Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

See /RFC1

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

DiGRA conspiracy (Draft)

Arguuing that DiGRA is full of "feminists" not "academics" is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. You have to say what the conspiracy theory is, it just looks like it's being used as a lazy way to discredit the claim. One source is cited, it mentions conspiracy theory once, and it is just using it in a derogatory fashion, which is fine for a piece like that, but not for Wikipedia. HalfHat 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if messsy, I was checking stuff as I wrote this, I'll be happy to clarify any parts. HalfHat 11:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to your own opinions, not your own facts. The reliable source explicitly calls it a "conspiracy theory" and you may not simply offhandedly dismiss that fact because you don't like its implications or because you disagree with that characterization. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia editors' opinions are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If the only source on (let make a GG "Operation Sweeper") called "Operation Sweeper" a "pile of shit" we wouldn't say "Operation Sweeper is a pile of shit". No it's being used as an insult, when it was referred to as a conspiracy theory once, with no clarification as to what that alleged conspiracy is, it's being used as an insult, that's not what we do. HalfHat 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, your personal opinion of how it's used is interesting, but not relevant. The reliable source's perspective that it is a conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is indisputably relevant. That you do not like the implications of that is apparent. I'm sorry the reliable sources don't describe Gamergate the way you want them to. That's not Wikipedia's fault. You can blame it on some giant secret cabal conspiracy of all the media, or you can consider that, from the outside looking in, claiming that DiGRA is "controlled by feminists" does appear to be a wildly-absurd conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually make an argument. This is just "no I'm right". HalfHat 11:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of who's right — it's a matter of the fact that your personal opinion doesn't change what the reliable source says. The reliable source says it's a conspiracy theory. Your disagreement with that fact doesn't constitute reasonable grounds to omit the statement, given that it's based on nothing more than a (clearly-biased) personal opinion that it's "lazy" and "derogatory." We don't omit reliably-sourced "derogatory" material just because a member of the aggrieved group disagrees with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does WP:RS say we should take everything literally? We don't insult things in Wikipedia's voice, it's an insult. HalfHat 11:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We describe many, many things as conspiracy theories, when reliable sources so describe them. See Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. etc. etc. That you believe it is an insult is of no consequence. You fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia if you believe that a group is entitled to reject or discount the findings of mainstream reliable sources when that group disagrees with its characterization by reliable sources. Points of view within articles are weighted based on their prevalence in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference is these things are claims people made of people conspiring together i.e. a conspiracy theory, this is not the case here. And again it was only called a conspiracy theory once, in the entire article, the draft calls it a conspiracy theory more often. HalfHat 11:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Claiming that "feminists have taken over DiGRA to push their agenda" is, yes, a conspiracy theory claim, as per literally the dictionary: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". That's literally what they're arguing, so "not the case here" doesn't seem well-founded. Seems to be entirely the case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But that is not what's said. Where does it say the accusation is of a feminist plot to push their agenda? HalfHat 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Right in the article, that's where. “I’d like to show you how the Digital Games Research Association became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers,” Sargon says in the video. “This is probably the unseen driving force that ultimately triggered the Gamergate phenomenon.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how you think the Sargon quote implies conspiracy, he's simply says DiGRA probably caused GG. The first one still doesn't imply collosion or some plot, it's again not a Conspiracy theory, it also appears to be just some random nobody. HalfHat 12:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I think. What I think doesn't matter. It's what the source thinks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It was you who quoted quotes not me, I was showing those quoted quoted don't help your case. You haven't shown the source holds that opinion, at all. HalfHat 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all I'm not sure why you seem to think calling a conspiracy theory automatically counts as a smear and makes it wrong. See Operation Ajax for an example of a conspiracy theory that was actually true, so I dont get why you care so much about the usage of that word. Secondly, Sargon is arguing that DiGRA is an "unseen driving force" the implication is very much one of a secretive conspiracy. His story is one in which feminists remove academics from DiGRA hijacking it unnoticed to carry out evil. How is this not a conspiracy theory? Bosstopher (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't automatically, that's just how it's being used here. HalfHat 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're reading things into the quote that aren't there. He never actually says there was any plot or collusion to co-opt DiGRA, only that it had been. HalfHat 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What matters is not how you personally read his statements, but how reliable sources do. And the reliable sources we have now agree that what he's describing is a conspiracy theory; going into it yourself and saying "well, but as an editor I personally don't think that this is a conspiracy theory because X, Y, and Z" is original research. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does he do that? And that's not what I'm doing, I'm pointing out people are reading things into it that aren't there. HalfHat 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem using the source's opinion it is a "conspiracy theory" within the section, but as the section title, at least until we have more sources, this is about their movement against DiGRA, and it not impartial to title that section "Feminism as a conspiracy theory" as it is now. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source dismisses the claims then we should not categorize it as an opinion of that source but simply the fact that the claim has been dismissed. We cannot keep demoting the statements made in reliable sources just because they become involved in Gamergate due to the fact the movement picks new targets every time someone writes something critical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A single RS, which is not enough to classify the DiGRA stuff. And this is not about demoting their stance - the content calling it a conspiracy theory from the standpoint of the DiGRA president is right in line with the sourcing, but we couldn't immediately be picking a side that the DiGRA's stance is the "right" one in terms of naming the header. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The "conspiracy theory" phrase is not "from the standpoint of DiGRA's president," it is stated in the voice of the reliable news source. The journalist is describing it as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that the term "conspiracy theory" has inherently negative connotations and is being used exactly once. Many partisan writers or partisan outlets refer to things as "conspiracy theories" that are actually mainstream views other outlets take as accurate or plausible. In this case we only have one source using this term in exactly one instance. For context here is the preceding paragraph:

At DiGRA’s annual conference this August, Shaw and Consalvo participated in a roundtable session on “identity and diversity in game culture.” Notes from the roundtable were discovered online, showing how participants discussed the impact of feminist game studies on the video game industry, and whether academics could influence developers. Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development.

