Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Kickstarter Image vs. vandalism image

JohnnyMrNinja removed the Kickstarter image without discussion and inserted the screenshot of the vandalised biography in its place; that insertion has now twice been reverted.

The image of the vandalised biography is available in the sources cited, as well as in List of Wikipedia controversies, and given that this is a biography, it seems somewhat inappropriate to include it here. I propose we stick with the Kickstarter image, which has longstanding consensus.

After changing the picture, JohnnyMrNinja also flagged the Kickstarter image for speedy deletion. That seems rather hasty. The Kickstarter image has been widely reproduced in the media, has been in this article for the best part of a year, and was removed from this article without discussion. In a case like this, the image should not be speedied quite so quickly. Andreas JN466 02:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andreas. This is Sarkeesian's biography, so the retaliation against her is certainly relevant. However, the fact of her initiating the Tropes v. Women Kickstarter and the broad scope of the retaliation need to be given far, far more weight here than the vandalism to her Wikipedia page, which, after all, was only a teensy bit of that retaliation. Even if the whole article were about the Kickstarter episode I'd argue against the use of the image on those grounds. A fortiori, since the subject of this article is Sarkeesian's life and career, the image should not be used here as it is much less illustrative of the topic than the Kickstarter image.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this logic. As WP editors, things which happen on WP can seem more important to us than things which happen elsewhere, but it's important to bear in mind that it was but one part of a far broader campaign. Euchrid (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The image has been listed for deletion (again). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Harassment campaign

There was no logical form to the organization of that discussion. I rearranged it so that the references (and the points which they actually introduce) are in chronological order so that it more accurately reflects the events as they were reported (and re-reported). A bulleted form makes this easier to understand, easier to verify and discuss, and easier to understand the progress of ideas. It was otherwise much too lumped together, especially consider the large about of references used. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It could use some work, but I've reverted your changes as they weren't really an improvement. Most importantly, bullets are bad prose and should be avoided in favor of a readable overview. The edit additionally mangled some of the wording. We don't need to list out the individual forms of harassment, and there's no real need to put them in the chronological order in which they were reported, as several of the sources discuss several at once.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that Cuchullain is not only expressing a preference, but our rules--we always want prose when possible, per WP:PROSE. Contrary to your assertion, Ranze, the chronology is not what's important; rather, it's the overall set off events. Now, it is possible that the section could use some editing, but going away from prose is almost never the right plan. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That is easy to resolve - just remove the bullet points. I've restored the attributions of opinions to their respective authors, which are required per WP:NEWSBLOG. Diego (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted part of that as even without the bullets, the edits introduce a lot of mangled or unclear phrasing and a lot of unnecessary red links, and overemphasize the various types of harassment. For example, it says that Helen Lewis "reported that she was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters", but this sounds like Lewis is the one being harassed, not Sarkeesian. Other lines are even worse, such as "Her Wikipedia article was repeatedly vandalized with images of sex acts, which she complained about[15] until it got news exposure.[16] [17]" Huh? Additionally, the fixation on describing things chronologically when the sources do not creates some awkward backtracking, such as "Helen Lewis of The New York Times (who had written earlier about her on New Statesman)", which is unnecessary detail. And the edit added a new source from Destructoid, a blog that has been discussed and rejected repeatedly here. Finally, while it's good to list the authors, few if any of the sources are opinion pieces and several are not newsblogs, so we don't need to overdo it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the timeline

The Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment section states "On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games." The article goes on to list forms of harassment Anita suffered immediately after the campaign was launched, including the video game made about her. The next section, titled reaction, states "Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $150,000 to her project"

The video game was made after Anita received the money. The reasons given by the maker of the game are: "Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $160,000," followed by some crude language. His statement, found here [1], gives the impression that he is upset with Anita for using sympathy to collect $160 000. That's quite different (still inappropriate, obviously) from someone making such a game just because she launched a kickstarter campaign about women in video games.

I believe the two sections should be edited to include the following: Upon receiving $160 000 in donations, after making the online harassment she suffered public, criticism of her (or just "the harassment"?) intensified, prompting one person to create a video game of her getting beaten until her face becomes bloody.

Perhaps the wording could be modified. Any edit that accurately portrays the facts will be a welcome improvement to the article.Will McRoy (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This does seem like a needed change; I hadn't realized the timeline was off. I'd personally change the first part of the sentence to "The Kickstarter campaign raised over %160,000, and also resulted in Sarkeesian being harassed online. After she made the harassment publish, criticism of her...." Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It could use some work, but as above, we don't need to be absolutist with the chronology, since the sources largely aren't. We could say something like "After the Kickstarter was announced Sarkeesian was subjected to harassment such as x, x, and x. She documented examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $150,000 to her project. This further enraged her harrassers; on man made a game..." I'll take a stab at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cuchullain and Qwyrxian; it wouldn't be correct to say that the harassment happened "upon receiving $160,000 in donations", as much of it happened before that (and many of the sources explicitly say that that's probably why she got so much funding). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Cuchullain's edit works wellWill McRoy (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Making the timeline clear would be important. This was more a series of escalations where Sarkeesian would respond, then some trolls would go further, she would respond again and so forth. Surely there are sources making the sequence of events clear.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only important if our sources consider it so. We're probably devoting more than enough space to the different kinds of harassment as it is; the sources usually only give it a sentence or two in a longer article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up

Her next video just came out, so I'm sure we can expect some vandalism; let's keep an eye out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed.

The statements here could arguably be deleted from the history, because they make patently false claims about both this Wikipedia article and the subject, who is a living person, and thus protected by WP:BLP. Either discuss what is actually stated in the article, and make suggestions based on reliable sources, or stop the conversation. Further disruption will result in blocks or protection of this talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This reads like the same kind of nonsense that Anita was putting out in her press releases trying to generate a storm in a teacup. The amazing atheist has exhaustively debunked a lot of her claims, citing some solid sources. Not to mention the entire kickstarter section fails to mention she raised nearly a quarter of a million on and offline and has only released a single video in two years. Wikipedia isn't for propaganda. If you go to 4chan to try and 'troll the internet' then get trolled back you can't then go bawwing and trying to pretend it was anything more than ships passing in the night seeing an easy target who would take extreme offense with minimal effort--the MO of most trolls online, naturally--and going for it. This reads like it was written by some elderly journalist who doesn't know what the internet is. The kind who prefixes the word 'troll' with "internet trolls" and other fuddy duddy things. :/ BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Please either provide reliable sources that cover things we have not already covered, or kindly keep your opinions (and they are that--your opinions) to yourself. As a side note, she's released 3 videos so far based off of the crowdfunding. And if you watch them you'll see (in my opinion) that they demonstrate an extreme attention to detail, basically equivalent to that which would go into an academic journal article. And writing 3 high quality journal articles in 2 years is not an unusual pace for an academic. But, of course, I digress, because now I'm the one talking about things that don't belong on this talk page. I'm making a point, in case that escapes any one. So, BP or anyone else, as always--sources, or there's nothing to be done here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) TAA is a bastard, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. 112.213.168.173 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC) ...also doesn't mean that he's an acknowledged expert. So, no, he can't be used as a source for this article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The article is not neutral, it is biased because it says all male gamers are rapist, misogynistic and female gamers are always innocent victims and can't do any harm like male players. Ergo there needs to be a criticism section of her from the Men's moment perspective. --124.169.215.165 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) You must be reading a version of the article hosted on a different site as the one on here doesn't include such statements. I suggest you go and complain to that site. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC) That is why I said it needs to be balanced. I know we are making the argument that whether or not all feminist are misandrist but she states in her video vlogs that both all abusers are male and that all victims are female. It appears to be leaning on only one side which leaves her equality to be questionable. --124.169.215.165 (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The only remark the article has about the contents of the videos is, "the video series Tropes vs. Women, which examines tropes in the depiction of women in popular culture." Kindly read the article properly and refrain from giving your opinion on the contents of her videos as this is not a forum. --NeilN talk to me 06:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Since neither this article nor any of Sarkeesian's videos say any of those things, it's clear that 124.168.215.165 is either intentionally trolling, or has never bothered to either read this article or watch any Sarkeesian's work. So there's nothing to discuss here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) It's sort of cute though.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I will have you know I have both seen her videos and read the Wikipedia article before I started to argue over what she believes. --124.169.215.165 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Video series as separate article

