Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Asian sources / Patreon / Quinn

http://www.huxiu.com/article/43065.html

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/01/patreon-pressured-pull-sarkeesian-effect-documentary/

Running the first article through Google's translation service shows that it's reliable and detailed. Everything matches up with the record elsewhere. I link it because I'd like to use it, or Bright Side of News, as a source for gamers' earlier concerns about Quinn's Patreon patrons (beyond just Jenn Frank), many of them video games journalists and game developers.

It's also covered implicitly in http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats and http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/07/the-gamergate-question/

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What information does the article include that isn't covered in Enlglish language ones? Machine translations lose a lot of nuance. English-language sources are generally preferred, all other things being equal. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That it's more than just Jenn Frank who's funding her, i.e. other members of the gaming press and developers are doing so, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess, featuring phrases such as "Another game circle feminist warrior, female game commentator Anita Sarkeesian also unfortunate gun." I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of it, but it doesn't seem useful to support anything meaningful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Google Translation of the article is a muddled, unreadable mess" - Good thing the English Wikipedia is home to 1,544 different native speakers of Chinese, right? Why not ask for help? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to use the source, so maybe you should ask someone else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

But you were judging the desirability of a source based on a poor machine translation that did not accuratey reflect the contents of the piece. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the previous posts in a thread before commenting in that thread. I did exactly what the person who proposed the article said they did — ran the article through Google's translation service, which according to them, "shows that it's reliable and detailed." On the contrary, I got a garbled mess that can be said to be neither reliable nor detailed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm well capable and willing to accurately translate the piece to English, provided that I can have reassurance that I won't be accused of BLP policy violation simply for being the messenger once I post the translation on the talk page. The piece is quite detailed in how it covers the entire history of the debacle, which can help with the verifiability of this article and fill in any missing gaps.

Having a quick Baidu search, the entire incident is well covered on Chinese websites, with articles from the IT specialist section of this news website, and this mainstream news website (in fact, QQ.com is one of the biggest mainstream news portals in mainland China in terms of readership). These are all websites that the general population takes very seriously, both sites being government registered news outlets per the information laws of the People's Republic of China (it is illegal to market yourself as a "news outlet" without government permission).

Finally, may I remind you that while machine translations work decently between Germanic languages such as English and Dutch, Chinese is a Sinic language, and that the technology for machine translation to Chinese is hardly there yet, of course you're going to get gibberish. Regardless of how much money Google attempts to pump into developing machine translations, many scientific journals guesstimate that it will be at least 25 years until we can get reliable machine translation between Germanic and Sinic languages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned that you might be accused of violating BLP by posting a translation of this article I would suggest that you not do so. We are not likely to be using any extraordinary new claims that are only sourced ot this article and have somehow been overlooked by the many, many sources that we already have. This is primarily an English-language movement, so unless the article has some insight into the effects the movement is having in Chinese-language communities or how the Chinese speaking world is participating I don't think it's likely to be any more useful than the many high quality sources we already have.

I think we're all well aware of the limitations of machine translations, but when a machine translation is the point of reference for the person initiating the discussion it's entirely fair for other participants to use and comment on it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just been seeing overzealous accusations of BLP vios being thrown around all too much lately, not specifically on here, but all over the Wikipedia project. It's precisely the reason why I find BLP topics tedious and bothersome.

I didn't specifically say that the article contains potential BLP problems, I just don't want to be the target of any lynchmob. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that brings up the question of whether or not this is a reliable source to begin with. The translation says it's a "submission," the only byline is "game grapes" and it comes with the disclaimer that "Articles for authors independently views do not represent the position of the tiger sniffing network." (Oh, machine translation...) This would suggest that it's not a staff-written, edited/fact-checked article, but more akin to a self-published user blog. A machine translation of the Frequently Asked Questions page seems to support the proposition that articles on the site are basically self-published. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the author's own editorial, he doesn't write on behalf of the website. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an identifiable byline, or is it an anonymous username? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is written by 游戏葡萄 (pinyin: Yóuxì pútáo; lit. 'Game Grapes'), which is described as "A games industry media business with discerning integrity and foresight", that can be contacted with the email hi@youxiputao.com. Their writer's page refers to themselves in the first-person collective pronoun (我们), which suggests that this is a company hired to write articles on the behalf of websites, and not an individual. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After a bit more digging, I've discovered that "Game Grapes" is officially registered as, and is operating as, "Beijing Coolgame Technology Co., Ltd.", with the ICP registration number 13050684. The company address is located at "中国 北京 朝阳区景华南街1号 旺座中心公寓西塔1208室，100022" (Unit 1208, Wangzuo Central Apartment Blocks Eastern Tower, 1 Jinghuanan Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Postcode 100022) and their telephone number is 010-53370644. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has become strangely quiet for some reason, is there a follow-up to this or what? Is there an overall verdict on these sources? Based on what I can read, the Game Grapes article is written by a company which specialises on the industry, provides a detailed and complete chronology of events, and provides strong fact-checking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been a specific proposal to add anything. Furthermore, I disagree that there's any evidence of strong fact-checking from this source. Moreover, who is supporting Zoe Quinn through Patreon doesn't seem to be a relevant issue and isn't discussed in any other reliable sources. As best I can tell from the machine translation, it's an anonymous claim of "leaked documents" which is not particularly convincing. There is no statement of who is supposedly supporting Quinn's Patreon... which means all we could say is "according to XXX site, some developers and journalists supported Quinn's Patreon." Absent any context, it's unclear as to why we care in this article that some unnamed, unspecified people supported another person.

I again note that for a movement whose supporters are claiming isn't about misogyny and isn't about harassing Zoe Quinn, there sure seems to be an awful lot of interest in adding information about Zoe Quinn to this article. Interesting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It sure has better fact-checking than the selection of western MSM reliable sources that have been criticised within the old talk page archives for being inaccurate. Based on a quick look through the archives, many of the issues that were brought up were based upon the argument that MSM sources took people's word for fact, instead of stating that "X claims that Y". The Chinese article does not engage in such poor journalistic writing style, so that already is a plus for this article. The authors, being from Beijing, don't have a stake in the entire dispute, so they don't have any reason to take sides or puff anything up.

I'm sure some editors here might question why we even need to rely on a Chinese source to cite these things. My argument would be that because this Chinese piece is not influenced by external pressures like western writers would be, they can be fairer in their representation of both sides in their report. If being fair should be achieved, it would be a good idea to see how outsiders tell the narrative, and what better way to do this than to use a source from the complete opposite side of the world, away from the contemporary cultural influences of western journalism?

Anyway, I'll summarise the overall gist of the piece. I'll keep my wording short and simple, and if there's anything left out from the Wikipedia article, we can decide on whether it can be mentioned.

Summary translation of article

• Eron Gjoni wrote his piece, and this triggered a response by gamers
• The allegations that Quinn misused "her body" (direct quote, the media uses this innuendo because "sex" is a bad word on the government censor list) to get favourable reviews for Depression Quest arose purely from speculation amongst internet users, following the Gjoni piece
• Nathan Grayson wrote about the failed Game Jam, but never actually reviewed Depression Quest; despite this, internet users came to the conclusion that this proves the intimate relationship between developers and the media, and thus corruption in the industry
• Kotaku, Polygon, Rock-Paper-Shotgun, IGN, Destructoid, The Escapist and other sites remained silent on the issue, leading to the belief that she was being protected
• On August 17, Mundane Matt released a Youtube video on the issue which was brought down by DMCA filed by Zoe
• Another Youtube user known as Internet Aristocrat, formerly known as Jim81Jim, released a video on August 18 tapping further into the gossip scandal which further incited the situation
• Youtube celebrity TotalBiscuit (John Bain/the Cynical Brit) published a few comments on Twitter on his opinion regarding the whole issue; although keeping his comments within a neutral standpoint without specifically taking sides, he was attacked by various indie game developers including Phil Fish as a result
• Any comments on Reddit regarding the incident with Totalbiscuit were censored by moderation staff, with users being warned and banned. One Reddit administrator was fired because he leaked that the censorship arose on the personal request of Zoe
• Sites including NeoGAF and 4chan began censoring comments
• UK site Gamesnosh published an article on the scandal which was quickly taken down; the article was even removed from the Wayback Machine internet archive (web.archive.org)
• These incidents led users to believe that there was an active silencing campaign being undertaken, leading said users to begin forming groups to engage in actions
• Players started to write comments questioning the manner in which Depression Quest was greenlit on Steam and audited for Indiecade, and according to Quinn in an interview, she recieved intimidation and harassment due to this; she uses screenshots of discussion on Wizardchan as evidence that she is being targeted by a hate campaign. Wizardchan members deny the allegations
• Quinn and her PR manager Maya Kramer opposed TFYC in Feburary 2014, Matthew Rappard of TYFC claimed being the victim of doxxing and harassment. Quinn denied the allegations on Twitter
• Phil Fish comes forward to defend Zoe
• When game developer Wolf Wozniack made Twitter comments critical of Zoe (not going into detail of what the comments were, potential BLP), Phil Fish attacked him and forced him to apologise and withdraw the allegations
• Quinn's Patreon account was compromised; leaked information reveals that a considerable proportion of her benefactors were in the media business; this was considered by angry players as a lack of journalistic ethics
• Quinn was doxxed on August 19; Phil Fish was later doxxed, announces his departure from the industry
• TFYC IndieGoGo page was hacked
• The reason /v/ (lowercase) supported TFYC was in attempt to cause difficulties for Quinn, in addition to removing prejudices external people have towards 4chan
• The hacker involved in the incident self-identified as /V/ (uppercase), however 4chan members deny responsibility; Quinn ridicules the claims that it was a false flag, stating that it makes no sense for her to hack herself
• Reports of Anita's latest death threats incident was published in Polygon on August 27
• From here onwards, the authors of the article write their own personal interpretation: "Without a doubt, Gamergate is a war between players and the media, filled with confusion and stifling emotions leading to destruction"; "It reflects an era of change within the games industry and independent games development"; "Gaming transformed from an entertainment form exclusively enjoyed by adolescent males to one generally accepted and recognized by the public as a major form of art"; "Emergence of the internet ... changes everything ... Games magazines are no longer the sole authority of game reviews, with forums and discussion boards present for players to flame at one another ... with the advent of social media, ... players, developers and investors are closely linked, with games media bridging communication". "Following the outbreak of Gamergate, Leigh Alexander published 'Gamers don't have to be your audience Gamers are over', however the gamers will not end, because games will forever belong to those who play and love them"

Note that the above is written in the order which the article writes the events, and is not in chronological order. In addition, these are in the original words of the writer translated into English, any personal commentary by me is in parentheses only. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

And so, a POV tag should remain. Skrelk (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We've addressed the POV aspects numerous times on this page, and have come to the consensus that there's little we can do to correct the fact that the press will bias their reporting on this. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links, in my previous post on this talk page to several unbiased sources. If you take out Vox, Verge, Gawker, etc, most reporting is unbiased, and the raw facts from some of the factually credible biased reporting can be rendered NPOV, and suitable. Skrelk (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And we're addressed those already and sme of them were already being used, and one fails our RS policy. Additionally, no reporting on this will be unbiased, and we are using the least-biased sources to set the framework of events and core issues. That's all within POV policy. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You also removed cites to the Los Angeles Times and The Telegraph — both of which are impeccable mainstream sources. So basically "If you take all of the sources out that I disagree with, then the sources are unbiased." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are really low quality sources, to be fair, even if they are reliable. There are any number of other sources that could replace them, and for the better, although I don't see why the sentence has to be loaded with references; two sources seems good enough, anyway. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty resolved. I'd also point out that the entire foundation of gamergate is straight out of The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It requires (as entre) acceptance of a conspiracy between journalists, indie developers and various other actors. All reasoning stems from that, so sources which don't reaffirm this specific worldview are untrusted or biased. Rather than trying to find bias you're looking at the outcome and judging intent based on that. So we're not going to satisfy claims of neutrality for this WP:FRINGE position without treating it as though its fundamental basis weren't a complete fucking mess. It's impossible. What we're going to do is try to describe the movement using the more reliable sources and summarize from that. Using those we would all try to make the most neutral possible summary, but not without granting, in the voice of the encyclopedia, the megaphone to a fringe viewpoint. If doing so makes the gamergate position seem beleaguered, cruel or dare I say sexist, then that's rough, but it's how it has to work. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that GamerGate backers have legitimate concerns is not a fringe position, and it does not require the acceptance of a conspiracy, it alleges that journalistic ethics were violated. As is, the article is granting the encyclopedic megaphone to the anti-GG side of the issue. And I would point out that you have biases on your part. Skrelk (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is convenient when it's needed to make a loud stink over perceived bias by insinuating that tenuous connections represent in-group circlejerking and privilege granting and therefore disqualify sources which don't buy the line that it's just all about vidya. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased rather than the fact that a large number of people think GamerGate is attempting to intimidate women and other social critics of video games into silence is, yes, what we call a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased". That's not what people have been saying, and you know that's not what people have been saying. If you and Tarc and TRPoD and Ryulong could stop attributing willful misinterpretations, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hilarious though that he linked to a Tumblr .gif, I just... Loganmac (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to remove a template that says 'Do not remove this until the dispute is resolved' The article is clearly slanted towards one direction. Whether that's the absence of reliable sources in the other direction is to be discussed and hopefully to be resolved. That's what a NPOV dispute is. Some people don't think the article is neutral, tag it, then discussion ensues. It's also disheartening to see so many shortly closed recent discussions. I'm sure some are for good reasons, while others...not so much. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When the same arguments that have long been discussed and come to a conclusion by people new to the debate (and in a case like this, where we know there's outside influences to try to change this), closing retreading discussions is acceptable. Until something new is brought to the table to point out the problem, it's wasting the time of editors to readdress. that's why there's an archive page for others to review and determine what new information they can bring. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind linking me to that consensus you mentioned in your first post under this header? Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I would not call my self a single purpose account, I've been here a long time and edit plain boring articles because edit wars and people fervently proclaiming they know the truth literally scare me. Now I don't proclaim to speak out for all the other quiet non-confrontational peon editors but here is my idea: I would argue the article needs a current event template as well, but that is academic at this point: why not have everyone just sit back wait a few months and then when "the dust has settled" come back to editing this article, perhaps then more neutral and nuanced sources will be available, and perhaps less single-propose accounts will be around causing edit wars? True I think everyone on both sides can agree the article is in an incomplete state now, but nothing is going to solve that but time and some ovaltine BerserkerBen (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I see is dozens and dozens of people bringing up valid criticism, and you (Ryulong) flaming them without presenting any sort of rational, fact-based argument, until they give up. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on remembering your password.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please reread WP:CIVIL. It's bad enough that you advertise your personal twitter account here, you don't need to make snide comments too. Muscat Hoe (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't advertised anything. I was attacked on Twitter by the mindless gamergate zombies because I dared to edit this page and no single purpose account is going to make me do anything different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are people who are clearly not neutral and not experts on this subject allowed to edit and moderate a controversial article at all? Your clearly not educated in this subject and calling everyone who supports this movement "mindless zombies" just proves you are doing biased edits for your own side. Skeeveo (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'd be neutral if people didn't go out of their way to harass me because I edit this page. Now back to Romero's with you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My larger concern here...

Trust me, I'm in no way trying to change the current broad tone of this article - however, I am seriously concerned that there is a problem with editors that are decidedly anti-GG (or definitely not proGG) trying to use this as a platform to include any negative comments about the proGG as they can under the guise that because we don't have really good unbias sourcing and the media is painting the proGG side in the negative light, we can pile up the negativity without violating policy.

If you haven't done it already, a good exercise for those editors on the non-proGG side is to read some of these Reddit and other forum threads about this article. Yes, we know there's outside influences, but when you see why they are angry about it, and read this article in light of those comments, the issues they point out are glaring. And many commentators in those thread recognize our hands our tied by WP's sourcing policy but they recognize that some of the ways we include specific elements is creating a bias against them when there are other ways - from the same set of sources - to present the same information without that same bias. Obviously there's some on these forums that decree the use of any of the sites that they are protesting (ala Polygon, RPS, Gamasutra) but there's a few that are definitely aware that what we're trying to write here is not something we can just swing to their desired version but should be able to do what is basically the same job using the same sources but without the amount of negativity that this has towards proGG. Not to change the story, but to tone down the rhetoric.

What we should be doing is making sure that if we are including opinion on this article, it is a necessarily opinion to express a point that cannot be more neutrally worded or a more neutral quote used. For example, on the issue of SJW, one could easily pull a definition that paints those that use the term in poor light, but there exists a more neutral statement that still denoted it was a dejoratory term but avoids the opininated language about the proGG side.

A thing to keep in mind - the initial week or two of events from Quinn's allegations was heated and a lot of people wrote about the topic in an emotional manner. With the main events now past and people thinking and writing about this in a more rationale manner, we should be looking to retain the existing content on the factual matters but try to swap out and/or remove highly opinated pieces that aren't really necessary to establish the context of this article. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources are depicting something negatively, it's not our job to write the article with a purposeful intent to cover up or minimize that negativity.

I do not read what pro-GGers think of this article any more than I seek out the opinion of anti-GGers about this article. I honestly don't care what anyone on either side thinks of it. I care what the reliable sources say, and they're pretty much unanimous. One can either believe that there is some sort of evil globe-spanning journalistic cabal conspiracy to support women who are being harassed, or one can believe that it's the honest opinion of a whole lot of people from a wide variety of backgrounds that the movement's goals are poisonous and retrograde. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a false dichotomy North, "one can belive x or y" are not the only options. Gamergate is a complex issue and there is the ability to take a stance on one aspect and not another. Also, I don't think anyone is doubting that a lot of people have "honest opinion[s]" about Gamergate being "poisonous", it's just that there are others who do not think so and whose opinions are not being represented in the article (and have users activley editing them out if added). Just because an opinion is in the minority does not mean it does not deserve equal representation.

I also have trouble beliving that you do not care what either side thinks of it, yet seem to show clear biased against someone who supports Gamerate by only presenting the negative view of it (which is not an imperical fact, as you yourself called it "an honest opinion").Iamaom (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing about an actual action that, at the larger scope, taken as negative (like the harassment issues and the doxxing), and writing on the opinion of those people that did that action beyond what other sources say. For example, there is no way we can remove the "fact" that the original harassment aspects were called misogynistic becauase a plurality of sources, all across the bias spectrum, used that terminology. But if one were to describe the entire proGG side as misogynistic now, that's not a commonly shared viewpoint and should not be included at all even if we can source a quote for that.

