Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Bokhari

I draw the attention of editors to the following piece from Breitbart: Allum Bokhari, WIKIPEDIA WILL BAN YOU FOR CRITICIZING WIKIPEDIA <no link: see below>. This essay repeats insinuations about various Wikipedians (including me), and helps publicize an effort to WP:OUT at least one editor. It so substantially misstated one point of fact for rhetorical effect that even Breitbart published a prompt correction. The piece raises WP:OUTing concerns so I haven't linked to it The comments are charming, too: “It's long been well known that trying to add or challenge anything to any page about Jewry, cultural Marxism, or Bolshevism will result in the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force, a real entity lulz) will hunt you down and permaban your IP address after reporting you to the IRS for tax fraud. ”. It's clear that Bokhari is writing about Wikipedia as a partisan or an advocate, not a reporter. We currently rely on an earlier piece of his in the article, and we should not. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be using a quote of theirs as filtered via the BBC. While I would definitely not use any source directly from Bokhari, that unless the BBC issues a statement towards their article on their distrust of what Bokhari was says, I'm not seeing any reason to avoid it as a bad statement. I do consider it reasonable that maybe we should drop the second part of the sentence that's quoted to the BBC withou Bokhari's stance, as the BBC itself still says the gist in their words. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just fixed the cite-error. Personally I really don't care if we use this source or not. It doesn't seem particularly useful here though as the paragraph can basically stay unchanged with the removal of the source. — Strongjam (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi MarkBernstein, Thanks for raising this question on the Talk page; infinitely preferable to simply removing the reference yourself; and also for declaring your own conflict of interest with respect to the author. I am sure that your more vociferous detractors would not have considered such to be possible.

With respect to the source that we are currently referencing, editors should note that it is published not by Breitbart, but by TechCrunch (published by AOL), so there are already potential differences in our stance on reliability of the source; simply by virtue of having a different editorial team.

That the source is potentially biased is of little concern. The vast majority of the sources used for this Article are opinion pieces which are in some way partisan. We have means of presenting information from sources which we consider might not be sufficiently disinterested.

In any case, the information that we use the TechCrunch source to support seems fairly uncontroversial - current version: Various people, some of whom requested to remain anonymous, have also been harassed for supporting Gamergate.

Of course, if there is a strong concern as to the reliability of this source in verifying this information, WP:RSN is available; though it would be preferable for the issue to be raised by authors who are unconflicted.

Finally, with respect to the Breitbart article, I am not certain that I see the same WP:OUTING concerns. I am also not certain that the extensive quote from the comments section is required or justified; it is certainly prejudicial, and therefore unworthy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Emphasizing the fact the passage Mark Bernstein quoted is a random user comment, not from Bokhari. What exactly was the purpose of bringing that to our attention? Rhoark (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Issuing corrections is evidence of unreliability now? I agree Bokhari got it completely wrong about what's happening on Wikipedia, but that's hardly a first for mainstream media. Arbitration can be quite opaque for outsiders, leaving an opportunity for fringe bloggers to sometimes have their views taken credulously. This says little about Bokhari's reliability in general, and certainly nothing about his publications outside Breitbart. Rhoark (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

While I personally think this person is fairly worthless as a journalist, the emphasis is on reliable sources rather than reliable people. That's why the need for a strong editorial process is stressed. Were this person to write a piece published in the New York Times, I would cite to it trusting in the Times' editorial acumen, and not the good intentions of the author. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUTING: I believe that the article links to an effort to identify a Wikipedian, and therefore shouldn't be linked on-wiki. Reliability: we have already questioned whether Tech Crunch is ever reliable, and here we have a source that (a) asserts something for which we have better evidence (b) in a dubious source, written (c) by a person who has gone on to show himself a partisan rather than a reporter. I mentioned the comment because the New York Times would have moderated it -- it violates their TOS. Wikipedia would have oversighted it -- it violates out TOS. But Breitbart (of course) did not moderate it, which speaks to Breitbart as well as to the writer. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've also seen the reliability of TechCrunch questioned on this page - but never justifiably. No one yet has gone as far as to try to discredit TechCrunch using the comments section of Breitbart, though. That's real innovation. Rhoark (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for the clarification. I had erroneously assumed that to be relevant to a discussion of the author that you must have been suggesting that their Breitbart article itself was attempting to out a Wikipedian. I see now, on review of your original comment, that this is not so - that it merely helps publicize an effort to WP:OUT at least one editor.

I have reviewed all of the webpages linked from the text of that article, and do not find anything that I would be comfortable in categorising in those terms - there is certainly nothing there which has the main focus of identifying or providing personal information on an editor. Without requesting that you identify the effort to WP:OUT, is it necessary that we look at sites linked in the linked sites; or alternately do we need to also look in the comments on those linked sites?

Given that any such information is at least one degree removed from the author of the Breitbart article, and is not easily found by even an exhaustive search of the linked sites, would it be reasonable to consider that raising it is also prejudicial to the consideration of the reliability of the TechCrunch source, and unworthy of an experienced Wikipedian, especially one with an acknowledged conflict of interest w.r.t the author? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, In the absence of any reply to the questions above, I respectfully invite you to self-revert your removal of this source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The points are already covered by higher quality sources. Why is it important to have this source? — Strongjam (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response; which, I feel, deserves a response. The salient question, in this instance, is not whether it is important to have this source. Rather it is: Are Wikipedia editors personal interests an appropriate factor for determining which sources should be used? I would suggest that they are not.

MarkBernstein suggests, above, that this source not be used, based on the reasoning that the author of the source has also written another opinion piece, published by other websites, which he considers repeats insinuations about various Wikipedians (including himself). There follows various aspersions about the second piece; which, on examination, do not amount to a hill of beans. Having read the second piece, and without comment on the veracity of its contents, I do believe that MarkBernstein might reasonably feel personally aggrieved. I do not concur, however, that it is right to blacklist the author's other writings from use as sources for this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

New articles from Vox & Wired

Pieces from both Vox and Wired about mob justice and comparing the Cecil the lion mob to Gamergate:

• Fisher, Max (July 30, 2015). "From Gamergate to Cecil the lion: internet mob justice is out of control". Vox.
• Finley, Klint (July 28, 2015). "Internet Attacks Lion Killer With Poisoned Yelp Reviews". Wired.