Amidst Truthiness's ranting on his own personal opinions above, there was one point I felt worthy of consideration: splitting out Tropes vs Women in Video Games into its own article. How do others feel? I think that the series probably has enough independent notability to have its own page, but I'm a little worried about duplication--Sarkeesian's notability isn't only from the events related to TvW, but much of it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a broader scope of the Tropes vs. Women series in general would be more useful. I don't think there's great danger of either subject failing WP:N independently. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there enough academic coverage aside from the reaction it generated to create such an article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Academic coverage is not a requirement to have an article; otherwise, we wouldn't have articles on the vast majority of tv shows, entertainers, sports players, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So what coverage do you propose to use? I haven't looked that hard but we have barely a paragraph on it here and most of the non-bloggy stuff focuses on the preceding controversy and is light on discussing the video series itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this would be helpful as of yet. Most of the media coverage remains tied to lingering effects of the harassment campaign (including the positive responses to it) rather than discussing the contents of the videos, and that can be dealt with as well here as at an independent article. I think we run the risk of half-assing two duplicative articles when we could just improve the one. And of considering the BLP maintenance issue this article has been, I wouldn't want to give the haters a second target unless we were going to make it really good. I don't think we're there yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

ahem

I think it should be noted that she has been critized her being called an "academic" video series when in fact she refused to cite sources on her videos, and she has taken video footage from let's players not mentioning them (should point out the irony they are guys who made the let's plays) oh and she didn't tell them. It is clear she has some unethical practices, oh and lets not forget about the fact that she went to 4Chan in order to stir up trouble, why is there not a controversy line for her. Why does she get special treatment, she does wrong, why is she getting a free pass?

I am not bring this up because she is a feminist, no, I bring this up because gender doesn't excuse deplorable tactics. Then again its clear she has played the victim card so much people think she is one....oh how sad.

76.178.136.203 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPSTYLE, in particular, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). Wikipedia has a guideline about identifying reliable sources. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a single source for any of these claims? Euchrid (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if these qualify as sources: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html http://www.dailydot.com/society/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-backlash/ Anyways I think a section characterizing criticism against her would be notable. BerserkerBen (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. The blog clearly does not meet WP:IRS, but based on two previous discussions at WP:RSN (1, 2), I think The Daily Dot article by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw and the two by Kevin Baker at the same site approach the RS standard. The Daily Dot is a professional online publication and the writers are paid. However, the points made by the authors (that comments are disabled on YouTube, and that the subject DID NOT post pictures of Gucci shoes) seem pretty weak tea to label "criticism", IMHO. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So your saying we should not post any of it then? Facts like she does not cite sources or has disable youtube comments are just that, facts, they should not needed to be cited by anyone to state on wikipeida. But I guess your saying we have to wait until a paid journal cites her use of other peoples videos as source material before posting it? BerserkerBen (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've drawn no such conclusion as User:BerserkerBen infers. I've thanked that user for sources, offered a personal opinion The Daily Dot is the first arguably critical source I've seen presented which meets the standard for inclusion in a BLP such as this. I took the liberty of tacking on my views on the content of the DD's reporting on the subject. That Sarkeesian didn't post pictures of shoes isn't biting critique of her positions (and isn't critical of her at all, instead pointing out trolling behavior from one of her detractors), so this RS reporting has no business being included in the article, except to verify continued trolling behaviors on the part of her critics. Neither of the other two DD articles make critique of her positions either, instead reporting that comments are not allowed on her own YouTube posts and no longer allowed on her TED Talks video. These choices are discussed in the RS DD articles, but don't themselves indict or criticize her views as expressed in her videos to date. I could see these sources eventually used supporting statements discussing criticism of the subject, but in my own personal opinion, don't warrant inclusion by themselves. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We can also glean "facts" about her clothing choice or how many times she says the word "the", but we require reliable sources to say that's important. Personally, I find it laughable that people demand she cite sources or allow comments when plenty of other YouTubers don't. But that's just my opinion and, like yours, it doesn't warrant inclusion in the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Their is no need for us to "glean" about her use of other people's videos to construct her own. There is in fact legitimate criticism of her work out there, not just rabid mindless trolling. Now stating she "closed comments on her youtube videos" or that "she does not cite sources" are not judgmental statements: anyone can "glean" what ever they want from them, we would not be telling people what meaning they should derive from these facts. We would be merely presenting these facts as is. BerserkerBen (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

But until a reliable source comments on these facts, asserting that they mean something, then it is inappropriate emphasis on our part to do so, since it implies that these facts are somehow meaningful. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Using the source was discussed here. I am slightly leaning towards thinking we should include something about being criticized for not allowing comments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning the same way (barely). I agree that a sentence mentioning the criticism User:NeilN describes above could be included, and I'd submit the two DD articles as RS citation. I'd like more, but I'd accept those two. BusterD (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Presuming that you are referring to the Daily Dot piece, it doesn't criticise Sarkeesian. It notes that there was some criticism of her, but mostly the article criticises the critics. - Bilby (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot pieces don't criticize her, I agree. The last one does document criticism of the disabling of comments on both her videos and the TED channel. This documented criticism might be argued to deserve bare mention. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how her disabling of YouTube comments because of commenter behavior is a criticism of her work. If it's so bad and/or off the mark, why isn't this being critiqued in RS that can then be used on WP? Because YouTube comments are simply not the medium for actual critiques. Cap020570 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Some things I think need to be considered:

1. Commenting was stopped because she received death and rape threats in the comments section of her videos. It should probably be mentioned in the second or third paragraph of the Kickstarter Campaign section because saying "she wont allow me to publicly threaten to rape her" is not a criticism of anything
2. Who the hell on youtube cites any sources ever? And while she doesn't directly post sources, what she does say is all pretty easily verified by a 5 second search on google, or godforbid wikipedia (in the sense that, in her video on Bechdel Test at the Oscars, no she does not link to a source that specifically lists off Oscar movies that do or do not pass the Bechdel test, you can easily find out looking it up or watching them yourself)
3. Literally every comment that mentions her using other people's "lets play" videos completely and totally misunderstands what the point of the kickstarter campaign was even about. She clearly was not planning on raising 6 grand to buy and play a bunch of video games, and certainly not for something she doesn't draw a salary from. It was almost definitely so that she could pay someone to do those nice fancy graphics and more money means "I can do this professionally, rather than just whenever I have time off from work". To the trolls reading this, did you notice that the last few videos included more (and better) graphics and included a lot more information past "here are a bunch of games with terrible presentations of women"? Did you spend any time at all thinking about why that might be? Because the answer is that this has become what she does as a job, rather than a "whenever I get the time" kind of thing. Seriously, you are making yourselves look even stupider then when you demand to be able to make public rape/murder threats. Which is actually kind of impressive, I'll grant you.

tl;dr: people are stupid and I'm irritable today.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, Hamilton-wiki, but your comments above also violate WP:NOTFORUM. I don't know how to explain this to everyone: we are not here to comment on her videos, or to comment on the comments to her videos. This is not a place to either attack or defend Sarkeesian (though, of course, attacking is worse as it crosses over into WP:BLP). I think that from now on we should keep either collapsing or deleting every comment in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. We don't want this talk page to be yet another front in the troll vs. academic battle surrounding her. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess my problem with stating this has to do with the value of the criticism. Using the Daily Dot article, yes, she was criticised for disabling comments, but as it points out, this didn't prevent people from engaging with her, and the comments had to be disabled on her TED video because of the attacks that followed. If we mention that she was criticised for disabling comments on YouTube, we also need to balance that by saying that the validity of the criticism was questioned. Alternatively we need to question whether or not it is worth raising this as criticism at all. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that your desire to question the validity is original research. It's not our job to question what RS say; the fact is that an RS reported that people criticized her removal of the ability to comment on the videos. People keep coming here and telling us we should include criticism, and we say "only when that criticism is reported in reliable sources". This is exactly that: criticism reported in a reliable source. Now, we could conceivably provide context that is in that article; something like "In response to repeated rape and death threats, Sarkeesian disabled comments on her Youtube videos; some internet writers criticized her for this and claimed that she was limiting the ability for people to respond critically to her work." Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the validity of the criticism, although yes, I do think it is invalid. The main source we're referring to, the Daily Dot article, is questioning the validity of the criticism. That said, it isn't OR to question the due weight we give to criticism, it is only OR to make our own conclusions in the article about the criticism. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. By reporting the (idiotic) criticism here, we risk giving it an air of legitimacy it probably doesn't deserve, given that no reliable source has made it. (The Daily Dot doesn't actually make the criticism, just reports on it and defends Sarkeesian.) So I think if we're to report on it at all, we need to include the criticism of the criticism in the Daily Dot article. I think Qwyrxian's sentence is a perfect start, but needs to be accompanied by a short comment stating the (obvious) point that critics were still able to respond to the video. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to put criticism, any criticism in the article? 'Obviously, she's wrong.' Jim1138 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot source does not need to be used as criticism of Sarkeesian. It's commentary about the harassment campaign and can be placed at the "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" section. Given that it's the main topic of an article by a reliable source, I think one sentence properly summarizing the article gives this commentary its proper weight. Qwyrxian's sentence is thus adequate and should be included. Diego Moya (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do want to state bluntly that I see no reason that anybody should consider the fact that she disabled comments as worthy of criticism, unless you consider, "Nyah, nyah, girly-girl bitches can't take the heat, hiding from us manly men like a girly coward!!!!" a biting critique of lack of intellectual courage. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree that Sarkeesian disabling comments on YouTube is about as noteworthy as Roger Penrose not using Twitter as a source of peer review. DonQuixote (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is such a non-story that it's sad we're even debating including it. Even Qwyrxian's valiant attempt doesn't make this workable, as it doesn't accurately reflect the source. Hunter, Don, et al have it right, the source (which is still just one source commenting on this one point of blog "criticism") essentially just says, "Sarkeesian disabled Youtube comments after previous death threats, and some irrelevant blog 'critics' have honed in on this one meaningless point to accuse her of 'censorship'; however, there's nothing to it as it hasn't stopped vigorous discussion about the videos in other forums. When it's framed like that, it becomes obvious this is extremely weak tea and has no place in an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't bend over backward to include such trivial points for the sake of including "criticism" in the article.

Why are we event bother discussing this rather than the half dozen at least other pieces Daily Dot has run on Sarkeesian, several of which actually discuss her work?[2][3][4][5] There are various other reliable sources now available as well.[6][7][8] As with anything we need to consider due weight above noise level in deciding what to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing post containing substantial violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG and responses to it. Comments need to be about specific article improvements, not general discussion of the article subject or soapboxing. Repeated violations will be considered disruptive and handled accordingly.--Cúchullain t/c 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

{{archive top=:There are a few ridiculous arguments here. 1) That "other YouTube vids don't cite source so who cares" negates the fact this isn't some amateur production. This is a professional gig, she was paid...to the tune of $150k. Nobody forced her to make a Kickstarter, she asked people for money- those people has the reasonable right to expect some level of professionalism. They probably also expected someone who labelled their site "Conversations with pop culture" to allow for, you know...conversations. Even if we take the possibility of threats as a valid reason to disable comments (has anyone who threatened rape on YouTube ever followed through with it? Or why she openly has a Twitter account where people can make also send her rape threats) it doesn't explain disabling RATINGS. You can't threaten to kill someone with a thumbs down. The people who funded this have the right to know if it was popular and thus worth their money. 2) On the Daily Dot being a reliable source. DD is currently deemed a reliable source on >100 Wikipedia articles. It's a site with paid writers, and if anything it's PRO-Anita: not only do they take her side in the comments disabling, at least one of their writers admits in another article that she's a contributor to Anita's site. Even then, they actually reported on the criticisms. If a site that has (even a slight) bias towards her brought them up, why can't we neutrally say it? 3) They can talk about it other places. This is a series released specifically FOR YOUTUBE, it's not insane to think the conversation with pop culture should take place on the medium with built-in comment system it was released on. Anita doesn't have control on if people can comment on it via other social media, etc. The two places she has control over (her site her YT vid) she doesn't allow it. Just because people can talk about homosexuality in America doesn't provide a valid reason to overlook Putin banning it in Russia. She took money from the public, and she blocks the public's ability to do anything as simple as thumbs up/down everywhere she has the power to. 4) If it's not worth our time mentioning, why IS it worth our time to mention that it was briefly removed due to the autonomous nature of YouTube's flagging system? Anti-feminist videos (as well as vids on a wide variety of topics) have experienced the same thing, sadly it's not uncommon. FYI I'm all for providing criticisms on the content (positive & negative) from reliable sources. In fact, a lot of the stuff on her page is about this project and not her, we should probably discuss moving most of that page to an article dedicated to the video series and focus this article on the actual subject (Anita) and reduce this page to brief mentions of the project & major controversies. --TheTruthiness (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your commentary, but YouTube comments and ratings are academically unimportant so the lack thereof has no encyclopaedic value. Sorry about that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC) YouTube ratings are mentioned in several articles (Friday (Rebecca Black song) to name one) so there is encyclopedic value. Sorry about that. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The unfortunate Rebecca Black is an product of YouTube; otherwise, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It should be noted that Sarkeesian is an academic; when she says, "Conversations with pop culture", she isn't talking about comments in social media, she means "conversation" in the weighty and pretentious manner that academia uses the term: i.e., hermeneutics, where one "engages in a conversation with the text". --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The problem with the article as written is that it makes it look like harassment and misogynistic comments are the only reaction that was made by the world at large after Anita published the financed videos; which is clearly not true, and not the only thing that reliable sources are describing. It's true that few or none reliable sources have commented on the "Tropes vs Women", but that shouldn't prevent us from including other commentaries made by reliable sources.

