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.

reaction addition to the lede

The article has a large section dedicated to the various responses, perhaps something should be added to the lede summarizing that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede is too long as it is TBH. Artw (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Working on tighten up the lede. Also, the lede should summarize, and the response is a large section of the article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Vice: GamerGaters Are Targeting People Who Were Victims of the Patreon Hack

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/gamergaters-are-targeting-people-who-were-victims-of-the-patreon-hack ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Second lede paragraph possible edits

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users allege unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics. They have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

Too much cutting? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Who precisely has said that the goals of Gamergate's actions were to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism? How do we know they speak for Gamergate, and not some false flag or Joe job? if someone did say this, does any reliable source consider that statement plausible? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems a common theme in writings both by and about GamerGate supporters, that the list one of the main goals as being to improve ethics in game journalism. I don;t think we need to question teh plausibility of that goal, given that the next line counters it. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: are you asking for citations? Please, note that the ethics claims are mentioned in the main body with citation. We don't put citations in the lede. "Does any reliable source consider that statement plausible?" Not really, as noted by "These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users allege unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

In further brutal editing, the actions around ethics purpose is better left in the main article, I think. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(because I fail at ping) @MarkBernstein: ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The argument that this is about ethics in game journalism - whether or not it is largely dismissed - is one of the main points offered by GamerGate supporters, and is reflected heavily in the sources. Leaving that it is ignoring a major aspect of one side of the issue. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bilby: "users allege unethical collusion" too brief? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is better than nothing, but it doesn't describe what they claim they are trying to do. That said, I'm a bit lost as to why we are further shrinking the lede. Why this push to reduce the word count? It wasn't exactly long to begin with. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Brevity is the soul of wit"? And we need to add more about the responses to the lede. I think raising the GG claim of ethics is enough. What they did is covered in the main article. I'm not committed to any particular edit. But as long as we're looking at the lede, I thought I'd suggest some stuff and see what people think. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; they used these allegations to justify the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to see the lede as providing a summary of the body. At the moment it dosen't really do that, and we're trimming it further. Given that the article is almost 9,000 words long, a 250 word lede already seems light. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This I really like. When we mention 'justify the campaign of harassment'- should we expand that somewhat to mention the email campaigns etc., or leave that to the main? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we go with something like this, I'd rather stick to the more general sources, and include the COI issues: "... Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflicts of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; ..." Otherwise, I prefer the current wording where we state the claimed goal as "They have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism." I'm not sure why that has to be removed, given that it is such a major part of what they have argued. - Bilby (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall the main body stating that ethics is used to justify harassment, but rather many sources allege that it's a front for the harassment. Just as many sources seem to argue that some gamergaters genuinely believe they are on an ethics campaign. Also this version cuts out the line about email campaigns against the gaming press, which is a widely covered aspect of gamergate. Overall I see no reason to cut the lede, most articles this size have far longer ledes. Brustopher (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflict of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; they used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. (how do you do the outdent with line thing?) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Existing paragraph for comparison Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag allege collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. Some hashtag users have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Users of the hashtag launched email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.

Not convinced including the email campaign is as relevant this far past the start of it all. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I seriously think this is the best edit to the lead I've seen yet, and I vote it be incorporated immediately as the new second paragraph.Rockypedia (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I really dont see the point of shortening the lede, it's short enough as it is. Also we can't definitively say the ethics thing is a front, because we have as many sources calling it genuine as we do calling it disingenuous. Brustopher (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we actually? Would you say that there's an even amount of sources which say that the primary focus of Gamergate is actually ethics in games journalism compared to the view that Gamergate is primarily about bitter nerds harassing people they don't like? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources don't believe it's primary (not even sources sympathetic to GG seem to think its primary). BUT there are quite a large number of sources which argue that a lot of GGers genuinely believe they are campaigners for ethics (even if they are anything but). What you're saying draws an arbitary distinction between people who think they are ethics campaigners and harassers. There's plenty of room for overlap, and quite a lot of sources acknowledge this. Brustopher (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New lede implemented

