Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Question/Thought

This question/thought is somewhat in regards to criticism of the videos, but does not deal with the content of those videos, but instead the production timeline. Would it hurt in any way to make mention of the criticism many of her supporters have in regards to the promised production schedule through the Kickstarter, as well as the DVD copies that have yet to materialize? She states in her kickstarter page that production of the entire DVD set of twelve episodes would be complete by Dec 2012, yet three years have passed since then, and no DvD's have been released, and only half of the videos have been produced. Reference into one of the complaints: Reference of the Kickstarter claims: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

References

The schedule was thrown to the wayside a long time ago, and the objective of the project changed almost immediately. Her videos have been over-length, and to a greater specificity than originally promised. Planned single episodes have become multi episode. Quoting an article almost 2 years old about what the project had delivered at that time would be a little undue (particularly as recent financial statement actually did give a breakdown). Feminist Frequency is now not just a kickstarter but a full non-profit organisation with myriad goals. Criticism of not releasing 12 videos would, obviously, be tempered with what actually has been achieved, and whether it would be "followers" (or backers) complaining about the undelivered is open to debate. If you can find more recent criticism please let us know. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing something recently in regards to it, well, recent being a relative term. (IE within the past year.) I'll try to drag up that article again, as it was a rather interesting read, and did note as you said how the idea which began with the kickstarter grew into becoming something more. I think, ideally, if included, the criticism would have to be worded something like: "Many supporters of the videos have voiced concerns over the project's original timeline of release, compared with the current status of the videos. However, much of this deviation from the timeline can be traced to further developments and evolving of the project from a simple Kickstarter series, into a Non-Profit Organization with multiple diverse goals." (Just a what if there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I work odd hours, and have to deal more with what goes on there, than here. I found a few articles in reference to the release schedule, though looking at them I determined that they probably wouldn't be viable sources. Largely due to the fact that they effectively reference each other. Meaning that by following the links, you'd end up going in a big circle. About the only interesting article, which did not reference another (only to be referenced back to the first) was a Forbes Article from Jan of 2015. This article does raise some questions, touching on the release dates by saying quote "I’m a little disappointed to see only two videos in her Tropes vs. Women were series were released (for a total of six in the series since 2012.) That seems like incredibly low output compared to other YouTube series and channels on a much more generous budget than most." (It is an opinion piece.) It's worth noting also, that it does explain this lack of output, adding "More than anything, these stats show that Sarkeesian has become a media talking head rather than a YouTube personality—her 20 media appearances in 2014 dwarf all other stats provided." If it were included, like Koncorde said, probably the best way would be to note that the lack of output raised questions among supporters and opposition, perhaps noting how it prompted accusations of fraud, and then offering the counter point with a breakdown of how the funds were/are being spent. If this could be done, it could allow mention of the controversy surrounding the videos, without skewing things too far one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The best we're going to manage out of one piece without giving undue emphasis is to say something along the lines of "In January 2015 Feminist Frequency released its end of year report outlining its continued plans for the Tropes series, and expansion of its programs, while noting that it had released only 6 of the originally planned 12 videos to this point." Trying to shove in questions of fraud would be seriously undue; for starters that's a legal allegation that would be linked directly to an individual and put wikipedia as a liable party - without something very strong to support it (at a minimum an allegation by a serious reliable source after investigation, or a declaration by legal office of some sort) we would have strike that immediately. Koncorde (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best way to handle it.

References

Critical Support/Negative Criticism Breakdown Comment

@Cuchullain I created an extra heading as I expect most readers would prefer to see information broken into Support and Criticism, and have a more visible difference between the two, even if that difference is a heading

The title "Critical Reception" as far as I am concerned is superfluous as it comes under the heading "Reception" itself (It's a bit like having a heading "This heading" and starting the content "This heading ...")

Why do you deem my edits unnecessary?Derry Adama (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dividing the content up into "Positive" and "Negative" subsections isn't particularly helpful, especially when some of the sources highlight both positive and negative points. We also don't need to chop up the section into a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any cases (movie, book or otherwise) where they typically divide up the reviews into good and bad. Usually it's just reviews, critical reception, and then any awards or cultural significance. Don't see why this subject should be treated any differently. Koncorde (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, we have policy specifically against such actions WP:STRUCTURE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New source for your consideration

Some well-researched criticism I just found that I'd like to submit to the editors here: on Gameinformer. Not sure if it's usable and if it's more appropriate for this page or her personal bio. While it's on a blog, it's article-tier material, so I thought it wouldn't hurt pointing it out. Thanks. 109.115.176.89 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

probably not. they dont appear to have a very good editorial oversight when they leave drafting notes in the published version ("Afterwards she began preaching at itinerant tent revivals, ultimately earning the name "Sister Aimee" and relocating to California where she founded her ministry and radio program [4]. [Maybe work on this part a bit more?]") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

and it is quite hilarious to read a clickbait article ranting literally about "clickbait" media of the early 20th century. Is gameinformer a comic site? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Game Informer may be a reliable source, but its blog section is not. The drafting notes and the fact that the byline is to an online handle are a dead giveaway about how much oversight this piece has received.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)