Not sure if usable, or if maybe we should wait to see if more sources take similar angles. — Strongjam (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling GG out as an example of "internet mob justice" seems to be a reasonable opinion in or around the culture war aspects. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I did add these in (one sentence to establish it as an example), but I'm surprised in that we don't have much (or that I'm just not seeing it) describing the general aspect of mob tactics (claimed or factual or otherwise) that I'm sure have been discussed in sources. We have a quote from Quinn on this, but nowhere else. Just a thought... --MASEM (t) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I note that JzG has reverted Masem's addition, with the edit summary "Not persuaded these are comparable; looks like a WP:CROWBAR." Perhaps JzG would like to expand on the explanation. To me this looks like a good point, well sourced. Arguably, mentioning Cecil is an example of recentism... but if we accept that argument we can cut that bit out and still say "Gamergate has been identified as an example of the increasing appearance of Internet mob justice." Yaris678 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I find the summary that GG is (an example of) mob justice not warranted by the RS, but perhaps mob action - despite the title of the Vox article (ie. This should look familiar: It is the same set of tactics that has been used in online harassment campaigns such as the "Gamergate" movement). As Masem knows, I noted that GG has been used as an example of the many of the worst things in the internet many times these last few months. While I do think this general thrust is correct, I think that at this time using just these two things may be UNDUE.

SHORTER: 1) would like to include, but 2) poor summary of RS, 3) too recent, 4) maybe undue. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing I noticed (mentioned above) when I looked for where to add this is that it is hard to disagree that there's a mob mentality aspect to GG (for better or worse), I'm not seeing a lot of discussion of that in the article, even though my recollection of the sources suggests we should be able to write about this nature (even if one just focuses on the criticism about ethics and the attempts to sway adverts). Hence why these would be better if we built that up atop that aspect. We may have to use the claims related to the origins of GG being engineered to get a large # of people involved. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a useful characterisation. Yes, the GamerGate activists had elements of a vigilante hate mob, but unlike Cecil the lion, the "revenge" was against a largely imagined offence. It's not really comparable. If anything the article needs to get shorter, not be bloated out with even more passing references in discussion of other things. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to make that distinction ourselves (though I do agree that there is a significant difference between the cases); if there's been a connection pointed out in secondary sources, we should be considering that. As the Vox article points out, this type of mob behavior is not limited to these two examples and is getting more common and considered a disturbing trend. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a Slate article comparing another example of internet mob behaviour to gamergate.[1] Perhaps there could be a sentence or two noting the increasing comparison of things to gamergate in the press? Brustopher (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's any reference to mob behaviour then all that needs to be said is "Gamergate behaviour has been criticised as mob justice" or words thereof. No need for quotes or extensive waxing lyrical. Too much of that exists in the article as it is. Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The key in both articles is not just that it is mob justice, but part of a trend of mob justice. I see the reason not necessarily to include the Cecil thing, but the point both authors put forth is that this seems to be becoming the norm. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Both the dentist and gamergate victims have been driven from their homes due to death threats. We really can't make the case that their different without value judgements. I would simply argue they are all victims of mob justice and part of the fear is shear enormity of anger directed at them combined with threats. This is where mob justice is intersecting these two stories. The nuances of whether it's "justice" vs. "action" is POV. "Vigilantism" vs. "mob" is also POV. Characterizing one in friendlier terms than the other fails to understand that none of the parties deserves death threats or to be driven from their homes. But Cecil isn't gamergate so I don't think any of it belongs here. --DHeyward (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, we have an article called Internet vigilantism, which is obviously related to "Internet mob justice"... but I wouldn't link to that article in its current form because it doesn't seem to (currently) cover the case where the internet is used to coordinate and deliver threats to do harm offline. Yaris678 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd not call that vigilantism (where Internet users are helping to bring illegal activity to a halt), because in all cases the articles state, they are talking about the Internet users percieving that the people on the receiving end have done something wrong though there's no legal basis for that, going off their own sense of justice. We do have mob justice for that purpose. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Vigilante justice" and "mob justice" are both done according to the flawed judgment of the people meeting out the punishment. If there is a distinction between the two, it is just that "mob" implies a large group of people, sufficient to overwhelm any opposition, whereas a vigilante can act individually or in small groups. Yaris678 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, checking off-site sources that talk both. Probably means our own articles probably need reworking. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My new made up word for all of the TwitterFacebookReddit wars is agendaneering. I have dibs and want credit :). --DHeyward (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Boston Globe, Salon

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/08/01/gamergate-lives-but-attention-fades/xIHcjRrxP5WGcoEjTabAkM/story.html

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/30/angry_entitled_men_partner/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Singal, Boston Globe piece can be used to point out that while GG continues a year out, the mainstream do no consider it as significant as, in taken the side about ethics and ignoring the harassment, they haven't made any "big" plays that other notable anonymous movements have done. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

the Globe, incidentally, explicitly concludes that Gamergate is not a "movement", a contention we've discussed here a few times.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clear it is a movement, in GG's own stance, but very much begs the question in a opinionated take that GG has none of the attributes that any even-slightly successful movements of the past have had, thus if it is even a relevant group or an effective movement. But Singal still calls it a movement several times. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you, or anyone, know what is or is not "GG's own stance?" singal explains why it is a "movemen"t that is not a movement. That should settle the matter we were discussing.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading statements without taking judgement, it is clear even in Singal's language that it is the GG supporters that call themselves a movement; the media recognizes this self-ascribed claim. They obviously say "if you're a movement, you're nothing likely any even remotely successful movement in the past" as criticism, but they still recognize that GG calls itself that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"It’s hard for a movement to call itself a movement when it ignores most of the rules movements tend to follow — having clear platforms, representatives, and so on. Anyone can use the #GamerGate hashtag, and anyone can claim a given use of that hashtag doesn’t represent “real” GamerGate." This so-called movement lacks any of the defining characteristics of a movement. Some people claiming to be part of the so-called movement say they call themselves a movement, but we can't know if they're representative or not. The controversy over calling this controversial conspiracy a "movement" is over. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's Singal's commentary. The fact remains, as citeable to many sources "The GG supporters claim they are a movement." That doesn't mean it is a movement, nor does is mean it isn't a movement, since there's no hard definition or objective measure of what a movement is. Singal, like many other of his contemporaries, raise very valid questions that how this could be a movement due to its lack of leadership, anonymous membership, etc., and that is a predominant opinion that we must obviously include. But they do separate fact - that GG claims it is a movement - from their take on it. Since there's no authority for determining who is or isn't a movement, their take remains opinions and claims. Note that that means when we do speak to GG as a movement, we absolutely sure it is a self-identified claim. Neither statement "GG is a movement" or "GG is not a movement" has any backing sources to support either as fact. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides argument on this talk page, I don't see any argument about whether or not Gamergate is a movement. If it is, the record shows what a very low bar you need to be called a movement. This article is quite correctly about both the harm done in the name of Gamergate, and the justifications and excuses made to defend that harm. But mostly about the former, because the latter always lacked seriousness and credibility in the eyes of the available reliable sources. --TS 18:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, while I am fine with the generic replacement of "Gamergate movement" with "Gamergate," in certain instances where it is explicitly called such in the source it seems wrong to change the wording. The Berkman Center quote, for instance, reads in context: "The post provokes a vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morphs into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism. The movement, labeled #GamerGate, involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics." Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fine when the summarised sentence is referring to a source that refers to Gamergate as a movement. The justification to remove is then based upon our own definition of the word - not the one used by the reliable sources. I have reverted because if Social movement cannot define it then we certainly shouldn't be trying to establish a definitive answer in the face of the reliable sources saying otherwise:

"There is no single consensus definition of a social movement.[5] Mario Diani argues that nearly all definitions share three criteria: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity" [6] Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[2] is now a failure of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. We do not judge that they call themselves a movement, a term used by numerous sources to describe the situation. Removing the term altogether per the logic above is a judgemental approach that we on WP cannot be doing at all. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits are all about cohesiveness and consistency. We shouldn't be constantly changing how we refer to them just because they themselves try to change how they're framed. We rely on the general view taken by reliable sources, which generally speaking do not describe it as a 'movement' in the formal sense of the word (leadership, goals, organisation etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources say they are a self-described movement, this is a fact across at least 300 news articles, and that is the where we have to accept it. Period. To try to say that GG has claimed to be anything else (outside of a consumer revolt) is passing judgement as WP editors, which we cannot do if we are staying neutral and objective. We still will include every bit of the press's claims that if they are a movement, they are unlike any movement before, or that the movement is a cover for more malicious action, but in terms of staying neutral and making the article easy for the reader to understand, we need to stick with the most clear term common in the RSes, even if editors personally don't like it. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have 'at least 300 news articles' from reliable sources which say they are a self-described movement. Sorry, Masem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

307 hits for "Gamergate movement" [3] and over 2000 for "Gamergate" + "movement" [4]. Yes, some of these are Brietbart, etc. and not necessarily all reliable sources (but they are news articles as I said) but that still reflects the state of the sources, including the highest reliable ones. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that google hits define how we should cover something. You really shouldn't either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair evaluation of how many articles exists that met certain search criteria, and used throughout the rest of WP (for example , in article naming discussions) . The only place where it can't be used is for deletion discussions. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Koncorde, The Social movement article, and the definitions therein are, I believe, instructive on this point; and I thank you for having drawn the attention of editors to them. The concerns raised around describing Gamergate as a movement are highlighted in that article as being common to social movements. Social movements are a type of group action. They are large, sometimes informal, groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change does seem to fit. The Definitions & Identification of supporters sections (including the piece you have quoted) also address the concerns around leaders, membership, etc. FWIW, IMHO, if movements were to require official memberships then they would be political parties.
Given the use of the descriptor in sources, could editors opposed to its use here provide reasoning as to why? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The American labor movement was certainly a movement, and was not a political party. The British Chartists were a movement but not a party, and the movement for Parliamentary Reform crossed parties. The American Civil Rights movement was not a party. Yet all of these have the accoutrements mentioned above which Gamergate lacks: leadership, spokespersons, platforms, and membership. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a social movement does not require (but can have) leadership, membership , or any organization; it is repeatedly defined in other sources as simply being a collective action by a number of like-minded individuals generally against a social norm. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is truly an absurd discussion. Gamergate is called a "movement" without qualification in numerous sources, so this is not an issue with WP:RS. The sources tend to agree that it is an not a particularly effective movement, but that it can reasonably be called a "movement" is almost indisputable. I can provide diffs, but it's the same year-old articles that we've been posting on this page since the article was created, so I won't bother. As Ryk72 pointed out, the social movement article has a section on definitions. If we're going to ignore reliable sources, then we should use the definitions provided by sociology experts. Clear platforms, representatives, and a lack on anonymity are not part of the defining characteristics. So if we're ignoring reliable sources, and ignoring the agreed-upon definition of social movement, what is the actual justification for this change? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's actually interesting that, spurred on by the fact that the social movement article is not in great Wikipedia quality shape, that looking to sources on social movements (Google scholar and books), that 1) this is a major field of study in the social sciences since at least the 70s (if not earlier), 2) all sources I've scanned agree with the WP statement which is repeated above and meets the definition of whats happening with GG and 3) that because movements (successful or failed ones) are generally going against the social norm that researchers in the area are cautioned from introducing bias towards the norm when researching on a social movement. Yes, it would have been original research to call GG a movement without any sources calling it that, but as it is clearly identified as one, we should be handling our coverage in a manner that follows from established academia processes. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, please stop forcing me to agree with Masem (no offense Masem). Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

None taken --MASEM (t) 20:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Let's assume "a social movement is [...] a collective action by a group of likeminded people generally against a social norm". Masem, what social norm are they against- critically reflecting on entertainment? Is the collective action harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The social norm would be (drastically simplified) "there are no ethical issues in video game journalism", which is what they are fighting against. And the collective action certainly is strong use of social media and letter writing campaigns, and probably even the harassment - reading the books and journals on social movements, not all the collective actions need to be legal/morally correct, and that social movements can engage in violent or similarly destructive actions. That's where some movements succeed and where some fail. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How does threatening to shoot Anita Sarkeesian address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does conspiring to prevent Zoe Quinn from attending a professional conference by giving her a beating resulting in knee damage or brain injury address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does popularizing cartoons that allude to rape injury, regardless of whether or not a static image can readily allude to rape, address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does a campaign of recruiting zombie accounts to lobby for more Wikipedia discussion of the sex lives of various developers address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does using Wikipedia to announce that a software developer's date of death is "soon" address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does repeatedly attempting to use Wikipedia to defame women in the software industry address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does the bitter and hard-fought campaign to topic-ban the Five Horsemen of WikiBias address an ethical issue in video game journalism? It's not a question of failure: none of the notable actions of Gamergate have any connection to video game journalism, nor could any reasonable person expect them to effect a change in ethical issues in video game journalism. If Gamergate were a movement that concerned ethics in video game journalism, we would reasonably anticipate that it would chiefly address video game journalism and its practices. Instead, it is chiefly known for addressing people who have no connection at all with video game journalism, except that journalists sometimes write about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

This just strikes me as such a low bar that I don't get the outrage. It's value neutral to me. Gamergate might be an incoherent, feckless movement, but calling it a movement would still be okay, by my lights. If we can refer to the Translation Movement, the Anti-Masonic Movement and the Eugenics movement, I see no reason why we can't call gamergate a 'movement,' as several of the sources do. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a clear point from the social movement researchers - movements can be failures, they can engage in despicable practices, they can be irrational. But they still are movements. (And it is a fair question where the line is drawn between movements, terrorism, and revolution, that seems to be a classic question that continues to be subject for discussion in social movement research). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Movement?