Per Rockypedia, ForbiddenRocky, and myself, and the belief that the newly proposed version addresses the concerns raised by MarkBernstein, I've gone ahead and put the two proposed paragraphs into action. I think it's an improvement- we've cut a lot of cruft out, and it should be a lot easier to see where expansion is necessary (cutting out the list of online forums gamergates use, and list of their most prominent targets, is a good example of where potential cruft has been cut.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun, here - I don't see that consensus has been reached. In addition, I still fail to see the need to change the current version - which has had better support long term - in order to reduce the word count, making the lede less effective. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reducing word count doesn't make something less effective- I argue that it makes it more efficient. What we've mostly dropped is the laundry list of gamergate targets, gamergate forums, and gamergate 'but ethics' claims, all of which are fully detailed in the main. We don't need to completely explain things in the lede- it's meant as a summary. Instead, I think if we were to expand it after this cutting (which I'd encourage) we should focus on elements in the main text that aren't summarised in the lede. What do you disagree with about the changes made that made you revert them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Bilby & Brustopher that there are issues with this proposed rewrite; particularly w.r.t the categorisation of the ethics claims - both that the rewrite straw man's a narrow "collusion" claim in place of the broader/generalised claims which are supported by the more independent sources; and that it asserts that these claims are factually "a front for harrassment", also not supported by the more independent sources - while these may be widely held views, they are not universal truths, and it is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV) for Wikipedia to assert them as fact. I further concur with Bilby that no consensus exists for these changes at this time. W.r.t the edit summary quoting a "4-2" consensus; it is not a vote. On the basis that there is no consensus for the change, and that WP:NPOV is not negotiable, I will be reverting, to allow further discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, but neither is it 'I don't like this and I will never allow any change to ever happen because I have to agree before things change'. Compromise is a two way street. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a clear improvement, but if people want a compromise, I would suggest dropping or reworking the 'they used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment' bit, which seems like the most controversial aspect. (It is sourced in the article that the people who initially coordinated what became Gamergate made a deliberate decision to use those allegations to create a palatable public narrative for their efforts to harass Quinn -- see eg. Heron, Belford, and Goker's analysis -- but it has to be worded carefully; most sources also say that this cover roped at least a few well-meaning but misguided people into the campaign as it gained steam. Also, by my reading of what they're saying, even among the people who used it as a front, it wasn't just a front for harassment; it was also used to craft a palatable public narrative by reactionary culture warriors eager to start a fight over issues like feminism, progressivism, and so on, and this aspect has a lot of attention both in sources and in the article.) The rest is clearly an improvement -- a lot of bloat and redundancy has accumulated there over time as people tried to highlight every aspect from every possible perspective, but stuff like the email campaigns are clearly pretty marginal if you look back on the whole thing from today. Breaking up the first sentence is likewise clearly an improvement; it reads awkwardly as it is. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This pretty much summarises the crux of the issue regarding ethics in the lede. It is however important to note that Heron, Belford and Goker are amongst those who thought that GG could have raised from legitimate ethics concerns if it wasnt for all the harassment. I'd also say that while the IRC origins of gamergate are definitely important in understanding it, the whole thing's been going on for months since then and has attracted a lot of other people. So we shouldn't overstate the role of the IRC in later months. Regarding email campaigns, in a lede this size it is perhaps not needed, but the lede should expand the cover all the important and major facets of Gamergate we cover in the article. We have entire major aspects like the industry response and its culmination in Intel's women in tech scheme (also the culmination of the email campaigns) which aren't touched in the lede and really should be. Brustopher (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with what Aquillion and Brustopher have to say directly above. The lede as of this writing[1] is the least bad I've ever seen it. The expectation that language as baldly partisan as the "front for harassment" bit could ever gain consensus is laughable. Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I think you jumped, the gun, but perhaps BOLD applies. I was waiting to get more input. But it's happening now. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Shortening v. detail

I really don't see why we are trying to shrink the lede. Most articles this size have far larger ledes and if anything it should be expanded. Brustopher (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's too long, and confusing to anyone who hasn't spent hours (days, weeks, etc) working on this article. I knew nothing about Gamergate and came to this article to find out what it is. After I read the lead, I was more confused than when I'd started. I realize that everyone in this discussion knows this topic inside and out. That's great, and valuable to the article, but the lead doesn't exist for the editors; it exists for the readers. Just my two cents. Rockypedia (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the lede doesn't really describe what GamerGate is - making it shorter increases the problem, rather than fixing it. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilby (and, by extension, Brustopher), my apologies, but I don't quite understand what you mean here. What sort of info about "what Gamergate is" do you find lacking? Are we talking about the "it's about ethics" claims again? It's probably because it's Friday, but I am having trouble discerning the actual outlines of this disagreement. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, when reading the current lede, you get the impression it is about harassment organised online due to a culture war claiming collision between some groups to push an social criticism agenda, and that some people see it as about ethics concerns. You know the main targets and what has been done to them, and you learn that Gamergate have been operating email campaigns and why. There's an awful lot missing, and I doubt the average reader would feel that they have any real understanding from the current lede, but at least you come away with the understanding that there is really nasty harassment, that there is a claim of collusion and why, that some people see it as about ethics, a little about what they do, and that generally these claims have been dismissed.