A link to the notes is provided and you can see them here. Let me lay out some of the comments:

How has feminist game studies influenced developers and games? Where’s the impact outside of academia?

Great conversations here, but those conversations do not occur outside of a group like this. What can we do to bridge this? What about when being published on Kotaku is a bad thing, rather than a positive signal boosting thing?

How can academics bridge the gap to the industry audience to help them do different work? How can we disrupt the capitalist norms that facilitate this?

Academia needs to push for more radical positions within the industry to help make things better.

Staying helps us change things more. Gamasutra will shut down negative conversation at least in part because they’ve had their awareness raised by academics.

The way the system values peer review is bullshit, as the money accrues in the hands of private corporations. How can we do the work and have it benefit us?

Figure out what you have an how to best use it. How can you exploit the system and use it to your best advantage? Determine the rules and the rules you want and try to bring them together.

DiGRA is not "you." It is "us." I've been trying to make change for a long time, and I've discovered that you have to do it yourself, but you don't have to do it by yourself. When we were 10 people in a room being like "Fuck the IGF" – we made it happen. Now we're a thing, and people can rebel against it.

Is it any surprise that people reading these kinds of comments come to the conclusion that "members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development"? How is it even a conspiracy theory to say that when they discuss how to influence the industry and say how they have already influenced the industry?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion and original research does not change the reliably-sourced description of the claims as a conspiracy theory. Our articles are not based on an editor's novel interpretation of primary sources, as you apparently wish it to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They're not based the single opinion of one person quoted in an article. Wikipedia cannot call the GG side a "conspiracy theory" in the WP voice. It's fine as a statement within that section that one person considers their side in regards to DiGRA a conspiracy theory, but those words have no place in a section header. This is not original research, this is straight up NPOV. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Masem, you are just straight-up wrong about the source and seem keen to demonstrate that you have not actually read it. The cited source is not an opinion column, it is a reported news story from a reliable, neutral news source. The statement is not a quote from a party involved in the dispute - rather, the reporter describes the claims about DiGRA as a conspiracy theory. That you disagree with this perspective is noted. The fact that you disagree does not negate the reliably-sourced description. You are hell-bent on ignoring reliable sources because you don't like the conclusions they draw. Once again, I'm sorry that reliable sources view GamerGate's claims as ridiculous nonsense. That does not permit you to reject that reality and substitute your own. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, not a factual piece. 90% of the material on the GG article are opinion pieces, expressing opinion based on the limited amount of facts we have. This doesn't make them unreliable when they are reporting facts (eg there was harassment, etc.), but that means that we have to know where the line between fact and opinion is drawn, and one writer's claim that it is an conspiracy theory cannot set it up as fact that we can state in WP's voice. A lot of this requires looking at context, and not taking one statement out of context. I suspect the writer got the idea of "conspiracy" theory speaking to Consalvo, given where it falls. Note that there's a "bare" sentence here As a result, the research produced by DiGRA board members has become “sloppy and unprofessional and absolutely overrun by people who have an ideological agenda that they simply cannot leave out of their research.” which by the same logic you are using to state "conspiracy theory" as fact, means that this sentence should be fact. Neither of those are the case; the bulk here from this article are useful opinion statements surrounding the DiGRA push. We have to be clear that that is an opinion statement.I'm not saying to ignore RSes, but to make sure we are fully clear that anything that is not clear fact that it is put in the proper "voice" and not WP's. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a news report in the news section of the website. In the body of the section we actually quote Sargon from the article outlining his highly speculative notion that there is some kind of feminist fifth column being used to force change in gaming. --TS 21:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of the sources we have already in the that are expressing opinions are also "news" columns; mind you, this is from the VG and tech sources and less from the mainstream sources. We have to be aware that the journalist side across the board is, even unintentionally, going to take a defensive stance towards GG because GG is attacking them. In this particular article, as I've pointed out above, it doesn't make a good line where it is quoting opinion and where it is making a factual statement, and if one reads it, standing back away from the controversy, the article is framed around an interview that the author did with Consalvo, and then by pulling details from the Sargon videos, but that's it.
And to stress this point again - just because they are opinion pieces does not make them unusable as North claims I am stating. Only that what the claim has to be put in a voice that is not Wikipedia's voice. It is the author's claim that it is a conspiracy theory. That's fine, but that doesn't make it a fact it is a conspiracy theory, especially if this is the only person that has said that. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And to be clear: the section text is fine, save for the header by calling it a "conspiracy theory" based on one author. The section is about the DiGRA push, nothing else. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is what the reliable source describes it as. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, not when it is only one source (just like has been asked for most of the claims that have been made from the GG side, like it being a movement, etc.). That's FRINGE/NPOV/IMPARTIAL failures to use that as a section title. The fact the source stated it, sure, that's fine in the prose, I'm not questioning that. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[1] there are no lack of sources to use. we already use several of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine if we actually spent time talking about the larger conspiracy theory (beyond DiGRA) and claims made by the GG side and turning to the strong criticism and rebuttal of those points made by those sources. However, right now, that section is about the DiGRA stuff and DiGRA stuff only, and calling it a "conspiracy theory" on the DiGRA aspect from one source as the title is a problem. This is what I sorta aluded to in the section below; the larger situation we could call it that, but it is not appropriate to use that term for only one subfactor of this. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A fundamental problem with you POV-pushers is you seem to forget that "verifiability, not truth" was nuked from the policy page for a reason. Just because some journalist says something inflammatory does not mean you are abiding by NPOV by repeating their phrasing as fact. The article has over 1,400 words talking about this matter and you are using two of them to try and discredit the position it is discussing without any regard for the actual facts under discussion. We aren't supposed to be in the business of writing hit pieces on Wikipedia. Creep on over to IrrationalWiki or GeekFeminismWiki if you want to spew this bile.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure who are are addressing as" POV pushers", however, WP:UNDUE is still clearly a part of the policy. WP:GEVAL is still clearly a part of policy, WP:BALASPS is still clearly a part of policy and dealing with Fringe viewpoints Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience is still clearly a part of the policy. and WP:OR is still clearly a part of policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