You should care what outside sources say, though we can't let them influence us directly. My point is that we are using the sources at our disposal in a manner that is not very encyclopedic even through it might seem like we are. We have to be clinical and that's not an approach I see being taken by others here. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think you understand identity politics very well. You can stand on a soapbox all day long and proclaim that you aren't something, but if others carrying your flag are doing that same thing... your flag is going to be seen as standing for it, whether you like it or not. There likely are a lot of well-intentioned folks in the movement. Unfortunately, their flag is covered in the muck of nonsensical and false allegations about an obscure female developer's sex life; ongoing harassment of that developer and others; third-grade-level sex jokes; continued attempts to silence dissenting voices in the gaming community; the absurd idea that journalists should have neither opinions nor any social contact with other journalists; and a strange, inexplicable fixation on the ethics of social criticism and indie games rather than the ethics of multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with a known history of actually buying positive coverage or having writers fired for negative coverage.

As reliable sources have noted, going after a game industry news site for publishing a female writer's opinion is not doing anything to dispel the notion that "the misogynist language used by many supporters has put the movement at the center of the conversation about how women are treated in the gaming industry." [1]

The word "GamerGate" is now permanently associated with misogyny, much as "states' rights" became permanently associated with segregationism. Which is why Zoe Quinn long ago suggested that those truly interested in issues of journalism ethics come up with another hashtag. The baggage has already attached and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Identity politics are not Wikipedia's concern. Wikipedia's concern is being accurate. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is identity politics, and the article is currently pretty accurate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true - Zoe Quinn and her compadres are all about identity politics. Given that a writer for Breitbart has gotten a syringe in the mail at this point, the idea of "guilt by association" would look pretty bad for you, no? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, false equivalencies. One scary thing happened to poor Milo (and it's not as though Gamergate is the only, shall we say 'controversial' thing he does.) A shitton of scary things have happened to a whole lot of people who have said things gamergate doesn't approve of. This is not parity. This is not 'both sides are at fault.' There is simply no comparison, and that's why the mainstream media isn't writing articles about how much harassment gamergaters are getting. If the 'other side' were only making the kind of isolated claims of harassment that the gaters have made, it would be a very different story. But that is not what's happening. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That Gamergate is quintessentially identity politics is actually a pretty shrewd observation. On their own terms they're a movement that see's "gamers" as an oppressed group who ae being marginalized by the wrongfull promotion of the views of women or people friendly to women - absolutely identity politics, albeit a cargo-cult, fun house mirror version of it. That may even be the seed of a lede rewrite that would make even Masem happy. 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, reddit is a cesspool only the barest of bare steps above 4chan/b/. An encyclopedia project that is to contain topical articles that reflect what reliable sources says about that topic is not even remotely interested in a discussion board and the opinions of its denizens, any more than Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories takes stock of what the Free Republic has to say about the president's birth certificate. Such places do...not...matter. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You just proved my point. I'm well aware that Reddit is far from any authority but I'm not looking to them as that, I'm looking at what they see and what we can improve on, and treating their concerns in as much as we can within WP is something we should be striving for, not ignoring just because Reddit is Reddit. I mean, I'm reading past the noise when I go there, but there are enough self-aware people at these forums to simply ignore those words is doing exactly what this article explains that we're painting the entire proGG as crazy, wacky people due to the actions of a few. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem - please stop attempting to appease POV pushers by attempting "balance" - it weakens the article, it doesn't actually make them happier (only a fully counterfactual article would), it's repeatedly resulted in us substituting strong sources for weak ones and it basically constitutes a futile excercise in troll feeding. Just stop. Artw (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

BS. We need to be clinical, hands-off, no investment in either side of the debate, and we are presently not. We can do a whole lot better while still being true to how the story is presented. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And we portray the debate as the reliable sources portray it — that is, if the intent truly was to have a conversation about "journalism ethics," framing that conversation around allegations about an obscure indie developer's sex life stemming from a spurned ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack" was catastrophically stupid and inappropriate, which leads inevitably to the suggestion that the actual intent was to harass and slut-shame a female developer because some people didn't like her game. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to remove that. That's what the sources are saying, and until the sources changes, facts we can't ignore. We have to say that or we're not summarizing the sources. But we don't have to repeat that point over and over and over and over by using every possible anti-GG quote to support it, which is what is happening in some places on this. It's why I say its a pile-on - the point has been made, there's no need to keep rubbing it in even if there's a plethora of sources that try to do that. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We ignore them because their opinions are irrelevant. This isn't a blog. If a redditor comes here and wishes to to conform to the the norms and policies and guidelines of the project then that is great. If they come here screaming "THIS ARTICLE IS SO BAISED!!!!!!!!!!" and try to gut the quite reliably-sourced misogyny POV, then they should be run out on a rail. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A sanctimonious call for patience and understanding and 'seeing the other side' targeted at the 'anti-gamergate' editors rather than the small army of SPAs and POV pushers? Lovely. I'll pass on reading through KiA, thanks. My blood pressure can't take it. If this is about your opposition to including the basic information that "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative, remember that you're the one who rejected the alternative of leaving the term out to avoid having to say something bad about the gaters. And incidentally, informing us that you're neutral and anyone pushing back against the legion of SPAs is not doesn't make either of those things true. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA is an essay, while often cited, is not a rule. As long as an editor conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I really couldn't care less what topics they edit, as long as they can justify them. POV pushers are hard to define and have an infinite scope. I was charged as a POV pusher when I removed a BLP violation some vandal had put. Anybody can use it and we have to be cautious. That being said, there does need to be consistency in the ideals of whether to allow something to be explained, left out, criticized with sources, or some other variant. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rule, but I didn't say it is. It is a problem, and one that Wikipedia encounters frequently, especially in internet kerfuffles like this one. Pretending that there's nothing wrong with an article's talk page being overrun by editors with few or no contributions outside a particular article and subject (especially when they are also advocating a very strong opinion of that subject in defiance of reliable sources) would make Wikipedia far too vulnerable to offsite canvasing. It doesn't have to be a policy to carry weight in an argument, and pointing out that it's an issue here is very relevant when one side is being called out as not being understanding enough of the other side. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Afd's are the only place where I've seen SPAs have their opinions discounted and be rubber stamped by admins, as it's at the behest of the article's staying or the article's deletion. Whether we'd want to disregard them for other things, like this, should be the nature of whether they are being disruptive or not. Whether they were authoritatively canvassed or not. We should also be natured of WP:AGF, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Also whether they're following guidelines and policies or not. But should they fake their 10 edits and spew BLP crap on this talk page, that's the end of AGF and I'm willing to propose blocks. In short, I don't think we can discount SPAs based solely on them being SPAs, let's look at what they say first. Should they say something like 'WP:CENSORSHIP means that we can qualify Zoe Quinn as a -insert derogatory term here' then disregard all you want. I'll be at your side. But if it's more like 'I really think more due weight should be focused on this source, here's why:' then no. Tutelary (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not advocated for the SPAs' 'opinions being discounted;' I'm saying that when an article is being besieged by a large number of very inexperienced editors complaining about 'bias' because the article describes the movement the way the mainstream sources do, lecturing other editors about how they should be nicer to the poor SPAs and try harder to see their side is simply not likely to lead to a more pleasant editing environment - it's hostile to editors who are trying to abide by Wikipedia policy, and reassures those who aren't that they are in the right. A single SPA can be managed. A number of them all loudly declaring the article 'biased!!!1' against their side can make productive editing very, very difficult (and it has). So whether it's policy or not, pointing out what's actually going on here when responding to Masem's impassioned plea for compassion for the pro-Gamergate POV pushers is entirely relevant. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, the mainstream sources aren't portraying it the way the article is either - it is overly reliant on fringe views, the views of people involved like Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander. Indeed, a great number of sources suggest that the idea that it is centered around misogyny is simply false - the vast majority of the sources depict the harassment which has taken place not as the center of the thing but being a result of it. What we need to be doing is reporting on reality. The harassment. The censorship. The hacking. The attacks on journalists on both sides. Ect. Just because they're newbies doesn't mean that they can't tell something is wrong, and the reality is that several users here are what have been referred to as "culture warriors"; when they see people referring to them as "misogynists" and "virgins" on the talk page, it is not surprising that they get upset. The sad fact of the matter is that the hostility towards these people is very real and very much here, and many users here appear to be happy to turn a blind eye towards this misbehavior.

If you look at the DRN about this article, I've been working on categorizing sources, and the reality is that the bulk of the sources we're citing in major news sources do not appear to support the idea that it is primarily about harassment - harassment is a part of the thing, but a number of sources have noted that the focus on the idea that it is misogynistic and all about harassment is a tactic used by one side (the so-called culture warriors, SJWs, activism-central journalists, whatever you want to call them) in order to discredit the other side. Given the massive amounts of harassment which has been leveled at people trying to report on the issue, and the fact that several sites have actually changed their ethics standards as a result of this (one of the only tangible things which has actually happened as a result of all this), it seems very hard to say that the article is not putting WP:UNDUE notice on one side's point of view. Both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment and issues with the integrity of games journalists has been something which has been brewing for many years.

We definitely need to cover the harassment, but it should be noted that it has occurred on both sides, and we really should be focusing more on facts than opinions. What happened, when, who was involved, ect. as well as the background of the players involved. The goal of Wikipedia is to present information to allow people to make up their own minds, not to make up their minds for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you stop going out of your way to discredit Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander? And would you stop fucking saying someone's been called "virgin" when I've said time and time again that it's the self-appelation of one of the centers of this discussion rather than a pejorative name for them? And for fucks sake no one is saying that Gamergate is solely about harassment and misogyny. We're saying that it's an aspect that cannot be played down. And there is no proof that anyone from the journalist/Quinn side of things has leveled any sort of tangible harassment to the gamer/gater side of things. Your claim above that Breitbart received a syringe in the mail is unsubstantiated, particularly because Breitbart is not known for its integrity to begin with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "both sides have engaged in wide-scale harassment" is simply not supported by the available reliable sources. No doubt this is because all the reliable sources are biased, as usual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is beyond the pale to treat gamergate as on the doorstep of fringe material, largely due to the focus on reframing a campaign of sexism and harassment as some sterned nosed but blameless inquisition into "games journalism" that just happens to be incredibly gendered and grew out of some spurned ex saying that a woman who made an unremarkable and until then basically unremarked upon game had slept with some dudes. It strains credulity that we would want to cull sources due to or demand equal time for this viewpoint as though it were not stitched together post hoc rationalization for marginalizing critical (especially but not exclusively female) views. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about pulling sources or giving proGG more time, but just using more neutral statements when such are available, and cutting out some of the more negative opinions that are not essential to established points. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have reverted this article, well, a lot in the past 24 hours? Several of those reverts were removals of tags and other pretty clearly unhelpful changes, but at least five were unambigous content disputes. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] You're simply not the person to be lecturing anyone about collegiality right now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two are still under discussion so the changes shouldn't have been made in the first place. The rest weren't needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:3RR works. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last two changes shouldn't have been made, so it would seem to me they don't count. The first two changes are two changes which weren't needed, anyway. He could have fielded the changes out to other people, with the same result. I wish someone had told me about this rule when there was edit warring going on over Sommers. Let's focus on more important things than of petty bureaucracy. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is quite simply not how 3RR works, and I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with it if you think otherwise. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then whoever(s) it is that warred with me over Sommers deserve(s) to be given a time-out. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As I recall it was multiple 'someones' just because you were reverted more than once does not mean someone else broke the three revert rule. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I must have warred back and forth with someone over an edit at least twenty times. The responsible persons should be suspended. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. If there were only two participants in the edit war you seem to remember, you were likely in violation yourself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of editors here that have done edit-warring like revisions too (I'm not dismissing that claim), but that's deflecting the issue. I'm looking at the fact that there is definitely a spirit of "we can put tons of blame on the proGG side because we have no sourcing to stop us presenting the other side", which is not how we write encyclopedic articles. Clinical, neutral stances, which some of these changes were not appropriate or. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that your perception that 'anti-GG' editors are out to 'get' gamergate is inaccurate, and that you should consider your own behavior on this page and how your own biases might be informing it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that this article is not as clinically hands off as it should be. Taking comments made by other major contributors clearly shows that they do not want to give any sort of positive treatment of the proGG side at all, and thus the inclusion of certain quotes or framing of certain facts is indicative of this. Again, I'm not arguing that we need to change sources, or change the overall approach and structure of this article - as it clear, this is pretty decent in terms of presenting the situation as the media gives it. But there's specific detailed choices that have been added or were added and removed that, when you tie in with the percieved attitudes towards the proGG from certain editors, tell me that there's a pile on of that dislike being pushed in the article when it does not need it. No one editing has to support proGG but we also have to realize that there are legitimized concerns here and they are people too, and perputating the intense dislike that some members of the press have taken to the entire group is not in any way helpful to this article, and why it will continue to be a target of external pressure to be changed.

Again, I implore those that think this article is fine to step back realize what is being said about it elsewhere and taking the position of a proGG that was otherwise not involved in the harassment aspects. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What, pray tell, are we supposed to be giving a "positive treatment" to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't (unless new sources come), but that does not mean that in lieu of a positive treatment we load this with negative treatment of them. Yes, we have to address the clear statements that the harassment was seen as misogynic, we have to point out that there's a large perception of the lack of creditability to anything from the GG due to the nature of the 4chan basis, etc. - that's all stuff that's unavoidable due to the high prevalance in the sources. But we do not need to repeat it any chance that a source quotes that in a different section.

Another way to put this is that by using so many quotes, even from reliable sources, it reads as an attempt to swing the reader to be 100% certain that the proGG is in the wrong. Unless other aspects are broadly condemned in sources, we should not be trying to influence the reader and instead let them come to their own decision if something is ethically right or wrong, particularly if we cannot present point/counterpoint due to lack of sourcing of one side. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of my concern: the lengthy summary/quote from Amanda Marcotte that is presently under "Attacks on women". Nothing in that quote is a new viewpoint on the overall picture of this situation; we've established the attacks were not taken lightly by the gaming press, that it was misogyny-based attitudes, and etc. Completely unneeded, at least at that level of detail. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident in my point that you're wrong. Have you considered the possibility that the 'members of the press' (and most outsiders) have taken an 'intense dislike' to the entire group because that is an entirely rational and reasonable position to take? I really don't care what 'a pro-GG' might think about this article. Fact is fact. We're not going to whitewash it because there are members of the movement who don't consider themselves misogynistic and want us to ignore what the movement is actually doing and just parrot what it says about itself instead.

I think it's high time you stop trying to position yourself as some kind of neutral mediator here. You flagrantly broke 3RR today - again - trying to correct the 'bias' of the editors who you are now scolding for not being sympathetic enough to the POV pushing SPAs. You're not neutral here, and your 'concern' about editors making use of reliable sources that are unfavorable to gamergate is unwarranted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except "members of the press" have not. The more distant people are from the games journalism establishment and the activists, the more malfeasance by the games journalism industry comes to the fore. Look at Digitimes; it is based in Taiwan, and talks about it in terms of being concerned about the continued fight between the video game press (which acts as PR for the industry) and its customers resulting in depressed sales of consoles in November and December. The Escapist has been quite friendly towards them, and we know that several journalists were very aggressively hostile towards them on the GameJournoPros mailing list for not deleting the thread about GamerGate. If you look at The Telegraph's article, it interviews Zoe Quinn... and then interviews GamerGate folks. And the two are night and day.

The Escapist ended up apologizing for their reporting on Zoe Quinn's original claims of being harassed in late 2013 because she was the only one who made the claims, provided no evidence but her word, and they had interviewed no one but her, resulting in folks harassing the people who Zoe Quinn claimed to be harassed by. They changed their policy to avoid such reporting. How many of the articles only interview Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and/or Leigh Alexander? How reliable are they, in light of that fact?

Alexander's article about the "death of gamers" has been described as involving "name calling", and it resulted in Intel pulling out of advertising for a website because they didn't want to be associated with it.

The reality is that there is a little tribe which is very upset over the idea that their members might be called out for ill behavior. It doesn't matter if it is true or not; what matters is whether or not you're in the group.

You talk about not wanting to be associated with the GamerGate folks, but let's face it - when the chips have come down, we've seen changes in ethics policies and companies pulling their ads from websites. Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened!

I'm not interested in the more esoteric theories of the GamerGaters; I'm not a part of their tribe. My concern is presenting reality here on Wikipedia. Not your version of it, not their version of it, reality. If it is unflattering to someone, so be it - it isn't our job to make people look bad or good, it is to present things in a neutral, impartial, even-handed manner to our audience so that they can draw their own conclusions. We don't need feminists ranting about how awful harassment is; we can show it to the audience by speaking about what actually happened. Likewise, we don't need to tell the audience about how awful censorship is - we simply need to present what has happened (the DMCA on YouTube, private pressure to pull down and suppress discussion, removal of stuff from various websites, ect.). We can talk about what has actually happened - the FBI being contacted, journalists getting syringes in the mail, advertisers pulling out, Phil Fish attacking people via social media and himself getting attacked in turn, the hacking and general offense against The Fine Young Capitalists... these are all things which have happened. They're facts. They're stuff which we can sink our teeth into.

When people want to selectively omit facts, or put opinion in the article in place of fact, that's POV pushing. I think that the situation, as it is, speaks for itself. If you feel that presenting the facts in an even-handed, neutral manner is going to make "your side" look bad, then you are not doing it right. Harassment needs to be in the article, but it needs to be all the serious harassment, not just some of it. When you've got people getting syringes in the mail and death threats driving people from their homes, that's stuff worth reporting. When you have websites getting compromised or systemic campaigns of harassment against people or groups, that's stuff worth reporting.

It is not our job here to make anyone look good or bad. It is our job here to let reality speak for itself. And indeed, that should be YOUR goal, as an individual; the neutral point of view is not just something which is good for Wikipedia, it is good for LIFE. If you are willing to look at everything neutrally and objectively, you'll never have to lie to yourself, and you'll always end up on the right side in the end, once you've gotten all the information you need.

All this talk about pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate stuff is ultimately a bit misguided. Our sources may be biased, but it is our job, as Wikipedia, to not be biased. If a source isn't giving us any facts, then what value has it? What is it adding to our world? Opinions might be noted, but when we talk about stuff, our primary goal is to present reality, not whatever any group's spin on that is, whatever that may be. If a source has major, verifiable factual errors in it, then it isn't reliable and isn't useful to us either, not for telling people what is going on.

