is clearly against the GG groups (the gamer side), but it fairly presents all the arguments they use to describe why these gamers are angry. There are plenty of other sources that lay out the other side of the issue, as well as the Guardian one (eg it points out that he game industry works like any other media industry, that collusion between journalists and the content creators is an unavoidable aspect of anyone working in this type of industry). It does not try to inject its opinion unless after it has laid out the facts. Compare that to the Paste article that comes out swinging against that group. (Additionally, in terms of RS-ness, I would put the Guardian above Paste in general) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point that there is a significant POV that the entire thing is manufactured, and if we're going to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "gamer" perspective, so to speak, then we have to extensively blockquote someone laying out the "critical" perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use Vox and Keith Stuart's discussion here. I will amend my proposed version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, and herein lies the issue: virtually all of the sources discussing this are opinionated. If you're arguing to exclude opinionated pieces, we'll have to move CinemaBlend, Forbes, etc. out as well. If you strike all of the sources which could reasonably construed to have an opinion, we're left with pretty much nothing to write about and this is going to be a very, very short article that doesn't say much. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with other sources, feel free to discuss them in appropriate section, so that this discussion doesn't become focused on another issue. Most reliable sources such as Al Jazeera avoid insults or emotional language, this one doesn't, making it unreliable and not objective.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, you don't get to dictate what gets discussed in a talk page section. If you're going to assert that a source is unusable because it's opinionated, then it's fair game to suggest that many other sources are unusable for similar reasons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Emotional language" doesn't doesn't disqualify one from being used as a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It does, emotions per se contradict reliability. At best it could be used in responses section with full attribution. If the issue persists we can take it to WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, uh, no, it doesn't. Please go ahead and take it to WP:RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur; I noted previously we shouldn't use Paste. We have a lot of other options, so there's no reason to use a biased source when we can used unbiased ones. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems there is a consensus from several other users not to use the source, the only user objecting is NBSB who brought the emotionally engaged source into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am amused that you think there is anything resembling a consensus at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are the only one supporting the use of this piece as objective source of information.Of course there is a debate on other subjects, but this one reached consensus so far. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Several sections missing

• Censorship on various sites about this subject.
• The fact that GamerGate is not about harassment.
• Youtube videos which are a major factor of providing coverage on the topic are not mentioned.

--Artman40 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry. The "ethics in game journalism" is at most a side-bar to the entire affair, an excuse made by some quarters to justify the harassment. As for youtube, it is not a reliable source for use in the Wikipedia; what "AngryFan12345" decided to vlog about regarding the topic is not important to us. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the first video that kicked the GamerGate events off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equc1QnQ9rw Is it about harassment? Also http://attackongaming.com/gaming-talk/reddit-mod-outs-reddit-for-censorship-during-gamergate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ . Are these unrealiable sources in your opinion? --Artman40 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube and AttackOnGaming are, yes, obviously unreliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is almost exclusively about harassment of several women in the gaming industry"-according to the narrative of one of the sides of the controversy, that is subject to crticism. While no doubt harassment was made on both sides, reliable sources note that the issues reach far beyond harassment, and even The Guardian which defended one of the sides, admitted that there are legitimate concerns raised during these events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, and we must present each side of the controversy even-handedly. We must present both claims: that it's about journalistic ethics on one side, and about harassment of women on the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, GamerGate states that many of these "realiable" sources are in fact unreliable. In fact, many editors who write the articles about GamerGate being about harassment are in fact involved with this as well. --Artman40 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't magically become unreliable simply because someone makes a claim of bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for some, not all "sides" to a story are equal, or deserving of equal weight or time. Fringe or far-out criticisms, even when covered by reliable sources, do not always get equal time with the things that actually happened, e.g. Barack Obama contains precisely zero mentions of the fake birth certificate hysteria. This is why WP:UNDUE exists. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats, the press are likely going to ignore any qualified POV from that side. We can separate out very valid viewpoints that have been brought up by the gamer side: the transparency needed in the industry, how some devs push political agendas in games, but we're not ever likely to get a rationale, neutrally-written story that attempts to justify the need to harassment and issue death threats. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Exactly: as soon as one side starts using death threats"-death threats were made by members of both sides, however not all death threats were covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If the other death threats weren't covered in reliable sources, then they aren't part of our discussion. Verifiability is a core content policy.

