Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Fortune: Poole, 4chan, Gamergate, Reddit

http://fortune.com/2015/07/11/reddit-ellen-pao-future/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Going to recycle this section for another source. Chip Zdarsky's new comic takes on GG. Houston Press. Might be usable in the Responses outside gaming industry section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by this comic. Has the artist said that this comic was based on GG? Are there any other sources talking about this? GamerPro64 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I note this is still not yet at a point where it directly connects to GG to be useful, but this new interview with Pao from the Verge talks to the effects of "the coordination and amplification of harassing behavior" in light of the Reddit situation, but I can see this vectoring towards a larger thought that would encompass GG as well as the Reddit situation so more articles of this vein may come about that would be appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bustle

New source: Chris Tognetti, "The 3 Biggest Issues Facing Feminists This Year — And How You Can Help" [1].#3 is "Terroristic Online Harassment" and specifically cites "the Gamergate fracas" as the definitive example. Small but potentially useful example of how Gamergate is regarded by the general public. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't go into any significant detail on GG beyond as an example of gender harassment online. We have more than enough sources that describe the public perception of the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This links to a February essay in Vice: Anne Thériault, "Let’s Call Female Online Harassment What It Really Is: Terrorism" [2], based largely on the work of Professor Joanne St. Lewis (Univ Ottawa/USC). Noted here because (a) we are using weasel words, and (b) people keep finding marginal sources that seek to describe Gamergate as a movement or a revolt or ethics; the next time this comes up, we can balance that proposal with a different one. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As "Terrorism" is a word with extreme legal connotations, we must avoid using it except as a claim, though certainly stating that some equate the harassment and threats made under the hashtag as acts of terrorism with appropriate prose and citation can be added. And arguably while that article uses GG as the prime example of online harassment towards females, this article is the wrong place to be discussing the larger issues overall (that would be likely over at Cyberharassment in lieu of any other article about online gender harassment). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism is a word like any other, and we'll use it if the reliable sources use it. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as we attribute it to them as an opinion and not fact as per WP:W2W, that's fine (I in fact even included the vice piece where we had a second piece on GG being akin to terrorism). But we absolutely cannot label it "terrorism" as a fact since that has strong legal implications; it is not just a word as you claim. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a word, and if reliable sources can use it so can we. We wouldn't be making any claims ourselves- merely echoing mainstream consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a word. However, When describing a group as terrorist, we often describe who called them terrorists. For designated or proscribed (UK term) groups, we say that the Government of X designated them as terrorist. Pursuant to WP:LABEL, I have made this edit. My point: to not say this for GG would make this article some kind of exception. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't apply special tests to particular words. If our best sources are agreed on using a particular word, that's the word we should use in Wikipedia's voice. --TS 11:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sources are our "best" sources? Few use this term explicitly. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS for an introduction to how Wikipedia sources are evaluated. --TS 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've seen those, & am aware the sources are valid. I clarified my point. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely have to watch for words that have contentious meanings behind them to avoid stating a contentious POV in WP's voice, that's the whole point of WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. Calling what GG is doing as "terrorism" in WP's voice without attribution, simply because a few sources compared GG's activities to terrorism, is taking a non-partial tone and cannot be done. Similar situation is with this edit [3] about the dehumanization of the victims; we don't know 100% if dehumanization is the intent of GG when they use the "Literally who" titles, though clearly we have opinions that state this is the intent which are important to include, just not stated in WP's voice. This is a social situation with too many questions due to lack of information from one side that no one knows the absolute facts, so to present some of these POVs as facts is a violation of NPOV. We can say absolutes on the actions of GG, but we can't state that on the intents or motives. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No. If the reliable sources say that Hydrogen is an element, we say it is an element, not that it is claimed to be an element. If the reliable sources say that American Civil War concerned slavery, we say it concerned slavery. If the reliable sources say that Gamergate engages in terrorism, we will say so, too. If the reliable sources were to agree that Gamergate's motives were the promotion of chocolate cake, then we'd agree that Gamergate promotes chocolate cake. We do not disregard the consensus of reliable sources because we personally believe something they do not regarding Gamergate's motivations, however strongly we think we know motivations that have been hidden from the rest of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem does have a point about WP:LABEL. Why is it a problem to attribute claims to sources? I don't see why the following is in anyway problematic.