None of those policies apply in this case, except in the sense that we're giving undue weight to a single article by including so much material about DiGRA in the first place, never mind presenting this one author's inflammatory statements about other people's reasonable interpretation of evidence as though it were fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure they apply. You are advocating that we dump what the reliable source says and instead WP:OR do our own investigation and place that / complaints from gamergaters at the same level of coverage as the reliable source. WP:BALASPS WP:GEVAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage we're only arguing over the section heading. I think we could do better than "Feminism as a conspiracy theory", which isn't particularly coherent. As the section is about attacks on DiGRA and associated gaming researchers and the principal source is about these attacks, I suggest we call the section "Gaming researchers under attack". The current content shows clearly what accusations are being made, and we don't have to use words that some editors cannot agree to. --TS 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and renamed the section. --TS 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, like any good POV-pusher, your "concession" is just as inflammatory as the original POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what the problem is here? The section about attacks on researchers. The name surely reflects this accurately. --TS 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with something neutral and accurate like "Opposition to DiGRA" anyway? HalfHat 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He Said/She Said: The proposed language currently on the draft page makes it unclear just what Inside Higher Education was investigating; the language of the draft as it stands right now suggests that a prestigious journal independently investigated DiGRA and found it had been taken over by feminists. That, were it to enter article space, would soon leave Wikipedia a target of ridicule.

But more fundamentally, we are according roughly equal weight here to two disputants. One is a fellow named "Sargon of Akkad" who posts pseudonymous videos on YouTube; we know little else about him. The other is Dr. Mia Consalvo, the Canada Research Chair In Game Studies & Design at Concordia University. We know quite a lot about Mia Consalvo, who teaches courses in "COMS 398H – Cheating, Games and the Ethics of Play Media" and "SPEC 620G – Digital Games: Theory and Research", has delivered research papers most recently at 2nd Annual Symposium on Digital Ethics in Chicago and at the Association of Internet Researchers in Salford, and who has written one book and twenty six published articles about game theory. Yet, one faction here would add a section on the allegation of Sargon of Akkad, and (being impartial) balance that accusation with a quotation from Mia Consalvo. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the wording had not occurred to me, I'm horrified to say. We need to fix that.

The piece _ought_ to make it quite clear that this is crazy conspiracy stuff, and I thought it did. Could you suggest a rewrite? --TS 23:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what it should do, a fringe opinion? Yes. But Wikipedia should never make out anything to be crazy because Wikipedia has no opinions. HalfHat 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of balance here; the content of that section seems fine, just the title. To get the viewpoint of Consalvo to explain why being targetted by GG seems silly (from their view), the author at least did try to find out why GG have this and went to Sargon's videos to try to write out how DiGRA is in GG's sights, which thus needs to be stated. The author (and we) post what Sargon's issue is, and then we have two quote from Consalvo which basically call out the logic as inane and a huge stretch of the imagination. Given no other sources have picked up on this point yet, that's a fair balance in the section of why DiGRA is targetted and why DiGRA members are expressing disbelief in that. --MASEM (t)

With respect, MASEM, I believe it is a matter of balance. We’re presenting a charge leveled by a YouTube video by an anonymous individual whose qualifications are unknown, and balancing this with a refutation from a distinguished scholar who leads the organization which has been attacked. Giving this an entire section is wrong. At most, this deserves a one-sentence mention: "Some GamerGate supporters crafted self-published claims and conspiracy theories that Game Studies had been overrun by feminists [73][74]." To give more credence to such stuff -- much less to insinuate that Inside High Education launched an investigation into the question (!) -- is to lend the project’s weight to the tassels at the end of the WP:FRINGE. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the linked article - this is not one semi-anonymous person charging one respected person. The whole of GG have started a new tangent from their ad-removal campaigns to target anyone in the DiGRA organization that is "pro-feminist" and try to affect their reputations by saying they aren't academics. That's the bigger store here. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