Excluding all other kind of commentary from reliable sources as "undue weight" only because it doesn't get the same volume as the analysis of harassment is creating a biased perspective of what RSs are commenting upon. We have feature stories like [9] reporting that several female professional writers are not always evaluating Sarkeesians' work under a not-strictly-positive light (Myers is but one analyst of many noticing the existence of non-harassing criticism of Saarkesian; there are many others of different reliability making similar claims). Others like the Daily Dot had noted the negative reactions upon Sarkeesian blocking comments and judging how the money raised with the Kickstarter campaign was used. Surely those are not direct criticism of the work itself, but the're still points of view that have been documented by reliable sources, and as such they should have some level of coverage to comply with neutrality requirements, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Diego Moya (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording can be improved but the article already contains substantial material on other reactions (the fact that supporters donated $160k, that the harassment generated discussion in the media, and that it led to speaking engagements. In reality few real sources, out of the dozens that have discussed Sarkeesian and her project, mention insignificant ephemera like turning off her Youtube comments. Even the Daily Dot piece that mentions the Youtube comments goes on to say there's nothing much to it. The article doesn't need to become a list of every single point that has ever come up in the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That argument runs against WP:NOTPAPER. There's no reason why we can't include all coverage made by RSs in feature articles. It's not up to us to second-guess RSs assessment of what's relevant to the topic. Deliberately excluding reported points of view will bias the article. Diego Moya (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely up to us to exercise editorial judgement regarding the significance of different viewpoints and how much weight they receive. In this case, we don't have any actual reliable sources making this case, just one source mentioning it only to largely dismiss it as irrelevant. Not particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic. There are other parts of the article that need work more.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you still referring only to the disabled YouTube comments? There are two other points in my comment above for things covered by reliable sources that are missing from the article. When there's a perception of an article being biased for excluding reliable information, it's not OK to simply dismiss it as"not encyclopedic" without discussing the point, as doing so is a violation of NPOV and CONSENSUS. Do you have anything to say about those other points or are you indifferent to them? Diego Moya (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the article already does make clear that harassment wasn't the only reaction, and that can be expanded. I didn't look much into your Paste article, but assuming it's reliable, it seems like it's grasping at straws to use that very brief mention as a reason to add "criticism" to the article. However (assuming it is reliable) we could probably use it for other additions to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular intention to "add criticism to the article", so please don't make wild assumptions about my motives. Can you clarify what do you mean by the article "making clear that harassment wasn't the only reaction", by pointing to the particular parts of the text that support that assertion? As explained above, I don't see how the article makes it clear that there were reactions by reliable sources that are not related to the discussion of harassment; that's the deficiency that needs correction. Diego Moya (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to introduce this stuff into the article, why are you bringing it up? At any rate, to repeat myself, "the article already contains substantial material on other reactions (the fact that supporters donated $160k, that the harassment generated discussion in the media, and that it led to speaking engagements)" And of course, as I also said, this can be improved and expanded.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Diego Moya: since you seem interested in parroting WP:NOT subpolicies such as NOTPAPER, here is another one for you to consider: WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not just an aggregator of everything that was ever said about this topic. The fact that a criticism was made somewhere on the internet does not mean that it has sufficient encyclopedic value to go on this article. As Cuchullain explained, the task of Wikipedia editors (note: there is a reason we are called editors, not aggregators) is to filter the deluge of information that exists in the world and retain the much smaller chunk of information that is actually encyclopedic.

As a side note, you might want to read articles before you post links to them here. The Paste article you posted is certainly not, as you describe it, evidence of non-harrassing criticism. First of all, it doesn't "report" [your words] on anything, as it's an editorial. Secondly, it does not actually make criticism of Sarkeesian; it talks about the difficult situation she is in (a little bit), and then about women journalists in general (which is what most of the piece is about). The closest thing to criticism is saying that Sarkeesian does not speak for every woman in the world. That's not negative criticism, that's just a fact about the world; you could say that about any person or any thing ever. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: One more time, you haven't understood my point. Of course I want to use those sources, it's just that what's in them is not "criticism" (though it wouldn't be anything wrong if it were). As you rightly point out, no source that we'd deem reliable for BLPs has bothered to criticise Sarkeesian's work. What many have done is reporting various other parties that have written about it - whether that writing should be called analysis, commentary, criticism is not my concern, but that we fail to acknowledge its existence is. The sentence "discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets" does not detail what kind of discussion ensured, and it implies as synthesis that the only reaction of media was discussion on "pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture". The article needs to include some instances of other non-harassment-related discussion to balance that false impression.