In an article in Vice, Anne Theriault argues that online harassment of women constituted terrorism, specifically using Gamergate examples, and quoting Prof. Joanne St. Lewis of the University of Ottawa and University of Southern California in support of her claim. 1 Chris Tognetti of Bustle referred to harassment related to GamerGate and similar to the type ascribed to it as "terroristic". 2 Branko Marcetic of Salon describes threats against Utah State University as terrorism to make an argument about a then-recent controversy regarding Bill Maher. 3

Whatever way we include them will have no real effect on the "It can't happen here!" attitude I notice with many GGers. It's not about motivations, I am just against the article being editorialized with loaded language. I even gave you one! @MarkBernstein, PeterTheFourth, and Tony Sidaway:, what exactly do you each want to write in the article? @Masem and Bilby:, I'd like to compare with how you would treat each. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You can get a clear idea of what I want to write in the article by reading my contributions to the article. By and large I think the article gets it right, so my contributions have been sparse. --TS 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, I meant in terms of these sources in particular. Do you like my rendering? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In which case, shouldn't we say that GamerGate is concerned with ethics in journalism, on the grounds that we can pull up sources that say such? Cherry picking a couple of sources in order to drop the term "terrorism" into the article isn't how this should be approached. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Inc. Magazine

David Whitford, "WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army", Inc Magazine, April 2015. [4]. Some excerpts.

Then again, it's hard to see how Gamergate has ever had anything to do with ethical behavior, given how quickly it devolved into a misogynistic maelstrom.

The trolls took note. The worst of what came raining down on Wu won't be reprinted here, but the curious can look it up online. Just be warned: It's shocking, gruesome, specific, and obscene, involving many variations on murder and rape. "And, here's the part of the night where I call the police," Wu tweeted at 8:14 p.m. on October 10, 2014, in response to a four-minute cyberbarrage that began with, "Guess what bitch? I now know where you live," went on to reveal Wu's home address, predicted "your mutilated corpse will be on the front page of Jezebel tomorrow," and concluded (sloppily, but we get it), "nobody wil lcare when you die."

Since then, Wu has documented about 45 death threats, the most recent delivered by a masked thug via YouTube just days before this story went to press.

What darkness lies at the root of Gamergate is a question no one can answer, but there are a few plausible theories. Quinn argues that this is what happens when an overlooked but nevertheless proud male subculture feels threatened by the mainstream. Women represent "an invasion into a territory they've become quite comfortable in," says Quinn.

Also mentioned this at Brianna Wu, but this might be useful here -- especially as it again speaks to Gamergate's motivations. There's also a useful two-paragraph quote from a law professor who specializes in hate crimes:

Sex is a recurring theme in these sorts of attacks, says Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Women, who are 70 percent of the victims, are sluts or whores or not real women; men are predators or pedophiles. "The whole point of this abuse is to put someone in a box that is destructive," says Citron, "to call into question their integrity, to demean them." To redefine the victim on the abuser's terms "and fundamentally distort who she is."

This last might be particularly useful here as it suggests why Gamergate's attacks (and our own discussions here) are so often concerned with sex. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

gamepolitics: Katherine Clark, SJW, GamerGate, tweets

"Wait, #gamergate thinks calling me a Social Justice Warrior is an insult? Being a warrior for social justice sounds pretty great to me."

https://www.google.com/search?q=Katherine+Clark&num=50&espv=2&biw=1660&bih=898&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=0CBUQpwVqFQoTCPbqiIa-4sYCFVcXkgodpcoOvw&dpr=1 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• tilts head* Might be better for an article about the term "Social Justice Warrior" unless there are any paragraphs where the term is featured heavily. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

crave: How the Internet is Changing the Relationship Between Men and Women

http://www.craveonline.com/lifestyle/tech-and-gadgets-news/878503-internet-changing-relationship-men-women

Never heard of this source before. Dunno if it's RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate hashtag origins

Hey. I reverted an edit by Masem that used a quote by David Whitford, writing for Inc Magazine, to describe the origins of the hashtag as including 'something resembling a rational online debate'. I don't believe this is a mainstream view- it's far more supported that the 'rational online debate' aka 'it's actually about ethics in games journalism' stuff came in after the origins of the hashtag as a harassment brand. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

agreed. It's clear from context that Whitford is using this as a rhetorical device; he's discussing irrationality, not studying the history. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The author's construction of ". . . there may have . . . then again . . . ." implies very strongly to me that this is, as Dr. Bernstein said, a rhetorical device--a hypothetical. I don't think it supports the contention that 'rational online debate' ever actually occurred. Dumuzid (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images for latter section of the article

It's not required to have images, obviously, and we should not force an image just to have something, but I am trying to look for free images to help with visual appearance of the back half of the article. A couple pieces stick out as possible:

• For Gamer identity, graphs from the latest ESA survey that show the makeup of gamers to show that gamer is more broader than just young males (eg: [5]) would work.
• For the section on misogyny, one of the graphs from the Newsweek survey might be helpful.