In any event, the overwhelming majority perspective among reliable sources focuses on the threats and harassment against Quinn, Sarkeesian and other cultural critics and supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will search if death threats were reported. Hover, personal insults and harassment by the other side though were noted by reliable sources.Your claim is giving undue representation to one POV, which is not supported by reliable sources, even such as The Guardian which declared their support to one of the sides.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the undue weight policy exactly backward. We weight in-article representations of a point of view based on their prominence in reliable sources. By far, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources focus on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian as the touchstone of this issue. Thus, the NPOV policy requires us to give that viewpoint predominance.

The viewpoint you espouse is the minority viewpoint in reliable sources. Therefore, we must depict that as a minority viewpoint and not give it undue weight. Wikipedia does not have an "equal time" policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, not supported by sources. Reliable sources have addressed both sides, even one such as The Guardian. One of the most objective articles was from Al Jazeera which addressed both viewpoints equally. By now you have demonstrated obvious bias towards one of the sides of the controversy here. The article needs to represent NPOV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not a "personal opinion," it's verifiable from the thrust of the reliable sources, including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.)

Ah yes, the claim that "you have demonstrated obvious bias" by a user who has demonstrated obvious bias themselves. Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, cherry-picked, weak sources(Vice is considered RS? If so, I am dissapointed), and even they do not support you. I note that you ignored major reliable sources such as Al Jazeera, Forbes, Business Insider and others that do no support your POV. As to my POV-it is that we must present all viewpoints in neutral manner according to Wiki standards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sure, The Globe and Mail, Time, Ars Technica, The Independent, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, etc. - cherry-picked and weak sources, all.

By the way, I'm happy to add the Forbes link, because it supports my argument quite well. Although Erik Kain is a "Forbes contributor," which means that his writing is not reviewed, he is not edited and it is essentially an opinion piece. See this discussion thread.. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you have obviously not read the Business Insider piece - it is simply a syndicated version of The Guardian piece found here. Which says "A spiteful blogpost by the ex-lover of indie games developer Zoe Quinn, and the launch of the latest Tropes vs Women video by Sarkeesian, which analyses the sexist depiction of women in some games, have led to reams of appalling threats and abuse online" and mentions not a thing about alleged harassment of GamerGate supporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources, your only recourse is to somehow claim that they are all cherry-picked? OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"When confronted with the reality of the overwhelming weight of the reliable sources"-such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Forbes, Slate, Business Insider? They do not support your claims. In fact, both The Guardian and Business Insider, actually mention legitimate criticism and issues with the gaming industry, even as they take one of the sides. I am sorry, but your heavy POV is not reflected in these sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My willingness to assume good faith is growing thin. I literally just quoted from The Guardian piece you tout, in which the author depicts Quinn and Sarkeesian as the recipients of "reams of appalling threats and abuse online." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Slate article you tout says The entire situation is a dismal feedback loop of rage and abuse, where the harassment gets Quinn and her game more media coverage, and the harassers take that as evidence that they were right all along—something that’s already happened to Quinn several times over the past year. ... I know it’s unfair for me to ask this of you, young gamer. A fair number of people—not you!—are doing a lot worse than criticizing. Those adolescents (or arrested adolescents) are trolling Quinn, harassing and threatening her, hacking her accounts, even calling her home and circulating nude pictures of her. ... As gaming writer Jenn Frank says, “the TRUTH is, it turns out being a girl professionally, or on the Internet, etc., is VERY HARD.” Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian, a popular target for harassment, is getting “very scary threats” against her family, and all she does is talk about video games. So yes, that source supports my argument. Thank you for acknowledging it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, several companies have actually updated their ethics policies in response to this, which runs counter to the claims that this is all about misogyny. It clearly is not, and it is not universally perceived as being about such. It is a combination of a culture war (between the social justice folks and the hardcore gamers, as well as between the gamers and gaming journalists and developers who have denegrated them), online flame war (at this point there have been numerous death threats thrown around on both sides, doxxing, harassment, ect.), an argument about the ethics of gaming journalism, and several other things besides. The idea that it is all about misogyny is a point of view advanced by Zoe Quinn and her supporters, but there are numerous sources which note that it is not, and that the claims of such are, in fact, playing the victim. This is not to say that there has not been massive amounts of harassment, because there has been, clearly. But the idea that this is all about misogyny - or should be presented as such - is not supported by the RSs. Some of them claim it is; many claim otherwise. There are many people with many different agendas here. Our agenda here, on Wikipedia, should be to document; the AFD on this noted that as this is a current event, we should make sure to be careful about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BIAS and try to do our best to cover the who, what, where, and when as much as possible, as opposed to trying to get too far into things. If we take a step back, take a deep breath, and document what is going on, we will be much better for it. That was what I was trying to do above, with the bit about the background and article layout; the background should be the EASIEST part to write because it isn't about recent events but about what has happened in the past. I suggest that writing about the start of this is easier than writing about what is going on at this very moment because we have more vision on what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should say "this is all about misogyny." What I am saying is that this article must reflect and give weight to the significant POV that it is all about misogyny. Wikipedia is not going to decide whether it's about journalistic ethics or misogyny, and we don't care what you or anyone else thinks it "clearly" is or is not.