(As for the reliability of the article above, Paste is considered reliable at the RS noticeboard for pop culture topics, and the author is part of the staff and has a regular column on video games). Diego Moya (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rjanag: Would you too stop implying that what I want to do is to include criticism of Sarkeesian? I've already explicitly stated that I don't want to include criticism for the sake of it, so you're either making a fool of yourself for stating that this is what I want to do, or rather you're calling me dishonest and thus failing to assume good faith. Given that I don't want to include EVERYTHING that was published, only those that are "encyclopedic" (whatever that means; at Wikipedia it's usually synonym with "I like it") and related to the article topic, bringing up WP:IINFO is irrelevant; there's no plot, lyrics or statistics to be included here, nor loose listings of unrelated items. But when the information included presents a skewed coverage of what's available at RS, we do have a mandate per WP:NPOV to complete it with elements of the under-represented arguments. I'd rather have you take a look at some policy that you should be following yourself: the implication that I didn't read the article I linked to, or that I wanted to use it to support some kind of criticism, are quite offensive. That both of you are obsessed about Both of you are fixating on criticism, but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing that could be written in the article. Diego Moya (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps the issue is that you're not making clear what you actually do want to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I would have simply boldy added my changes to the article long ago, but you've been a little bit too eager recently to completely revert any change you disagree with (whether with policy-based reasons or without), instead of improving it to an acceptable status like WP:BRD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS encourage us to do. I wanted to try to explain the changes beforehand to you, but it clearly doesn't work - instead you just keep guessing the changes that you think I shouldn't do. Diego Moya (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are the one who brought up the Paste piece as an example of criticism. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean, the comment where I say "Surely those are not direct criticism of the work itself"? Diego Moya (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't read your mind. If you had said "I want discuss adding xxx", we could have talked about that. We were responding to what you did say. And no one has reverted anything without "policy-based reasons" recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

An advantage of including the "criticisms" in this article is that we can present them together with the criticisms of the criticisms, as per The Daily Dot. Readers who only encounter the "criticisms" off Wikipedia may never encounter their rebuttals. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to include a 1 or 2 sentence summary of the DD article on this topic. To me, this seems like an "important" part of the Sarkeesian story: she had to close comments on Youtube due to heinous threats, this in turn caused criticism that she was trying to prevent feedback. I don't mind adding, as a third point, that "feedback continued elsewhere", but, to be honest, that seems to be a pretty unnecessary point--of course feedback continued elsewhere, it always does; Sarkeesian's not some internet goddess who can prevent all feedback in all forums everywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If it were really an important part of the story, it would appear in more than one of the dozens of available sources. And that one source doesn't just note that such "criticism" exists, it specifically notes that it's irrelevant. Were we to use it, we'd have to say the same to accurately represent it, but I don't see the need to introduce details the source itself says are irrelevant into what's meant to be an encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebutals - how to add them

There are very many rebutal videos to her videos.

Many of them longer and more in-depth than her videos.

I would like to point out their existence and include their criticism of her work, using them as sources. Because of [insert_random_characters]-policies on Wikipedia I fear my work will be in vain, because somebody will just revert them.

So I seek advice on how to do it "right".

Before somebody starts with "youtube videos are not primary/secondary sources, because hurr durr": Let's call them "documentaries hosted on youtube" instead, delivering in 60 minutes more content and analysis than some 3-paragraph-editorial-articles, which ARE regarded as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardAnufriev (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. The medium doesn't really matter - it's who is doing the videos. We're not going to consider Joe Random who hosts a website a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the videos are longer then hers? Then they must be better! rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A Youtube rebuttal of her videos would be acceptable if and only if the person making the video is known as an expert in the field--here, that would be feminism, feminist theory, feminist rhetoric, video games, popular culture, critical analysis, or something similar. They would probably need to be an academic with papers on the subject, or a pop culture critic with a history of giving commentary to news sources, or something like that. If such a person has done a response and/or rebuttal of her videos, we could probably include that. This is the same exception allowed under WP:SPS, in that if, for example, a well-recognized expert has a blog, we can use that blog (sometimes, for some material) as a source on the subject of expertise. Do you know of any youtube rebuttals that meet this criteria? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, however, no self-published sources can be used for material on Sarkeesian herself or any other living person, except their own writings about themselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

But SPS can be used for material about her videos. Which is what is being suggested here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends how SPS is defined. For example if Xeni Jardin (a well-known blogger of tech culture) published a video about Sarkeesian and her work I think we could use that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps, but it bears saying as our new friend hasn't remotely said what his "documentaries hosted on youtube" are to cover, only that they will be longer and therefore "better" than those silly written sources we currently use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is biased and ignores criticism of her work

The article is biased as all hell. This person intentionally created as much of a shit storm as she could in order to cash in via kickstarter, the article is massively at odds with reality. BLP should only go so far...not to even mention that she was the initial aggressor? To completely ignore the criticism of her 'work'? This is the most one sided wikipedia article I've ever seen....the moon landing tinfoil nutjobs get more of a say than the reality of the situation does in this. 92.15.61.236 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The importance of basing a Wikipedia article on previously established research from verifiable sources is in making certain that editors are not contaminating the article with their personal points of view. It is the goal of every article that they must be written toward a neutral point of view, but still reflect what has been previously published on the subject. The "one sided" element of this article is based on the "one side" of the media reporting on Anita and events in her life. Moon landing conspiracists have been well documented over a period of multiple decades, and this is why there is an article on the subject. When critics of Anita Sarkeesian's videos provide properly published, verifiable criticisms of her, then they can be include in the article under neutrally written prose. If you wish to provide a perspective critical of Anita, her activities, and her opinions, please find sources which can be cited, find a media platform with a reliable history of fact checking and editorial oversight within which they can be published, and then someone can edit this article to include your concerns. Do not expect this article, or any article on Wikipedia, to provide a soapbox for your unpublished opinion. We're not interested. --Cast (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you dispute the neutrality, please provide reliable sources supporting your points. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your opinion. Jim1138 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm particularly bemused by our anonymous critic's assertion that Sarkeesian, by pointing out the well-known sexism of video games and proposing a study of them, became "the initial aggressor". Talk about blaming the victim! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-trolling criticism such as her use of playthrough videos from youtube to create her videos, her directly dictating whole sentences from wikipedia, her lack of citations, her countering her own master thesis in what proper display of women in video games should be, cases of taking examples out of context, ignoring sexism against men in video games, etc, etc, can't be posted on wikipedia until a reliable source makes reference to it, thus wikipedia is no more bias than its sources are. BerserkerBen (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Money use

I've removed this addition pending discussion. Such an addition has been brought up a few times (including here), but there hasn't been consensus to include it. It seems akin to the "disabled YouTube comments" issue we discussed recently; it would be devoting a lot of space to something that's not been particularly prevalent in sources. In particular, I'm happy to be wrong about it, but I don't see that the "Web technology blog" ReadWrite is particularly reliable in this situation. In the very least it seems over the top to devote several sentences of space to the piece, compared to other, higher profile sources we've already included or could include. Due weight is important. The rest of the recent additions by and large look good to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made a second, shorter attempt, with content supported by two independent professional sources. Describing notable ("with a small n") production issues is commonly done for audiovisual works, so this level of coverage should be now in line with WP standards. Diego (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Paste Magazine

Again, I've posted a second different description of the Paste Magazine article. If you still disagree that it reflects the article contents, in the spirit of WP:EDITCONSENSUS and "don't get stuck on the discussion" I ask you to reword it into what you think would be an accurate description of it. It won't help merely discussing what you don't like of my writing; as I don't have a way to directly inquire into your mind to ascertain what you may find acceptable. Diego (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's certainly better now. The problem with the earlier version, as Rjanag best put it here, is that it only briefly mentions criticism she's received (from feminists and others) and doesn't give it much (any) consideration. The piece is actually about the difficult situation faced by female critics of video game, Sarkeesian included. The current version is much better. One thing we do need to know is whether Paste is reliable and whether an editorial from it is an appropriate source; I'll leave that to other editors to determine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a help for those editors to decide that, I've already pointed out that Paste is considered reliable at the RS noticeboard for pop culture topics, and the author is part of the staff and has a regular column on video games. Diego (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment campaign"? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was organised campaign behind the harassment.