(Note that in both cases, we'd have to remake these up as free images, but that's in our ability as data is not copyrightable, only presentation). Beyond that, I'm not sure what easily stands out, people or otherwise, that would be free media. We don't need an image per section but we should look to break up the wall of text a bit more. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The "gamer identity" question seems overplayed as it is; who outside Gamergate cares, or had heard of, a gamer identity? I suppose that it's slightly interesting that "gamer is more broader" than young males, but that really fits better with the article on video games. The obvious illustration for the misogyny section would be the image of a selected tweet -- one chosen to be instantly recognizable as misogyny but still fit for general viewing. Anita Sarkeesian posted a hundred of these, and I believe they are not under copyright. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the point, understanding what the gamer identity is and how the fact that the demographics have shifted from predominately young male players to a diverse audience is one of the reasons analysts believe GG exists, so showing a graph that demonstrates that the young gamer male is no longer the predominant video game player is helpful. Tweets are copyrighted to the respective user, so they can't be used in that manner. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A tweet announcing the intention to commit a crime is likely not copyrightable, our quoting it would likely be fair use, a clear public interest would be served by quoting it and no interest public or private would be harmed by doing this. Plus, if the person threatening to rape or murder a software developer did come forward and complain of the apparent infringement, they would of course need to establish that they were the author, and that would also serve the public interest. However, I see no particularly urgent need for more ornamentation. (Does Wikipedia have a policy respecting pull quotes?) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still protected speech (upheld by the latest SCOTUS case regarding harassment) and as such should be treated copyrightable until we have actual case law that says it is not. So using a full tweet, while not a significant copyright issue, would be an issue under WP:MOSQUOTE, WP:QUOTE and WP:NFC. And we've already got shorter exerpts of the type of language used by harassers earlier in the article, so it would not be necessary to repeat more. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tweets are not in any way associated with copyright. Any attempt to hide behind case law is a red herring, and completely unwarranted. Fair use is also irrelevant, and completely unwarranted. These are public communications in the public domain and it would take a case to establish a legal precedence that these tweets were in fact subject to copyright for us to even establish a policy (and from that point consider a claim of fair use). Arguing that we should adhere to a law that is unproven is illogical as the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

In spite of all which - we shouldn't be screen-shotting images of anonymous harassment, slander or libel. Koncorde (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are a number of harassing tweets sent to Anita Sarkeesian specifically selected by her to display the extent of the harassment she undergoes. If we were to include examples of the harassment, I believe that that would be a good place to start. If we should stick purely to tweets highlighted by secondary sources, this Verge article might be helpful. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary source is better than quoting primary, but the content is unnecessary. All it does it attribute bad behaviour to anonymous sources. Wikipedia would reference the article and say "x for y documented several examples of harassing behaviour" rather than specifically quoting any actual text. Koncorde (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) With all due respect to all involved, there's a lot of inexact language being thrown around with regard to intellectual property law. Talking about it as a generalization is all but useless; if someone has a specific source (tweet or otherwise) to suggest, then perhaps a discussion of copyright would be germane. Until that time, it's a bit cart-before-the-horse-ish. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for my inexactness - I was making the same argument as you, however repeating back the false assertions made by others in trying to reconcile their claims. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because tweets are widely distributed does not mean they are in the public domain. Copyright law would default in favor of them being copyrighted to the author (Twitter's TOS attribute this fact), but the 140 character limit might make them ineligible - but the copyright issue has nothing to do with the distribution method. This is a good summary article from WIPO, which while doesn't say the answer either way, it certainly tells users to use caution in presuming if tweets are not copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, that is all palpably false - and if you had read the Twitter Terms of Service and your WIPO article you would see exactly why each of your continued assertions are inaccurate. I find it impossible to believe you could have made your first sentence about "copyright law would default in favor" only to read an article by the WIPO saying the exact opposite (and in fact outlining where and when copyright may be a factor, but probably not) without first going back and changing your original sentence unless you wished to be specifically obtuse. Twitter TOS in particular stresses the repeatability of Tweets and makes no claims to copyright or otherwise (it leaves your rights intact to claim copyright, or enforce a copyright claim - but does not grant copyright by default). Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, Twitters TOS says that tweets are owned by the submitting user, not Twitter, (but you give Twitter the rights to redistribute that as required by the service) and the WIPO article agrees there. And under current copyright laws, nearly all forms of speech in a tangible medium are automatically copyrighted to their creator (This is why we have the disclaimer on WP under the edit box that you are agreeing to release you contribution under a free license, since it would otherwise be copywritten by you). The only gotcha is that some tweets may be too simple or short to qualify for copyright under the threshold of originality principle. Since WP requires positive assertion that a work is in the public domain, we cannot presume tweets are in the public domain and should consider them as non free. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The WIPO article states at the end of the first paragraph "Were his tweets entitled to copyright protection? Can one copyright a tweet? The legal experts' answer to the first question: not a chance. And to the second: don't bother." Oddly enough, I agree with the legal experts.