Can we settle this with an RfC? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's necessary to go over this again for the benefit of Masem or others who feel there is still discussion to be had, you're welcome to start one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I kind of hope this would be the last time. Optimistic, I know. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi ForbiddenRocky, I think you might mean WP:RfC (request for comments); and have amended the section header accordingly. I concur that a discussion is preferable to edit warring. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah RfC. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Having just looked at the previous arguments / discussion it has been consistently completely derailed with nonsense about what criteria Gamergate needs to have to be a movement. It has been an exercise in claiming reliable sources are reliable for every other word they say but "movement", followed by a lot of special pleading. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Without parsing the context of the reference too much (a lot of the sources use the phrase "campaign") the below is the beginning of a list of the currently used sources that refer to the "Gamergate movement", and those that don't. I'm not holding any level of truthiness to the accuracy, and adding no weight based on the reliability of the source or context the phrase is used.

It demonstrates that removing "movement" from paragraphs where sources use that phrase - but using alternative phrases from other sources - is not representative. This does not indicate the need to change the title of the article, or the content, but arguing over the word movement when it is being used in referenced reliable sources is bizarre logic. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You do know the index numbers will change if someone adds, removes, or moves a source? Putting in the name the author would help people use this list, should that happen. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, but for the sake of demonstration it'll do, and it's bad enough I'm reading the bloody things. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• 1. No use, pre-Gamergate
• 2. No use (use of horde, mob, saboteurs etc)
• 3. Multiple use of movement
• 4. Multiple use of movement
• 5. No use
• 6. No use
• 7. No use
• 8. No use
• 9. Single use
• 10. No use
• 11. No use, pre-gamergate
• 12. Multiple use of movement
• 13. Multiple use of movement
• 14. Multiple use of movement (including "hate movement")
• 15. Multiple use of movement
• 16. Used twice, once to refer to a counter-GG "movement"
• 17. Uses the word, never in reference to gamergate (Longform, Kony)
• 18. No use
• 19. Sorry I don't have a copy of this Multiple uses of movement Brustopher (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• 20. Used twice once for GG, once for #notyourshield
• 21. Multiple use of movement
• 22. Generally refers to other movements (gamergate discussed as an aspect of larger MRA movement)
• 23. No use
• 24. No use, pre-gamergate
• 25. No use
• 26. Used twice
• 27. No use
• 28. No use, pre-gamergate
• 29. No use
• 30. No use, pre-gamergate
• 31. No use, pre-gamergate
• 32. No use, pre-gamergate
• 33. No use, pre-gamergate
• 34. No use
• 35. No use
• 36. No use
• 37. No use
• 38. No use
• 39. No use
• 40. No use
• 41. Multiple use of movement
• 42. No use
• 43. Multiple use of movement
• 44. Public statement by Utah University, no use
• 45. Multiple use of movement
• 46. Multiple use of movement
• 47. Single use, but clear reference
• 48. No use
• 49. Single use, but clear reference
• 50. No use
• 51. No mention, largely about 8chan
• 52. Single use, but clear reference
• 53. Multiple use of movement
• 54. No mention, largely about Wu
• 55. No use
• 56. Single use, but clear reference
• 57. Single use, but clear reference
• 58. No use, but the feed of other articles is headered by a description of Gamergate as a movement twice
• 59. No use
• 60. No mention of gamergate at all
• 61. Multiple use of movement
• 62. Multiple use of movement
• 63. Multiple use of movement, specifically refers to "hashtag movement"
• 64. Multiple use of movement, specifically refers to "loosely defined" and links to their own summary of gamergate as a movement
• 65. Multiple use of movement
• 66. Multiple use of movement
• 67. Multiple use of movement
• 68. No use
• 69. No use (but is referring to harassment of a Gamergate supporter)
• 70. Multiple use of movement
• 71. Not about gamergate
• 72. Multiple use of movement
• 73. Multiple use of movement (beautiful sentence "...Web-based campaign of harassment against women who make, write about and enjoy video games, masquerading as a movement of gamers upset about a perceived lack of ethics among games journalists. The movement, insofar as a group of people obsessively complaining about something on Twitter deserves to be called a movement...")
• 74. No use
• 75. Multiple use of movement (and use of "of sorts" and "so called")
• 76. No use
• 77. Multiple use of movement
• 78. No mention of gamergate at all
• 79. Multiple use of movement (and describes how video gamers were labelled “a terrorist movement,” “a hate group,” “a bunch of fascists,” and “recreational misogynists and bigots”)
• 80. Multiple use of movement
• 81. Multiple use of movement
• 82. No use
• 83. Multiple use of movement
• 84. Multiple use of movement
• 85. Multiple use of movement
• 86. No use
• 87. Multiple use of movement
• 88. Multiple use of movement
• 89. Single use
• 90. Multiple use of movement
• 91. Multiple use of movement
• 92. Multiple use of movement, including reference to an equivalent "SJW movement"
• 93. German article, can someone please vet as I don't trust translation services. @Krano:@ForbiddenRocky: both of you can understand German if I recall correctly? Pinging for judgement. Brustopher (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• No use of movement. The auto=translation would probably have been enough for your purposes. (Though the what is written does suggest "activism" and "discussion".) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC) PS I don't think the ping worked. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• 94. No use
• 95. No mention of gamergate at all
• 96. Multiple use of movement
• 97. No use, links to articles that do
• 98. No use
• 99. No use
• 100. No mention of gamergate at all