Reading the new version, Gamergate is just an excuse for harassment. We know that they claim collusion, but aren't told what they believe people are colluding to do; we don't know what they do other than harassment (not even the email campaigns); who is targetted (other than "feminists in the game industry"); and from what the lede says, any reasons they may present for what they do are just excuses for more harassment. I don't know what Gamergate supporters are concerned about, (maybe it is something to do with "gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition, social criticism of video games" but what remains a mystery), and my overall impression is that it is a conspiracy to excuse ongoing harassment of women.

More specifically, yes, I'm concerned that we've pulled one of their two main arguments - that Gamergate is concerned with ethics in video game journalism. Whether or not we agree with that, it is reflected in the sources, and it would seem that there is a significant portion who are genuinely concerned about that issue. Similarly, I think the claim that any concerns they have are just a front for harassment is POV, and lacks sufficient support.

This article is over 8,000 words. I'm not sure why we feel that it can be adequately summarised in 230 words, much less in 160. We should be expanding the lede to better reflect the body, rather than shrinking it. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe, as a general principle, that brevity is to be valued in leads, and that they should be as short as possible while still giving an accurate precis of the article. As such, I don't think article length is a direct correlation to length of lead; plenty of large and complex topics have relatively short leads. For me, the big question was posed above (by Brustopher, perhaps?) when he asked how we define "Gamergate controversy" for the purposes of this article. I am honestly not sure. It dramatically changes the lead if the controversy is focused on the harassment (which would be a valid definition to me), or if it is alleged unethical acts (which could also be valid). I think the most notable part of these events per the reliable sources is the harassment of late 2014, but that's certainly open to debate. Whatever the opinions, if we could come to some rough consensus on what exactly constitutes the "controversy," I think it would be helpful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My position is fairly simple- Gamergate is notable for the campaign of harassment it perpetrated, the reliable sources primarily report on this, so that's how we should describe it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is great, because yes, that is the single most widely reported aspect of Gamergate. But that's not what Gamergate is - that's just the most notable part of what happened. If you say "Gamergate led to harassment" or "Gamergate involved harassment" I'll agree with you, but I still will not know what Gamergate is about. - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilby -- that's essentially my point. If what we're really concerned about is the harassment, then we could, in theory, define Gamergate in a sentence or two and move on. Does a reader have to understand "what Gamergate is about" to understand the "Gamergate controversy?" I am honestly unsure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think they do. If I'm reading a summary about Gamergate, I would expect to be told what Gamergate is. Not knowing that seems like a pretty big hole. I'd also expect to be told of what they do - the harassment is the most notable part of that - but it isn't enough on its own. - Bilby (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And that's the source of the disagreement; to me, the "Gamergate controversy" is not necessarily a summary of Gamergate, in the same way that an article on the Watergate scandal need not include a history of the Watergate Hotel. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a summary of Gamergate. But if I want to understand what the controversy is, don;t I need to understand a little about what each side of the controversy is? The rewritten lede (and to a lesser extent the current one) gives me a very good idea that it is somehow about harassment, but I have almost no idea about anything else. The reader needs an accurate summary of the controversy, and the new lede doesn't do that, because it fails to give a picture of what is going on, and the picture it does give is an oversimplification to the point of being misleading. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilby, could you suggest a sentence here, on the talk page, that you would like to see in the lead describing what Gamergate "is"? I had kind of the same concern when I first came to this page - I didn't know what Gamergate was, not really. I think simplifying the lead actually helped. I think if you say "it made it worse and doesn't tell you what Gamergate IS", you should suggest a sentence that would remedy that. I, too, value brevity in the lead; I think it makes concepts clearer for people who are looking for introductory info on a topic. Rockypedia (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't do it if we focus on brevity over content. Look, I'm being led down a path here that isn't really what I'm arguing. What I'm trying to say is not that we need a coherent, single line definition of Gamergate. That would be nice, but I'm not convinced that it could happen. But that the rewrite and the content removed take the reader further away from understanding the issue, because by turning it into harassment only the reader is told even less about why the harassment occurred than they were before.