A. Twitter TOS says that you retain your rights. The only mention of property or ownership is Twitter themselves.

B. Under current copyright laws "original works of Authorship" (US) or "To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement." (UK). The Berne convention meanwhile extends (and by extension limits) copyright claims to all signatories.

C. Wikipedia is considered the creation of a 'Work' that would meet the criteria of being copyrightable. The disclaimer protects wikipedia from the loss of content. Specifically wikipedia states that the end user retains their copyright, and that they are free to reproduce / amend or otherwise distribute the content that has been submitted to wikipedia - but that they are unable to retrospectively deny wikipedia the use of previously freely released content (it's the same thing as the Twitter release in effect).

D. Wikipedia requires no such positive assertion regarding public domain. In particular every single article currently quoted, every quotation repeated, is from an otherwise copyrighted article. For instance the interview with Zoe Quinn is from the BBC news website, the BBC news website is very definitely copyright.

US & UK Law in particular outlines what can and cannot be copyrighted and exemptions thereof (the exemptions typically being the grey ground wikipedia content often exists in relating to fair use or fair dealing). Koncorde (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If we were talking about embedding the text of a tweet in the prose of an article, its inclusion would be judged based on the aspect of fair use defense for the US; we're not assuming the tweet is public domain but that a short except or in other cases the full tweet can be judged as balanced against the educational purpose or impact on commercial reuse (which is nearly none). However, what is being asked is for including an image of a tweet, and that is a problem, as we'd treat that image as non-free because we cannot verify the text is in the public domain yet - images and other media files do require positive proof of being in the public domain to be considered free otherwise. (Once we have case law that comes along and asserts that 140 char is not enough to qualify for originality, or a similar ruling, then we can amend that but not before), and a free-er version is always possible by a text quote. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither the method of fixation (in this case Twitter) nor the distribution has any real effect on copyright. "Tweets" are as copyright-able as anything else, what matters is the substance thereof. "It's really hot in New York City" is definitely not protected by copyright, nor are other statements of fact. William Carlos Williams' poem "This is Just to Say" (which I think might fit in a tweet) would be, beyond a scintilla of doubt, protected by copyright even if published on Twitter. This is why discussing the medium rather than the content is not particularly helpful. Dumuzid (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

All of which examples are summarised in the WIPO article provided by Masem. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I protest! William Carlos Williams is nowhere in that article! But seriously, I would respectfully suggest that we say reasonable minds can differ, and move on unless and until there is a specific tweet being discussed. Dumuzid (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

William Carlos Williams is not, however there is an entire paragraph relating to the reproduction of copyrighted content. There is no specific tweet, but there is an attempt to use purported copyright to restrict the use of information in this article. While I would agree that it shouldn't be part of the article, I will not be party to Masem talking utter rubbish nor using his understanding of copyright to dictate the content of this article. Koncorde (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem (talk · contribs) and Koncorde (talk · contribs), I fully understand how engaging these conversations can be, but I very much think this is the wrong venue for this discussion of these issues in the abstract. Perhaps the copyright problems talk page? I can think of hypothetical tweets that would be absolutely relevant and absolutely not covered by copyright. I can think of some that would be relevant and covered by copyright. But until we're discussing an actual tweet or text at issue, we may as well be discussing the color of an invisible unicorn. But I could be wrong! Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that we can't upload a screenshot of any harassing or threatening tweet in which a photo of the account owner is visible, or the account name is easily traceable to a living person. People including a semi-prominent opponent of Gamergate were joe jobbed like this and framed as harassers. Also from an ethics perspective, it would probably be best to use a screenshot Sarkeesian produced herself. I feel a bit like it would be exploiting her harassment, if we just dug up some random tweets harassing her and plastered them on the top google result for gamergate.Brustopher (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

new news stuff sorta

• Houston Press: Danskin, GG, Why are you so angry, Angry Jack

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/introspective-new-video-series-asks-gamergate-why-are-you-so-angry-7604301