if true, the current draft does not credibly reflect this interpretation. I assume, then, you agree with me that it must be discarded and replaced? 03:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the section is following the source. It says GGs are targetting the group, it explains why by using one of the few established viewpoints from the GG side (Sargon's piece), and then it gives a full out rebuttal of the "WTF" nature from the president of the association being attacked. It could use a few more sources/voices, but it is accurately talking about the DiGRA piece. It's not a "he said she said" thing as it is written. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there's any indication that "the whole of GG" buys into this. Even if true, that wouldn't necessarily make their allegations any more credible or interesting; this isn't a popularity contest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe not the whole, but this doesn't appear to be an isolated effort; if you explore their pages, the DiGRA angle is one of their broadcasted "how to get involved" steps, like the advertising angle, etc. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From the archives (the talk page discussion at the time veered quickly off onto other subjects, so I'm not sure if it's useful.) The International Communication Association member newsletter talked about this. It might be useful as a source, but I'm not sure if it's WP:RS. If it was one of their journals I wouldn't question it, but this is from their newsletter. — Strongjam (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Their response (warning their members that they could become involved) is good to include. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

An example of non-impartial writing

This change [2] by North is an example of what persists in the present article of non-impartial writing. There is no reason to move the statement of the DiGRA stuff being a conspiracy theory before the theory is explained out (per FRINGE), save to pre-judge the subsequent discussion of that theory, which WP should not be doing. After one side is presented, we can throw all the possible criticism and claims against it we can find, eg keeping the conspiracy theory fact, but putting it that early purposely makes the subsequent discussion of the GG side in question. WP cannot be a judge of this stuff. (If this was a longer section that needs an introductory paragraph that in good writing would provide how the section would be laid out, eg, like our lede, then yes, it would be fine to call it out earlier and then going into more detail later. But a 2 paragraph section does not need an intro like that). --MASEM (t) 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To expand further, the ordering of opinions is a key issue with the impartial nature of this article. The bulk of the content/sourcing is fine, but the article is written to immediately say "Here's the GG side, but no one in the press believes it", so that any discussion of the GG is already tainted by the opinions of others. We'll absolutely get to those opinions in the article, but to put those that high up in the discussion (and not part of a summary like the lede) is basically WP telling the reader "This stance isn't valid", which is a judgement call on WP's part. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty arises when you have a paragraph saying "Sargon says there are Communists in the state department" and only mention in the following paragraph that "no significant authorities believe this, and Sargon has presented no credible evidence." I continue to doubt that Sargon’s conspiracy theory merits more than the briefest of mentions. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Sargon has presented no credible evidence that there are feminists in DiGRA? Are you aware the president of DiGRA is literally a member of a group called the Fembot Collective?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There are doubtless feminists, vegetarians, Democrats, and Francophones in DiGRA. As far as I know, professors in Canada are free to join the Fembot Collective, the Maple Leafs Fan Club, or the Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique. Feminists might study computer games, just as Marxists, economists, and Baptists might. But what has this to do with the Gamergate controversy? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The mere fact that someone is a feminist is not evidence, much less proof, of the vast feminist conspiracy that Sargon believes exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sargon's views are being used by the IHE author to explain why DiGRA is being dragged into the mess, based on the author's evalution that Sargon is speaking in a representative manner of the rest of GG that has targeted DiGRA. Without that explanation, there's no logic, and even if the logic is "conspiracy theory" it needs to be presented to complete the narrative. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, we are not going to mention what is demonstrably a fringe conspiracy theory without immediately mentioning the fact that the only reliable source to cover it considers it to be a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

THAT would be an example of GROSS POV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We print the few details in an impartial manner in a neutral manner as if the theory has weight, and then present the counter-fringe view. It is a non-impartial to use the changed order in the statement because it tells a reader that WP believes the theory is a "conspiracy theory" because we've identified the opinion of another prior to exploring it. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We present theories as they are presented in mainstream reliable sources. If mainstream reliable sources present them as conspiracy theories, then yes, we present them as conspiracy theories. If the proponents of those theories don't like that, that's just too bad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FRINGE says "...minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it". Since clearly one side is not going to take to calling their view a conspiracy theory, it should not be presented as within discussion of their view, but certainly in criticism of that view. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding. We don't present things as "he said, she said," we present viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The most prominent and significant viewpoint published by reliable sources is that Sargon's claims amount to a conspiracy theory, and that must be the predominant viewpoint in our article. The minority viewpoint (that it's true) must be presented, but with significantly less prominence than the majority viewpoint. The minority viewpoint does not get to override the majority and prevent us from accurately describing how reliable sources view something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But UNDUE says nothing about order, which is what I pointed out. You are 100% wrong about how we present FRINGE topics - every single one I can find presents the fringe view, and then criticism of that view. Point/counterpoint. That's how you make the most neutral article. My version before your change still has the same weight of sources and balance per UNDUE, including the "conspiracy theory" point. But by changing the order so that calling out the GG side as a "conspiracy theory" after one has gone over the basics of the minority retains UNDUE and meets FRINGE and NPOV's impartialness requirement of describing the minority side in a neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. For example, our article on 9/11 conspiracy theories is literally called "9/11 conspiracy theories". We also have Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, etc. All of those articles mention "conspiracy theory" in the very first line. So really, we should rename the section to "DiGRA conspiracy theory" and put it in the very first line. That's the established precedent for articles about things that reliable sources label as conspiracy theories.