What do you mean by "movement" and how do the various RS align to that? It's easy to think that the appearance of the word "movement" is enough, but how it's used and what it means in context is just as important. PS I'm really busy, may not be able to respond for a while. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, each of these is a reliable source, we currently use for any number of other words. When they say movement they are calling Gamergate a movement - the context is "gamergate movement" in almost 100% of the cases. There is occasionally a qualifier "ostensible" or "so called" (rare). The significant majority of those that don't use movement either just refer to Gamergate (with no descriptive element) or campaign. Someone else can go through and check if they wish or have some objection, but I intend to do every single source. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making isn't going to be clear, but how many places would "Gamergate Movement" get translated into another language and then back into English with a different wording. When I was reading the German piece I had to check if they translated "movement" as something else - e.g. "activism" or "discussion" or "group". Just using the word "movement" alone isn't really what makes something a social or political movement - as a fact or as a usage. Also, it might be useful to follow the sources to their sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article one more time, as I did so I noticed that Gamergate could also be called a: war, debate, discussion, opinion, controversy, organization, group, trolls, advocates/advocacy, conspiracy, campaign, banner, representation, backlash, identity, hijacking, conflict, escalation, community, orchestration, commentary, protest, critics, distension, vandals, theorists, etc. This is a mighty work you're doing here, but without listing the other possible appellations, it's not as useful as you think for determining DUE weight of the use. Also, those modifiers you're not considering "ostensible" and "so called"? Those two particular ones may or may not matter, but many others would e.g. conspiracy theorist v. theorist. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "due weight", I'm making the point that we're happy to use any other word BUT movement and the arguments against its use are (frankly) terrible. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am still struggling to understand. I would certainly oppose renaming the article, or if we were to systematically use the phrase "gamergate movement," but if we occasionally use it as a shorthand for a group of people, why is that so bad? Many sources do so (granted, not all, and not systematically). Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the war of Lilliput and Blefuscu, though I will not be surprised at all if I am simply being short-sighted. Thank you. [Just a quick minor edit to officially sign!] Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that this isn't the tool to use to determine if "movement" (or any other word) is the right word to use. It's not a question of bad, but correct and informative per RS. Words don't mean things in isolation - the question becomes "what's the context?". The points I'm making here isn't really about the use of "movement" but about the meaning trying to be conveyed. I find most places where movement was edit from the GGC entry to be unproblematic one way or the other. But this work Koncorde is doing, isn't as informative, clear cut, and simple as it seems. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to identify the right word. I am making the point that many reliable sources use the word movement and we appear to be pedantic only when it comes to this one particular phrase. For instance all the changes made by Mark, and then Peter (after I reverted) are in a section where every single source refers to gamergate as a movement (which is what started this in the end). Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Shorter: This tool isn't going to convince people. Nor should it. However, I'm not saying the people you're trying to convince are correct either. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the real issue here for many people is whether or not calling GG a movement lends it legitimacy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's a legitimacy issue then someone should have a word with all the reliable sources already using the word. If we reflect the reliable sources, and the reliable sources use the word movement, and we trust these reliable sources for the use of the words "war, debate, discussion, opinion, controversy, organization, group, trolls, advocates/advocacy, conspiracy, campaign, banner, representation, backlash, identity, hijacking, conflict, escalation, community, orchestration, commentary, protest, critics, distension, vandals, theorists" without question then what are we doing? Just whose hoops exactly are wikipedia editors having to jump through? Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't argue with me about it. I'm just pointing out what appears to be the sticking point. I think maybe the people who care should RfC it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to come across as arguing with you - I'm not. I could have summarised more simply but didn't want to re-factor your independent replies and responses. I'm waiting happily for the RFC, which is why I have not just gone and reverted Peters changes, until such time I will continue to expand the list. If someone chooses to go through the list and make a greater claim as to why we should not be able to use the word movement then they can have at it. Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not going to RfC it, and the editors who have the status quo aren't either. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The way that one can view it is that everyone (ourselves and the press alike) is struggling to find a word to describe this group of people and their ideals (as opposed to the situation overall, which we are calling the controversy). Of the words even suggested, the three that perhaps stand out the most is "movement", "campaign", and "conspiracy" in the news. And when you do a google news search to survey those terms, if you search on the phrase "Gamergate (term)", movement gets 300+ hits, "conspiracy" 20-some, and "campaign" 40-some. It shows that the press have, to some degree, opted to call the group the movement, just as the group itself self-identifies itself as a movement, even if the press believe this term is ironic or is far from an example of what they envision a movement is. (This is separate from the point about in considering the definition of a social movement, which arguably might be original research to force GG to be classified as that without the presence of RSes doing that for us). And that also gives us simple wording that helps make the article readable - it is comparable to establishing an acronym at the start of an article to avoid typing out the long name every time. "Movement" is also a very neutral word as "controversy", since movements can be both redeeming or irrational entities. "Campaign" may be neutral too, but "conspiracy" is not and we'd need a lot more evidence to pick that as our working term.

If the issue is to avoid giving the group legitimacy, the first time the word that movement would be used we can make sure it is clear that this is a self-assigned label by GG, and that avoids giving the term full legitimacy. But I will stress that as a neutral and objective work, we should care little if a self-claimed statement creates legitimacy or not, as along as we establish it as a claim to avoid stating it as fact. If John Q Smith claimed he was innocent of a crime, inclusion of this as a self-claim doesn't legitimize his innocence. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If what the sources say lends Gamergate legitimacy, then we just have to go with what the sources say. Although mind you, the whole idea of the word movement giving legitimacy is absurd in my eyes. If someone completely unacquainted with the subject read through this entire article as it was back when the word "movement" popped up a lot more, I'm fairly certain they'd come to the same conclusion regarding the topic as they would from reading the article as it stands today. The article will not suddenly present Gamergate as a bastion of legitimacy and ethics if the "movement" is used. Going through all this mental gymnastics just to stop Gamergate from having the most dubious, suspect and unwinning of wins is just pointless. Brustopher (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Going through all this mental gymnastics [...] is just pointless." I agree. I just want this settled and then to go away. Ha! I'm so optimistic. I don't see the point of calling it a movement or not calling it a movement. But if examining the issues will settle it, then I hope it gets settled. Really, a representative sample of GG clearly has plenty of douchenozzles - that's pretty clear from the RS. If GG is a movement then it's a movement with plenty of harassing, doxing, sexist assholes in it- that's pretty clear in the WP:GGC entry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick note on the vanity fair (The Witness) bit

just to be clear from Peter's change [5] I was not trying to write the implication that the coverage itself was to blame, just that with the mainstream coverage resulted in people coming to see negative aspects of the industry. Not disputing the change, just trying to be clear on my original intent. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No harm, no foul, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Gjoni gag order