• Salon: Reddit, GG

a mention: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/07/reddit_as_feminist_utopia_what_the_front_page_of_the_internet_looks_like.html

• CNN Money: Wu, GG, Reddit

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/19/technology/brianna-wu-reddit-harassment/

• Tech Time: Sarkessian, GG, Reddit

a mention: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/69603/20150718/new-reddit-ceo-outs-new-content-policy-heres-what-redditors-can-and-cant-post.htm

*Daily Mail (is this RS?): GG, hashtags

as example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3165802/How-Instagram-Twitter-HID-hash-tag-CaitlynJenner-ESPYs-slew-violently-aggressive-tweets.html

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Linked from the Houston Press article above, a superb and long Houston Press story that explores in depth why we do not and cannot know Gamergate’s motivations. [6] Jeff Rouner, "WHY #GAMERGATE FAILED: A LOOK BACK AT 2014'S MOST RIDICULOUS MOVEMENT". MarkBernstein (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a reliable source.Brustopher (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think so. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just read through the CNN article and I think that's a key article that links how the behavior of GG and the Twitter/Pao situation are related by common behavioral aspects, at least as stated by Wu (paraphrasing "if you run a community , it is your responsibility to prevent harassment within it"). Not sure where it best goes yet. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So is "Gamergate" a person or an event?

I've been trying to follow this and it seems the term has been overloaded. This article is about an event "Gamergate controversy" but then it says things like "...ability to take action against Gamergate..." My understanding of the English language is you can't "take action" against an event in the past. Can someone either clean up the grammar, or explain how this grammar makes sense? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Gamergate refers both to a controversy and to one or more groups of editors (sometimes loosely characterized as a "Gamergate movement") involved in the controversy, and what editors are referred to as pro-Gamergate or anti-Gamergate is often inconsistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP entry tries to keep to "a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture [...]". It should not surprise anyone that individual sources do use a polysemous meaning. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Freudian slip? Brustopher (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no Freudian slip. Where do you think that there is one? I agree that there is polysemy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You've written "editors" instead of "people." Brustopher (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of editors, but it does apply to people who are not Wikipedia editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky, Would you agree that "...ability to take action against Gamergate..." written in Wikipedia's voice is grammatically incorrect? Also thank you for teaching me another word, I use overloading to mean the same thing due to my educational history. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that operator overloading is a special case of polysemy in that operator overloading applies to formal languages, while polysemy refers to natural languages. (For the benefit of those who are not familiar with operator overloading, the minus sign is an example. It is overloaded because it has two meanings. It is used as a "unary minus" in front of a number or symbol to indicate a negative value, such as -1 or -x. It is used between two numbers or symbols to indicate subtraction, as in 2-1 = 1.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would not agree. This is the extent to which I'm going to get into a grammar argument. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so it sound's like you are unwilling to defend your position, making it useless. Thank you for wasting my time. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

re: "can't 'take action' against an event in the past" - actually this happens all the time with metonymic constructions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I don't like the "-gate" suffix, it seems clear to me in a natural language sense that it refers to ongoing controversies/scandals as well as their actual precipitating events. Thus, "Watergate" to me has a larger synatactic reach than does "the Watergate burglary." If I saw a sentence that said "Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon while Watergate was ongoing," I would have no problem parsing the meaning--and I would not be under the illusion that it referred to the burglary. Thus, gamergate to me is the initial events, the ongoing controversy, and by seemingly universal agreement, an ideologically aligned group on the internet. Just my thoughts. Dumuzid (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The "ideologically aligned group on the internet" is the part I (and I suspect others) am confused by. "ideologically aligned" with who or what? From my understanding "gamergate" is when a someone did something and some other people harassed that person for it, is "gamergate" "ideologically aligned" with the person being harassed, or the people doing the harassing? or a third group? Or is my interpretation of what "gamergate" is wrong? That is my problem with the current grammar in the article. Its not about the "-gate" suffix. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding (which is undoubtedly imperfect) essentially breaks down to this: the ideologically aligned group known as 'gamergate' are those who believe the precipitating events to actually be a scandal, those who disagree think said events did not, in fact, involve any breach of ethics. This 'gamergate' group tends to have similar views about video game journalism, free speech, and some other cultural touchstones. The harassing is generally understood to be perpetrated by this 'gamergate' side (though I know some who would disagree). I hope that helps, though I won't be surprised if it doesn't! Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"ideologically aligned" with who or what?