We can present opinions, but when we're presenting facts, it is about presenting facts. We can talk about what the claims of the parties are, because that is the fact of what people are claiming. But we try not to do that to too great an extent, and we generally try to avoid mixing fact and opinion without separating them out clearly.

But what actually happened happened, or it didn't; if a source conflicts with verifiable reality, then we know that that source is wrong. When The New Yorker claims that Grayson wasn't attacked, and we have Kotaku directly addressing the attacks, and numerous other sources addressing them, and tons of posts from the time attacking Grayson, we know that The New Yorker did not fact check their article. When someone claims that Grayson wrote a review of Depression Quest, we have all sorts of evidence that no, that did not, in fact, ever happen. Reality is not subject to opinion, and if a source conflicts with reality, then it is the source that is wrong. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr. Protonk (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to discredit high quality sources you don't like and elevate lower quality ones you do are completely transparent. I'm not going to waste time here addressing your laundry list of 'concerns,' as they've already been addressed again and again. The piece in The New Yorker is fine. Alexander's article in Time is fine. Your 'categorization' of sources is your opinion and your opinion alone. Proclaiming yourself to be neutral doesn't make it true. You have a very clear, very strong bias, not to mention a rather uncomfortable fixation on toing the line of WP:BLP by taking jabs at women like Quinn and Alexander.

Those are the -facts-. In fact, they're just about the only concrete things which have happened! That is aside from the women who've been hounded out of their careers and the chilling effect it's having on women still in the industry who run the risk of being the next victims every time they step out of line and say something the gaters don't like. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This was meant for another of your extremely long replies to me, not this one. Oh, well. You've made multiple lengthy, rambling replies to me in the past few hours all full of the same half-truths, distortions, and irrelevant digressions. You sure do seem to be fond of the Gish Gallop. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem is exactly righ about this, and I might suggest to everyone asking him to stop that they should re-read WP:OWN#actions, as many of them have been repeatedly made here, and all of us the regulars have committed one or the other at some point - I think the only one missing from the list is that of signing our additions at the article itself. There has been way too much in particular on this talk page of "anyone that rises points I disagree with should leave the page and not come back". Even if we stick to the sources we have published by the mainstream media, we as a whole are ignoring the essence of neutrality in the way we use them - to detach ourselves and to represents the viewpoints of each side in a way as accurate as possible, not distorted through the reports made from the other side; weight should define how much content is covered for each point, not the lens we adopt to report about them.

Every time NorthBySouthBaranof repeats yet again the call for "adopting the position of the RSs that are covering it" down to using their words and conclusions as our own, you misrepresent the neutrality policy which states that we should do exactly the opposite. Following policy is not an excuse to fail NPOV - we have more than enough resources within policy to ensure that both sides are fairly represented without misinterpretation, including the call to ignore any rule that is making the article worse. We could include the opinions of those pro-GG side directly as reliable sources, as any source is reliable about their own opinions; yet only anti-GG sources are accepted on that basis, and every time some pro-GG opinion is proposed it gets fought against and ultimately removed, skewing what have been added to include only opinions from one side, which is not even how WEIGHT should be handled - there's an upper limit to what should be included from one side of the controversy, and it has not been respected.

We have thrown WP:BALANCE out of the window; there's no way a detached reader would agree our current article fairly represents what has been published in reliable sources. I honestly think a good strategy would be to ban all editors who have participated so far in the article and let the rest of the community take over it and start afresh, to rework what can be told with the available references from a new angle, cutting off the broken dynamics we have now. Diego (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

The view that GamerGate has come to represent a campaign of misogynistic harassment is, far and away, the most prevalent view in reliable sources. Therefore, we present it in that due proportion. We do not need to present other views as if they have equal validity. We include a number of pro-GG opinions; if you want to loosen the sourcing requirements to allow more, then I'm quite sure we can find a lot more looser-sourced anti-GG opinions as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to, thanks for proving my point so clearly. Every time someone mentions neutrality you bring in those exact quotes, and my comment above explains why they don't mean what you think they mean, and how you're using WP:WEIGHT to imply that we should make the article unbalanced toward the press point of view and hide the other side in the controversy. In particular "proportion" doesn't mean "shape" - we can talk more about the press point of view, but we must do it with WP:IMPARTIAL tone, a part of NPOV that you keep ignoring every time it's brought up. That you have copied those parts of policy yet another time means that you really didn't hear what I was saying. Can you please stop copying those quotes time and time again? Diego (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"proportion" doesn't mean "shape" is a very good way to describe the problem here. It is very easy to pile on as much as the sources have, but for purposes of tone and not content, we should look to the detachment that the non-VG, non pop culture sources use, and when you look to things like the LA Times or the WA Post or the New York Times, they only descend into the overly negative to describe the initial harassment against the people. Most of the other sources - which I am not calling invalid, just emotionally charged and thus bias - use less detached language. All the major points in this article as it is are fine and in proportion, but it's the ensuing discussion that is the problem and that is something that we do have the ability to be clinical about. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I appreciate your efforts Masem. Also, just as several have stated. I have seen a lot of NEUTRALS on Twitter saying even KnowYourMeme presents a more detached representation of events, in chronological order. It seems here for every one thing that happens, there's a shitton of new opinion pieces ready to twist it around. Like we got 3 sources calling Intel misogynyst. Don't be so guillible people, it's not a conspiracy theory, gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly, of course if it's needed, people are going to come up and defend Leigh Alexander or whoever. Just take an example, if you haven't followed GG just look this up and you'll realize for yourself. The game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, just a few days ago it reached 2 million dollars on their pledge. No SINGLE site has covered it, NOT ONE. Why you may ask, it turns out Daniel Vavra has been too outspoken of GG, yet they covered the game before GG. Examples like this there are tons, but I'm already being off-topic I guess. Loganmac (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source because it is a user-created source. People can call out Intel for all they want. And the conspiracy theory is that the bulk of the gaters think that Kotaku et al are conspiring against them, and Milo posting the GamesJounroList thing is another spark they needed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever state KnowYourMeme is reliable? Loganmac (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. But what they've done doesn't mean shit here. And stop claiming there are conspiracy theories. No one has any fucking time to review games because of all the bullshit that's going on in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there are conspiracy theories mate Loganmac (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gaming journalism is a quasi monopoly... No one reviewed this game because the creator is pro-GG." Those are conspiracy theories. And I'm not your mate, buddy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaming media consists of very few sites, at least mainstream gaming media, Kotaku, RPS, Polygon, Gamasutra and a few others, its journalists seem to be pretty close to each other. The view that Kingdom Come was not covered by media is held by Vavra himself, and I believe I should continue your phrase with "I'm not your buddy, pal" and so forth right Loganmac (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many more than that, and those are just the sources we find reliable. Woodroar (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A quarter to a third of those sources are defunct, and the rest don't cover the topic, apart from this and this. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, after having my contributions reverted on that page, I'm now officially done with Wikipedia, for a long while. Have at the article. I expect to return to find that gamers are the soft power arm of ISIS. I'm joking, but I'm not; this place is a mess. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha all it takes for that is a freelancer writing a blog on Gamasutra about that guy that compared GamerGate to ISIS and you got it Loganmac (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear example of problem

This edit adds something that is absolutely unnecessary to the current encyclopedic nature this article takes. Yes it is from a RS, but it is a fringe viewpoint on the antiGG side (as I noted when I posted the link below). If there was a larger call from across the board (as there was when describing the attacks as misogynic) to "not support GG" (explicitly, not implicitly) then maybe inclusion would be okay, but all this serves is to put more imbalance on preaching the word of the antiGG side , which we are absolutely not to be in the business of. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014

Add POV dispute tag. There is an ongoing POV dispute, sources differ in POV, and contrary to the claims some have made, the other side of this issue is not fringe. A POV tag is also called for, since the article was protected due to the POV dispute. Skrelk (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no legitimate dispute. single-purpose accounts count for very little in this project, especially in WP:BLP-sensitive areas. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What Tarc said - assorted sockpuppets, SPAs and reactivated accounts popping in to tell us we should ignore WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to back their weird little cause is not a real dispute. Artw (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets + SPAs are a strawman here. Looking at this page it is very clear that many active, or intermittently active editors are raising this issue. EDIT: I would also point out that neither of you are sysops, and should not have closed this requestSkrelk (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, count me amongst the active non-SPA editors who think there is a legit POV dispute over this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." So part of me is thinking there's no way this should be added. But if a tag indicating dispute amongst editors requires consensus to be added isn't that a Catch-22 or something? Bosstopher (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noted my issue above which I don't really want to call a POV (as we are using the best cut of sources but just presenting too much from some of them) to separate that from the claim that we aren't "properly" covering the proGG side enough, which has been explained many many many times that the sourcing is simply not there for that. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, The Sum of All Journalism Knowledge". Luckily for me, this helps in my machine verification project. :-) I do wonder what we're missing out by not covering the Top 10 YouTube Channel, Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged, forums interviews, and other material not written by journalists. — Dispenser 23:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral, credible sources have been provided above. Skrelk (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the same four you have posted before, 3 are in the article, one cannot be used as a reliable source. As such, there's nothing actionable here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable anti-GG sources are being given WP:UNDUE weight over the the reliable neutral sources. And before you start the 'fringe' song and dance again, let me point that reliable sources(techcrunch, forbes, even Verge), clearly establish that gamergate is not fringe. I'll also point out that the sources are being given undue importance in this discussion. A factually reliable biased source can be used, but the the bias cannot be transferred into the article, which is what is happenning here. Skrelk (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is undue weight, the solution is not to remove reliably-sourced commentary, the solution would be to include reliably-sourced commentary from the other side. If we can't find reliably-sourced commentary on your side... that suggests that there actually isn't undue weight, and that we're simply reflecting what reliable sources say about the issue. Due weight, I remind you, is not based on the weight of Wikipedia editors, number of tweets or vehemence of position — it is based on a position's prevalence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct, we can remove material to achieve a balance that matches the broad shape of the coverage by sources. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We could, but there is no reason to in this case, and there's certainly no consensus for doing so here. The current shape of the article does match the broad shape of coverage by mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off topic RE this particular thread. I would argue though, that this discussion here in itself, has proven there is a legitimate POV dispute. Let me point out that I have not taken a side on this issue, except insofar as to say that much reporting of gamergate is cursory and inaccurate. Even so, this article does not match the broad shape, as most mainstream RS does attempt to explain both sides, rather than immediately pointing at 'ingrained' sexism issues as the article does Skrelk (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the only voice here who is stating that there is a lack of q neutral point of view in the article. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that the coverage of this topic is at this stage in history inherently biased due to the harassment doled out primarily by one side of the debate. There are people who have covered things impartially but the level of neutrality that is sought out by the "gater" side of the debate wants to completely downplay or eliminate content that speaks ill of them. Right now, the article covers both sides of the debate equally, as far as I can tell. That is, both the accusations of misogyny and harassment are given as much coverage as seeking changes in the ways that video game websites acknowledge possible conflicts of interest arising from the crowd sourced indie game scene. Much else that seems that people want to cover on this page is the alleged cover up or collusion that they assumed happened in the mailing list, which as far as I am aware has not been covered in reliable sources, or if it has they are already in use in the article right now. The main issue with the article now is the ongoing petty dispute between the expressly pro-Gamergate crowd and the established Wikipedia editors whom they associate with the anti-Gamergate crowd because they have been trying to inform the other party on how their contributions will not work here. That is not something the POV tag will solve.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again with the absolutes, Ryulong. Did you not see my comment in this very section saying I agree with tagging the article? To remove all doubt, I believe this article does not comply with NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I clearly disagree that WP:NPOV is violated on this page so there is no reason, as per CIreland below, to use {{POV}} at the top of this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, the tag is not there to document an existing consensus that the article is biased, but to inform readers that some editors consider it below our standards and may suffer frequent back-and-forth changes in its controversial content, and to alert editors that they need to discuss the problems until an agreement is reached to remove it. And definitely not all established Wikipedia editors agree that the article complies with NPOV. Until a rough consensus is reached that the article can't be significantly improved in terms of neutrality, the tag should remain in place, as it's standard practice in controversial articles in development. Diego (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, the documentation at Template:POV and long-standing consensus is that {{POV}} may not be used for that purpose. Quoting specifically from the documentation: Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. The purpose of the tag, when used, is to attract additional editors; it is not supposed to be used to tell readers that some editors believe the article is not neutral. CIreland (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you've told several people at this point that they are the only people expressing that view. Skrelk (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CIreland, I've read the talk page of Template:POV and my post above was already reworded to account for that. The consensus for the tag is not to use it solely for warning readers, but it also doesn't dismiss that purpose as a valid one, and considers it beneficial. For readers and potential editors arriving to the article and finding it biased, here the tag would inform them that the article version is not definitive, inviting them to collaborate in making it better -which is something we want to encourage despite all the menacing language against SPAs; it certainly would be a more welcoming experience than the current combination of locked page and plain denial that it may have any problem. Diego (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Added POV tag. While I acknowledge the vocal opposition to the template, there was broad agreement that it was appropriate. While there may not have been a consensus to add it, this may be one situation (cf Bosstopher's comment about catch-22 above) where a lack of consensus indicates that the tag is apt. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add it? It's controversial and lacks consensus. Revert it ASAP. You have Masem, another administrator, arguing against its usage so why have you just ignored all this conversation and added it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My opposite to the tag was based on that the main reason that POV is usually used cannot be fixed on this article (that we're not using the proper subset of sources for example), but per what Diego's pointed out, there's a valid reason to include it (for me, based on how I see there is a baising problem per above). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But yet there's so much discussion here (in this thread and above) that says why it is not applicable. The biasing exists because this topic is steeped in bias to begin with. There's no lack of neutrality in the article. It represents exactly what we can represent. It's not our fault that one side has bad PR after they began publishing someone's private phone number so she can be asked if she's the restaurant we are not to name. It's a controversial edit. It's not supported by consensus. It should not have been requested or answered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have made exactly one specific comment about a section of the article you think should be changed because you think it represents bias. Other than that, all you have done is cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. Slapping it with a POV tag is seriously premature based on how few constructive comments about needed changes you have made. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a lack of neutrality - a rare case in that it is not that we're being selective to the sourcing as we are using the best cross section of reliable sources and that those sources are showcasing a lop-sided view of things that we can't change, but the choice of specific quotes or phrasing used it purposely biasing the article that, while it may represent the sentiments of the sources, is not appropriately neutral reporting that we should do. That is, as Diego's accurately pointed out, a call to use the POV tag. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is literally no way for anyone to respond to an unsupported assertion like that other than by saying 'nuh-uh' to your 'uh-huh.' You have made claims that other editors who are 'bised' against gamergate (as opposed to your perfect, pure neutrality, of course) are taking advantage of the complete lack of reliable sources that present gamergate positively by 'piling on' negative information about gamergate, but you have done very, very little to back up this claim. Please stop pretending to know the minds of editors who have the nerve to edit this article while being 'not-proGG' and start making some suggestions. Don't tell me there's bias. Show me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For one, there are far too many quotes in this article at this point in time. The situation is not resolved, so these are all "reactionary" quotes, and not with the necessary hindsight. But as nearly all of them are quotes from the anti-GG commenting on the pro side, that gives the appearance this is anti-GG. Some quotes are fine, but that's what is dragging down this article in its neutrality at the present time particularly in how the misogyny section is now split up as it immediately begs the hostile aspect of the attacks. Take the entire discussion of the Social Justice Warrior - it is a term that can be used without comment but several editors wanted to require a definition, and when that definition was used, they wanted a very scathing definition (towards pro-GG side) instead of a neutral one. Add in how SPAs (which is not always a bad thing) are treated on this page and there's clearly a problem in the attitude of several editors. Further, it should be patently obvious that we can be more neutral, neither trying to write the article to gain sympathy for those that were attacked nor condemning those that were on the attack, but that's not what the article does now. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are so many quotes because if things aren't quoted directly you have the pro-GG crowd complaining of bias and that these things weren't said. There was so much fighting over the fact that we say that the initial claims against Zoe Quinn were disproven that we had to triply source it. And attacks are inherently hostile so I don't know what the hell you expect can be fixed. And in this case, SPAs are a bad thing because the one thing they are here to fix is that the concept that the article isn't entirely skewed in their favor to say what they want it to, constantly throwing out sources that they think are biased against them because they aren't exclusively biased in their favor. To focus the article entirely on the fact that they think there's a conspiracy against them as an identity and to push games they don't like down their throats. To completely downplay or eliminate the discussion of the attacks initially and still perpetrated in the name of their movement without actively disassociating themselves from that aspect. To pester anyone that they think is critical of them as a group in whatever social media that they can. Do you know how many fucking times I've been sent Tweets (basically) saying "ur the most prolific editor to this page and ur telling us to get a life kek" because of what I've written on this talk page? There will just be new accounts with only 10 edits to them coming here day after day until the heat death of the universe whining about a bias that doesn't actually exist as far as Wikipedia should be concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Some quotes, to support the facts of this case, are necessary, and that's done fine in the first two sections. But the latter sections pull quotes just to use quotes and very few of them are "friendly" to the proGG side. We know the press has said what they did was bad, we do not need to drive that over and over with more quotes.