The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals. And the talk about misogyny (Slate) is not backed up anything but the target of the harassment is a female. She was not harassed for misogynist reasons but because she was outright lying in the very first sentence she said in her Kickstarter Project promo video.

"Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again, no evidence that somebody even has had enough information to try to hack her said accounts. There's even less evidence that the editor she talked to had the required expertise to evaluate the evidence if Sarkeesian was to present any.

"and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so to an editor, hardly reliable.

"The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman.[19] Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers.[20] She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening."

There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all her confirmation biased subjective view! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. There is no evidence that the editors or Sarkeesian belong to any online gaming community nor has Sarkeesian provided any evidence that she have researched it say for example interviewing females that plays games.

To me it seems that when Anita plays the victim card it validates anything she says and then the neutrality of this article is compromised.

Peace, Nosepea68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs)

Only slightly differently worded repost of the above post by the same user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment" campaign? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was an organized campaign behind the harassment. The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals. "Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again. "and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so, hardly reliable. "The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman.[19] Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers.[20] She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening." There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all confirmation biased subjective views! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. I can add a subjective viewpoint also; I really want more female gamers to an online game I'm playing and I really don't think that gaming belongs to us, therefore there is no online harassment against women at all! By the way this 'harassment' started not because she is a woman, feminist and self-proclaimed avid gamer (evidence talk the contrary!). It started because she claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue. The other thing is her videos doesn't stand under scrutiny, they are full of logical fallacies and outright lies. She might be lying because she had no contextual understanding of the games, so it's obvious she did not play the game herself, but most likely used wikipedia and Let's Play as a source. Her ethics and integrity should be questioned when she has received $158,922 for a video project in which she uses material free under fair use act. Just see her disclaimer at the end of her videos. I can even show a source that proves the harassment is NOT pervasive: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2010/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/ http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2012/Global/ Now how many games did Ms. Sarkeesian pick on any of those lists? More sources: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html Even though that is a blog entry there is evidence in the screenshots that show she didn't do the massive research of hundreds of games but took the shortcut of using fair use to use already made videos by Youtubers that actually played the game. To many this looks like she is a con artist. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1l6lsw/internet_sleuths_uncover_anita_sarkeesians_past/ There we have more information of the Anita Sarkeesian dug out. For example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo Yes a video that has links to sources in description. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm <--- Anita Sarkesian (misspell) as contact person of a handwriting "university" scam. The other link seems dead link to webarchive. The editor should at least watch the videos Anita has made and then when they are not in written form accept good quality video rebuttals as sources of criticism. Could you even mention that there is lots of rebuttals available in video format from Youtubers that have actually played the games she used in her research project. And at least put some stress on the fact that many of the claims can be sourced only to Ms. Sarkeesian. Peace, Nosepea68 Nosepea68 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Nosepea68 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiding uncivil comment.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just go away, please. You are not going to successfully spread your campaign of vitriol and hate to this article. It's just a waste of your time and ours. Your points have already been asked and answered many times, and it's not worth going through them again, since your point is not to introduce neutrality, but to try to remove reliable information to make Sarkeesian appear to be the "bad" person in this whole event, which is just vile and counterfactual. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? Are you serious? This whole article contains BIASED information about MISOGYNY and SEXISM in gaming communities and gaming industry. Whole idea is just a radical feminism fad, there is no misogyny nor sexism there in the SCALE she says there is (words used pervasive, norm).

So, wikipedia can hold FOX news type of political propaganda as stated facts and reliable sources. Sure, but this article is far from neutral you have just turned on protect the victim because Anita Sarkeesian plays one.

Nosepea68 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings new User:Nosepea68. Your assertions lack reliable secondary sources. None of the claims you've made above are backed by sources which meet WP:IRS. This means that these claims are WP:SYNTHESIS, that is, your first-person views. The charts you linked don't back your assertion; they merely present a best-selling list for those years and draw no conclusions. The Reddit, blogspot and youtube sources are merely criticism and aren't considered reliable by wikipedia consensus or by consensus here on the page. Please find sources which meet the criteria to back your assertions, and you'll find a more receptive group of editors here. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it doesn't give credibility to Sarkeesian's views. In fact, it barely describes her work at all, just her opinions, which are stated as such. What it highlights is that 1) Sarkeesian was attacked with harassing comments and physical threats (you won't deny that, do you)? and 2) it reports on what others have said about misogyny. Your point that this is not a "campaign" (i.e. an organized effort) is a good one; you can propose an alternative wording for that sentence. Diego (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I will also add, Nosepea, that I do not know a female videogamer, especially those who like online gaming, who does not consider sexism in video gaming about as disputable as wetness among oceans or racism in the Ku Klux Klan. The only distinction is between those who cannot or will not stand it, and those who love their games so much they play on anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional note; the word campaign is used largely by many secondary sources to describe the wave of attacks and harassment. In that way wikipedia is reflecting the choice of wording used which is maybe a touch hyperbolic IF there was no concerted effort by anyone to attack her. Additionally, Anita is a victim of harassment - attempting to downplay the organisation of the harassment (via social media, reddit etc) and then to qualify her harassment as somehow justified because she "claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue" is circular logic. Quote mining meanwhile for stuff discovered (in the weakest possible sense) after the original attacks and then trying to contort them into a structured case invalidating her stance while building up a legitimacy of the criticism, and thereby the harassment, is patently the purview of Fox News investigation. OR, Synthesis, BusterD pretty much highlights all the failings here. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Digital Journal not a reliable source for the purposes of criticism of living people

The "Digital Journal" piece inserted in this article is a self-published source, without apparent significant editorial controls. The Web site admits that basically anyone can sign up and post blogs on the site. That is not the mark of something we want providing information about living people, much less negative attacks on living people. Surely some better source can be found. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The Baron op-ed is shockingly bad and doesn't even represent Digital Journal very well. BusterD (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is calling vandalism of her Wikipedia page "harassment" POV?