It's not "calling out" something, it's describing it as reliable sources do. Which is what Wikipedia is about. Once again, it's apparent that you don't like the way reliable sources treat the viewpoint. That's not of any consequence to us. If you want an encyclopedia that presents Gamergate viewpoints as Gamergate believes they are, there are other wikis for you to do that on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In terms of title of a complete article, there's no question that you have to go with the larger opinion, and there's no way to remove "controversy" from this one (whether it is "Gamergate controversy" or "Controversy over the Gamergate movement", that's a different question); similarly, in the lead, we are going to give a broad summary overview, and that absolutely cannot avoid harassment and condemnation of the group since that's a huge chunk of sources. But when we get to the body, just like those articles, they present the theories devoid of criticism, and then present the criticism later, or in terms of specific theories, at the end of the section in the body of that. Remember, conspiracies aren't factually wrong, they are just very very very very unlikely to be true; still, per FRINGE, we do not attempt to attach a notion of "wrongness" to these in how we write our articles, and so stating "here's a theory but be aware one side calls it a conspiracy theory" is preloading the reader's judgement in favor of the anti-GG side; after explaining the theory, then its all fair game to shoot the theory down. That's what FRINGE and IMPARTIAL caution about doing. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a single source -- Inside Higher Ed -- which mentions in passing the conspiracy theories of someone named Sargon of Akkad, who declined to be interviewed for that piece. That this appears to be the only mention of this argument in a reliable source should no surprise us; if you listen to the video (as I have done), it is a numbingly tedious exposition in which Sargon classifies professors as either Academics or Feminists, asserting without argument that Feminist research is slipshod. The video lacks evidence or argument. There’s no controversy here and no need to provide balance: we have one isolated voice who creates YouTube videos espousing an extremely fringe position, who was once cited as a conspiracy theorist in a lengthy article on the possible implications of GamerGate for Higher Education. There’s literally nothing here; it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here, and so much time, trying to "balance" the account of something which doesn’t come close meriting serious consideration. It’s hard for me to understand how good-faith editors could promote coverage of such stuff. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the IHE article. The author has 1) properly identified there is a large scale effort within GG ranks to target DiGRA researches for claimed "feminist agendas" (if anything, this point is huge and a different track from anything else), 2) has identified that Sargon's statements though his vlog (which, you note, we are not sourcing directly in any way or form) are highly representative of the thought process that those using this approach within GG has used to determine why DiGRA should be scrutinized, and 3) the author feels this is of conspiracy theory levels. The singular viewpoint is not taken by the author as a single view, but a highly representative view - in much the same way the article uses the DiGRA president's view to represent's DiGRA's take on this. It's not "he said, she said" as you claim, but appropriate representation of both aspects of this. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read the IHE article: I said so. Of whom do you consider this view "highly representative"? How would you know? We do know Sargon espouses it, whoever he is, and that some people on shady message boards endorse it -- but that can be said of all sorts of WP:FRINGE views. No other reporter seems to have mentioned this large and highly representative strand of thought. I'm not sure how we would know what a large scale effort within GG ranks would be; would that be anything like Operation 5 Horsemen, the GG attack on Wikipedia? I continue to think that, if we must mention this at all, it should be a sentence of the form, “Inside Higher Education reported on a conspiracy theory common among GamerGate supporters that held that DiGRA was a radical feminist front organization bent on world domination [78]”. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, I've always criticized pro-gamergate as being too judgemental of their opposition, calling them thin-skinned and what have you. I read about the operation or whatever that little blip was, IT LITERALLY WAS JUST CALLING FOR DIFF COLLECTION. Nowhere did I see motions to dox (as I just got from a anti-gg person who can't spell), or to mflood, or SPA flood, or to DDoS Wikipedia (literal attack of Wikipedia). Also, your proposed revision insinuates that Sargon is a crazy buffoon spouting nonsensical claims of NWO's and what have you. It simply seems he, like many others are simply critical of the new, radical feminism. So, that sentence would be in violation of WP:BLP. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

your personal feelings and accusations against those you disagree with are indeed well noted. however, they play no part in creating an encyclopedia and should be kept to yourself here. (there are 8chan boards where you can vent all you want if you feel the need to do so in public. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The author of the IHE piece makes the "claim of authority" of Sargon speaking for the GGs. And if you have followed the GG sites themselves, its very easy to see how this is a level of their side that this article presently doesn't cover; Sargon's statement, while not verifyable by RSes directly, can be easily verified reading the primary sources even if they are "shady" message boards. (And I note that covering it is a negative blemish against GG; I'm not disagreeing their ideas of DiGRA and feminists are way out there, but this is one of the few rather visible things that they have a general issue with their belief feminists are pushing them out of gaming from all areas gaming touches). --MASEM (t) 01:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Until GG decides to organize in a fashion where they are able to identify their own "voice of authority" and thereby also take responsibility, they will be at the whim of reliable sources identifying who speaks for them. We follow the lead established by the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that "it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here". Repeating the comment I made above which was pretty much just ignored, "That one source section is already too long. I wouldn't reference Sargon at all. I'd take the first sentence, a quote from Consalvo, and then move it into the prose at 'Role of misogyny and antifeminism'". - hahnchen 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the most appropriate place, as I said before, is actually the End of Gamer identity section, because that is what the source identifies as the motivation for the criticism. Of course, it also needs to be phrased accurately, which is not the case at present. The "conspiracy theory" according to Inside Higher Ed is "that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development." It may not seem like much of a conspiracy theory given that the cited notes show members explicitly discussed methods they could use to influence developers and the overall industry, but that does seem to be what passes for a conspiracy theory in the eyes of the author and is what we should be stating in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the way this is going, Hahnchen. Thank you. --TS 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Some editors are dying to change the title of the article to "GamerGate conspiracy theory" Loganmac (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any such suggestions. The main bulk of the article is going to have to be the harassment and misogyny, and the underlying ideology that enables that, while filled with highly speculative thinking and short on relation to fact, is relatively secondary. --TS 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