SPAs are not necessarily bad; many that have appeared here are not the type that are good, but that's not ruling them all out, and we are still required to treat SPAs with good faith to start. And yes, we actually should be downplay any attempt to create sympathy for those attacked (though explain how they have been affected like Quinn couch surfing is necessary), or villainize the proGG side any more than explaining that there were harassment attacks that came from that side that are considered misogynic. And you should actually see what some of these threads that they have on reddit and elsewhere about this article to know to what degree they have a few people here spelled out well, including Ryulong. Yes, there's a groupthink thing there that I have to read past, but the more thoughtful posts, combined with what I see here, show a strong bias that may be unintentional but is directing this article to be against the proGG side as much as possible, and we can do tons better than that without losing the encyclopedic information about gamergate. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to avoid sympathy or villainization when we are presenting what has been written on the subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And MSGJ, your claim that a lack of consensus for adding the tag is actually a consensus to add the tag makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes there absolutely is a way to do it. We report on the events without personalizing it. We are required to be that clinical about it. Yes, we need to include that the reason these attacks were done was believed to be by misogynic attitudes in the gamer community, that we cannot eliminate, nor where that migogyn came from. But we do need need to keep bringing up how the attacks are seen as misogynic over and over. We have the ability to use the same source set but avoid using quotes that they have been given or opinions that have been made that are beyond the facts of the case. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But is what you claim is an issue even happening in the article though? We have multiple voices condemning the actions of the movement as misogynist because that's the prevailing narrative. What specifically in the article needs to change?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, that's a clear point that they were near-universally seen as that, so we mention it in one sentence, perhaps with a choice partial quote or two. And that's that that is needed to establish that. But the article right now tries to expand on more and more viewpoints that consider that all repeat that the attacks were misogynic; just because it is a majority viewpoint doesn't mean you need to hammer it home that much. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet that seems to be a point we have to make to the pro-Gamergate SPAs that keep showing up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The general trend of those coming in new to WP/this article is they want either outright removal of the misogyny aspects or other clear facts that are unavoidable from the existing press sources (unactionable) or add more arguments from the proGG side which typically are not from reliable sources (again unactionable). I am saying that we can tone down the rhetrotic that "harassment is bad, these people are misogynic", beyond making it clear that that view was shared by a majority of the press in one place in the article. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This was going to be a reply to Masem's reply to me above but I'm not sure where to put it now without breaking Ryulong's outdent. As Ryulong said, the frequent use of direct quotes are simply a strategy to cover the article thoroughly without having to edit war over every single blessed word. They are, in effect, due to the presence of emphatically pro-gamergate editors on the page, not the reverse. The fact that a majority of quotes seem to be anti-gamergate also very likely has something to do with the fact that there are very, very few reliable sources that would not seem 'anti-gamergate,' especially not to someone in the movement. Framing them as 'reactionary' is inappropriate: you can't expect there to be a whole lot of reliable sources discussing this issue when it's no longer relevant, so nearly all reliable news sources are going to be considered 'reactionary' by some. You are quite simply wrong in your assessment of the term 'Social Justice Warrior,' but once again I'll point out that those of us who felt it was relevant to mention that the term is a pejorative offered the alternative of simply leaving it out if stating that very plain fact was too 'anti-GG.'
An SPA is not necessarily a bad thing. A squadron of them all making the same flawed arguments and completely ignoring any effort to explain WP policy and procedure absolutely is. The SPAs and POV warriors are making editing this article extremely difficult. This movement is uniquely problematic in that it involves so many conspiracy theories about 'unreliable' media: in their online echo chambers the gaters been talking about 'hit pieces' and 'clickbait' and 'collusion' for months, and they've been carrying the same flawed but endlessly reinforced articles from those echo chambers onto Wikipedia. They all think they're experts on journalism who are qualified to determine whether or not the freaking New Yorker of all things fact checks their articles. With so much hostility coming from that corner, with so many editors here finding themselves having the same conversations and explaining the same basic principles again and again and again with each new person who wants to toss out every source that's 'biased' or 'unreliable' (in other words, any source that they don't like) and getting nothing but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response, you should not be the least surprised that tempers are wearing thin. Your sanctimonious 'concerns' that we are not being sensitive enough to the SPAs and your completely spurious claims of 'antiGG bias' were simply the last straw: it's quite bad enough to be hearing these sorts of accusations of 'bias' from people who are only here on the project to whitewash this article. But you're an admin. You should know better. You didn't even have the decency to preach 'moderation' and 'understanding' to 'both sides:' you just blamed the people who have been trying to keep working on this article in the face of an extremely hostile, arrogant and dismissive brigade of pov warriors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want TaraInDC to note that under a definition of SPA, s/he might be considered a SPA, considering you've only contributed to a handful of articles, although excessively and passionately, are in single digit numbers. Tutelary (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The articles I've created are in single digit numbers, maybe - although that number is still higher than yours. Would you prefer I pad my edit count with semi-automated vandalism reversion as you do? And you can fuck right off with 'excessively,' thank you very much. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Swearing at me isn't very nice, or WP:CIVIL of you. But it's worthy to note that you did not edit from July 3 to Sept 9 where you edited the GamerGate afd, and then consistently edited primarily this talk page and the article with very few edits to other articles or pages. You mention SPAs, when it might be considered under some definition of SPA, you might be considered to be one. Though I do agree with that this article may need to be policed for its neutrality...I see a lot of stuff claimed in Wikipedia's voice which would need to be attributed to the source that said it. Wikipedia should take a disinterested POV as obliged by WP:NPOV. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Swearing at you is entirely warranted when you stated that I have edited less than ten different articles when I have in fact edited over 100. Meanwhile while the number of articles you've editit is higher than mine, your talkpage edits are, interestingly, almost exclusively on anti-feminist topics. So, again, fuck off. You've got no place making this sort of accusation. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the use of quotes to support facts or where the popular opinion is clear, as to avoid claims of us as editors being impartial. But once we're past the facts, and start getting into the reactions, at a point where we are still too close to the event to really establish this well, excess use of quotes when most are from the antiGG side does create the imbalance that is in this article presently.

And there has not been a "squadron" of SPAs here - compared to the AFD, what's here is completely tame. Yes, many do not have understanding of WP principles and sourcing and the like and we have to repeat the arguments over and over about why the sourcing is fine, etc. As long as there's a proGG side, we're going to have that, and it's not going to disappear. But only a few I would consider being more demanding than not, and most simply are not aware. There's also a few good ideas from them time to time. And I'm saying this as an admin, meaning that I have to step back and look at all sides of an issue and make a determination at times which way something should be taken - and it is pretty clear this article is too much written to create sympathy for those harassed and condemn those on the proGG which is extremely far from an encyclopedic article on a controversial subject. We are required to take a much stronger middle ground here. The literature does not support this position, particularly when you look to the more neutral pieces like the New Yorker, and the Washington Post. They do not simply hand wave away the concerns of the proGG side, and do not spend too much time creating sympathy for those harassed or work to balance the proGG into their articles better. We don't have to change the narrative here, nor introduce more proGG points, but just tone done the rhetoric when we are looking to the reactions from the media. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Proclaiming yourself to be neutral does not give your opinion more weight. Mentioning that you're an admin does not give more credence to your claim of neutrality. You've ignored or dismissed this every time I've said it, but you have been flagrantly edit warring to make this article more pro-gamergate. You're not neutral. That's not inherently bad, but insisting you're neutral and it's everyone who disagrees with you that's biased is not helping anything.

Any 'reactions' need to accurately represent the sources. If there are more 'reactions' that seem anti-gamergate to you than pro-gamergate, consider that this might just be an accurate representation of the sources that are available. But whether you believe you can support this claim or not, you shouldnot have gone straight to screaming 'bias!!!!' without actually trying to address the issues first. You've been very active on this page for some time: if you felt there was a problem, you could easily have said something before the article became so terribly anti-gamergate. Why didn't you mention this until after you were pressed to give constructive feedback rather than personal attacks? Why use it as ammunition to prove bias on one 'side' rather than trying to make constructive suggestions? Nobody is obligated to go on a likely fruitless hunt for more reliable pro-gamergate sources to mine for pro-gamergate quotes: if you think there are perspectives that are being overlooked, or if you feel sections are growing overlong, please make some concrete suggestions for fixing that. Informing a whole slew of editors that they're 'biased' does nothing but inflame matters by attacking, unfairly, only one subset of editors while ignoring the poor behavior of another. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention this until after you were pressed to give constructive feedback rather than personal attacks? Uh, excuse me, weren't you the editor that just told me to go fuck off? I don't think you've any right to claim any personal attacks. Tutelary (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am, because you made a completely inaccurate and insulting comment about my contribution history. You may not have cursed at me, but you brought personal attacks into the conversation first. I responded in kind. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But if there's already 5 commentators quoted as saying GamerGate is misogynistic and sucks what is actually added to the article by quoting from another source who is pretty much saying exactly the same thing? I think that's the point Masem is trying to make, and if so I agree with him. Sorry if I've misrepresented you Masem. Bosstopher (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that we have many quotes that are that blatant, or that we are using that many that all say the same thing; we are using quotes from commentators on several specific aspects of the issue. But my primary issue is more that talking about this in vague terms isn't helpful: the article is right there, and if any changes need to be made someone should start a discussion to suggest some already. Just telling us that there's bias and it has something to do with too many quotes doesn't help anyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to WP:DUE weight, I barely see anything that is pro-GG in any fashion. I see maybe some neutral(ish) but still biased wording that kind of implies their position, but all in all, it feels like the article is telling me that they are literally human scum and that I should not associate with them because of sexism, misogyny, and all that. The article is already representing the view of Anti-GG folk; via all those sources of course. But I don't see the Pro-GG viewpoints pretty much anywhere other than in the lead as a brief 'conflict of interest' stuff. Given that this is about the controversy in general, and even if they are the minority view, their viewpoints should be represented and given due weight. I'm not arguing--take out everything negative and make them seem as if they were heroes fighting against corrupt journalism and that Zoe Quinn is a -insert derogatory term here-! No, I'm saying that there's too much Anti-GG and not enough elaboration on exactly -what- they were mad about or their views. It should be added and appropriated with due weight. Tutelary (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT involves giving each perspective the same weight that the reliable sources do, not giving equal time to all sides of an issue. What reliable sources do you think are not being fairly represented here? There are several sections that cover gamergate's aims, like its vague complaints about 'journalistic ethics;' what reliable information do you think is being left out? Remember that we need to report what the sources say: just reading the article and saying "I don't think it says enough good things about gamergate" isn't all that helpful. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a different between "involved" (which is the word you are looking for) and "neutral". Second, in considering reaction statements, we actually limit these on articles if they are just reactions and not otherwise contributing to the factual nature of the story, not just controversies but other articles like major world events or deaths of famous people. A few, yes, to get the general sentiment across but not many. So here, yes the reactions calling the attacks misogynic has to be included as the subsequent reactions to that have triggered more events. But further reactions on that point don't need to be spelled out in detail, and certainly not to the representative proportion that is given in sources, if we are to stay neutral on the matter. Again, I'm not ignoring the newer editors that are demanding change, either; I've contributed towards the side that we cannot rejig the entire narrative to move it off the harassment aspect as some proGG would want us to do, but only in the last week has it become apparent that the ones anti-GG are perhaps too much anti-GG that they are not seeing why the proGG side are not happy with this article, even when taking into account the limits on sourcing and narrative we can do, going off comments and behaviors; and from such comments, its clear that many have an emotional involvement here which can cloud one's perception of neutrality. As a note, while you may think it makes it "more proGG", it really is instead bringing the article back to the right balance which, given that it is presently too far anti-GG, is by necessity going to be more proGG. I've not mentioned at all about adding MORE stuff too the proGG side, simply that we trim out some of the anti-GG stuff without affecting the narrative to make this a clinical treatment of the situation. To also add in comment to your WEIGHT piece above, my read of the existing sources I would guess that as a whole is about 66/33 in anti/proGG coverage (this is not by article count, but by content of articles), and so of course we can never swing this article to 50/50, but I believe that we're actually closer to 80/20 (or higher) in favor of the antiGG position and we should be able to swing it back better to 66/33 by eliminating some of the repeated points given by quotes, especially those that are singular points of view.--MASEM (t) 23:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake. Blaming other editors for 'bias' first and then pointing to vague changes you think need to be made to 'fix' that 'bias' is purely inflammatory. And yet you are still defending your decision to chide one 'side' and only them for being 'biased' rather than making some actual, specific, constructive suggestions. Consider that this is an article being edited by many people: what you are seeing is not some evil conspiracy to bias the article but the product of several different editors all adding information they think is interesting, relevant, or adds clarity to the topic. Blaming them all for 'bias' and accusing them of 'piling on' in a big dramatic plea for us to, of all things, go to Kotaku In Action to get a better understanding of 'the other side' is not helpful. You're still talking in generalities to 'prove' that there's 'anti-GG bias' when you should have started with the specifics before you rolled out the accusations. If you thought there was such a severe problem, you should have said something before you felt compelled to resort to writing a wikidrama in three acts about it. So enough with the vague claims already.

I don't agree re: 'involved' vs 'neutral,' by the way. You broke the 3RR over your insistence that the lede must contain open with an abysmally sourced claim that gamergate is a matter of 'consumers' vs 'the industry' (when a large majority of our sources say it's an issue in the gaming community) and your insistence that we include the term 'Social Justice Warrior' without mentioning that it's a pejorative - you've since said several times that it was just because the quotes that we were trying to use to give context to the term were 'too biased,' at the time you were telling us that defining it at all' would 'create too much bias.' You're not neutral. Again, that's not a bad thing in and of itself - very few people are neutral - the goal is to behave in a way that's as unbiased as possible. But if you keep having to tell everyone that you're neutral or unbiased, you should consider why that might be. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Re "involved vs neutral" , I'm speaking on a purely WP procedural basis. I will still contend that I've got a neutral stance on this article, though I'm involved.

But on the larger point, the only reason that I'm seeing what I'm seeing now is that something was rubbing me the wrong way about the article in combination with general talk page oddness - nothing that I could put a finger on, much less accuse anyone of any necessary wrongdoing (save for some incivility on experienced editors and the unworkable claims of IPs/new editors to this) - until about last week and seeing a pattern. Which prompted me to look towards what was being said offsite and it made it clear (and yes, this is taking into account that a good fraction of what is being said offsite is way beyond anything close to actionable here). The article may look benign now, because it takes a side that is naturally "right" (that harassment of others, particularly women, is never a good thing), but when you realize how much it stays on that side and paints the other side as wrong, that's when the problem starts. And that observation became much more clear on the discussion of if/how to define Social Justice Warrior. People are pulling quotes that may apply, but they are not the most neutral quotes that could be used. Or quotes are just being pulled to include a source. And a lot of that is on the major editors on this page. Please do not thing that I'm putting more value in SPA/IP accounts over them - I've said over and over some of the changes they want us to make are simply impossible within WP sourcing policy. But we don't flat out ignore them if they have a good suggestion as some want to do. That's why there is a broad behavior problem here too.

And right now it is not simply pointing to the article and saying exactly where a problem exists. I can point to a few quotes (done above) that are not needed, but there's just a general approach that needs to be rethought here and until there's agreement there's a problem, it's going to be hard to say what specific fixes are needed, as it might involve a restructure, or re-evaluating the viewpoints taken, or more. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is that people on one side of the debate did do something that is terribly wrong and that thing was carried over into all discussion of the debate itself. There's only so much that you can say that "gamergate supporters want better journalism" without pointing out that many voices feel that that was drowned out by the vitriol sent one woman's way. The article covers both stances. The fact that one stance has to be extensively quoted and cited to prove that is what that stance says is because of the other stance's insistence that they are wrong or inherently biased. You can see this below in the conversation over the use of "ingrained" in the lead paragraph. The pro-GG crowd insists something that Wikipedia cannot cover, so Wikipedia covers whatever it can using what it has at its disposal without providing any more flames for the conspiracy theorist aspects of the movement to cry foul. The POV tag on this article is still unwarranted and should be removed post-haste. I still cannot believe that the actual reason it was added was because the discussion has no consensus to add it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

While from a person to person "that people on one side of the debate did do something that is terribly wrong" is true, with lack of any criminal/court conviction, WP has to stay neutral and we cannot take that stance that it was wrong. We can say how many many people condemned the actions of a few as wrong, and seen as misogynic, adding a few quotes, because that clearly did happen, and in turn caused additional events from the proGG side, so it is part of the narrative, but we should not be judging these people either way. That's the neutrality that's needed and very hard to do to write in a detached clinical manner, but it is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is frankly bullshit. We can totaly condemn the harassment from within Gamergate because that's what the sources cited do. Saying that "Harassment is bad" is not condemning the whole movement. What the article does is repeat statements made by people who have made that connection, and that is not something that makes the article biased or non-neutral.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We can repeat the fact that people have condemned the harassment and called it misogynic (leading to other events) but we have to write that neutrally and not adopt that as WP's stance. The problem with repeating too many statements without any way to provide counterpoint (simply because there is no reliable sourcing for the counterpoint to that) is that it makes WP look like we've adopted the stance that the harassment was wrong. There's a line here that the article in its current state has crossed that we should be staying behind instead. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're literally saying that Wikipedia cannot say that the harassment was wrong? When is harassment ever right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that the harassment was wrong. We can say there was harassment, we can explain how many else felt the harassment was wrong, and we can have the reader either a priori judge that was wrong or come to understand that was wrong, but we cannot take up the basis of this article on the fact "the harassment was wrong" because there has been no official or legal condemnation despite the ethical and morally .. obviousness? of the problem. We don't prejudge suspects in crimes in the Wikipedia voice (but we can site others) until they're actually committed by a court of law, same thing here. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is so fucking backwards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where exactly we're saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that harassment is wrong, so maybe I'm unclear about what you think constitutes 'saying harassment is wrong.' Can you point to specific instances in the text where we are saying that? We're not saying that it's right, but we're also not pussyfooting around what happened to avoid seeming 'too negative.' We're printing some quotes about the harassment that has been going on, but there are no quotes to 'balance' that because it's going to be really, really hard to find a reputable source that will print someone saying 'harassing women is totally a great way to improve gaming journalism' unless they're writing an article about how ridiculous it is to say something like that. So I don't understand the problem here. We say it happened, because it did, and where needed we get information about it from direct quotes to avoid accusations of original research and save days of quibbling from the pro-gamergate crowd over whether 'longstanding is the same thing as 'long documented.' What specific quotes are unacceptable, and how else should we convey the information they contain?