Hey. Kung Fu Man added a little bit to the article stating that Zoe Quinn sought and received a gag order against Eron Gjoni- I'm not sure the article we use as a source includes anything other than Gjoni's assertion that this happened, and in fact casts doubt on it by virtue of the fact that it's an interview. The sentence in the article is "The first thing Eron Gjoni said after sitting down across from me at Veggie Galaxy in December was that he would probably violate his gag order if he talked to me. Then he talked for the next three hours, and again and again over the next three months." - I'm not sure we can use that to state the 'sought and received a gag order' thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm...yeah I'll concede that other than his statement and this tweet (https://twitter.com/thequinnspiracy/status/540666146706300929) I am finding little reliable sources here to back this up. I have no problems pulling it back if that is the case, though may be worth looking into. I've been out of the loop for some times...could court documents be of use here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be using primary documents as a source, but if we can find court documents that prove this then I'm fine using Gjoni's statement in the interview as a source for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that, personally I assume nothing on either the parts of Ms. Quinn nor Ms. Gjoni as a neutral editor. For the time being I'll do some research on the matter but will remove the statement calling it a gag order.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and attribution

Hey! Kung Fu Man and I were having a discussion at his talk page- initially because I believed he was skirting more than a bit too close to 1RR, but it developed into a discussion on how we should be describing Gamergate's harassment and how to properly phrase it in Wikipedia's voice. I believe that we don't need to provide citations every time we mention Gamergate's harassment, and I believe a good essay to refer to here is WP:BLUE. I'd rather let Kung Fu Man phrase his POV himself. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll lead this off by illustrating it as such. These two sentences convey a very different meaning despite the subtle word choice:

• "Commentators felt that this was a response to Gamergate, some noting it as a rejection of the misogynistic harassment it perpetrated."
• "Commentators felt that this was a response to Gamergate, some noting it as a rejection of the misogynistic harassment attributed to it."

Both of these are very similar statements, but I believe the latter maintains a much more neutral tone for the article to take. While we cannot deny that harassment has taken place the attribution of it is less factual and more opinionated, as pointed out by videos such as this on the Huffington Post discussing gamergate in which the host acknowledges that such attacks against he had no certainty that attacks against him came from gamergate or indeed third-party trolls. Additionally there was an event covered by Kotaku's Jason Schreier where several in gamergate pointed out an individual that led a personal campaign against Ms. Sarkeesian with no ties to GamerGate yet the blame was pointed towards them. The point of the matter is, looking at this article as it is now it is outright making claims: it is saying all those in Gamergate are responsible for such attacks, that every accusation is true. Which raises a red flag for me and should for anyone regardless of gamergate in that no article should treat a consensus as a fact.

I believe it's very important for the tone of the article to make it clear that for good or ill of the impact of gamergate that these are individuals making these claims, journalists making these attributions and not the article itself. As we see here two sources bring into question some of the claims of harassment, and over time more retrospectives may occur. How could these be worked in without changing the article entirely, given it's entire stance appears to even the most casual reader to say "Gamergate is absolutely this?"

I believe writing the article in a tone that makes attribution of claims good or ill will go miles to improve the neutrality of this article and give us hopefully something we can all agree with that caters to neither side over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a point that I've been trying to point out, and that Rhoark's list of sources from about a month or so ago has also pointed out: the high quality RSes very carefully do not directly attribute the harassment to the group of GG supporters that say they are about ethics and are against harassment, though 1) they do not dismiss the possibility that some of them may be lying and using ethics to cover up and 2) do not dismiss them of any guilt for creating an environment that enables whomever is doing the harassing due to their dehumanization of Quinn, etc. and other factors. But they also note that there are third parties that may be involved doing this to stir the pot. Our article should be making it clear that factually, harassment and threats are actions are done by some agencies using the GG hashtag, but the connection to this to anyone that is a GG ethics movement supporter is unknown. That's also why it is necessary in relationship to the movement aspect above to make sure we are distinct (as most sources do) to understand that we have the GG hashtag users (which include those engaged in harassment), and as a subset of those, the GG ethics movement users, though obviously who is in what group, we (WP and the press alike) have no clue. The more-reliable sources are very careful from directly assigning blame here to those that say they aren't doing it (though have more than enough condemnation of other factors to that same group as clear opinions). --MASEM (t) 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that the harassment is all Gamergate is about. There is no scandal, only a vain attempt to excuse disgusting behaviour by blaming "ethics". That's what our reliable sources tell us, overwhelmingly. --TS 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources may call it an vain attempt, but as we are objective and neutral, we can't accept that tone as fact. We clearly have to include this predominant claim, but only as a claim. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can say it was a vain attempt. This is a statement of fact. The attempt failed. There was no scandal. Attempts to excuse misogynistic attacks by saying the victims were corrupt comprehensively failed. In fact our article is largely a catalogue of how comprehensively the ruse failed. --TS 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Something worth consideration too is that these claims of harassment are sometimes overshot by the articles. For example, Buzzfeed took the word of one individual that during the Baltimore riots that Gamergate was inciting racial hatred and the 'color cabal' was an enforcement branch of the movement; after some pushing they only added a disclaimer than the person presenting the information "admitted to being dishonest". Jezebel ran an article on youtube reviewer Charlanahzard contacting the mothers of online harassers but attributed it to Gamergate. She herself stated otherwise and the writer admitted she based the information on information from The Guardian and would amend the article (seen here). This is one very good reason why such statements should be treated as being attributed to the group than as straight out 'facts'.

Additionally there are sources such as the above HuffPost video as well as this one, these lengthy comments by Stephen Totilo and Jason Schreier where he acknowledges that the argument for ethics in journalism is a factor for the movement. There are statements too by C. H. Sommers, Mark Kern, Dennis Dyack, Brad Wardell, Daniel Vávra, Liana Kerzner, and The Fine Young Capitalists in both written and interview form that discuss much of the details are they themselves citable (Kerzner herself is neutral towards the movement and just as critical as she is supportive). There's an article discussing the bomb threat made against a meetup in Washington D.C. that in it's closing paragraph even acknowledged the ethics in journalism aspect in light of other other criticisms. Several prominent internet reviewers such as John Bain (TotalBiscuit), Stephen Williams (Boogie2988) and Joe Vargas (AngryJoe) have all offered opinions on Gamergate and discussions on the matter positive and negative, with Bain even interviewing Totilo on several things seen as ethical breaches. There is even an upcoming Airplay debate with the society of professional journalists this very month discussing gamergate and the media's handling of it. Even a purported response by the guy running this very site, Jimmy Wales, has weighed in on this subject of the group, harassment, ethics in journalism and its leaderless aspect. These are all things that should have a place in this article to cover it by all aspects.