We must accurately describe each of the competing claims about this controversy, giving due weight to those that are most prevalent in reliable sources. This is, as I have noted, precisely what the NPOV policy requires. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

As I have repeatedly noted, a prevalent viewpoint in the reliable sources is that the movement's statements that it is centered on journalistic ethics are belied by, or at the very least drowned out by, the overwhelming torrent of misogynistic abuse, harassment and slut-shaming aimed at Zoe Quinn and others.

• As Vox's Todd VanDerWerff put it, "The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture. But those concerns have often been warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." He quotes The Guardian's gaming editor Keith Stuart as saying, "Whatever the higher motivations of some of those involved, the debate has had such a toxic undercurrent of abuse and anti-feminism that it has poisoned the whole concept."
• On TownHall.com, a relatively sympathetic piece by Kevin Glass notes that "The angry, hyperbolic, sometimes dangerous reaction of the gaming consumption community is troubling. Anecdotally, it takes only five minutes in a first-person shooter online lobby to understand why. The gamers involved seem to be in perpetual competition to see who can hurl the most vile insults at each other. It’s not an environment I’d want to expose my mother, wife, or daughter to. One might say that if a woman can’t handle that kind of environment, they should voluntarily stay away; but that’s precisely the point. A certain segment of the gaming community endeavors to make women feel as unwelcome as possible. And certainly, we can all agree that posting private information and photos, combined with violent threats, is out of bounds. This is something that all gamers should band together to condemn more strenuously than the minor crime of biased journalism."
• In The Globe and Mail, Emma Woolley writes, "Even if the allegations against Ms. Quinn were true, it is hard to justify the extreme levels of rage being spewed online, which apparently includes continuing harassment of her and her friends. ... As Ms. Quinn herself acknowledged, what this actually about is the entitlement and disdain shown to game creators, and some longtime gamers feeling threatened by more people moving into what they consider their space. Frustration that had been building amongst them–annoyed by the rise in discussions centered on gender, race and diversity in video games–has now burst forth. This group is so incensed that they’re using petty gossip about someone’s personal life to fuel a movement aimed at “taking back” video games from evil feminists who dare to make/support non-traditional games, or criticize AAA titles, under the guise of “integrity.” ... Gaming’s most pervasive issue isn’t corruption, but the people who’ve taken ownership of something that isn’t solely theirs to begin with. In trying their damnedest to limit the appeal of the medium and use online harassment to achieve their goals, this group of toxic trolls are proving themselves to be gaming’s biggest problem."
• In the Los Angeles Times, Todd Martens says "The exact incident, in which the spurned ex of a female independent game designer reportedly published embarrassing personal details of their relationship and accused her of infidelity, is now beside the point. That moment has become an excuse, an opportunity to rail against designers and writers who are attempting to intellectualize the medium — “social justice warriors,” as they’ve been labeled by their online assailants. These “social justice warriors” are seen as capable of destroying the very essence of what some players love about video games: violence, fantasy and scantily clad women. Far from making a point, the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature."