I'm not clear on what the lack of a court case has to do with it: we couldn't outright say 'this is wrong!' even if there had been a conviction, and we don't need a conviction to repeat the kinds of information we're repeating here. We are not saying that an identifiable individual has committed a crime in absence of a conviction: we're saying what people who are writing about this issue are saying happened to the people who are being harassed. Do you think a newspaper would be prohibited from reporting on a home invasion until a suspect had been found, tried and convicted? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we have too many quotes saying its wrong (much of the Responses section, but there's a handful throughout the rest of the text), which while quoted properly and sourced properly, is overloading this on the presumption that the harassment was factually wrong. So we back off on the number of quotes that say harassment is wrong since we cannot add anything on the counterpoint side due to lack of anything quotable there for the reasons you cite. If it were the case that people were charged and arrested and tried for the harrassment and found guilty, then we'd certainly be in the place where we could go off at length about how the harassment was criminal and thus definitely bad and moderation of the quotes wouldn't be at issue. We're not like a newspaper which doesn't have to worry about bias as much as we do. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: Harassment is inherently and factually wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As a human being with morals and ethics, I 100% agree with you, but as a Wikipedia editor, that's not an a priori stance we can take (particularly as we are talking cyberbullying which has yet to have a rigorous law set against the types of actions that were done here.) --MASEM (t) 17:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

But we're not saying harassment is wrong. We're saying it happened and letting the reader draw their own conclusion - and shockingly a lot of them are likely going to come to the conclusion that it's not very nice. Given that this is the single most covered aspect of the issue, I don't understand how this can be considered a WP:WEIGHT problem, which frankly is the only legitimate rationale I can think of for reducing 'negative' information about gamergate. When your argument is that we can't include negative information because there's little positive information to balance it, that makes WP:WEIGHT seem even less credible. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment; clearly not to the point of de-emphasizing its role in the GG narrative, but it should not be the largest issue at play here. If anything, the more recent articles are lumping the harassment along with the other tactics like the email campaign towards advertisers as part of the usual playbook of nebulous groups that they claim the GG side is. The fact this article focuses a lot on the harassment when more issues have become involved is part of the problem. We can still say it happened, we can still give a few necessary quotes that condemn it, and we can say what the GG reaction to that was (the #notyourshield stuff), and that should be enough to let the reader come to their conclusion. But with the Reactions section and a handful of quotes elsewhere, it's reiterating the same sentiments for the most part and can be trimmed down to remove the piling-up on the harassment side of the issue. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment; clearly not to the point of de-emphasizing its role in the GG narrative, but it should not be the largest issue at play here. I would argue that unless you're talking about the umpteenth opinion piece from Erik Kain, you're wrong. Can you point to specific sources that have "de-focused" harassment? The most recent incident that made it out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream press was the backlash over Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra, which focused on the fact that it made it appear that Intel was supporting a harassment campaign. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week, The Verge. Harassment is there, but it's setting up where the situation went from there. (BTW, I would not use The Week article, it is waaaaayy biased in this situation) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly an article titled "Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs" is good evidence that gamergate coverage is moving beyond its birth as a misogynistic harassment campaign. If you 'wouldn't use it' then why are you citing it as a proof that we're giving undue weight to the harassment campaign? The verge piece isn't an article at all, it's an open question, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the article (which is very much antiGG and sees the harassment as a problem) considers the harassment as a minor part of the overall issue that they see GG as a nebulous group trying various groupthink tactics to try to get their way and have no set goal, the harassment being one of those tactics but not the major part of the situation. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I very much disagree that the article "sees harassment as a minor part of the overall issue." It doesn't treat it as 'exclusively' about harassment, but then neither does the current version of the article. If this piece represents your idea of 'more' weight being given to gamergate's nebulous 'aims' then I'd say that the article is currently giving those 'aims' too much weight. But again, why are you pointing to an article that you think isn't usable in the article to prove there's an undue weight issue? -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that even a source that is extremely antiGG has moved on past the harassment issues, while this article gives that too much attention for its ultimate role in the current narrative by including many many viewpoints from those against the harassment. The harassment happened, it was a bad thing, everyone sees that, so we can say that and what additional events it caused, and then move on to address the broader issues that have been raised in the meantime. Mind you, I'm well aware that some from RSes disbelieve that the proGG is really bringing anything to the table and that the groups involved just want to create disruption, but that's not a viewpoint we can't take either. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Even" this source has "moved on." Right. That's great: you found a source you consider extremely anti-gamergate that does not completely ignore gamergate's vague claims. But it does not support your argument: "I think this source is biased and it doesn't treat gamergate as exclusively about harrassment: that means our article, which does not treat gamergate as being exclusively about harrassment, must be biased." The conclusion does not follow from the premise. When determining WP:WEIGHT we don't find a 'biased' source and work backwards from there, assuming that that if it covers something a little, we should cover it a lot and vice versa: we weight our article based on the sources we are actually using. You stated that "newer sources have definitely de-focused GG on the harassment:" provide some usable ones if you would like to make a case for undue weight.

There's also the fact that you're using newly published articles to justtify your claim of undue weight on an article that has been protected for days. This is a good reason to make some suggestions, but it's not a good way to retroactively justify your days-old claim of anti-Gamergate bias. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't beleive Masems weird jiggling of the sources to try and present a story with two sides has any basis in WP policy - quite the opposite in fact, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Artw (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Fringe does not apply to the proGG side in the sense of the broad elements that have been identified repeatedly that they are looking for; just because they are a "random group of Internet users" doesn't invalidate their view as fringe. And if you really want to evoke fringe, then this is where the entire Reaction section is a problem as it is singular views from individuals, each Fringey on its own.
But on the stronger case, UNDUE is not about balancing source/word count nor about assuring 50/50 coverage of an issue with two sides, but giving the coverage of all sides about the same weight that the sources do in a broad sense. We have all the sourcing that we can use, so we know the ratio between the two sides roughly, and when you average all the sources, most do spend time on the antiGG side, but also do try to give credibility to claims of the proGG side. And the problem with loading up on antiGG quotes beyond establishing why these were issues to start (eg the Reactions section and much in the two sections prior) is that because we can't change the sourcing to give more proGG, it makes the antiGG side far too predominate and preachy to the reader "Being ProGG is bad!". We can explain the rest of the world feels the actions were bad but we cannot take that stance (And that's why everyone off-site is targetting this article because it does take that stance simply because of the overload of what is effectively antiGG propaganda.) Until there is a legal established claim that proGG is a bad/illegal thing, we cannot villainize that side by including every antiGG sentiment in this. That is fixable within the concepts of UNDUE as well as WP:BIAS, and well grounded in policy. --MASEM (t) 06:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Make the following change proposed by NorthBySouthBaranof (at the end of the "In a nutshell" section), as discussed in the section above:

Change the current content in the lead:

"It concerns ingrained [7] issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community"

to:

"It concerns chronic [8] issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community".

Diego (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if the "long-standing" terminology is restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a reference using those words. Diego (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was removed? Trivially easy to source, as it's about the most famous fact about gaming that is known by the general public through the mainstream press. Here's Amanda Marcotte in the Daily Beast. [9]. We could use the word "chronic" if preferred, as it means longstanding. --TS 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually "chronic" would make sense as it has an emphasis on "continuous" rather than "for a long time", and it is sourced (which is a huge difference). I've added it to the request. Diego (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe these changes are definitely better than what is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These templates are for uncontroversial changes and we should be waiting for consensus before we request a change using them. I think reinstating 'long-standing' is a better solution than changing it to 'chronic,' which actually sounds rather less neutral to me. We don't have to actually plagiarize our sources to avoid original research: if the issue is 'long-documented,' then it is also 'long-standing.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tara, the initial suggested change had consensus when I first posted it; NorthBySouthBaranof had made after a long discussion a proposal that no one opposed, and I took it as acceptable and posted it here as the resulting consensus of that now archived thread. The problem has come for expanding the initial proposal to add a part that was still under discussion, but I've removed that part and reinstated the original proposed change. Diego (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't. A suggestion from the archives that was 'unopposed' but never endorsed or implemented isn't 'consensus;' the discussion simply moved on. That was not the only place where the lede was being discussed, and the conversation is referring to changes to a very different iteration. You introduced the initial wording you proposed in this section and then made the edit request before anyone else had even commented[10]: other commenters in the discussion above were advocating for reinstating 'longstanding' or other changes. There should be no rush here, and there is no harm in waiting for a few replies before you declare 'consensus.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ingrained" is a much more appropriate word than chronic, as if you look back, the issues of sexism/misogyny in the past were more focused on the developers side (putting these into games) than the player's side, and the current situation can be seen to a degree as a net result of having that last so long - it's ingrained in the culture. Also in the full context of the second change, I would not change it. We know that the group that actually did the trolling was a vocal minority, but the statement is about the press' reaction and that would be to more than just that vocal minority but the ones that also got pulled into the actions. "Elements" is okay, but "subset" is better . (We don't even know if we can say "minority" since the size of GG is vague and unknown). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then to summarize the argument so far:

• There's consensus to change "elements of the gamer community" to "behavior of a vocal subset of the gamer community", with no one opposing that change. The "vocal" adjective bit should be safe to use, as it's well sourced by the references (and in particular [11]).
• There's no consensus as to what we should change "ingrained" or if it should be kept.

As these are proposed changes to two different paragraphs, I think we should keep discussion for them separate. Diego (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vocal is fine, "vocal minority" is sort of a laden term. "vocal subset" is a bit too clever (as it is deliberately broad yet trivially precise), but I'm ok with it over "elements", which is equally broad. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose 'vocal minority' and similar minimization, as it's not well supported by sources. We have strong existing sources that portray this as a pervasive problem. They don't say that all gamers are sexist (and neither does the current version of the article) but they do point out that it is an 'ingrained' and 'long-documented' issue, and that it's pervasive and generally accepted as a serious problem in the gaming community and industry, not just a some bad apples spoiling it for everyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any unbiased sources that present evidence of a pervasive misogyny problem in the gamer community. The only sources that are claiming that are the outlets who's integrity is being questioned in the first place - Skrelk (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a source becomes ipso facto biased by asserting that there are toxic elements to game culture, I'm not surprised it doesn't get through those ever moving goalposts. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling gaming culture toxic doesn't make the source biased. If you could find a RS other than Vox, Verge, or Gawker that established the claim, then that would be fine. But Vox, Verge and Gawker have been pushing this narrative since well before GG erupted, and specialize in clickbait, getting attention. Their focus is on clicks, not unbiased journalism, and they are not an appropriate for such a contentious issue. -Skrelk (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

there's this and this just off the top of my head, or the sources I noted above in response to your comments on ingrained sexism. Or like, a hojillion other ones after a more concerted search. And let's also not convince ourselves we're awash in a sea of reliable sources asserting everything is awesome and nothing is sexist in game culture. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A Gamasutra blog can in no way be called a reliable source, we need one OUTSIDE the gaming journalistis in contention...I.E. a sociological study, or a mainstream source that doesn't directly rely on the gaming media. The daily beast source is CLEARLY editorial, NOT reporting. That is an editorial, making assertions, with little or no evidence, it is conjecture, an editorial. Both are editorials. An editorial is not an RS. Additionally, the previously posted sources consisted of an editorial, a study that had an abstract describing tension, but not making a conclusion RE misogyny prevalence, and another study regarding the different gaming style of women. - Skrelk (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So per the usual gater logic, you're going to reject anything that doesn't fit your personal qualifications of independency or neutrality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not my 'person qualification'. It's the basic standard that an editorial is not evidence, or a reliable source. Skrelk (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then Skrelk. Feel free to peruse the linked sources in the section above, as they cover basically the same area. Also it's comical to say that because some fringe theory implicates ALL of games journalism that wikipedia should kowtow to that interpretation as though it were based in reality. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I'll be patiently waiting for a reliable source from outside the games industry which describes game culture as not having a problem with ingrained sexism. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did peruse the linked sources, and as I said they consist of editorials and studies that do not support the claim of ingrained sexism, and are only tangentially related. And, per common sense, WP:BURDEN, the consist of burden of proof, etc, we don't need a NPOV RS refuting the claim that game culture doesn't have a problem, we need one that is neutral, outside the gaming press, and is not an editorial that says it is. I'm surprised that an admin such as you doesn't understand WP:BURDEN - Skrelk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the game media itself explains it knows there's a problem within game media, that's a perfectly acceptable source for that point. Self-identification is rarely a problematic statement. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the game media yes, but the game media articles/editorials cannot be used to say there is a problem in gaming culture, or in the community as whole outside the media. - Skrelk (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, this qualification of sourcing is a non-problem for Wikipedia. The gaming media is part of the gaming industry, so they are qualified to make self-assessments about the state of it. There's no requirement that the assessment of this nature has to be completely neutral of the industry. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They're not making a self-assessment about the gaming industry, they're making an assessment of gaming culture, and of gamers generally. If they were saying game developers and plots are misogynistic, that would be completely different. But that isn't at issue here, they're saying that gaming culture and gamers are misogynistic Skrelk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Which they have. I've provided a range of sources that show the industry knowing the games they develop have presented misogynic ideas, and are clearly aware the problem is not limited to the gamers only. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And those sources can be used to show that misogyny has been a significant issue, perhaps even ingrained, in the game development industry. Skrelk (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's why the lead says "It concerns ingrained [23] issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game industry". So there zero issue here. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And so, having accepted the ingrained sexism in game development, it's somehow impossible to accept multiple sources noting a very similar phenomenon among community members as well? Also, I understand "burden", but we're talking about an issue which grew out of online community protests over a woman making a game (which were pretty similar to protests over another woman criticising the industry for the sexism you accept is ingrained and widespread among developers). There are facts on the ground. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate did not start over 'a woman making a game'. It began when, almost simultaneously, conflicts of interest were discovered in gaming journalism, and took off when many journalism outlets published articles attacking gamers, and gaming culture, hence the term 'gamergate'. The sources do not note than the phenomenon, they do not prove it, they merely assert it. I also don't quite agree with the use of the term ingrained(widespread, yes, problematic, yes, ingrained, present to such an extent that you can't play a game without seeing it, no), and questions it's relevance, given that gamergate arose over conflicts between journalists, and gamers, not journalists and the industry. - Skrelk (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, that's what the popular proGG opinion wants to try to change but that's not apparently happening. All reliable sources all point to the harassment that Quinn got. You cannot argue a point different from that without invalidating all the sources that state this point. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the evidence shows there wasn't a conflict of interest. And the choice to protest an alleged conflict of interest by launching a misogynistic and slut-shaming harassment campaign against a heretofore-obscure female indie developer has not gone unremarked in reliable sources. Third-grade-level sex jokes may have made for five minutes of lulz on a chan board, but they don't do much to rebut the opposition's contention that the movement is motivated by sexism. Choices have consequences, and in an identity movement, anything done under your flag is going to be attributed to your flag. It's the unavoidable consequence of launching a movement based almost entirely on anonymous social media postings. There's no real way to control the message, to have accountability for one's actions or to steer the narrative back in a constructive direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note sorry, after reading above I'm not sure what there is consensus to change, if anything at this time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have to have a qualification? Both ingrained and chronic present an opinion. How about just

"It concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry" and that's it? Loganmac (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the evolution of the sentance, actually. IIRC it went something like 'pre-existing' -> 'long-standing' -> 'ingrained.' The goal, presumably, was just to make it clear in some fashion that the sexism wasn't a new issue unique to gamergate. Those aren't opinions, by the way: something can absolutely be objectively said to be ingrained or chronic.-- TaraInDC (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is an opinion, my phrase is absolutely neutral, it is up to the reader to disagree if such issues exist or not, and that's what an encyclopedia should aim for Loganmac (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is an objective statement, however, because we have plenty of sources before GG to show that these have been concerns since at least the 1990s (from prior discussions). I would also think that establishing that GG did not introduce sexism and misogyny but existed before, and not just in the gamer side but on the industry side as well would be a more balanced statement about the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you're going for then pre-existing like TaraInDC said, or better yet "some pre-existing issues..." is the most neutral you can get, ingrained makes it sound like all of gaming has a misogynist problem. And for "long-standing" you'd have to define "long". This whole misogyny in video games started after people saw that "violence makes gamers violent" wasn't doing anything, in the 90s you had the ocassional random complaint that Lara Croft was sexist but it didn't really catch on towards the late 2000s, early 2010s, with Anita Sarkeesian, at least that's what brought the issue to mainstream coverage Loganmac (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloated article

The article could do with about 75% less text and opinion. Let's just stick to the facts and then link to further analysis, shall we? How do I tag an article as in need of significant revision for conciseness? Oathed (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what content the article has too much of instead of vaguely complaining about it? As in what exact pieces of content need to be cut out instead of just saying "this is too big".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps cut out the Laurie Penny bit? She's pretty much just saying the same thing all the sources before her are saying only this time with swears. Bosstopher (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We could cut out all the bits where we pretend GamerGate might have some kind of valid point. Being stricter about WP:UNDUE would lead to a much more compact article. We'd probably need to expand the FAQ to document everything exhaustively for when POV pushers come around complaining about bias though. Artw (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You What? Bosstopher (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I sense facetiousness.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On whose part? [I did that wrong didn't I? I suck at who grammar so much] Bosstopher (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I beleive the article could be significantly streamlined in that manner. Artw (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the gamergate article is that it's hilariously overblown when compared to the actual notability of the controversy. The article has 72 sources, and there's no way it could possibly need that many to make it's point. The background section doesn't serve any purpose except to give a history of the gaming industry and the general state of affairs up to the start of gamergate. If the article needs 4 extensive paragraphs describing the state of gaming industry drama before it can get to the point, then maybe the gamergate controversy should be a small subsection in an article about that. The article as it stands basically serves as a play-by-play for the ongoing drama of the controversy, with new details being added every single time someone decides to say something about it. Most of the things that are given their own section (basically everything under the backlash and social media campaign section) deserve, at max, a couple of sentences each. Everything in the misogyny and antifeminism section should be worked into the actual article instead of given individual breakdowns and analysis. The legitimacy of gamergate's concerns section doesn't deserve more than 2 paragraphs. Quotes are used in places where paraphrasing is more appropriate, and individual words are quoted from sources, I'm assuming for emphasis, but seriously. We get the point. Everyone keeps arguing about whether or not the sources and "sides" of the controversy are given fair weight, but the content in the article right now is giving the controversy itself more weight than it deserves. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we shouldn't write that much about it despite the fact that people have written a lot about it? I'm just going to address your issues one by one.

1. Notability was taken care of with the article passing AFD.
2. There deserves to be some sort of discussion of what led up to the "controversy".
3. That's how current events work.
4. This is debatable.
5. Same.
6. Same.
7. The issue with heavy quoting is because of the pro-gamergate SPAs who insist that we are not accurately portraying their opposition (or lying about it) so we have had to include explicit and exact statements to prove that we at Wikipedia are not lying.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they mean "notable" in the normal sense of it. As for "that's how current events work", it's horsecrap and you know it. We don't want to chronicle a blow-by-blow because that makes for a worse article--we're forced to do it for the same reason we have all the damn quotes. It's not optimal and it's not wrong to say so. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's hard to tell what people mean when they're not specific. There are perhaps parts of the article that need trimming, but these calls that 75% needs to be cut out is circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the entire point of what I wrote. It's notable as AN incident of sexism and journalistic integrity in gaming, not THE incident. I also didn't say that that there doesn't deserve to be any discussion on what led up to the controversy. What we don't need is 4 long paragraphs describing the history of gaming journalism, what a "gamer" is, and a handful of previous incidents of sexism in gaming. For a background section for gamergate, a description of current tensions and the state of the industry before it happened would be enough.