But in its current form? It's taking a side on an issue it should be neutral. Rather than covering it in an encyclopedic manner it instead approaches it entirely as a harassment narrative to the point that almost all of the above does not fit the article's tone whatsoever, despite their validity. We're not here to take a stance, simply to give the movement the proper and fair encyclopedic coverage it deserves, good and bad, regardless of our personal feelings. That's why we're editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate was a harassment campaign. That's what the reliable sources tell us (and even what we have experienced here on Wikipedia). How is there a "good" side to that? Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's a claim. If GG states they are not a harassment campaign, it doesn't matter how many RSes try to claim it is, it is a contentious state, a labeling statement, and one that must remain as a claim to stay neutral and objective. If in the future some law agency (people in the position to be able to determine this directly) issue a report that GG was a harassment campaign, then at that point we should treat it as fact, but not before when we're only going off reports in the media. We certainly have to present the strong opinion GG only exists as a harassment campaign by mainstream media, obviously. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying is right Kung Fu Man. The article as it stands mentions the bomb threat, and other harassment faced by GG supporters, presents analysis and commentary on the ethics issues. As for the Airplay issue, I believe we're waiting for that to happen and more sources to be generated before putting that in the article. A lot of the things you mention do actually have a place in the article. Brustopher (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I may have missed them. The overall tone just seems to focus entirely on online harassment, to the point the article itself feels more like it's discussing that online harassment exists than the Gamergate movement itself. In fact I'll go so far as to argue that some of it may be received undue weight and certain sections either needs to be consolidated or rewritten entirely as the subjects they're covering seem to be online harassment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The media is not judge and jury to determining the validity of a scandal, particularly one that involves the media. The media certainly believe that there is none, wanting to instead focus on the harassment, but that's demonstrating the implicit bias by nature of the industry that the media has in covering a story that involves all these counter-culture elements to it. It is the predominant opinion but by no means necessarily the right, factual one. This is a social situation where there likely is no right answer so we cannot right pretending there is one. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but what actual scandal did gamergate expose? If there was one, I still haven't heard about it. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well several sites have taken up disclosure policies in light of it, including PC Gamer which was in response to people citing that a reviewer was covering Ubisoft products while married to an employee. Bain brought up disclosure issues in his discusion with Totilo including those by Patricia Hernandez, and Kotaku staff member's own statements in light of Gamergate's accusations. There's meat there, but even with just these sources it's hard not to say ethics aren't a factor to the movement. Not to mention the whole Gamejournopros mailing list, which showed evidence of several sites agreeing on how to handle stories amongst themselves. I honestly believe more in-depth research could rapidly flesh this out easily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, do such research, and present your findings here. I'd like to read that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty Dumuzid it'll do little unless the tone of the article can be addressed first.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article already mentions gamejournopros and changes to ethics policies. I strongly suggest that you carefully read the article all the way through at least once, and then come back to the talk page with proposals. That way you can acquaint yourself better with the source material and the article itself, and thereby make more productive proposals.Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my statement that I may have 'missed some sources' to mean 'I didn't fully read the article'. I've read it over and it really does come across as favoring one party over the other. It states several times throughout the article that "gamergate harassed", not "accusations of harassment by gamergate" which is what these are. There are several quotes in here pulling quotes by Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian as factual observations and not their own stance on the matter. So yes I have paid attention to it. It's a behemoth, and certainly not a fair one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So the "scandal" that set the gaming world aflame is that 1 PC Gamer reviewer failed to disclose a potential COI, Patricia Hernandez was friends with some of the developers whose games she reviewed on a blog, and "several sites agreed on how to handle stories amongst themselves" (huh)? How does any of that count as a scandal? Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Scandal" (implying one event) is probably the wrong word; it is fair that the GG side believe there is a conspiracy between (what they call) "SWJ"-aligned developers and journalists that want to force ideas like feminism into the video game industry via video games, and are accomplishing this by using their relationships (any that go beyond a professional one) to get other journalists and the like to elevate the cover of these games to make them seem better than they are as to increase sales/reputation/etc; by doing this, they are "eliminating" hard-core gamers from the gaming community (see their reaction to the "death of gamer" articles). I'm sure there's more nuances to their points but that's why "conspiracy" is a better term (and why they are dismissed as conspiracy theories by the press). The thing is - it is impossible to prove this is or isn't the case without a full investigation of the gaming press by third parties, which hasn't been done. And we do have the members of the industry that have admitted there are ethical problems in the industry, though likely not the same as those GG has stated there are. So we can't say that the conclusions of GG are flat out wrong as fact, but we can including overwhelming press that says they are far-fetched and debunked by those they have accused. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article states several times that "Gamergate harassed" various people because (a) this is true, (b) this is widely reported by reliable sources, and (c) this is notable. We do not need to say that there were "accusations of harassment by Gamergate" because there is no question whatsoever that those accusations were true. Of course, statements by Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian are their statements. There never was a scandal; there's no need to weasel. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely true and well-reported and notable that "Users under the #gamergate hashtag harassed various people". The problem is that this article wants to called the movement "Gamergate" (as opposed to the Gamergate movement) and then called "users under the #gamergate hashtag" as "Gamergate", such that they appear to be one and the same group, effectively calling the people in the movement directly responsible for the harassment when they have said claimed they are not. Just as we should be very clear that calling the ethics side a movement is not breaking down the walls of NPOV or NOR for the article, we have to be aware that making the distinction between the movement and the harassers is not going to displace the WEIGHT of sources on the harsh criticism of the harassment side. We know the press are accusing them of harassment, but that's not the same as factually saying the movement is engaged in harassment, and hence the need to say it is accusations. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who, exactly, are these Gamergate “people” who say Gamergate is not responsible for harassing female software developers? Are the hundreds of #Gamergate threats all from some other conspiracy that happens to share the same name? Have all the reliable sources, from The New Yorker and the Guardian and the New York Times on down, been duped? By whom? What reliable sources report this, and also report that these "people" speak for or represent Gamergate? All we know of Gamergate are their public actions -- the actions attributed to #Gamergate. They’re not actions "under the hashtag," they’re Gamergate’s actions. If Gamergate wishes to disavow those actions, they can do so, and when reliable sources report that those actions have been convincingly disavowed, we’ll weigh that with the other sources. Until then, the actions are Gamergate actions. The press is accusing no one of harassment; the press is reporting harassment which attributes itself to Gamergate. There is no distinction between the so-called “movement” and harassment: harassment is what Gamergate is known for, and all that it has accomplished. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Are the hundreds of #Gamergate threats all from some other conspiracy that happens to share the same name?" Yes - remember that we have a pretty significant section already that talks about how the word "gamergate" is tainted, advice from the press to those that want to talk ethics that they should abandon that name and use one without the stigma of harassment, and the fact that there is a resistance within the GG movement from moving away from that name. And no, none of the major press source is being dupped, as Rhoark identified last month with his analysis of the sources, these press sources are very clear that there is the movement that is a subset of the users under the hashtag that claim they aren't involved in harassment; the press still blame the movement for enabling the harassment but that's not the same as performing it. So the press does make a distinction, and we need to make that clear. There has been harassment done within the Gamergate controversy, but for the group that considers themselves the GG movement, they claim they aren't part of that. This distinction is clearly documented in mainstream sources, even if no one can figure out the distinct between who is and isn't in the movement. This is why the removal of "movement" baised the article because it removed that necessary distinction, because while the press has accused the broad "Gamergate" aspect of harassment, they have not blamed the movement as fact (though they throw many strong opinions towards that). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, here is a prime example of how the highest RS, the NYtimes, presents it: "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women". [6] If the NYTimes can identify that there are (at least ) two different groups at play here, there's no reason we should try to avoid that either. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the attacks on Schafer are specifically described as 'harassment' and 'abuse' in the two articles used on sources for it, respectively; we have to cover that accurately, when reliable sources us those terms. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on Fish