When writing a lede I normally work through the article - grab a bit from each section, summarise each of the main points in it, and put that together. That's not what we're doing by reducing the lede further, especially as the end result is misleading by arguing that all of Gamergate's actions are just a cover for harassment. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Explain this to me - why did the harrassment occur? Rockypedia (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

According to our article there are a number of reasons, from a backlash against political correctness; a response to perceived ethics violations in the gaming press; a reaction against the increasing diversification of gaming and the loss of the clear social identity of "gamer"; ingrained misogyny; a response to the perceived pushing of a social justice agenda into game journalism; and as a side effect of its origins on imageboards. Along with various other reasons offered. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How could anyone know what Gamergate is? Anyone can say they know what Gamergate really is, and plenty of people have used this page to tell us about their special insights into the real Gamergate, but how can we know whether they’re right or wrong? If you want to know what the Republicans really are, you ask the Republican National Committee. If you want to know what Cubs fans really are, you can go to Wrigley field and talk to 38,382 of them. You can't do that for Gamergate.

I was talking about Gamergate and Wikipedia recently with a Wiki pioneer -- someone, in fact, who was embroiled in the very first WikiWar, long before Wikipedia was ever though of. He asked if I could prove that there were more than a half a dozen active Gamergaters. I can’t -- not conclusively, not even through stylometrics or textual analysis. Some sources claim this, but we have few reasons to think they know, either. And if we don’t know that, how can we know what Gamergate really is?

We do know what Gamergate does: it sends emails and broadcasts through Wikipedia and other social media sites its intention to assault, rape, and murder women in the computing industry. As a secondary effort, they claim to boycott Gawker, to support a game development studio in Columbia, and they've been trying to take over Wikipedia through a network of brigaded and zombie accounts. All of this has been widely reported because it's observable; we know what Gamergate does because Gamergate signs its threats. We don't really have any idea what Gamergate is, or who actually sends these threats, but we do know what it does. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"We don't really have any idea what Gamergate is, or who actually sends these threats, but we do know what it does." You can't have it both ways. Rhoark (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question, anyone can know what Gamergate is by reading KiA and 8chan. You'll see the good, bad, and ugly. Anyone can do it, and it doesn't take special knowledge or membership in the movement to make editorial judgements about the available sources. As for what we should say in the article, we should report the full range of views in published reliable sources. There's no more reason to be paralyzed by epistemological anxieties at this page than at any other. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate's said several times on several sites we should be citing what it is and what people involved in it are after, but the sources have been shot down. We have statements by folks such as Cathy Young, video interviews actually debating this with prominent members of the movement, and people with multiple published articles across a swath of work such as Erik Kain...and every time it isn't a quote opposing Gamergate it gets shot down as 'unreliable', and even to the point where I've seen sources on here called 'liars' by other editors. You cannot in good conscience say "GamerGate is not telling us what it is" when several of the involved non-anonymous people have outright stated it and you dimiss their answers because it doesn't fit your perspective. With all due respect that's complete and utter nonsense, Bernstein.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede has details better left in the body. And it's not summarizing parts of the main body (e.g. responses). The fact that other things have longer summaries isn't really a good argument - that reads as "GGC's lede should be longer because it should be longer." Rather, please argue that a particular thing should be included in the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like the lede to be a better summary, but what I'm arguing against is arbitrary shortening on the argument that shortening the lede is good because it will be shorter. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured I should probably take a whack at this, since I keep talking. Here's a quick rough draft of how I think the lead should look:

[redacted per Dr. Bernstein]

Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what? This is excellent. I throw my whole-hearted support behind this summary - it tells us the main points of what Gamergate is, describes the initial harrasment, describes the excuses of "ethical behavior" and the fact that those excuses were BS, and does it all in a clear, concise manner, leaving the details to the body of the article. A reader coming to this article would have a basic understanding of the topic right away, and that's really what we want, isn't it? Rockypedia (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is incorrect - some ethics allegations were debunked, but some were correct and led to change in policies for publications. I like the first part, but it dies after that. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which ethics allegations made by gamergaters were correct and led to changes in policies for publications? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The ones that led to changes were the COI arguments regarding Hernandez in particular, or Patreon funding in general. That said, per what we have in the article, a number of commentators acknowledge that there is validity in some of the ethics concerns raised by GamerGate. They might argue that the concerns are minor, or that the harassment issues have poisoned the well, but they weren't debunked as such. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That is probably UNDUE to include in the lede. One instance out of how many attempts to make the ethics thing stick? Worthy of including in the main body, but too small a detail to include in the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask for it to be put in the lede. What I'm saying is that the statement "... equally debunked allegations more broadly against video game industry professionals as well as journalists and critics" is false, and therefore is not something we can claim. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Can you suggest an edit to fix the problem? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Harassment focussed on perceived feminists": this appears to be a circumlocution to avoid stating that specific women were specifically threatened with crippling injuries, rape, and murder. It's so much more...ethical....to say that harassment focussed on feminists -- as if it's just the harassment doing the focusing, not the criminals. I know of no allegations of unethical behavior that have been made against Zoë Quinn; if these cannot be sourced that phrase must be redacted. "Equally debunked allegations" would be more concisely described as "Additional lies." When describing the hashtag, it should be "proponents of the unfounded allegations." Who are the "such people" who became targets of abuse of threats: grammatically, this appears to mean that Gamergate proponents were targets of abuse and threats, the evidence for which is very, very thin. No one outside Gamergate associates #Gamergate with "attempted ethical critique," while the term has become a byword for harassment, bullying, and low-grade domestic terrorism -- witness, for example, the CSI SVU episode based on Gamergate crimes. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually that was a Law & Order: SVU episode. GamerPro64 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention too that one of the shows cast members, Ice T, has stated on his podcast the show adapts and heavily embellishes these plotlines for the sake of ratings. Last I checked, nobody has been kidnapped or raped by anyone in the hashtag, Bernstein, nor has the group managed to hack Time Square, let alone a light switch.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll take solace that my suggestion seemed equally unpopular all the way across the ideological spectrum! Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

At some point this subsection seems to have become vaguely muddled, but I remember someone asking what I'd like to add and why. I'd like to expand the lede, because it's incredibly hard to adequately sum up Gamergate in two small paragraphs. There are multiple aspects of it which the proposed shortened lede doesn't cover at all. We've got nothing on what Gamergate does outside of harassment, (e.g. email campaigns, notyourshield/TFYC stuff). We also don't explain where this whole Gamergate thing came from and what sparked this whole mess. There is also nothing about the effect Gamergate has had on the gaming industry (Intel's multimillion diversity program and stuff like that), or on online harassment prevention (Katherine Clark, Crash Override etc.). These are all things would should be mentioned in a full and adequate summary to explain what Gamergate is and why it warrants a Wikipedia article. Brustopher (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems tremendously overdone for a lead. All the reactions you mention, to me, belong in the article but are out of place in the lead. I believe the lead is intended to be a basic summation, but that does not mean it includes every detail in the article. It seems you would like to recreate the entire article in the lead. Come to think of it, have you every read On Exactitude in Science? Just curious. Of course, if the consensus is that we should have a much longer lead, so be it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think due to the sheer complexity of the subject, a longer lead isn't going to be a bad thing in any way. Keeping sentences to the point and straightforward will prevent bloat, but it should at the same time cover all the bases such as what Brushtopher mentioned above. From there it can congeal. I would be lying if I said I wasn't pleased that the current form still goes out of its way to ignore any supportive articles and instead focuses on statements of harassment, but that's still an issue with the article as a whole.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's a complex subject. But is it more complex, say, than The Thirty Years' War? I am not in any way saying we should excise information from the article (not right now, anyway!). But to give someone unfamiliar with the subject a basic outline, is it necessary to go in to the creation of Crash Override? For me, the answer is "Dear heaven no!" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Thirty Years War failed a Good Article review in 2008 due to not having a detailed enough lede. Also I'm not necessarily advocating mentioning Crash Override in the lede, but instead discussing more generally how various schemes to tackle harassment arose out of the controversy. I do think it is however to note that one of these schemes reached the US congress. Brustopher (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher--fair enough! I still think brevity is called for. In my opinion, the basics of gamergate and its first order effects are not that large or complex. I tried my hand (unsuccessfully, I admit!) at crafting a lead. Why not attempt it yourself? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I probably should do that instead of just complaining about other people's proposals. I promise to stop being lazy and come up with something Soon™. Brustopher (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The priority here is not brevity, but clarity. If brevity means providing a less effective summary, then it isn't brevity that we should be striving for. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Bilby, I believe we should strive for brevity above all else. With that in mind, I'd like feedback on my latest draft of the lead, which you can find here:

"G."

Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of the Reader's Digest version of War and Peace - "The once was a Russian who tried to kill Napoleon, but didn't." - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Working on the Lede

Proposed Edit: The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most notable for a campaign of misogynistic harassment against feminists in the video game industry. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, of mass shooting, and of murder.

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflict of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; some of these users used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

Concerns:

1. Arbitrary shortening. Comments from @Bilby, Duzumid, and Aquillion:

2. "a front for harassment" Comments from @Ryk72, Rhoark, Bilby, Brustopher, and Aquillion:

3. Regarding email campaigns, in a lede this size it is perhaps not needed, but the lede should expand the cover all the important and major facets of Gamergate we cover in the article. Comments from @PeterTheFourth, Brustopher, Aquillion, and Bilby:

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: Arbitrary shortening: I think there is cruft in the lede that needs removing. I thought removing as much as possible and adding things back as people suggested would work. Some of the removals I am suggested have not been objected to, so I think that's working to some extent.

Re 2: "a front for harassment": I'm open to other phrasing, but I don't think this idea is too far from what we say in the main body.

Re 3: email campaign: I think this is not a detail to keep in the lede. There's a lot of detail not in the lede, justifying keeping this opens the door to adding many other details better left in the body.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the draft. Two things jump out at me: (1) I would personally leave out the sentence starting with "The campaign of harassment was coordinated...." and include a sentence or two about the Zoe post and the beginning of things. It strikes me as more important to talk about where this came from as opposed to the methods of coordination. (2) Instead of "Some of these users used these allegations as a front...." I would, again, just for myself, frame it more objectively. "These allegations were widely seen as a front...." or something to that effect. The 'some' language sounds to me like we can distinguish said "users" from the others, and for me, at least, that's impossible. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ForbiddenRocky, Please add me to the lists at point 1 & 3. I share the concerns articulated by Bilby, Brustopher & Kung Fu Man w.r.t these points. I also suggest that they are interlinked, in that selective removal of information from the lead section evokes concerns about neutrality; there is an unbalanced focus and an implicit support for one side of the controversy in what has been proposed.
I also have (previously articulated) concerns on the it is most notable... phrasing, which (ab)uses a Wikipedia term of art; we would be better served by using plain English here. And similar concerns on the It concerns phrasing, which doesn't seem to say much useful to the reader; a conjugation of the verb to be and a noun would be preferable in the initial sentence. These are, of course, also issues with the current lead section, and you may decide if they deserve a fourth or fifth point.
In terms of aspects of the controversy that I believe should be included in the lead section, I again concur with thoughts of Bilby & Brustopher, but also suggest that there should be some, brief, mention of the "Death of Gamers" articles and the 8 million tweets.
Finally, w.r.t point 2, the issue is not with including this, but with stating it in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:NPOV. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I endorse the "campaign of harassment" wording and would deplore in the strongest terms any attempt to minimize the widespread employment of #Gamergate to harass many women by emphasizing only he first victim. The "some users" language seems to be a fairly transparent effort to claim that Gamergate isn't responsible for its actions: if Gamergate wished to disavow the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Day, and many many others, it had ample opportunity to do so. Instead, it launched a year-long PR campaign to justify and excuse those attacks. Until we can point to a consensus of reliable sources reporting that people writing as #Gamergate opposed harassment and tried to stop it, "some users" is an entirely unjustified effort to excuse a failed criminal conspiracy because some of the conspirators pretend, a year later, that they didn’t agree. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, I am assuming the suggestion you are deploring is mine, but if so, you seem to have misapprehended it. I, too, endorse the "campaign of harassment" language. You'll note that it appears twice in ForbiddenRocky's draft. I just don't think the fact that said campaign was coordinated on 4chan and IRC is particularly worthy of inclusion in the lead. I do think the nascence of the 'movement' merits inclusion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Not sure how to get around "some users". The metonymic and polysemetic use of Gamergate for the controversy and many of the users of the hashtag needs to teased apart in some places. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Some culling was in order but the real problem is the lede is still not doing a good job of explaining things. Here's my take:

The Gamergate controversy is an ongoing set of cultural debates, as well as the online harassment and threats of violence that these debates have motivated. At issue are sexism in video gaming, the status of video games as art, and rules of conduct for video game journalism. The controversy is most widely known for threats of violence directed at game developer Zoe Quinn and critic Anita Sarkeesian, among other individuals. The term "Gamergate" was coined by actor Adam Baldwin in August 2014 as a Twitter hashtag critical of Zoe Quinn and perceived social justice warriors, and its proponents also make use of Reddit and 8chan to discuss and organize. Users of the hashtag describe its purpose as being a watchdog for journalism ethics and freedom of expression, while critics describe Gamergate as a reactionary and anti-feminist campaign. Some critics allege that other supposed concerns serve only as a distraction to excuse misogynist harassment. The degree to which a typical user of the hashtag is involved in or culpable for harassment is a subject of dispute.

Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, thank you for the suggestion. As you might guess, I have some issues, but let me start with two thoughts. Is the term "debates" really appropriate? I know what you mean, but to me, that implies a reasoned back-and-forth, which does not accord with my experience. Argument, contretemps, shouting match, sure. Secondly, I would suggest that you find a better term or phrase to use than "social justice warriors." At best it's a bit of insular argot, and at worst, an ideological dog whistle. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to synonyms for either, though in the case of SJW's that's from Baldwin's own words so least in peril of misrepresenting his intent. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with the debate framing. And with the UNDUE over-detail re: Baldwin. And with using SJW is not informative at this level of summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, not sure why need to mention Reddit and 8chan etc at this level of detail. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, ForbiddenRocky, for your work in putting together a lede that more accurately summarises the Gamergate controversy. I think Dumuzid's suggestion of changing the phrasing of 'some of these users used these allegations as a front' to 'these allegations were widely seen as a front for' is a good one, and flows better into the later sentence on trivial, conspiracy theories, etc. Again: thanks for the effort. It's not exactly easy working in this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shifting from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion is a necessary one, but the sourcing is still weak to say it was "widely" seen as such. The interpretation that ethics were overshadowed by harassment is much more common in the reliable sources than the view that it was a ploy. It should not shift at all into those further statements about level of acceptance in the lede, inasmuch as there are many claims with many levels of acceptance that are too dense to unpack in the lede. Rhoark (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It mostly seems like an improvement to me, but I am not 100% certain about removing the mention of Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian -- especially Quinn, who is mentioned prominently in the vast majority of sources and covered by a large portion of the article in terms of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty I'm having with including Quinn et al is similar to MarkBernstein's: it leaves some impression in the lede that it was only these three women. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

More Lede: Working Forwards or Backwards

I feel like we're working backwards - trying to work out what needs to be removed, rather than working out what needs to be said. Towards that end, as far as I can tell the main points in the article are:

1. History
   1. Quinn and Sarkeesian were victims of harassment before Gamergate started
   2. A series of allegations about a developers' private life were released by an ex-boyfriend
   3. Some used those to incorrectly infer a conflict of interest between the developer and a journalist, leading to further online harassment, including doxing and rape and death threats and forced her to leave her home
      1. These allegations of a conflict of interest were soundly disproven
   4. Various publications chose not to cover the allegations or to close discussions, leading to complaints of censorship
   5. "Gamers are Dead" articles led to claims of conspiracy and collusion between journalists
   6. Baldwin coined the term "gamergate" to describe alleged censorship and conflict of interest claims
   7. The harassment was widely condemned, but some of those who spoke out (Phil Fish) became targeted.
      1. When Sarkeesian released a video during this process she was further targeted
      2. Sarkeesian cancelled a speech after threats of a gun massacre were made if she spoke
      3. Brianna Wu was targeted with death and rape threats, and had to leave her home
      4. Felicia Day was targeted after speaking out
   8. Some Gamergate supporters have also been harassed and threatened
      1. This includes bomb threats on at least two occasions
2. Coordination
   1. No core leaders/spokespeople
   2. Coordinated on 8Chan, Reddit, Twitter
   3. Group is not clearly defined - has conflicting goals and ideals. No mission statement, etc
   4. Some self policing occurred, kicked off 4Chan, moved to 8Chan
   5. Appears to have been initially coordinated through IRC
   6. Large activity on Twitter
   7. Harassment opposed by some Gamergate supporters
3. Implications
   1. Seen as a culture war against diversification of gaming to involve more women
      1. Increasing number of women buying games led to increased criticism of game design
      2. Targets have generally been women over men
   2. Driven by anti-feminist ideologies
   3. Exploited by some right wing and conservative individuals and groups
   4. Led to increased accusations of sexism and misogyny within Gamergate and gaming
      1. Again points to targeting of women over men
   5. FBI is investigating threats
4. Ethics claim
   1. Supporters claim Gamergate is about improving ethics in game journalism
      1. Concerns about conflict of interest between developers and journalists
      2. Claims regarding collusion between journalists (GameJournoPros)
      3. Allegations journalists are unethically focusing on progressive social issues over traditional gaming concerns
   2. Some argue that there are valid concerns, but lost in the harassment
   3. Some draw a contrast between the actions (harassment etc) and the claimed ethics focus
   4. Ethics concerns are often dismissed as minor (conflicts of interest) or not unethical
   5. Some claim that the ethics concerns are a cover, and the real issue is to do with the focus on progressive social issues, not ethics
5. Activities
   1. Harassment over Twitter, email, etc
   2. Dehumanising of some targets ("Literally Who")
   3. Support of Fine Young Capitalists for PR
   4. Created #NotYourShield to claim diversity and broad support
   5. Targeted advertisers of selected publications through email campaigns with varying success
6. Responses
   1. Condemnation from some professionals in industry
      1. Open letter, ESA response, Blizzard, etc
   2. Formation of Crash Override Network and Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
   3. Clarification of policies for Kotaku and Polygon due to COI concerns
   4. Congressional briefing and calls for the justice department to crack down on online harassment
   5. Episode of Law & Order: SVU
   6. Sarkeesian named in Time
   7. Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies
   8. Criticism of Twitter, role of WAM
   9. Documentaries, other mainstream coverage

Clearly it would be foolish to cover all of that. But, presuming nothing major is missed out from my list, we need to know which points are the ones that are significant enough to make the lede. (I should note that the article needs work on structure - we have a tendency to repeat the same point, mostly concerning harassment, even in sections where they don't fit the points being raised).

I'm thinking:

• Harassment is constantly raised, and is the main focus of the article, so should remain the core part of the lede. Harassment of GG supporters is only mentioned briefly, so might regard a passing reference, but doesn't warrant a lot of focus. Death and rape threats are raised repeatedly.
• Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu are covered a lot in the article, so probably should make the lede as principal targets.
• Organisation - lack of a leader, clack of a clear mission, conflicting goals and coordination over 8Chan, Twitter and Reddit - are covered in some depth.
• The culture war issue is covered a lot, so needs to be highlighted. As does the anti-feminism, or anti-social criticism, and the tendency to target women
• We mention a few times that the ethics issues may have been valid, but are lost in the harassment, so I don't feel we can dismiss them in the lede. However, we still should emphasis that they are seen as minor at best.
• Responses, in particular US Congress and professional responses.

Thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I like this approach. I did it the other way because I thought it started with what was there and might be less controversy prone. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The ethics issues were never more than an excuse and fig leaf for harassment. No reliable source considers them to be "valid", most consider them a risible excuse for bullying, misogyny, and domestic terrorism. If they are mentioned in the lede at all, it must be unambiguously clear that the specific allegations against Gamergate targets were false and the general allegations about ethical lapses were unfounded. Despite the current clamor at Gamergate HQ to rewrite the article to be more favorable to Gamergate, and despite the scars that Gamergate has inflicted on the current lede, it’s the result of a lot of work and it's still a good place to start. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Elections, Trudeau, Gamergate

I ran across this tidbit as I was following the Canadian Elections: “The things we see online, whether it is issues like gamergate or video games misogyny in popular culture, it is something that we need to stand clearly against.” from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/justin-trudeau-the-self-declared-feminist-and-pro-choice-prime-minister-of-canada-who-wants-to-a6700976.html

I looked for more information, but I'm not sure if I'm getting limited search results because I'm not in Canada. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)