Yes, that's how current events work, but nobody is saying anything new. The article doesn't need a new section or paragraph every time a random journalist decides that they need to weigh in on the drama, and most of the sources don't say anything distinct enough to warrant having so many references on this article.

I understand the issue with the quoting. It sucks, I get it, and the amount of patience some of you are maintaining is impressive. Regardless, a random reader doesn't care about what debates are going on the talk page, and all they're going to see is an unreasonably long article detailing a whole lot of feelings and the events of gamergate hidden underneath somewhere. The article as it is now is a chore to read, and any reader would be better off reading any of the articles referenced to get a more concise rundown. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually need to establish what the situation was as of July 2014 to understand why the accusation towards Quinn set off a series of events. This is more than just an "event" article, it about the philosophical issues that have now since arise since the initial events. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "philosophical issues" existed before gamergate ever happened. This is just another event demonstrating the preexisting problems in the gaming industry. I'll say it again, you can establish the background without going into excessive detail about the history of gaming journalism, incidents of sexism, and that people that play games call themselves gamers. As it is right now, most of the article is of interest only to a small group of people, namely the people editing it. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course they existed before Gamergate - but the reason GG blew up as a "group" and as an event was that the alignment of all these issues at the point that Quinn was accused was the perfect storm, so understanding that there have been issues in journalistic ethics, that the identity of "gamers" have been challenged, etc., provide the required background how a refuted claim about professional impropriety turned into a introspective review of the entire industry. That is the story here and why this background is necessary from an encyclopedic viewpoint. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. We need this detailed backstory so we can repeat the gamergate narrative to our readers as though it's the truth? "An introspective review of the entire industry" my fat ass. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not such much that "big" but the point is that there has been proverbial soul searching by the game journalists and dev sides (for better or worse) in light of what they have been accused of, with some agreement there have been problems (eg that game journalism has become indistinguishable from PR from a few sources, for example). We cannot state that the claism the GG side have made are truth, but the fact that there are game dev/journos that are talking seriously on those claims is what should be included in the article, and the reason why they are talking about that as part of it. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

These are primarily mentioned in sources as examples of things GajerGate could be interested in if they were really concerned with journalistic integrity and not silencing women. Artw (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The "introspective review of the entire industry" happens every single time a woman says something about video games and gets harassed because of it. We saw the same exact thing happen with Anita Sarkeesian and Jennifer Hepler, and it even happened the first time Zoe Quinn got harassed. Even still, 4 paragraphs discussing the background of the industry in detail is ridiculous overkill. All that needs to be said is that there'd been previous incidents of sexism and harassment and questions of journalistic integrity before moving on to the first incident involving Quinn. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on, let's try not to get superheated in this thread too... :)

OK, here's the problem as I see it: There is a lot of rhetoric from GamerGate about what they say they are for or about. But all the action of GamerGate has been the things we talk about that are documented in reliable sources — vicious harassment campaigns based on false allegations of a conflict of interest involving Zoe Quinn and others; misogynistic and juvenile sex jokes about Zoe Quinn; a vehement belief that those who are discussing issues of gender, race or class in gaming are malevolent "social justice warriors" out to somehow destroy video games (how these people will do so is unexplained); and an effort to get advertisers to drop gaming publications that published articles they don't like.

So what can we do? It's really, really easy to say you're about something and that you oppose something. But looking from the outside in, all that is seen are the actual results of what people waving your banner have done. And those external sources are in agreement that what they have done is largely (not entirely, but largely) unconstructive. And if your response to this is "well, all those sources are biased against us," then you've articulated little more than a conspiracy theory — and you haven't done anything to show here's what we have done that is constructive and that the biased media is ignoring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of the background section in my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit in an attempt to get the article towards a NPOV, but I was mostly working off the material in the previous analysis section using the existing sources. Despite my intentions it is, if anything, skewed towards the anti-GamerGate perspective of this just being about male gamers angry about more women being involved or games being more about serious issues and less about high-octane thrills.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and it's nothing in TDAs edits, is simply that prior to the harassment of Quinn, what the proGG wants was not apparently problems before save for elements of why DQ was not received well by players (the start of using games to push political messages) and the possible corruption of the press (which really only bore out in a couple isolated incidents, Gerstmann, and Doritosgate). I'm not saying these aren't valid concern, but the conclusion that some antiGG press has arrived at: claiming that the proGG latched onto these points after the harassment of Quinn and the backlash from the press as to try to give this a legitimate reason , is not too far out of the realm of possibility. We obviously can't treat it like that, but it is because there's little to talk about from the proGG side before the Quinn harassment that may seem like it's balanced. It is because the narrative as events actually happened does not make it play out well. The only real way to fix that balance would be to remove the intro but put it into the article later, but I'm not 100% if that works. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the nature of the content or the balance of the article. I think as it is now the general message, for lack of a better word, is fine, and reflects the sources used. The problem is that there's too much content. We've managed to lose what gamergate actually is underneath the excessive quotes and extraneous detail. I've offered suggestions on how to condense the content in this article as it is now to make it more clear and concise. I'm more than willing to discuss that more in depth with you or anyone else interested, but I have no desire to get into a discussion on the article's neutrality. It's already been discussed multiple times, and it's honestly frustrating to see every concern on the talk page shifted into a discussion on POV when there are other problems that can and should be addressed. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is - no one has any really good definition of what gamergate is, due to the nebulous nature of what has happened and what has been said. We know it's a controversy, but the bounds are vague and unclear. I think what we've all gotten to to balance the first line of this article is the best definition that we can make but that leads to why this is broad and detailed to try to give some insight to a reader who has zero knowledge on the VG industry or its present state. (There are some of the related POV issues involved that are bloating this, but as stated, better discussed elsewhere). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more important to focus on what happened than just what it is. A reader knowing nothing about the gaming industry should leave the article knowing about gamergate, with only enough background/extra information to have the basic context they would need to know why they should care about it and why gamergate was able to happen in the first place. The background information really only needs to serve the purpose of showing the reader that there's been a history of harassment in the gaming industry, including previous incidents with Quinn, and a few (sort of) examples of questionable ethics/conflicts of interest in gaming journalism. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But the reliable sourcing has ID'd other factors involved here that I think are balanced statement - the "death of gamer identity" angle, for example, is perfectly legit, and legitimately became recognized as an issue as journalists listened to what proGGers were saying. Now, the lead should be set so that the reader gets an idea of what happened in a very broad stroke and set up the structure of the article, and I think we've got one that does a good job as to explain why we have a good sized BG section before the crux of the matter. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't legit, just that it doesn't belong in the background section. Like you said, the death of gamer identity became recognized as an issue after gamergate became a thing, and totally has a place in a section about what resulted from gamergate. The background should speak for itself, and describe the tensions in the gaming industry prior to gamergate. Right now the only purpose it serves is to justify using a bunch of opinion pieces referenced later in the article. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I didn't realize this before, but did Dreadstar actually protect this article from editing for a whole year?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar stated that full protection expires later today. Looking at the log, it appears the article is move-protected until next year i.e. it cannot be renamed without administrative approval.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So I did misread it. It's hard to tell what the expiry is supposed to be with the UTC date (I don't know why he's set the move protection to expire though).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was confused because someone said it on Twitter before I saw you say it here, but they were apparently talking about the previous and rapidly-shortened full-protection by Cuchullain as though it had just happened.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New sources

Slate

Arizona State University

MCV

Forbes

Iltalehti and its translation

Verge

Willhesucceed (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The ASU piece is based on a research student's comments, so ... no. (However, if there was a peer reviewed paper down the road, I could see that). The Iltalehti piece is restating what we've got already about the Intel debate, so not really needed. I've brought up the Verge piece as mostly rehashing and nothing really new but still possible.

Slate's piece is interesting in that it's more about how GG has shown Twitter to be unbridled, and there might be something to be said that GG has exposed .. flaws? with social media-driven campaigns if there were more sources long this line but would not include presently. The MCVUK piece is good in that it expresses that there are people purposely trying to stay out of it, but I'd like to see more sources on the same line as it doesn't presently fit elsewhere. Forbes is from Kain again, and pretty much supports the opinion that there needs to be proper discussion between journalists and GGers which I think we had elsewhere so usable. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Auerbach and Kain seem to be making fairly similar points about the need to get beyond a mutually toxic atmosphere. There are probably similar sources in that vein, so I think it would merit adding material touching on that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Between that and Quinn's own call for discussion at #gameethics definitely could be something, I'm just not sure where to fit it in. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week follows up on its previous article, particularly arguing that GamerGate's goals are incoherent — which goes along with Slate's discussion of how GamerGate can't seem to figure out what it's trying to say because it's taking place in 140 characters or less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to note the author's properly attributed opinion in the article when protection expires.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be really careful about that Week article (having read it before) as while it has some points, it's definitely written with a stronger bias than others, though I think using it + the Kain piece on the nebulous nature of GG is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes' Kain discussing the publisher "control" of reviews of Shadows of Mordor in light of GG. I do not know if this is yet usable, though it highlights the ethics in game journalism point of the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How so? Article only mentions GG to point out they're not concerned with this issue. Artw (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Realisticially , I think this article should point out that the concerns about journalism ethics are not novel claims, pointing to self-ascribed problems like this, Gerstmann's outing, and DoritoesGate (plus the effect of MEtacritic, etc.) in lieu of an article elsewhere on WP that describes these things. It is important that the industry has pointed out this problem (calling the journalism more like PR nowadays by several) so this does not invalid the GG claim on this. But, how to include without forcing I don't know yet, hence why I am just dropping the link for now. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If we used it to support GameGate in that way I would call it a blatant misinterpretation of a source. Artw (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no GamerGate claim on this and that's the entire point of the article — the article's author says "Here's an example of a real journalism ethics issue. GamerGate isn't going after it. Why is that? This is a missed opportunity to make an important point." I agree with Artw that if you're proposing to use the source to support the idea that GamerGate's journalism ethics concerns are legitimate, it blatantly misrepresents the content of the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's useful as a discussion of what GamerGate isn't talking about — the article's author explicitly asks why the GamerGate movement hasn't gone after what the author sees as an actual, flagrant violation of journalism ethics. GamerGate hasn’t really sprung on this the way they would if, say, IGN or Polygon or Kotaku were accepting branding deals for their reviews. In other words: There's an opportunity here to make a real, substantive point about journalism ethics, and GamerGate is willfully ignoring it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be really careful - as WP editors we can't address the "negative space" (eg why hasn't GG gone after this, why wasn't Grayson harassed as Quinn was if it was really over journalism ethics, etc.); if others note this, we're fine, but it is definitely original research to say the absence of something is prove of something. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source says, though. If you're proposing to use this source to say something about GamerGate and "journalism ethics," then you can't possibly ignore the fact that the author calls out GamerGate and says they aren't involved in discussing the issue and calls for them to become involved in it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

True, I was just saying that in general we have to be careful. I have a feeling some will argue that using a Kain article to make this possibly controversial claim would be an issue, but this is the type of language that we would then at least mention all other factors being equal. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Verge article, though it has a very decidedly biased tone. It might be useful to a point I identified earlier, that what GG is going through is a problem in the larger culture war (outside of VG) but might is the operative word. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For good background information on Gamergate and the culture of harassment in tech these two links are great:

Trouble at the Koolaid Point
‘We Will Force Gaming to Be Free’

No idea if they meet your criteria for inclusion, pretty sure they don't - but they are worth a read. The second one has a lot of links that may be of interest. Artw (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudeness from "the other side", source

Any way to include this? http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/twitter_is_broken_gamergate_proves_it.html

It gives a summary of

1. Leigh Alexander's rude tweets (for lack of a more extreme description)
2. Ridicules a guy comparing GG to ISIS
3. Calls out a Borderland 2 dev for saying GamerGate legitimazies child pornography (not giving names since it could be BLP violation)
4. "doxxing and torment" of pro-gg members (without going into specifics)
5. cartoonist K. Thor Jensen saying "all gamers should die"

Everyone knows "harassment" as you call it in the article has been going from "both sides", yet there wasn't any source saying it yet, I don't get why The Escapist being DDOSed wasn't included also, but if all of this is added, it could get a mention from these sources [12] [13] [14] Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What a confused article, and what a confusing request. "Adam Baldwin jacks off goats" equates to rape threats, death threats and, yes, harassment by posting child porn in what world exactly? Artw (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you read the article before commenting further, Artw. There's a reason Loganmac didn't go into specifics.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The extremely vague and dubious claim at the end? Without details it's as substantial as Milo's syringes or Marine Todd. Artw (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A little confused about what you're communicating here.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is primarily about David Auerbach not really understanding Twitter and wringing his hands at the thought of rudeness there, and the only thing that goes beyond that is extremely vague and dubious? Artw (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so what's your standard for defining what is vague and dubious then? Because if we're writing off everything sourced by screenshots, twitter posts, and first person accounts, we might as well delete the whole article.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what role the article is to perform as a source. I'm happy to accept Slate as generally reliable, and I don't doubt the main claims in the article. On the other hand, the article seems to be a bit meandering - I'm not sure what the point is, other than "Twitter is a horrible place to have a debate" (which seems true). Is the intent to use it to source the claim that there have been negative tweets and trolling sent to both sides of the debate? In which case, is that something that needs to be said? I'm not inherently opposed to it, as the aggressive back-and-forth has been a part of the ongoing issue, but I'm not sure how this is to be used. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any new reader to the subject won't know there was an actual flame war, not just from one side Loganmac (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The author doesn't even seem to be suggesting that's the case, though. If you think Alexander making a few rude comments in the face of an absolute torrent of abuse proves 'both sides are at fault' you have no sense of proportion. --TaraInDC (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I could give you pages long of proof of harassment and threats from the anti-GG side, my point here is, so far, the only reliable source stating it is this, as small as it is, it's something. Did you seriously not look into the subject you're writing about? Loganmac (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You could give it but that does not mean it can be mentioned in the article. I'm sure you can use the tweets I had made that you "archived" as evidence for your argument. Lashing out at being harassed does not equate to harassing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A few rude comments, most of which aren't even directed at an individual, are not 'harassment.' Your source would be pretty weak for this even if it said what you believe it does, but it doesn't. You seem to be under the impression that because there are so few pro-gamergate sources available we must accept poorly sourced pro-gamergate material in the interest of 'balance.' That's just not how it works. You can't just point to some rude comments someone who has been targeted by gamergate made and say "See? Both sides do it!!!" That may work in the GG echo chamber, but it's not going to fly here. Look at the level of sourcing that we have for gamergate's harassment. Are we using primary sources? Are we using a mostly unrelated article about the phenomenon of people arguing on twitter? No. We're using many mainstream news articles that clearly and specifically describe this as a harassment campaign targeted mainly at women in the gaming industry. After all the kicking and screaming you guys put up trying to keep the word 'misogyny' out of the lede, the least you could do is hold yourselves to the same standards that you have for everyone else. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I helped writing the lead when the article had just started and I never left the word misogyny out, try again Loganmac (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, you just shoved it to the very end as if it were the least important part of the debate instead of the only reason it had enough coverage to survive AFD. That's much different. Okay, quibble with one detail of my comment and completely ignore my actual points if you like, but that's not going to help you prove me wrong. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we please stop toggling the POV tag?

"The neutrality of this article is *disputed*." The way I see it, there is no way to make clearer that someone is pushing an agenda through this article than to remove this tag without an agreed consensus. If the article really is neutral, then at the very least this is additional context. When this blows over things should stabilize, cooler heads will prevail, and the tag will come off. Until then, there's no harm in giving the user additional info about the current dispute.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested protection of the article, and readding of the template.I'd replace the template myself, but I don't want to run afoul of 3RR. Skrelk (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget that there was never any consensus to add the tag in the first place. In the edit request above there are so many arguments against its use that the admin who stepped in to add it explicitly states that because there is no consensus that means that there is a consensus to add the tag. There is no ongoing dispute on the neutrality of this article; just discussion after discussion begun by editors with a point of view to push constantly complaining that one side is being unfairly treated when it is an artifact of the coverage itself and any attempts to rectify this imbalance would violate the undue weight and fringe view policies and guidelines. The tag does not belong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is argying significant bias in this article who isn't also arguing that we violate WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and other policies to counter it. Since that's not happening they simply can't be taken seriously as arguments. Artw (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, Artw there is clearly a valid dispute, and the tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is not a fringe view, and RS supports that. Despite your insistence, a non-insignificant number of editors believe the article is POV. You're insistence that their must be a consensus that a dispute exists is absurd on it's face. People who are arguing that the article is POV are not all necessarily arguing that weight and undue are being violated. You're insistence that those who disagree with you cannot be taken seriously is not constructiveSkrelk (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem treats you far more seriously than they should, but I doubt they would go that far. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, an SPA adding it back. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another person who thinks the article is POV Skrelk (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't seen how disclosing this dispute, regardless of the merits of either side, is causing harm to Wikipedia or its readership. Maybe we could expand upon that, please.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if the folks who think this article has POV issues would stop complaining and start making some constructive suggestions and backing them up with actual sources. We can't keep the article tagged indefinitely in the absence of reasonable evidence that there is a problem. Vague handwaving about being 'clinical' and 'detached' and requests to add cherry-picked quotes from Leigh Alexander's twitter feed to prove 'both sides are guilty' aren't helping. We need to hear specific changes you think should be made and we need you to support those changes with reliable sources and relevant policy. Consensus isn't a vote: it doesn't matter how many of you insist that the article is non-neutral if you're not able to provide examples that can actually be discussed. Put up or shut up plzkthx. -TaraInDC (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Like ArmyLine said, what's wrong with having the notice there? There are clearly several users not that happy with the neutrality of it, do people against want readers to take the article as absolute fact? Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existant. I would edit it myself but the edit won't even last 5 seconds for it to be reverted by Ryulong Loganmac (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with tagging an article as having POV issues if there is an active discussion going on about problems with the article, but that's not what's happening here: I see a few suggestions that are obvious non-starters, and a whole lot of griping. There will always be people who will insist that the article is 'biased' as long as it includes the simple and well cited fact that it is primarily about a harassment campaign. We don't slap a POV tag on an article because someone people don't like it but don't care to support their position or work on improvements.

Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existent. First, because that is not a 'source that states there was a flame war from both sides.' Leigh Alexander didn't act like a patient little angel while a bunch of angry jerks were conducting a massive harassment campaign. That's not the same thing. And WP:WEIGHT sometimes involves not giving any weight to some fringe positions. Your contention that Leigh Alexander was not being harassed, but just involved in a mutual 'flame war,' is an extremely fringe position - so much so in fact that even the one questionable source you've offered does not support it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be an actual discussion if admins weren't closing them with tumblr gifs for explanations Loganmac (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When the fuck has that happened on this page? There are two to three admins who have been dealing with this and I cannot think of one instance where any discussion on neutrality has been shut down and flippantly dismissed them. Every discussion has been pointing out that we cannot and should not cover some of the aspects that every pro-Gamergate editor wants addressed. There is no neutrality dispute that requires the POV tag. It's just the same arguments rehashed by new people and a handful of people hanging around this page to support them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least revert the sock puppet that added the tag back because this is getting ridiculous. The article should have been semi protected again rather than allow someone to jump in and further the dispute with an alternate account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. Add that it was unlocked for under an hour before it had to be locked again... --MASEM (t) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why someone didn't revert him in that time. It seems odd. Also, he's probably not a sock but just some gater angry at me if this notification I received means anything. I think we need to be more on the ball about restoring the semi-protected status and removing that god damn POV tag because there is no issue with neutrality on this page, just gaters whining about not having a beneficial bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There was 3-4 reversions of that, that's why this was protected in an under an hour. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for ascribing a more moderate stance to you. I guess if we are going to have a permenant POV tag moving forwards despite your efforts to balance the article we should just accept that and edit accordingly. Artw (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no part in this edit war, nor the last one for that matter, but that tag does not belong. I used to see this all the time in the Israeli-Palestine topic area, where a point-of-view pushed by a minority of editors was rejected by consensus, yet they insisted on maintaining the tag as a badge of shame. Here's how tagging works; you tag the article, you come to the talk page to elaborate on the reason, then discussion proceeds. If consensus for altering the pov of the article is achieved, the article is fixed and the tag removed. If the discussion fails to garner consensus in a reasonable amount of time, then the matter is ended and the tag is removed. Seeing how it has been weeks upon weeks now, the "timely manner" criteria has been satisfied. Tag removal does not preclude further discussion, but the matter is no longer of a critical nature that the reader must be warned about serious problems with the article. As determined by the consensus of editors in good standing, i.e. not socks and not SPAs, there is no critical POV issue at this time. When protection expires that tag should, and will, come off. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you say that there's a "consensus of editors in good standing" that there is no POV issue? There are roughly as many of us editors in good standing saying that the article has neutrality problems as those saying that it doesn't.

Also, why should it matter whether we're in good standing or not? Consensus also has to take into account editors "not in good standing". Diego (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not achieved consensus for your point-of-view, thus it fails...that's not hard to understand. The burden is on the tagging party and associates. As for SPAs, no, they do not count, otherwise I could go ring a (figurative) bell and have 2 dozen people show up here by tomorrow...hell, maybe even Ms. Quinn herself. This project doesn't work that way, though; issues of consequence are decided by actual editors, not drive-by redditors and tweeters. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Consensus again. The word "burden" does not appear in it, and "fail" only appears in the context of requiring more discussion until consensus is reached. Also, what you fail is at following WP:AGF; "drive-by redditors and tweeters" are editors too, and we only should reject their contributions if they become disruptive - not merely because they are interested in a single topic. This is so basic and core to the project that makes me wonder if you're blundering your interpretation of policy on purpose. Diego (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Stating your opinion isn't enough: if you don't back that opinion up, nobody has to listen to you, 'drive-by' or no. We could have hundreds of editors dropping in to say 'oh, yeah, this article totally needs a POV tag,' but in absence of any specific proposals there's nothing to be done, nothing to discuss, and thus no justification for tagging the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Granted, "It's POV, fix it" without any reasonable direction of action to be taken is generally something to ignore, and we know there is a meatpuppetry-like group that wants this changed, which is also something we normally would ignore. But we should also figure out why this is happening and if there is anything in our power to fix it (that being, within the bounds of what WP allows for sourcing and policy). I've done that and I've explained above that while the degree that they think this article is wrong is impossible to fix given how WP approaches topics in regards to mirroring sources and the like, they do have valid complaints that this feels like it was written to preach the anti-GG position in the absence of any counter arguments. That is a legit POV concern. Were it me, I wouldn't add the tag (as tagging POV generally is a more serious thing than what I think this is), but it is a valid tag for this dispute. We just have to be clear that it is not POV in that we cannot flip the narrative around to the proGG side simply as there are limited sources to even do this. (And FWIW, let's not necessary rehash my points here, keep this to the validity of the POV tag, other sections can address my points). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, don't be a troll, I am quite comfortable in my understanding of project norms. You made your case, it failed to be accepted, move on. Your SPA army cannot and will not be allowed to bail you out. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, if POV-pushers are so actively editing this article, then the neutrality of the article is an issue. I'm be under the impression the POV-pushers on both sides of this issue want to have their cake and eat it too: add their bias to the article and then trot it around as impartial confirmation of their views. Is it too much to ask that we stop arguing over whether there is an argument?--ArmyLine (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding that is why we have WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except they aren't actively editing the article. They're actively editing the talk page to complain that that their opposition's point of view is in the article too much, when that is also not the case. This talk page's archives are full of constant discussion that there's a failure of neutrality without precisely pointing out what parts of the article make it not neutral.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean, except for the numerous points where "editors in good standing" (as Tarc puts it) point to specific problems with the number and detail of quotations from the available references, comments which immediately get disputed? Diego (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That you identify something as a problem doesn't mean that others see it that was, unfortunately. Sometimes "no" is the answer you simply have to live with. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a huge case of 'not buying it' by a bunch of users, dismissing and saying that any attempt to attribute or appropriate any due weight to Pro-GG is fringe views, which is not the case. We can elaborate that they are in the minority but in an attempt to neutrality, we do have to appropriate non-BLP-infringing of their views in favor of NPOV. Having every single argument of one side and absolutely none of the other side is not due weight, it's unbalanced and the tag adequately and succinctly states it. Tutelary (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that there are few if not any sources that meet those requirements that are not already being used in the article. There's no more weight that can be given to the subject because it exists in places that Wikipedia cannot cite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, saying "there are too many quotations and they're too detailed" is not specific. Which ones should go? Which ones should be paraphrased? Will paraphrasing them cause POV pushers to say "you're lying about what this person said"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes that are being used to support the facts of the case (eg that the press called the harassment misogynic) are fine, but the quotes that are just there to support one person's opinion on the matter, which cannot be paraphrased, as being most of the quotes in the Reaction section, are where there is problem; these are individual viewpoints and while they are press memebers, they don't individually represent the larger opinion. A better limited selection of them would help, though right now I'm not sure which specific ones are unnecessary considered the structure of the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, if biased sources are not actively modifying the article then what were all your edits about?--ArmyLine (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you took a look at what I added to the article you would know this. I originally added the section on TFYC, expanded the section on Liana Kerzner's pro-gamer and anti-harassment piece, and most of my other edits have just been minor fixes or rewrites instead of the "KEK RYULONG IS RUINING THE ARTICLE BECAUSE HE'S AN SJW" bullshit still being thrown at me on Twitter Anyone can go into the history of the page and look at every single edit I made and pick out things I've done that they think is wrong but no one ever has. It's just whining from gaters all the time that I'm being an ass here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute over this article. It is going through DR. It is clear from looking at the sources that the piece has problems with WP:UNDUE, as well as citing Leigh Alexander for factual statements, which is not okay because she isn't a RS here because of the conflict of interest issue. There is reason to not include the tag on the article while all of this is going on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Endless repetition of your claim re: Leigh Alexander does not make it any more correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Leigh Alexander is very much at the center of this issue, it's perfectly fair to say that her conflict of interest here makes her article unusable for RS purposes. Skrelk (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Any future articles written by her will be non-independent sources, but they are not unusable, just not preferred if there are independent sources that have the same information. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem...

As I type, we're on cycle 3 fresh off unprotection on the tag. Yes, I know who is doing it, but you're going to get the article locked down again if you don't stop it. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request No Footnote

The bit on the New Yorker in the attacks on women section has no footnote. Can someone put the footnote back? Bosstopher (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done This is needed to met policy. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Balance" versus Whitewashing

I am concerned that in attempting to achieve "balance" or "neutrality" in the article we are actually courting severe WP:NPOV problems and coming close to abandoning WP:RS.

I would also add that making sources perceived as "antiGG" jump through hoops to be used in the article while setting a low bar for "proGG" articles and in fact actively misrepresenting some sources to make them "proGG" is nothing short of a deliberate exercise in whitewashing.

In fact we should not be talking about sides at all - we should be seeking out good sources and laying out the facts as shown in those sources. Per WP:UNDUE, where those sources largely agree that is how the subject of an article should be depicted, and minority voices should not be given disproportionate exposure. In editing this article we seem to have come dangerously close to abandoning that policy. I beleive we should pay more attention to it as we move forwards. Artw (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The proGG bar is pretty high actually, and most that have been proposed have been quickly dismissed as failing RS. The only reason that it may seem there's a higher bar for antiGG sources is that we do want to avoid the whitewashing of the issue and so the ones that are less neutral should be challenged over the more balanced ones. And I do agree (from my statements above) that the reaction section is a major contributor to the problem here, in that while not all of them are necessarily anti-GG, they are singular viewpoints from specific critics and at this point in the situation (too soon to the events) to have truly qualified voices speak on this. If there is a conclusion to GG, I would expect that the responses there and then would be more useful for inclusion than the present ones now. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, there are plenty of pretty good sources on the subject matter. I don't get this whole idea that there aren't good sources. The big papers mostly don't go into great depth about it because it is a minor story to them, but they do discuss things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I run a google news scan at least twice a day and am not finding any "pretty good sources" that is claimed that haven't been mentioned here already. Finding sources and bringing them to our attention is good but I doubt that they are "pretty good sources" if my searches aren't coming up with them (that likely indicates they are unreliable sources). --MASEM (t) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the talk page protected?

Someone messaged me on Twitter and said that they were having trouble editing the talk page. I don't see any marking indicating that the talk page is protected from anyone editing it. Is it? If it is, then there needs to be a marker up so that people know what is going on and what the problem is. If not, I'll try and figure out what the problem is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to be autoconfirmed per WP:AUTOCONFIRM to edit it for some reason. I thought in the past that anyone could contribute to the talk page regardless of the article protection status but I may be mistaken. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is currently semi-protected. Talk pages are rarely protected, but they are when there is serious risk of BLP violations from new editors, and I think that was the case here. It has been a couple of weeks since it was protected - it might be worth considering giving unprotection a quick go and see what happens, although I'm not confident that doing so would end well. - Bilby (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: Can you at least mark the page as semi-protected? I don't see an icon or notice anywhere on the talk page. I'd be good with removing the semi-protection as well, and then putting it back up if we have a flood of IP editors who come in and do BLP vios, but I'm not sure how worried about that we need to be. It has been a while. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The situation online doesn't seem to have been lowered, but I generally think that we need to be cautious about protecting talk pages for too long. I'll unprotect for a bit and see how it goes, but I'll put it back if we end up with issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

New sources, and The Verge

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/10/08/the-culture-wars-are-back-and-this-time-everyone-can-win/

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/stateside/60086/im-ashamed-of-progressive-game-culture-and-heres-why/

Editors should replace Verge citations with others. They are not an appropriate publication for this topic. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/8/6919179/youre-not-a-gamer-youre-just-an-asshole Kain and Auerbach agree.

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't remove reliable sources because someone doesn't like something they publish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Very biased sources can be cited for opinions, but if we have the choice between a very biased source which is calling people feminazis or comparing gamers to the Taliban, and a more neutral source, for citing the same factual information, we should avoid citing the biased sources. Note that the article you cited is an editorial, not a "real" article, so we couldn't really use it as a RS for a lot of purposes anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And as usual, every source that disagrees with you is "biased." Are you really, really going to rehash this for the fiftieth time? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have a proper WP:NPOV, most of the sources are going to be biased. The issue isn't bias, the issue is whether or not bias is so extreme as to draw their ability to report facts reliably into question, or whether their bias is directly pertinent to the facts reported. We don't cite Breitbart because we have concerns about their reliability because their bias may lead them to omit inconvenient facts. The same applies elsewhere. As I noted, the only thing off your list I felt was probably not something we should cite for factual information due to pure bias, as opposed to factual errors or a conflict of interest, was an article which referred to gamers as "the gamer Taliban". If someone started trying to cite something from a website which referred to progressives as Nazis, I would say that we probably shouldn't be citing them for factual information either. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will say the new WaPost article does help establish this is part of a larger culture war, which we have a couple others I've know I identified. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Recode's summary (reasonably neutral though noted it's antiGG) of events to date. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's talk about the sources and what they say the conflict is about

So, this seems to be a near-constant dispute. I've been working on breaking down the individual sources on this over in the dispute resolution, but it appears that our dispute resolver has fled and it may well be heading off to WP:MEDIATION. This content dispute continues to escalate and I just thought I'd see if everyone actually CAN get on the same page before we actually DO go to mediation.

According to my count, which is not complete, but involves a fair number of sources, I've already found 5 major sources as politics/culture war, 3 which focus only on harassment, 5 which talk about it in terms of being ethics in games journalism vs something else, and 1 that presents it as being nothing but ethics in games journalism. That's not from a complete list, and there are more minor sources in each of these categories.

It is my stance that, therefore,the idea that this is all about misogyny and harassment is not a factual statement. That is an opinion, a point of view held by a limited number of people, primarily those who are targeted by it. Other folks seem to feel differently, and we have a lot of folks who say that this is either a culture war (with some folks siding with the so-called culture warriors, others siding with the GamerGaters, others standing aside and seeing it as a dispute between them) or about ethics in journalism. And really, the idea that it is all about harassment appears to be a minority view - most of the articles which focused on harassment weren't talking about the thing as a whole, but just addressing the harassment issue.

Thus it really seems to me that the major points of view on this issue are:

• This is a backlash against increased media scrutiny of gaming culture and the changing demographics of gaming, namely the increased presence of women. This appears to be primarily held by games journalists and developers.
• This is a backlash against stereotyping of gamers and gamer culture by journalists.
• This is a backlash against a Jack Thompson-esque attack by "culture warriors" on gamers.
• This is a backlash against media corruption, censorship, and unethical behavior among games developers and journalists.

The latter three points of view are mixed, though, with some articles embracing more than one of those interpretations of the situation. The overall presentation of the harassment is generally in the context of the above - that is to say, the harassment is not an end in and of itself, but a means to an end in "winning" one of the above conflicts.

Does anyone disagree with this?

It seems to me that our job needs to be to document what happened and the claims of the various sides. It is NOT our job to take sides here, per WP:IMPARTIAL. We should be fairly and even-handedly documenting the events which occurred - factual events. We can document opinions, but we shouldn't let opinions substitute for facts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're wrong, as explained many many many times. You cannot remove anything about how the attacks were considered misogynic because that is why more attention was brought to this, because suddenly women in gaming were being attacked by what appeared to be primarily male gamers. That created the chain of events we are at now. Add that no single source from the proGG side has come forward to say exactly what they want, we have to guess what the issues are, and for example, there is zero support for the stereotyping aspect (unless you're talking how some have grouped anyone proGG as part of the misogynic attacks). The article's layout of the events and issues follows the sources very closely for the most part, and until there is more proGG sourcing to try to counter those issues or that actually lay out the details, our hands our tied on WP in terms of the approach that we have to take. (There's other facets we can improve on but they are not in the directions you think we can go). It is becoming disruptive to keep questioning the same thing with no change in arguments over and over. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources we shouldn't be using

As I noted breaking when breaking down the individual sources, there are some sources which we shouldn't use.

The New Yorker

Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest makes some claims which are outright false. The most notable of which is:

• "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."

Bolding is mine.

However, in reality, this was not the case; not only was Grayson the target of attacks, but it rose to the point where his employer, Kotaku, was forced to issue an official response on the subject matter. This is a major factual error, and is directly tied to their conclusion that the

Likewise, the article claims that the controversy dissipated after Quinn claimed that 4Chan was behind it all; given that 4Chan has actually banned discussion of the subject matter at various times, and that the controversy continued on well past this point, it is very questionable.

Two factual errors is quite a few for a piece this short, with one of them being a major factual error which lead directly to their conclusion and could have been easily checked by them. It seems to be very heavily dependent on Zoe Quinn as a source. I don't think that this source should be treated as a reliable source for the purposes of this article, though we could possibly scavenge from it for Quinn quotes if necessary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In context, the statement is clear. Grayson was not the target of a vicious, sustained and news-making harassment campaign, as Quinn was. This is not a "factual error," merely wording you disagree with.

The statement that "the controversy dissipated" is largely true as regards Zoe Quinn - no source has taken seriously the allegations since they were debunked.

In short, your claim of "factual errors" is a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The attacks on Grayson's credibility as a journalist were noted by a number of reliable sources, and his employer felt that they were sufficiently numerous and plentiful as to necessitate a direct statement and investigation into the matter. The idea that his credibility was not attacked is simply false; it was. Moreover, the paragraph in question is talking about jouranlistic ethics and attacks on the credibility and ethics as regards journalism. I'm sorry, but what The New Yorker said simply isn't true. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. The source is reliable and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Except it isn't. How is this not a direct factual error? You're claiming the source is saying something completely different from what it is saying. The context is clear; it is claiming that she was attacked and Grayson was not. Grayson was, in fact, attacked. Even Grayson's employer stated he was attacked. You have the right to your own opinions, but you don't have the right to your own facts, as they say, and when a source does not fact check, it isn't reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that, as described by umpteen reliable sources, Quinn was the subject of the vicious attacks, rape and death threats, doxxing, etc. By comparison, Grayson got basically nothing. Nobody titled IRC channels and hashtags after third-grade-level jokes about Grayson's sex life. If you can't see that context staring you in the face, you're just willfully ignoring it out of your own desperation to find some way, any way to remove sources saying things that you don't like about your ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we'll take the word of a reputable near-century old publication of the word of...you. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with reliability. You seem to be confused. I recommend you read WP:RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're the last person on earth who will ever lecture me about proper Wikipedia use, I'm afraid. The New Yorker is a reliable source for all things at all times in this project. Period. Full Stop. If you attempt to remove material that is sourced to the New Yorker from an article under the claim of "unreliable source", you will be reverted and reported to the appropriate vandalism board. If you really wish to question the New Yorker as a reliable source, the WP:RSN is where you can go roll those dice. I hope this clears some things up for you. Tarc (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, for someone with 21,166 edits you seem to be confusing the non-mutually equivalent concepts of "content dispute" with "vandalism". --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone removes material sourced to the New Yorker, they're either a vandal or incompetent. I'm comfortable with pursuing the matter in either direction if the need arises. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Grayson was in no way "attacked" as Quinn and those who supported her were. The best that we can describe is that Kotaku got a lot of comments but that is a far far cry from harassment. the New Yorker is 100% consistent with all other sources, and nowhere close to be invalidated due to your claim. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph makes it very clear that it is talking about attacks on their ethics and integrity. Kotaku themselves said:

• The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review.