I could quote from each and every one of them if you'd like. The point is, their POV is significant and appears to be the predominant POV in reliable sources. Our policy requires that we give that prominence due weight in this article. The fact that you disagree with their POV, believe their POV is a "conflict of interest" or believe them to be "playing the victim" is utterly irrelevant, because none of those things have any bearing on Wikipedia's treatment of them as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So I made an account for this, but I honestly have to say something. This whole controversy has been normal folks vs the media. There is going to be an incredible amount of sources for the media BECAUSE they try to discredit GamerGate. This whole article misrepresents what this movement is fighting for (Which is journalist ethics, look at the gamergate hashtag on twitter). I honestly believe if this article can only focus on one side because of the controversy being against the media, it shouldn't even exist. If it continues to exist, it is not an encyclopedia article, but an opinion piece. There was an actual tweet a few days after this started where someone said, "Oh, I didn't know they were calling for radio silence" to try to make it go away. This has been what we have been fighting against, and you are being incredibly unjust to this topic. I don't know all of the Wikipedia articles or anything, but this is from an outsiders and frequent users point of view, and also the view of people who are on the side of gamer gate fighting for this. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to work out what the larger scope is that leads up to GG

I'm trying to figure out what the right approach for this article as, right now, it seems that there was nothing there until the ex's allegations on Quinn. But this has been a situation brewing for some time.

The Guardian article justifies that we're at this point due to two facets: the rise of the indie game market (which allows for titles that would include those that include "messages"), and the increase of the use of social media that makes anyone a possible game critic.

The Guardian article also points out that gamers have been critical of game journalism for some time; one example give is the Doritos-gate thing (back in 2012 [16]) but possibly even goes at least as far back as Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot after the questionable Kane & Lynch review in 2007 ([17]).

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers (the COD game balancing stuff), and the involvement of the IDGA and now the FBI to try to stem that. We also have the fact that when Quinn released Depression Quest last year she was also harassed.