So I tried to fix this mess of a sentence. If we really must say it was done by 4chan members, maybe add a new sentence. We also don't have to say it was "attributed" to 4chan. We can say the attackers claimed to be 4chan members and that it was in retaliation for Fish's support of Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely need to keep out that phrase in that diff - it is a BLP violation (even if RSes have reiterated that claim, including the Boston Magazine article on Quinn and Gjoni). --MASEM (t) 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Strongman's suggestion, but Masem is emphatically wrong. If reliable sources tell us something then if it's pertinent to the facts, it is absolutely not against the BLP to write about it. That's BLP 101. --TS 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This particular phrase, while used in the source, is probably best if left out of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The phrase that is included is a reference from Gjoni's post that is an accusation against Quinn and (what he believed) her cheating on him. While we can source the phrase to RSes, it is one of those accusations that has very little bearing on the actual events of GG while also a BLP that is never addressed/commented on by sources (compared to the initial accusation about Quinn and Grayson that has been thoroughly dismissed). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(Specifically you can read what I mean at this link Boston Mag, page 2 of the article, to understand why we absolutely should not use this phrase.) --MASEM (t) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with TS that Masem is wrong about it being a BLP violation, I think this is an error in terminology rather than substance. While the phrase is unquestionably well sourced, I think the WP:BLP exhortations to avoid gossip and to write conservatively make a compelling case to keep it out of the article. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, how it was included (as the name of the group) alone and no other known context, it wouldn't be a BLP violation, but with the knowledge of the origin of that phrase and its implications, we should avoid including it both as a BLP issue (particularly since the point is not addressed/countered by anyone involved so it is wild speculation/accusation) and as being a trivial part of the situation overall. It doesn't matter the name of the group that doxxed Fish, only that he was doxxed and the apparent origin of the doxxing. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When the name of the group itself perpetuates an attack, then it might be best to leave it out per BLP. In my opinion, I'm not sure it needs to be in the article unless a consensus of editors agree that there is a compelling reason to include it. Basically, I guess you should ask whether or not just attributing it to 4chan is sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps then the wording should mention that they named themselves in a fashion to personally attack Quinn, but definitely keep the attribution to 4chan in the article. Personally I see little harm it does to point out the name as it was a prominent part of the harassment Quinn received and articles certainly didn't omit mentioning it, but if BLP is a concern here I can see that as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgina Young

I notice someone reinserted a reference to her opinion on the controversy -- who is she? Why are we citing her opinions here? It feels to me like we're giving her WP:UNDUE weight by pulling one opinion from her from an interview and dropping it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion on this, seems undue to me. @Kung Fu Man: please self-revert. Page is under 1RR restrictions and this is at least your second revert I count. — Strongjam (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to press this one: she's being cited in the capacity as a games journalist for TechRaptr and for her statements regarding Notyourshield. She was present in both Huffington Post interviews for her opinion, and offers a balancing point to a section, and to my knowledge the Huffington Post is still a citable source. I will also point out this very section cites Arthur Chu as a source...yet this is considered WP:UNDUE?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu is clearly notable and writes for a reliable source, and we should be careful of creating a false balance by over-weighting an opinion. — Strongjam (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this. TechRaptor is simply not as reliable as Salon -- it lacks an established reputation for fact-checking, for instance. Singling one (and only one) voice from an interview like that is plainly giving her WP:UNDUE weight, especially if you feel that you're doing it to "offer a balancing point." We're not supposed to include obscure opinions simply because they provide what an editor feels is a "balancing point"; that's false balance and a violation of WP:VALID. Neutrality means that we need to cover aspects as they appear in reliable, mainstream sources; if an opinion is too obscure to get significant coverage there, then it is WP:UNDUE to highlight it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

But we're not discussing an obscure opinion: if this was on TechRaptr itself I wouldn't cite it. However it was done in an interview on a website we can cite as a reliable source. The Huffington Post asked for their opinions, debated them, and posted the interview. In effect despite the Post being a valid source for the article, we're saying if the person interviewed isn't notable enough it cannot be used? But yet an opinion piece somehow is?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Interviews and see what you think afterward. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, That is a very interesting essay; I extend my compliments to the authors. Having read it in its entirety (and fixed a typo), I'm not sure, however, that it detracts from the points that Kung Fu Man is making here. Would you be able to identify the sections that you feel are pertinent, and how they are so? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: certainly. I don't think anything in that essay is particularly dispositive, but on balance, in my opinion it tends to militate towards leaving out Ms. Young's interview. I think it should be, in essence, treated like a self-published source, and the sort of free-wheeling nature of this interview does not give me great faith in its editorial strictures (this is not exactly investigative journalism). Thus, for me, this is a bit like citing a YouTube video by Ms. Young or some such. It would be fine for certain uses, but as proposed here, it strikes me as being accorded undue weight, if not downright unreliable (in the Wikipedia sense, of course). Of course, that's simply my opinion. And I'll actually even sign this comment! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)