A lot of people have their Wikipedia page vandalized. What makes her case so notable? Why are those who disagree with and satirize her called 'harassers' and spoken of as if they were a monolithic entity? Where are the opposing views? --Euniana/Talk 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Her case is only really notable as part of the broader campaign of harassment so we only make a brief mention of the vandalism. As far as opposing views, reliable sources are, unfortunately, not generally critical of her so we don't have much basis for adding legitimate disagreements with her work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Her case is notable by Wikipedia's standards as it has been covered by various reliable sources independent of the topic. We follow what the coverage says; the reliable sources call the harassment "harassment" so we do too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Feminist websites (Feminist Frequency, Salon.com, slate.com, etc etc) are hardly unbiased. You can't use a site that openly champions a cause as a reliable source for critics of the cause, much less the outright namecalling that somehow proves anyone who disagrees with her is a muh soggy knees-tastic rapist bigot. Do we cite Syrian state TV when writing the page for Bashar al-Assad? 96.54.76.154 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We use sources that are known for their editorial processes at fact-checking. If there were sources like those describing noticing other types of comments about her work, we would include them as well, to provide a neutral point of view by reporting all major opposing views. In this case, all reliable media are describing the attacks on her as harassment, and few are reporting about criticism of her work or anything else; so we write the article with what we have. Diego (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If citing the very cite where she is employed, in an article she probably had input on, is not conflict of interest, I don't know what is. To use the word "harassment" in such a vague, open way is a very direct insult to anyone who criticizes her work and requires far better citing than a few tabloids with NPOV conflicts. Opponents is a mild word that would fit nicely, as would critics or a few other words that you could find in a thesaurus. Or, if it's more warranted, try to separate criticism and the actual harassment. 96.54.76.154 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This post just shows that you don't, won't or can't correctly interpret what you're reading. The article contains a dozen or so reliable, independent sources, including the New York Times, Slate, and the Toronto Star - no "tabloids", and no "NPOV conflicts", whatever that means. They describe the situation as "harassment", sometimes in the title of the piece, and we follow what our sources say. End of story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that, after looking back at her earliest page history, she was hardly notable enough to even have had a maintained Wikipedia page to be vandalized in the first place. Obviously, now, she is. But, in truth, she never should have had a page on here to be vandalized. It would be similar to me having my own page based on the fact I am vaguely known in various gaming circles for reviews and articles I have written over the past 10+ years for various small press sites, but I am hardly notable enough to warrant my own Wikipedia page. She was known only in a few select feminist circles and, from the looks of some edits that were removed, a few potential MRA circles as well. That's it. Until the whole Kickstarter controversy started, no one else knew about her in the slightest. So, the real question should be, why was someone without enough notability allowed to have a page on Wikipedia to be vandalized in the first place? UncleThursday (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To use a Java analogy, Wikipedia has a garbage collection routine in terms of notability issues (as well as other things). Any non-notable articles are routinely tagged and/or deleted. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not really the "real question" is it? That diatribe reads a lot like blaming Sarkeesian for someone creating a wiki article about her which was subsequently vandalised....the fact that she was harassed across a number of arenas somehow compacted down to an unnecessary bout of navel gazing. Articles are created often on wikipedia, and only when flagged are they taken down. This is a founding principle of Wikipedia open contribution system. Koncorde (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody add the following to her page:

Criticism

Because of the online harassment it is difficult to separate out the relevant and truthful criticism from the abusive insults relating to Anita Sarkeesian's video series 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'. Her video series provoked a huge outrage from various denizens of forums and Youtube, so online 'private detectives' shortly remarked upon what seems like quote mining parts of video games and lack of contextual knowledge, speculating that Wikipedia might have been a primary source of her research and that she hadn't actually played any of the games due to turned-off wireless controllers in her Kickstarter promotion video. In the same video and in a TV interiew she proclaimed that there was a huge research project ahead covering hundreds of games and that she is an avid video game player despite her earlier claims to the contrary in a video lecture some 3 years ago.

Further criticism was directed at Sarkeesian's sampling, saying that in order to say something useful she should make arguments regarding prevalence of a trope too, for which she should have used, for example, an annual chart of top 100 selling games instead of just picking out games that specifically showcase the trope itself.

Sarkeesian was also criticised for lack of courtesy, putting her video material together from Let's Play videos contributed by other Youtubers playing the game without giving due credit, a practice that is protected under fair use but nevertheless frowned upon. This has led to questions about what she has done with the $158,922 given to her to use on her Kickstarter project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

That's too detailed, and the links you provide are not reliable sources. Though it may be interesting to document how the general public reacted to the videos; so far the article only mentions in passing the reactions to the delay. We can check how the sources already included in the article are describing the reactions of fans and opposers, and add some of that. Diego (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian Does Not Play Video Games

At the 12:20 mark in This video: http://vimeo.com/13216819 Anita claims, contrary to her public statements, that she does not play video games nor does she have an interest in doing so. I think this new information needs to be included in this article. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what she said. Please stop misrepresenting sources as it wastes everyone's time. "I am not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that she has stated in her TEDxWomen talk, and others, that she has been a lifelong fan and player of video games. It is notable enough to see that she either a. hasn't been what she has been claiming since the controversy began or b. like any good marketer, says what she says to give herself validity when talking to a specific audience. So, using the marketing strategy, when talking to a women's study class in a college, most of whom probably don't game or care about video games in the least, she isn't a gamer because she knows the people she is talking to aren't gamers. When she purports herself as an expert on gaming and gaming culture, she is a lifelong gamer. Obviously, since the controversy, she will always use the lifelong gamer line, because it gives her validity to discuss what she discusses in her videos as well as gives her validity in deflecting criticism (valid and invalid criticism alike). Of course, blatant dishonesty and good marketing are often one and the same.UncleThursday (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a video of what she said when she was promoting her Kickstarter and whatnot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I like video games. I play video games. I'm not a fan of nor do I play first-person shooters. Not a contradiction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Whole transcript as I with my limited english skills picked it up from 12:45->:

Show me where she says I'm not a fan nor do I play first person shooters?

NeilN are you on a payroll from Sarkeesian for lying in such a trivial matter?

"It's a soundtrack of one song, except I'm doing video games -(using footage from games, not necessarily self-made)-. So that's not a fandom

• *The following sentence*

I'm not actually a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this.

It is very rare to take two very misogynist and sexist things and make them a positive. It's very few instances that will happen and I feel like this is one of those instances where I could successfully do that.

*Too many private detectives on the dance floor plays*

I didn't actually know Flight of the Conchords until I saw the actual video and so I was really excited and thought this is really cool and then I saw the video with them being serious and I was like wow that's really offensive. To me the song is positive just because I've only contextualized it in a way to critique male domination in our media and also video games.

• *The following sentence*

Like I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping of their heads. It is just gross hence this is my react.. response to that.

I really struggled with this because one of the issues I found in the video games is that when there are women present they are overly sexualized and they act just the men, right. Like Tomb Raider's a great example of that where they are very busty and they're just shooting up and being just as violent.

There's no other way of conflict resolution in most of these games. With vidding you're very sort of... I don't want to use the word limited, but you are sort of limited to the lyrics of the song, right. And you.. and you can.. you are transforming the song and you're changing the meaning of it but at the same time I was restricted to what.. the lyrics that I had here."

Nosepea68 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections

Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. The campaign was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.

The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Amanda Marcotte in Slate magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse," in which "[e]very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her". Helen Lewis of the The New York Times reported that Sarkeesian was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters. Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts, doctored images of her were posted online, and negative comments were posted to her YouTube and Facebook pages. Her Wikipedia article was repeatedly vandalized with images of sex acts. Her website was subjected to denial-of-service attacks, and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information.

Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $150,000 to her project. This further enraged the harassers; one man made an internet game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, where users could punch her image until the screen turned red. The people behind the campaign awarded each other "Internet points" for the abuse on forums; Sarkeesian argued that they had "gamified" misogyny.

The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman. Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers. She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening."

The campaign also led to speaking engagements on related topics. In 2012, Sarkeesian was a speaker at the TEDxWomen conference, discussing online sexual harassment and the nature of online communities. In June 2012, video game developer Bungie invited Sarkeesian to its offices to present on the creation of female characters in games.

Kickstarter Project in numbers

Original goal $6,000

Incentives:

• Damsel in Distress - Video #1
• The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
• The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
• The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
• Background Decoration - Video #5

1st Stretch Goal $15,000

Incentives:

• Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6 (at $7,500)
• Women as Reward - Video #7 (at $9,000)
• Mrs. Male Character - Video #8 (at $10,500)
• Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9 (at $12,000)
• Man with Boobs - Video #10 (at $13,500)
• Positive Female Characters! - Video #11 (at $15,000)

2nd Stretch Goal $20,000

Incentives:

• Better video gear to improve professionalism
• Zelda, Peach and FemFreq stickers to over $50 donations

3rd Stretch Goal $26,000

Incentives:

• Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum (at $24,000)
• Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games (at $26,000)

Incentive videos 12 in total (10-20 minutes in length each)

Project was funded $158,922 on June 16th 2012

Video series

Production

Title card used in the Tropes vs Women videos

Sarkeesian initially planned to release the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series in 2012, but pushed it back explaining that the additional funding allowed her to "expand the scope, scale and production values of the project". On January 2013 Sarkeesian launched a Tumblr web page called "Bits of Tropes Vs. Women in Games" previewing samples of the first video.

The first video in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series, "Damsels in Distress (Part 1)", was released on March 7, 2013. The delay led some critics to question how she was using the money. Jesse Singal of The Boston Globe noted that the production values of the new series were high, saying "so far, she appears to have put the money to good use." Fruzsina Eördögh of ReadWrite also confirmed that the production quality of the videos had increased from her previous works, but didn't think the improvement justified spending the total amount raised, and said that disclosing the project finances would also help other video bloggers.

Parts 2 and 3 of the series were released on May 28 and August 1, 2013. The second video was briefly removed due to abuse of YouTube's "flag" system, though it was quickly restored.

Damsel in Distress Trope Series in numbers

• Number of episodes: 3
• Minutes of video analysis: 73
• Games referenced: 192

Videos released

• March 7th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 1
• May 28th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 2
• August 1st 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 3

---

All the added information should be from reliable sources as they point to Anita's self-maintained material and Kickstarter numbers.

Nosepea68 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The added detail may be relevant in a separate article about the campaign but not in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And I thought showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist "issues" in biography would be appropriate because the the big difference in incentives and actual produced material. For example Sarkeesian promised 12 videos and classroom Curriculum for a mere $26,000, she got around $151k (Kickstarter takes 5%), so she was over-funded 26 times, had a professional video gear before she started this project, promised to play the games and do in depth well researched analysis, that all requiring enourmous amount of work. What she did was download Let's Play videos, used cut scenes and wikipedia articles about the games. I know there's no wikipedia reliable sources just because there's no way to make say screenshots in Anita's video and show exactly where it is taken from a wikipedia reliable source.

There's much more on this Tropes vs. Women in Video Games I have found out I could start an article about it. What should I name it? Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games looks daftly long. Will there be a link from this article to the one focusing on the video series funding, incentives and production if I manage to make a neutral one about that?

Nosepea68 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would name it Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, similar to Potter Puppet Pals. And yes, I would think adding a link to it from this article would be a no-brainer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This information looked so trivial that at first I wondered why anyone would want to include it in this or any article. Nosepea, thank you for making your intentions totally clear. No, the material is not appropriate in this biography, and it's unlikely to be worthwhile even on an article on the series, were one created. It's indiscriminate information. And I doubt that such an article is really necessary at this stage anyway, particularly if it's just going to be used as a vehicle for "showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist 'issues' in biography".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why I asked first instead of putting it in the article. If I would have put it in, it would have appeared in the history of the edits, but I didn't do that. IMO people should grow awareness about crowdfunding loopholes that some people use to fund their lives (low first goal -> publicity -> over-funding -> profit), instead of putting it to the purpose they are asking it for. I for one don't understand even why this person have a wikipedia page at all. She's not that significant or famous.

Nosepea68 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also a massive load of OR, Synthesis and POV as the proposed wiki has an intent behind it to present a POV. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being a n00b, OR is acronym of? Only understand POV from Koncorde's reply. And where you see my point of view merely representing numbers of her promises before the production as opposed to what she actually produced with reliable sources? People with opinions can produce neutral text, don't you think.

Nosepea68 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OR is Original Research, Synthesis is a subpart of that same issue. So far you have produced anything but neutral text. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nosepea68, given your past disruptive edits to this article and clear, continued antipathy towards the subject it's pretty obvious that it would be almost impossible for you to write an article on the series that met Wikipedia's guidelines. I had hoped otherwise, but at this point I'd advise you to let things be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that this is a "crowdfunding loophole" is unsupported by any reliable sources. Kickstarters are *supposed* to turn a profit for the person who does them, that's sort of the point - create something that people want to pay for, and make a living from doing it. You've not presented any reliable sources suggesting that anyone didn't know what they were paying for when they funded Sarkeesian's project.

Moreover, the "cost per minute" is original synthesis and completely irrelevant - nobody gives a second thought when a Hollywood movie costs $1.78 million per minute. I have created the separate article you submitted through the AFC process, but with significant edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My intention was never to blatantly put "crowdfunding loophole" in the article, but to present it a way that a skeptic normal IQ person can draw their own conclusions. Even after the edits, I'm totally satisfied in the separate article of the video series. About Hollywood, I think the movie companies there take their profit from box office and actually deliver a full product for their "post-production crowdfunders".

I feel very passionate on matters that involves "separating fools from their funds", like pyramid schemes, quacks, homeopathy and other things I see unethical for example collecting money to children with cancer and take most of it to expanses. We've had several dodgy "non-profit" fund-raising organisations in Finland giving only a fraction to the cause and one major pyramid scheme Wincapita. Most of them (people behind those organisations), after the online "investigators" have unfolded the fraud, have been brought to justice and convicted for collecting money without a permit as described in Finland's Money Collection Act . Because that act, crowdfunding in Finland is basically illegal for anything else but non-profits. That said, I now have to admit [to myself] my national legislation is skewing my view.

Nosepea68 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well color me surprised. And I owe you an apology. Good job on producing pretty neutral text for the new article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this talk from "Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections" to this point be cropped and linked (to talk history?) as it is quite irrelevant now as there's separate article of the video series. Nosepea68 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)