If we can describe all these events, and then start a section on the actual part of "GamerGate" to say that it is considered the flashpoint of all these things brewing, that would help set the stage better for the reader and make it clear this isn't something that just happened for no reason. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also the clearly-articulated argument in a number of reliable sources that the entire thing amounts to a harassment campaign, and we would violate NPOV by failing to note it alongside the "gamer" argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, Quinn's harassment from last year should be included, and some of the other mid-2013 events were considered harassment too (in fact, that is why IDGA got involved). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree re: background. That was what I was trying to note above - this whole thing was a flashpoint. People talk about this as if it "started", but really, it has been brewing for years - some would say decades. John Romero's ad years ago for Daikatana really is an example of the same sort of disrespect for gamers, and is frequently cited as such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another facet here is that events since last year have been cases of gamers harassing developers, please note that the harassment is not one sided, one of the reliable sources here, notes that people criticizing game journalists and developers have been harassed as well. One angle that doesn't seem to be covered so far is Silverstring Media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do feel that the FYC /Quinn thing needs to be included too, in part that this shows what you said, this is not a one sided "attack" on the other, and we can certainly source that (the Vox article and carefully with this Vice articles). And same with Phil Fish, as he has had very heated words in the past before these events (as I recall, stuff that lead to the cancellation of Fez 2) --MASEM (t) 20:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment. This is just like the Quinn article last week, where people are digging up bad and biased opinion pieces in order to mitigate the treatment that Quinn and others were subject to. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sorry, but condemning harassers for their behavior is not in itself harassment."There were death threats to the other side and personal insults as well. Far from just "condemning".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By your logic, Tarc, Zoe Quinn would not be the subject of harassment herself, seeing as she has harassed others. The Zoe Quinn's supporters doxxed, hacked, threatened, and sent out death threats to people. Heck, they doxxed Wikipedia users for editing this Wikipedia article and the one on Zoe Quinn. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not reporting significant counter-harassment, and indeed are focusing almost exclusively on the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian" this is incorrect.I have read numerous reliable sources that reported on harassment from both sides, and none of the reliable sources focus exclusively about these two figures you focus on. In fact a large portion of the debate is completely bypassing these two figures, and attempts to divert it to them have been criticized by critics of gaming journalism and industry as attempts to turn around the discussion about non-issue(this was covered by RS as well).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've linked to a number of reliable sources which reported significant counter-harassment; the What Culture? piece noted the death threats leveled at the Brietbart writer, for instance, while Business Insider has noted both the signature gathering campaign about harassment by game devs (which had more than the one that the game devs were signing - in fact, I believe we even cite that article in the article, or did at one point). There have been numerous articles which have noted harassment by these folks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TD, so it seems death threats are confirmed by reliable sources. As such they should be covered in appropriate section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. There may be a few mentions of alleged counter-harassment, but they are neither as credible nor as widespread as the discussion of harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others. Ergo, we weight the discussion of their harassment far more heavily than we weight any alleged counter-harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

" but they are neither as credible nor as widespread " That is your view, that doesn't seem to be supported by RS. Note that you use alleged when talking about the other side, but take others at face value when it comes to the another. This indicates bias. We should describe both sides neutrally.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And you're wrong. Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view: this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one... I could go on. (And will: this one and this one and this one, too.) And you have no rebuttal except to sputter that I have somehow "cherry-picked" every reliable source on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"And you're wrong." That's hardly an argument." Because this is a list of reliable sources which support my view"-again, under close scrutiny these sources do not support your view, especially The Guardian, Slate(which actually goes against your argument) or the Business Insider. You have also omitted major reliable sources like Al Jazeera, which completely contradict your claims. As to others, Vice seems like a weak source and I wouldn't consider it reliable source. I am sorry, but you have contradicted yourself with many of these links.

"And you have no rebuttal except to sputter", personal insults don't add to the credibility of your argument. I suggest that you keep your arguments civil--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention several of those are unusuable; The Guardian piece is not usable; conflict of interest. The Independent article is a blog (voices is their blog/opinion section from my understanding). The time article was written by Leigh Alexander, who as I noted previously has a clear conflict of interest in the matter as well, as she is employed by one of the people who is targeted by the accusations of corruption (and indeed, is involved in both gaming journalism AND promotion of games for pay, which is itself a conflict of interest). The Motherboard article is an attack piece and not a reliable source. Business Insider makes note of the harassment of gamers by journalists and game developers. That's just off the top of my head. It is easy to list off hundreds of blogs and unreliable sources and attack pieces. It is much harder to list off good, reliable sources which aren't such. That's one of the major challenges the article faces. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "conflict of interest" in The Guardian or Time pieces, and they are perfectly usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How are those not conflicts of interest? One of them directly financially supported Zoe Quinn; the other one works for at least one of the places which has been the target of criticism and is writing in defense of actions she herself has been involved in. I'm referring to the first article from The Guardian; the second one is totally fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. The Guardian is a reliable source, period. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)