If you want to learn about Gamergate's ideology, you need to get off Wikipedia. Wikipedia, at least as many will argue, merely echoes the sentiments of the press, to which "Gamergate" is the subject of coverage. That's what Gamergate is here, whatever a journalist uses it to mean which can be and is many things. If you want to contribute to the article, you are thinking about it the wrong way. Wikipedia doesn't know details about Gamergate's ideology because the press hasn't covered it much. Radiodef (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wildly off topic for this section take it somewhere else CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia should be a place where readers can indeed learn about Gamergate's ideology. If readers cannot learn about the Gamergate movement's idealogy from this Article, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that we have not done our job. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Except that there's no real 'idealogy' behind an anonymous harassment campaign beyond anonymously harassing people, to be perfectly blunt. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Personally I think it's a problem with the coverage more than it's a problem with Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article has come leaps and bounds in coherency since the first time I read it, around the new year. Improving the coverage is one of Michael Koretzky's stated goals for SPJ Airplay so if the coverage improves maybe so will the Wikipedia article. Radiodef (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC) @Ryk72:, I tend to agree with you, though only to the extent that such ideology can be gleaned from reliable secondary sources. If we had an article on the (I hope) hypothetical "Starve the Desert Whales" movement, and all the reliable sources said "we have no clue what these people want or believe," then that's what the article should say. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC) As previous discussions here have shown, it is exquisitely difficult for a responsible and careful writer to distinguish the beliefs of Gamergate from the beliefs of particular individuals who claim to support Gamergate but cannot, in the nature of the thing, claim to represent Gamergate (because it has no officials or spokespersons) or to be representative of Gamergate (because the claim is incapable of verification). It's not difficult to discover that some Gamergate supporters are racists, but of course any group of people might include some racists. We can’t know what Gamergate believes. What we do know is what Gamergate does; that’s why we have abundant sources for harassment, more than ample sources for the attack on Wikipedia, and just about nothing of much use about ideology. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC) To get any significantly deeper into the ideology would require us using sources that aren't reliable, but there are enough broad strokes given in the high level, highest-reliable sources like NY Times and WA Post that we can describe the basic tenets that the non-harassing GG side claim to be after (and more than just "but ethics" calls) in an objective manner; these are likely based on reading forums and the various manifests that GG has produced at the known GG forum sites like KIA (as Singal did). We still have plenty of opinion sources that state these tenets are bunk and unworkable, that they help create an atmosphere that promotes harassment, that they are tainted by the harassment, etc., but we can still describe the high level aspects that RSes have reported and not pretend they don't exist or can't be documented, or because they have been debunked that we shouldn't cover them. The only line is any additional BLP claims (which I know some high level sources have actually reiterated, such as in the Boston Mag's Quinn/Gnoji piece, but are not necessary to understand GG any further). --MASEM (t) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC) This stuff is already covered in the article. Culture war, opposing social criticism, etc.. — Strongjam (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC) To nit: the culture war aspect is not part of GG's tenets, it is what secondary sources have said GG represents is a culture war; same with the opposing social criticsm - that's what secondary sources say GG's tenets amount to, but not an outright stated goal from GG themselves as reported by reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) @Masem: -- but this then would seem to me to circle back to Dr. Bernstein's point above; namely that with gamergate being so aggressively atomized down to the individual level, it's close to if not impossible to get anything that amounts to an "outright stated goal" that is not simply the isolated point of view of a gamergate supporter. I'm happy to be wrong though. Can you suggest any statements or sources (even if not RS) where I might see such a thing? Or even tell me what an "official statement" from gamergate might look like? I'd be interested to know. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "Actually it's about ethics in games journalism" is pretty much the only officially endorsed statement, and how many actually adhere to it, and how many simply use it is largely up to interpretation. Same goes for pretty much any slogan (i.e. "Change" per Obama, or "Britain deserves better" from New Labour in 97) it becomes a figurehead / subtext faster more readily than its impact can be ascertained. Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) There are two claims broadly made by GG supporters that have been stated by RS as what falls under the "ethics" aspect that we can report. (Note that I do not endorse these statements, I am just reiterating the points). First is the idea of "objective reviews", one where the elements of a video game - gameplay and graphics and the like - are not outweighed by story or message. It is why Depression Quest and games like Gone Home are at the center of the issue due to how little "game" they have and yet have been overwhelming praised for their story and message. Second is the notion of disclosure, that any connection that a review might have to a developer of a game should be clearly stated, from professional relationships to personal ones to even as simple as being a Patreon/Kickstarter supporter for a developer. Keep in mind that both aspects have been commented on and rebuttals given to both of these (such as "objective reviews" being a conflicting statement since reviews by nature are subjective), and we have those sources too. We also have the claim they are a consumer revolt/movement, in that they will use reviewers/websites that do not work towards the ethics stance GG has taken. Again, this has been generally dismissed by the press because of the overwhelming presence of harassment. There are other claims strictly related to ethics that a simple scan through KIA or other forums will reveal but that haven't been covered by any RS to any degree that we can use or include. And it is correct to keep in mind that there is a lot of diffusion of message here, in part by the anonymity of who is actually saying what, the fractured nature of the GG supporters, and of course the overwhelming aspect of harassment and threats tainting any message. There is no way that we can ever report a complete picture of the GG side of things with the press's current body of work or engaging in weaker RSes or unusable sources, but there are definitely facets that we can pull out from RSes to give enough of that side as well as criticism of that. Some of this is in the article already, but this is a organization thing that I pointed out many many months ago that could be fixed without having to pull in any non-RS source. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Masem -- I have heard those claims. I guess what I am looking for is a rule of recognition, so to speak. Why should we attribute those stances to gamergate as a whole, as opposed to other claims? How do we know that those are held by the movement and are not simply the views of some number of individuals? I am looking for a rubric to determine what is a 'gamergate' stance and what is an individual stance, because quite honestly, I don't have one. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Because the RSes are saying that these are claims of GGers as a whole, so we're not using original research to make the assessment that it is from an individual or from the group or the like. It's important to recognize these claims are being pulled from the RSes' evaluation of GG and not what we are doing, so these RSes are establishing these as statements of the whole, and not of individuals. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, which reliable sources are saying this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Vox, The Nation, The Village Voice, WA Post, and that's just a quick search. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Masem, I apologize, because I don't think I am effectively communicating my question. Let's take a look at the Washington Post article as an example. I see claims primarily by Lizzyf620, FinnyLawliet, and Oliver Campbell describing what gamergate is about, according to them. So we should take these as "official" statements by gamergate? If so, why so? Are some or all of these speakers in the role of spokespeople? This is what I don't understand. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Given that a highly reliable source, the WA Post, has decided that these statements are representative of what GG wants (and didn't just grab three random people), that's putting the original research ball in their hands, and out of ours, so we're allowed to take the WA Post's evaluation of those statements as indicating of the larger stance that GG has when you get to the ethics question. It also matches with what other sources have said. Yes, granted, we don't have a clear picture of how broadly this covers all GG supporters, but the WA Post, in this case, is calling it that is covers a large enough segment. (And while this gets into OR, anyone can readily verify that these themes are rehashed with a trip to KIA or any other GG forum, so common sense and reality also remain true). As long as we are saying "some claims of GG about ethics include..." and clearly not make the statement exclusive to only these, we're fine. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Okay, Masem, I see where you're coming from. I would still say that I personally would have grave misgivings about using that Washington Post article in order to ascribe a stance to 'gamergate.' As I read it, it goes out of its way to present views of individuals about gamergate, as I think is eminently reasonable under the circumstances. But for me, there is a meaningful distinction between "prominent proponents of gamergate believe" and "gamergate believes." Again, just in my own mind, I have yet to see anything that I would be comfortable describing with that second phrase. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC) The Vox article states that the GGC is about two things- harassing women and 'ethics in games journalism'. The Nation article explains the GGC as being about harassing women in video games and hand-wringing over the future of video games, explained as being about nerdy men angry that nobody wants to cater to them anymore. The Nation article does not purport to explain any of the principles claimed to be championed by gamergate hashtag users. The Washington Post article describes Gamergate as a 'months long culture-war over gender and ethics in the gaming industry'. These are all covered in the article we have right now. I'm not sure how exactly you're reading these. When you claim that these articles are about the other claims of GGers as a whole, that you both know intimately and do not endorse at all, it seems you might be trying to read them into a certain narrative that not all editors here are privy to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) How about the reliable sources that say Gamergate harassment stems from a desire for lulz? Or from frustration at losing too many games of Halo? (I'm not going to chase down the url's this moment, but of course we know there are plenty of them.) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) To both Peter and Mark, the point is to separate what the impression that GG is about (harassment, bitterness over no longer being the predominant gaming group, cultural war aspects, etc.) verses what GG state they are about (ethics, objective reviews, etc.) The articles I listed discuss both aspects: what GG state they are about, in addition to discussing what others thing they are about. Since that is a major point of contention in the entire GG situation, we have no idea which side is right (about the nature of GG) and thus present both sides objectively to this aspect, so that a reader can understand what the GG supporters claim they are about, and what impression that the press at large have. Clearly it isn't going to be a balanced picture, with magnitudes more words dedicated to critiquing GG, but the point about showing those articles is that we can talk towards what GG broadly has stated they are about as part of an objective coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I don't see the reason to make this distinction. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) It keeps our coverage of GG neutral, objective, non-judgemental, and documenting the controversy instead of taking a side in it, all elements required by policy. It is how articles on other controversial groups like Westboro Baptist Chruch or Scientology are set up - they describe what the group states they are about, and then proceeds to document the impressions and criticisms that the rest of the world has about that group; the major distinction is that we have named entities that represent the specific groups that reliable sources have pulled what the group is about directly and without question, while that's just not been possible with GG to the same degree due to the anonymity. This approach gives the reader the chance to make their own determination of how they should react to GG instead of forcing a specific narrative. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Relevant is that Westboro and Scientology are actual organisations, not hashtags. Do you believe the current article 'takes a side', and if so, what side is this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC) We have reliable sources that describe GG as a movement, albeit without clear identity or bounds, but with some loose organization. And the article is walking the line of taking the side of the anti-GG side as presented by the stronger opinions of the mainstream press - which is because this harassment has happened under the GG hashtag that the entire group of supporters is tainted/vile and they and their claims should be ignored. We should absolutely present the problems that the harassment has caused and not pretend it isn't a bad thing, but as the more common mainstream sources point out, not all of GG is engaged in harassment and they have made points regarding ethics in gaming journalism, which, as a social issue, we have no idea if they are right or wrong (and similarly, whether the presses' responses to that are right or wrong). The article has been written on the cusp of presuming that the press is right and GG is absolutely wrong in their take when it comes to ethics, suggesting that there's no reason to dedicate any space to the GG side. As an objective work, even if we personally believe that GG may be full of it, if we can accurately describe their stance as reported through RSes, we absolutely should be doing that with no pre-judgmental takes on that. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible bias on this article?