“Impartial” POV Pushing

From The Daily Beast: Rage against Gamergate's hate machine

The problem with these high-level overviews of the topic—these broad summaries of hordes of angry video game consumers trying to take down what they see as a “corrupt conspiracy” of feminist, progressive voices in gaming—is that any summary of the topic that leaves out the details is going to give #GamerGate too much credit.Because each and every one of the details is ridiculous and insane. It’s a pattern that we’ve all seen before. The Tea Party comparison seems apt. The feeling of existential despair I have right now is similar to how I felt back when I realized American politics was, for the near future, going to be about debating birth certificates and death panels with deranged 18th-century period cosplayers.

Yet this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do: state each claim in detail, and only then mention that the claim is unsupported by the sources, unsupported by evidence, or simply crazy. (The DiGRA "conspiracy" truly is crazy: DiGRA’s most ambitious aspiration, I believe, is to host a modest little conference and to publish a modest collection of Proceedings.) Just look at the time and energy this is consuming while the page is protected!

I submit for your consideration that it might be a very good thing for Wikipedia if it were announced that this page would remain fully protected for an additional six weeks or -- better -- six months. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this comment and its inflammatory remarks of there being an essential 'cabal' of editors as well as people who shouldn't really be editors but really are 'toxic' an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. When you deliberately see other editors of the other POV as 'one small cadre of editors, aided by off wiki organization' and assert that they're just wasting time while the page is protected, you're in essential attacking anybody who dissents from the status quo of the article. This, in effect, doesn't lead towards good Encylopedia making. I guarantee you if some other side attempted this they'd be topic banned on the spot. I urge to hat this thing for your own sake. Tutelary (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Impartialness is not about balance/weight. It about tone and organization. The article in its present shape has absolutely the right balance of viewpoints with the sources give, but not presented in an impartial manner. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that at its core, the biggest problem that the article has at the moment is that it goes into too much detail on the blow-by-blow about things that are ultimately not very relevant. The Gamergate controversy is fast-moving and could produce nearly limitless quotes and subtopics, but we should generally concern ourselves with overarching coverage of the controversy as a whole and not get so deeply into "some random person on YouTube made an allegation of XYZ, which journalists X, Y, and Z responded to with comments X, Y, Z, which in turn got comments from..." That's not an encyclopedia article. My feeling is that the DiGRA thing as a whole probably doesn't warrant more than a sentence or two. The most important thing to improve the article at the moment (given its overwhelming length and unreadable mass of back-and-forth quotes) is to trim away most of the more peripheral controversies like those. If those controversies do eventually go anywhere, they'll probably be able to support their own articles anyway rather than being mashed into a disjointed list of topics and quotes the way we're putting them now. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the RECENTISM problem I've pointed out before - we wrote a lot as this was breaking, but now that there's a lull and/or "the end of GG" (we can't tell but it feels like its going that way), we should be reviewing sources, and taking out primarily opinion pieces of people with no skin in the game that were written at the time of the events, as those are more reactionary quotes. And that also includes excessive details on some facets like the TFYC situation. The longer term view is what we should be writing for, and this type of work will help not only to address that but also the NPOV issues. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. The pro-gg side/group/??? Has seemingly found 2 things. Gawker's source of revenue, and possible TOS violation of said sources. News at 11. Until the hashtag usage drops 90%+, it shouldn't be considered "dead", even though the hashtag usage is to aliveness, as alexa rankings are to website access rates. Which is to say, a rough, but accurate measurement. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Um....reliable sources for this? WP:SOAPBOX? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate "exists" insofar as reliable sources cover it; once that dries up the story's pretty much over, regardless of how many twitterers tweet things with the #gamergate hashtag. There are still people out there that believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii in 1961, but do a news search and you'll find there's very very little discussion of them anymore. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I will point out that in reading the various GG areas, they still seem to be finding things to poke at, but just nothing that is newsworthy (for whatever good it is - the amount/details of harassment has seems to drastically subsided compared to a month ago, but that's probably why it's also fallen out of mainstream coverage). But yeah, if we go a month without any significant GG story developments, I'd be hard pressed to call it anything but "done". --MASEM (t) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead link in 130 of draft

" and "Gamergate", news release on DiGRA website, November 5, 2014" Here's the link given http://www.digra.org/digra-and-gamergate/DiGRA HalfHat 18:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Should be this. TS has already fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'd forgotten to check the link in the reference. --TS 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sony boss on Gamergate

Forthright condemnation of violence and harassment, but rather vague on Gamergate.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-17-sonys-layden-harassment-completely-unacceptable

--TS 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect for the "Industry response" section. added to draft. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Better then what I was going to suggest. I did tweak a bit. He's not Sony CEO, but SCEA CEO. Not sure if that's too pedantic though. Feel free to revert if you think it is. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