Numerous early news reports on the matter, including Bright Side of News, Gamer Headlines, GamesNosh, InternetAristocrat, ect. noted the accusations towards Grayson. A number of other articles mentioned the controversy as being a very early thing which subsided before the whole thing really took off. After Kotaku's announcement that they could find no evidence for the claims of impropriety or that the relationship started before the article in question was written, people stopped haranguing on Grayson. Things got significantly worse for Quinn after that point, but the idea that Grayson was not "attacked" was false; his credibility and integrity as a journalist was the subject of considerable controversy in the early days of what later came to be known as GamerGate. As the paragraph in the New Yorker is talking about attacks on the integrity of journalists, in context it is clear that it is saying that it was Quinn who was attacked, not Grayson, when in fact Grayson was subjected to attacks as well. It is true that they subsided while new things rose up to take its place as far as Quinn went (the thing with The Fine Young Capitalists, the DMCA on YouTube which was attributed to her) as well as just general mayhem which came about when people started insulting each other on Twitter and elsewhere, as well as the massive backlash against the attempted censorship campaign, but that doesn't mean that Grayson wasn't "attacked". When someone says that someone slept with someone and gave them positive press, that is definitely an "attack" on their character, integrity, and credibility, and a lot of people were claiming exactly that in the early days of the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous accusations is not an attack, in the eyes of the press that saw the harassment and death threats against Quinn and anyone supported her. Grayson may have had some nasty emails and messages his way, but compared to what Quinn got, he was unscathed. Hence why none of the reliable sources (your list is not that) does not consider Grayson attacked, nowhere close to the attacks Quinn got. So there is nothing wrong with the NYorker's statement here that we can even challenge. (And really, its very obvious we can compare what the history of the social media reveals, it's pretty obvious Grayson was not the primary target that the extreme GG side went towards) --MASEM (t) 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While I think we should be careful not to insert any factual inaccuracies into the article, disallowing sources on the basis of them containing factual inaccuracies would leave us with very little material. Most news coverage on this matter, as with many other matters, is littered with factual inaccuracies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is a primary source

Leigh Alexander has written a number of pieces on this, most notably in Time magazine and for Gamasutra. However, Leigh Alexander also works for Kotaku, which is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, she is directly involved in the controversy herself, both in regards to yelling at people on Twitter, which has been documented by TechCrunch and others, and especially because Intel specifically cited Leigh Alexander's article as being the reason why they were withdrawing their ads from Gamasutra. As a direct party to the conflict, we should treat pieces written by Leigh Alexander as we would any other primary source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, she doesn't, and no, being the subject of a GamerGate campaign does not render one's writing unusable. As has been repeatedly explained, what you propose would effectively give GamerGate a veto over any source it doesn't like - just start targeting them and OMG BIASED COI UNFAIR CAN'T USE THEM. No, that's not how it works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly warned not to misrepresent what others are saying. Please stop doing so. That is not what I said at all. Leigh Alexander works as a freelance writer for Kotaku; this means that she is employed by a press outlet which is at the center of the controversy, a press outlet which had to issue a press release denying that its reporter had done anything wrong. This is an obvious conflict of interest in and of itself. Moreover, she is now a directly involved party, even beyond being a writer for Kotaku. Both of these are very real issues as far as conflict of interest issues go, as well as being a secondary source versus a primary source. If someone denounces a journalist, and the journalist writes a response, that response would not be considered a secondary source but a primary source, regardless of the venue of publication.

This is different from if a reporter is yelled at for being so biased and unfair about something they aren't directly involved in. When you have sources like TechCrunch noting that she is threatening people's careers on Twitter over this (and with screenshots to prove it), this is a bit problematic, don't you think? That's not how a journalist or other secondary source is supposed to behave.

WP:CONFLICT talks about some conflict of interest issues as regards Wikipedia. As Michael Davis notes, and is quoted by that article:

• A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship.

When you are dealing with your employer, saying something negative about them can get you fired. Thus, when you are talking about your employer, and addressing their role in a controversy, that is generally going to be a conflict of interest, as you can't very well say "Yeah, they're guilty" or whatever without having a very real risk of losing your job. The issue with Kotaku alone is sufficient to disqualify her as a RS for this issue. Moreover, she, personally, works in PR for indie game developers in addition to working as a games journalist, which is precisely the sort of mixing of roles that this conflict is about, and which she defends in her article, noting that it is totally normal to have friendships with games developers, even though even The New Yorker notes that as being questionable. There are numerous sources which directly contradict her on this point, and reporting on your friends is always going to present a conflict of interest, something she totally dismisses, even going so far as to claim that friendship is essential to reporting in her article in Time.

If you logged onto Wikipedia to edit an article about your employer, you'd very likely be subjected to considerable scrutiny, and rightly so. If you inserted positive information about it, it is very likely administrative action would be taken against you. Why, then, are you claiming that Leigh Alexander is somehow different? Are you disputing that she does not act as a freelance writer for Kotaku? Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you have been repeatedly warned that rehashing the same tired, repeatedly-rejected argument over and over and over and over again is unproductive and evidence of disruptive editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument about Leigh Alexander lacking independence has hardly been rejected, except by you and other editors in the anti-GamerGate camp. I do not think we need to avoid using her as a source altogether or that the current usage is inappropriate, but using her as a source on her own for any contentious claims about GamerGate would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Conflict of Internet only changes a source from independent to dependent, and not into some "unusable" category. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the article, the Leigh Alexander Time article is used seven times. Three of those are unquestionably ok, as their use is to source claims by Alexander. The remaining four seem uncontroversial, and in those cases the reference is only used to provide an additional source for the claims, rather than on its own. We could potentially argue that in those cases the source isn't necessary, although generally a reference from Time is going to be worth including. Alternatively, it also seems that if the uses are supported by additional sources, then we've got greater reason for believing that the Time article is reliable on those points. Is there a particular use which is problematic? - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that we're not supposed to be doing it per WP:RS for factual statements, for the same reason we don't cite primary sources on contentious issues about BLPs, even if secondary sources agree with them - we aren't linking to Eron Gjoni's post, even though it is cited by a lot of sources and could be used to cite statements about some of the origins of the thing, because it is against the rules.

The other issue is that the use in the introduction does create a "narrative" which isn't a neutral representation of the facts; reliable sources disagree about the source of the controversy, and Leigh Alexander's presentation is one of the "backlash against cultural commentary/changing demographics" things. The problem is that this is disputed by other sources, which claim that this is about corruption in journalism, and there are about even numbers of sources which claim each. Presenting that as what is going on is questionable, given that is but one "angle" on the story, and it is presented as if it is what happened, rather than being what one group claims. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

SIGH. Leigh Alexander may be an aspect of the controversy now, but that does not retroactively color her previous writings on the subject, because that would set up a slippery slope to encompass any and all writers who were critical of Gamergate that had some level of vitriol and attacks sent their way as a result of the movement's seedier and more vocal parts. And you have provided nothing in the line of reliable sources to refute Alexander's claims. Just more pro-Gamergate rhetoric.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that if the emphasis of the third paragraph is an issue, the problem lies with the paragraph as a whole - the only time Alexander's piece is used as a source is for the line "The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works" which seems in keeping with the general GamerGate debate. Certainly arguments about the emphasis by journalists on social justice issues are coming heavily from pro-GG commentators. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that if we really want to stick to hard to the prevailing RS (not even Alexender's) we would have to present GG as much of the other press speak of it as, which is (summarizing their words from more recent, not mine) a bunch of male gamers having a temper-tantrum that the game market is changing on them and doing any deed to get others to notice that. Instead, by treating that view as extreme, we instead at least try to give some creditability to GG and express it this way, and that third paragraph (per Bilby) is probably the fairest and politest and best-light way to call what the GG side that we can through sources. We cannot take the next extreme: that this had been the intent of GG the whole time, as there simply is zero sources to show that there was a movement until after the harassment of Quinn. Which is where Alexander's Time piece (prior to the Intel stuff) actually is probably overly fair towards describing the proGG stuff considering what side she has clearly taken in this, and would definitely not be a reason to remove her for a balanced statement. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim

This sentence states Baldwin was the first to use #Gamergate,

There was active discussion of these events on 4chan and Reddit, and figures like Adam Baldwin (who was the first to use the hashtag #GamerGate on Twitter)

However there are multiple tweets that had used the hashtag years prior to Baldwin's use.

https://twitter.com/jasonpbecker/status/202446185024331778

https://twitter.com/chasbwalker/status/202705593503449088

https://twitter.com/andypvd/status/202739934598144000

https://twitter.com/andiparkinson2/status/253972246706659329

https://twitter.com/chriskorzen/status/253973303507697664

https://twitter.com/andiparkinson2/status/254003646537285632

https://twitter.com/SantiagaForME/status/254373713733103616

A HuffPo article mentions the hashtag.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-russell/gamergate-is-wow-the-new-_b_1944656.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Can this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.103.137 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should probably be rephrased to say "the first to use the hashtag on Twitter in relationship to this controversy. Good point, and if this is uncontroversial, I'll add it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done This has been clarified since it is clear to be exact. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional source

http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/10/06/8012/politics-and-gamergate-an-apg-interview-with-brandon-morse

Current mainstream news sites are biased to push their own agenda:

"From false accusations by the media, to a JournoList style of interconnected reporters and website editors to form a singular agenda driving narrative."

Even the claim that the videos of Internet Aristocrat are well researched. "During #GamerGate one of my favorite things to do was watch Internet Aristocrat obliterate the narrative that social justice obsessed websites and thought police were trying to force on us. He researched in depth, connected dots, and released videos that were informative and entertaining as hell."

Also a sidenote: the newest GamerGate article on the Verge is being ciriticized by journalists as "satire":

https://twitter.com/erikkain/status/519970067258540032

"@AuerbachKeller it's gotta be satire man. Just gotta be."

https://twitter.com/AuerbachKeller/status/519971584602570752

"@erikkain The article is an embarrassment on a basic journalistic level. It should not have been published."

The Verge's article:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/8/6919179/stop-supporting-gamergate Racuce (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC) @Titanium Dragon:

YouTube videos and tweets aren't considered reliable sources, with only limited exceptions for statements by a person about themselves in a biographical context. See our guidelines on self-published sources for details. The APGNation interview may be usable as a reliable source for Brandon Morse's opinions, insofar as they don't make allegations about living people, if his opinions about GamerGate are deemed notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no arguing with that. I just wanted to add this for consideration when talking about the reliability of the mainsteam media. The latest article is just propaganda. Racuce (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream media is, for the most part, inherently reliable sources. The fact that the Gamergate movement feels they are not being represented properly within it is not a matter we need to address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's largely debatable; without further qualification, it's directly against the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS section of RS. Heck, we even have a whole policy stating when we should not give them credence for establishing the notability of topics. We are mandated to take editorials and column opinions with special care, and in terms of stating opinions, mainstream media are no different than "self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets" except for BLPs claims, where mass media nevertheless should be used conservatively. So no, there's nothing "inherently reliable" in mainstream media; we have to assess them case by case, same as all others. Diego (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not debatable at all; journalists and WP:RS > random guy tweets. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This means that reliability is "for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article". When the statement we register in the article is an opinion, the most reliable source will necessarily be the person holding such opinion, and fact-checking is not a relevant factor - there's no way to fact-check someone's own opinions. Diego (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias is going to be inherent throughout the article, given that one side's platform is considered a legitimate source while the other side's platform is not. The fact that this article makes no mention of Internet Aristocrat, whose incredibly thorough coverage of the original incidents served as one of the major catalysts of the movement, is pretty ridiculous. IA, Sargon of Akkad and Mundane Matt are all incredibly relevant and instrumental figures. 173.10.192.34 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that they are unknown sources from a standpoint of WP requirements for sourcing. They may be proGG but they have no past history that we are supposed to build on for reliability. (And just as people are arguing if Alexander's a problem for her involvement, the "catalysts" for the other side will be just the same even if they were reliable). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Further to Masem's comments, it is an aspect of Wikipedia that it needs to provide limits on what is used as sources. By focusing on sources with editorial control, the project is able to limit the risk of introducing defamation and other problems. It is a case of the lesser of two evils - in situations like this, it can be argued that the focus on sourcing requirements risk biasing the article in one direction. However the alternative is to potentially allow extreme and defamatory material, and accordingly Wikipedia has chosen to err on the safer side. Generally, it is the best approach, but there is always the potential for outliers.

On the plus side, in contentious articles I've found that the material becomes more balanced over time, as neutral and well researched material becomes available. What we may be seeing is the problem of trying to write an article about a polarising event while it happens - once we get some distance, I think people on all sides will be happier with the outcome. Or, at least, that's been my experience in the past. - Bilby (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will definitely agree on this and a comment I've made before: we are still far too close to the original events of an emotional impact that true neutral sources are few and far between, but once the dust settles, more levelheaded writing about this will likely appear and should become our preferred sources. This is why I'm hesistent about how much "reaction" there is in this article presently as most of it is arguably knee-jerk variety. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Masem, it's not strictly true that proGG are all "unknown sources" regarding Wikipedia's criteria. There are names like Total Biscuit [15] or Thunderf00t [16] that have appeared in articles written by journalist in reputable channels. Given that these have been identified by reliable sources as significant players in the proGG side, they've been made "visible" to Wikipedia and can be used under WP:RSOPINION "with due weight" - which is certainly less than those opinions published through mass media, but it's also more than zero; failing to say even that they exist is a against the neutrality requirement to report about all significant sides of the controversy.

The problem is that WP:RS is being interpreted to say that only opinions from "reliable sources with a reputation" should be used, when that requirement can only applied in a meaningful way to facts, not statements of opinion. The reputation of fact-checking and accuracy doesn't make sense when referring to opinions - there's no way to tell whether an opinion is consistent with facts, because opinions are not facts. If we linked to the articles by these people that have been signaled as significant by RSs, we would allow interested readers to research the proGG side without devoting too much space within the article; its the approach to write articles about fringe theories and extremist groups, to use WP:ABOUTSELF references for documenting how these parties describe themselves.

Yet that criterion has been rejected, although it would ensure that we cover all significant sides, and is not going to be well received by the editors collaborating in writing this article even if it is grounded in policy and would help us to improve the article and avoid the problem of mass media having adopted a monolithic view that we know doesn't tell the whole story. Diego (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair point that those sources are reliable for expressing their opinions, but that's the issue is that it is their opinions, and we should be focusing more on the factual nature of this, as best we can. And as such, while there are reliable sources from the proGG side, they are also singular opinions and would come under Fringe views (Note: as I stated above, this also the problem with the current Response section too , presenting many singular opinions on the matter). --MASEM (t) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your idea is that virtually all of these sources are riddled with unfounded allegations about living people, accusing them of corruption and sex scandals and all manner of other things. Once again, this comes back to GamerGate's choice of framing and their decision to organize around tawdry allegations about a developer's personal relationships. We can't use self-published sources that accuse people of wrongdoing, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's their opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when does there have to be an absolute consensus on whether or not an article is biased to mention that the neutrality is disputed?

Now, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, in that I've probably only made a half-dozen edits over as many years, but this just seems silly. Obviously, if an article is disputed, there won't be a consensus, so if this were the case, the POV tag would be completely useless. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the neutrality. The dispute is whether or not that dispute exists in the first place. This is not what the POV tag is for. It is not there to quell the fringe and minority voices of a real world debate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on now. I'm not actively editing but I've been watching this develop for a while and let's be clear on something - one side of an argument declaring "there is no dispute" does not make the dispute go away. There are multiple voices here that argue that there is a neutrality issue and simply repeating your personal view that these are 'fringe' opinions doesn't grant you the right to remove the tag. There's no harm in leaving it up until a consensus is reached by more than just editors on your 'side' of this debate. 87.242.187.105 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you have one side going "there's a dispute about neutrality" without really or seriously backing up their claims of instances in the article of lacks of neutrality, then there is no lack of neutrality. The issue that everyone is having is that the pro-Gamergate side is not as represented in the prose because there are no reliable sources out there that supportsanything the pro-Gamergate side has to say other than some that allege that there are issues in games journalism. There are no real moderates looking at this from outside the realm of video games or electronics. You have every article written on Kotaku, Gamasutra, IGN, etc. about Gamergate being dismissed by users pushing a pro-GG POV because they feel that they are inherently biased against them. You have multiple threads and comments on this page dismissing anything ever written by Leigh Alexander because of Intel's decision to pull ads from Gamasutra, despite the fact that it does not really affect anything she wrote before she "became a primary subject". It's all words but no solid evidence to back up the claims that the POV can possibly be disputed. This is just an attempt by people pushing the pro-GG POV to discredit the article because it, by nature of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, slants in the direction that defines the events as a witch hunt propagated by conservative voices in the gaming community who really hate Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest rather than genuinely feel like an indie game, indie game dev, or game jam is really a threat to gaming, more so than Mountain Dew Game Fuel and Doritos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was tagged, the concern was discussed, the concerned failed to achieve consensus, the tag was removed. A very simple A ---> B process. A tag does not remain on an article in perpetuity just because the complining party or parties did not achieve their desired result, otherwise these things would be permanent fixtures atop every controversial article. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that new sockpuppets/SPAs show up daily to keep the shame-tagging intact. We're long past overdue for a house-cleaning here. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I had drafted up an ANI thread but Loganmac's actions offsite (and his subsequent counter thread) waylayed that. I didn't really name names but accounts that haven't been used in years and now expressly edit this article really need to be shown the door.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html#.VDbWmQ7vAYQ.twitter

Willhesucceed (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than just dumping a link to the OpEd flavor-of-the-moment, perhaps you could identify passages from the source that you feel would be of use in the article. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)