People mention the three usual people time and time again, but nobody acknowledges the threats Christina Hoff Sommers got on twitter. Perhaps finally, someone acknowledges both sides. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any such acknowledgement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit vague, I have no objection to using it, but caution is needed. HalfHat 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What about '"SCEA chief Shawn Layden said he didn't think there is one answer to what Gamergate means, before condemning bullying and harassment in general."', could probably do with a bit of tweaking still — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently in the draft article it's Sony Computer Entertainment of America CEO Shawn Layden stated that the harassment surrounding Gamergate was "completely unacceptable", but noted that there isn't "one statement or one position on it, or one answer to whatever this very broadly-defined #GamerGate really means". On review, I think we should probably drop the 'surrounding Gamergate' bit. I think it's implied, but not explicitly said. — Strongjam (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Second source for his comments. This one includes an edited transcript of the interview with Venture Beat. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Npov?

In my opinion, the article seems slightly biased against the movement. What the movement is about is pretty subjective, and straight up saying it's about sexism doesn't sound neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegeerunner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

At least in Wikipedia policy, neutral doesn't mean impartial. There is a very strong dichotomy between how Gamergate supporters tend to see themselves and how the outside world sees them. Our article is based mostly on the latter as derived from reliable sources. --TS 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

*cough cough* WP:IMPARTIAL. *cough cough* Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Or to expand, there are several facets of neutrality to consider. Weight/balance is one that we clearly have to recognize is never going to be metbetter than we have now, due to the limited number of sources speaking in any sort of nonnegative voice for GG, and that's why its fair to call the GG side FRINGE. But as can be seen under WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality, there's many others, like structure, impartiality/tone, wording, and sourcing issues, that all have to be considered that we can still improve on to better present the material in a neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) (ETA to reflect that we are following policy wrt weight aspects and the sourcing #s) --MASEM (t) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, Masem preaching to the all divine choir. You're a cool guy, and I appreciate all that you've done and continue to do. If you were the final editor to decide definitely what would happen for the GamerGate ArbCom case, sanctions, topic bans, and just in general what happens, I'd be content and sated. Regarding neutrality, yes I've seen the horrible heated and somehow convoluted discussions of neutrality and acknowledge it. I'm not the person to convince, you know who needs to be convinced in that aspect. The tone and partiality is blatantly shown and asserted and even overt as if it's proud of being there. If trying to fix it didn't result in massive edit warring and vitriol, I'd have fixed it a long time ago. Tutelary (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but "the world" and so-called "reliable sources" encompasses the media which which is accused lack of ethics and corruption. Plus where are those allegations on Grayson reviewing Depression Quest? --Artman40 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest. Any allegation that he did so is provably, and proven, false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He may not have reviewed Depression Quest, but he has written about it, and used images from it to illustrate the article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerDaniel (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)‎

the allegations were not "but he mentioned it" they were that "he gave positive reviews". and a journalist doesnt pick the images that accompany their copy. now stop your BLP allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote five words about it in a blogpost, three months before the relationship began. Congratulations, your "smoking gun" is a broken water pistol. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my understanding of the English language isn't as good as I thought it was! I meant that we don't treat all opinions equally. --TS 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) The perspective of gamergate is largely one-sided, as reliable sources have taken the view that it is primarily about harassment, so our article reflects that. An encyclopedia is not a venue in which to right great wrongs. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the """" RS"""" supposedly condemns the harassment, I don't see anything about the hate and vitrol, not to mention WP:BLP violations *cough*sommers is a far right MRA XD*cough*cough*Milo is just a parasitic opportunist :^)*cough*. If there was no narrative to push, why are the """"" RS"""" silent about the harassment, on both sides? The fact that almost all that is acknowledged is the harassment towards the 3-5 people everyone are tired of hearing about. Also, CBC, should not under any circumstances be used as an RS, slandering David Pakman as a supposed perpetrator of harassment, despite Pakman being neutral/anti-gg. Fair word of warning about CBC as a source. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that I remember, the view that Sommers is an MRA making a cashgrab/holding onto relevance is one our friends over at the fine establishment of Encyclopedia Dramatica push. I would say it safe to consider ED views serious violations of BLP. Article won't be linked for obvious reasons. Bing it or something. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

actually, pretty much every reliable source that discusses Sommers' involvement notes that she is a Chrissy-come-lately to any interest in games. [3] [4] [5] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While Sommers had no previous experience with games, before her first (very informative and nicely done) video, let's look at it like this. The battleground of feminism has moved into the digital world, and here is something which is a hot topic for feminism. It would be a logical choice for a feminist to tackle a new thing. The only truth, is that sommers didn't say much about gaming before this. However, anything beyond that is speculation/opinion/slander, and therefore unfit for inclusion. The salon article is a hitpiece, simple as that, non-notable, seeing as Milo is back, and clearly slander. Its absurd that criticism of a group makes one against it. I have been very critical of gamergate myself, but that doesn't mean I'm against it. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also nice WP:BLP violation there. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the BLP violation? I see a turn of phrase, not a violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It implies she is a rabid opportunist. If one side gets to decide the wording, and images used to describe them, is it too much to ask MINLOVE to allow nonslaneerous description of the other side? --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

its not my implication, its the one supported by 4 reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Seriously, click the link. It's not a BLP violation to call someone a noob. I have no idea who MINLOVE is, but if they are causing a problem, please bring it up to WP:GS/GG. WP:REFACTORing is a serious thing and should only be done in extreme circumstances. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See Nineteen Eighty-Four. --DSA510 Pls No H8 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, do you mean Miniluv? I ask since I was also under the assumption of the reference being toward a user. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say content wise it's a pretty fair representation, the wording is often quite questionable though, and the article in general isn't very well structured. HalfHat 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

TV and GAME_JAM

Adam Baldwin, an actor credited with originating Gamergate, made an influential tweet to two videos, the second of which makes claims about Matti Lesham and the apparent failure of GAME_JAM. I was unable to access an article about the jam, but this is the event that Quinn was cited, and her game mentioned, in a piece by someone who (I think) she was accused of subsequently having a relationship with. But I find other writings about it like this editorial, mentioning TV reality show aspects to the production, including the statement that the suggested contract wording "also gave them provisions to make things up about the developers for the sake of drama, which, understandably, did not go over well with the people involved." This editorial seems to agree with something Quinn said (I think) in saying that Lesham, acting as middleman for the TV producers (???), "attempted to get a rise out of Zoe Quinn by asking blatantly sexist questions about her and other women’s involvement in game development."

Now it seems to me that whatever happened that day at GAME_JAM is therefore right dead center at the heart of this 'controversy', apparently kicking off everything that followed, and needs to be explained in a lot more detail than I know about it. What is not so clear to me is whether the entire Gamergate Controversy is a continuation of this reality show, with the same manufactured controversies being continued. Has a 'reality show' in fact become real? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Added note: Lesham on IMDB, including 23 news articles from 2010-2014. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When I read through the Game_Jam stuff when it was news before, I don't get the impression that GG is a continuation of it; it was a show produced to be a "reality" show which is designed to provoke the participants so as to get good entertainment value. It is tied to GG for certain in the matter that GG'ers have pointed out that Grayson wrote his own take on the GAME_JAM, including a brief highlight of Quinn's DQ at the time, and while all that was before the reported date of their "closer" relationship (April-ish 2014), GGers claim this is "favorable coverage" that Quinn sought by becoming friends (platonic or otherwise) with Grayson. (This is why we keep having IPs/etc. claim that we can't call the accusations "false" because this one still exists). --MASEM (t) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If it were "dead center" there would be more reliable sources covering it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing to expand on the consumer/culture war asepct

GG Consumerism as a culture war from Reason by an associate editor there. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were calling for more mainstream "higher quality" sources? Artw (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Artw has a point. Specifically, it should not surprise us that a Libertarian think tank whose raison d'être is "free markets" publishes a piece by an associate editor that concludes that Gamergate indicates the need for free markets. I see lots of opinion here but little if any news; it might be news if a right-wing free-market outlet failed to find a culture-war aspect to the controversy. MarkBernstein (talk)

Actually Masem has a point. This article contains multiple opinion sources. Why are libertarian sources not included in this article anyway? Is it due to paid editing like it happened before? --Artman40 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First, the article is neutral - it neither glorifies or condemns the GG side, but instead begs the question "why" this is happening, at least in terms of the ethics questions. Second, Reason as a magazine is similar to Slate or Salon, in that 1) they are not video game/tech publications and 2) they are writing from a social analysis standpoint, which is definitely where we should be putting forth the broader questions of why GG occurred like it did, without blaming or sympathizing. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Its certainly better than Gawker Media sources. And of course, I must agree with Masem's points. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Slate and Salon are run by media companies, while Reason is funded and run by a non-profit political think-tank. --Frybread (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This could go for just about any source, people have their own views that they generally view everything in the context of. Also bias per se isn't enough to dismiss a source. HalfHat 09:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

While an interesting read, a think tank publication is not quite on-par with actual media sources. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason is not a "think tank publication," but an actual media source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason Foundation Artw (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Which, FWIW, does not bar it from being WP:RS or used in Wikipedia, but we were talking about using only mainstream, non-specialist sources on this page and it would go against that. Artw (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would consider this, like Slate or Salon, a mainstream source - it has nothing to do with technology or video games on a regular basis, and has all the usual facets of RSes we'd expect (editorial board, an established history, etc.) It's not a broad distribution mainstream source like NYTimes or WAPost, but that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a specialist publication for the kind of right wing politics espoused by Baldwin et al. I also note that it's an opinion peice, something you've been against also. Artw (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said opinion pieces were not usable. Just that we have to recognize they are opinion pieces and can't be used for what WP says it ins own voice. Further, I've pointed out that we should be looking to put more weight on sources that are removed both in topic (non-tech/vg) and time ( months after the initial events) that avoid the RECENTISM problem. All the initial responses by the VG industry within the first few weeks by people that were not directly involved are the ones that we should be reducing how much we use them, given that their overall response - that GG should be condemned for harassment - are now well summarized by more recent sources. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That 4chan image

Since I'm not seeing where this was discussed before and to actually establish some consensus, in considered the referenced DBZ image that the GG logo's colors are said to evoke, the question is how that image is described. Both from the sources and knowing the image in question, the image can be described, at best, depicting sodomy (one static image cannot readily imply rape) but when the image was used on 4chan, it was typically associated with their so-called "rape jokes" - in that 4chan applied the "rape" concept to the image. The FastCo Branding article does establish that it is a "rape joke" image, so we can't say it depicts "rape", but can say it is a image often associated with "rape jokes" on 4chan, per FastCo. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)