I am only asking this because of the starting paragraph and so on, as it spearheads a lot of points made only by the anti-Gamergate and attempts to debunk what the pro-Gamergate side is genuinely saying, only viewing them as a bunch of misogynistic children (which the majority of the main figures in Gamergate are over 20 and some are even women, such as shoe0nhead, the pornstar Mercedes Carrera, Christina H. Sommers, among others, are avid Gamergate supporters). If anything, at least give the Gamergate side some chances other than being portrayed in a negative light and give at the very least an objective summary of the event behold. And might I add using this as a source for anything about the journalists involved within the scandal:

• http://www.deepfreeze.it/index.php

Thank you and have a good day (and don't ban me for having an opposite opinion), --PootisHeavy (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

re: bias

1. deepfreeze is not RS
2. please read the archives re: bias
3. also maybe read the archive on lede and lead

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

1. How would you know if you have not checked out the website thoroughly? You made this post only 4 minutes after my original post. If I remember correctly, it usually takes at least 15 minutes to see if it is reliable or not. It truly is reliable.
2. I found this.
3. Can you link me to what you are talking about? --PootisHeavy (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. It does not even come close to meeting WP:IRS. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

May you please link me to the discussion of the website DeepFreeze that you are talking about? --PootisHeavy (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

here — Strongjam (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Under no circumstances can deepfreeze be regarded as a reliable source. It is self published, contains significant errors, and is based on questionable sources. Given that it is about living people, it won't come close to being reliable enough for BLP. - Bilby (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, PootisHeavy! I’m afraid that Deep Freeze is not a reliable source in terms of Wikipedia: see WP:RS for what Wikipedia means by "reliable source". It has no masthead, a vague editorial process, and no particular reputation for fact-checking. It is not clear who publishes it. We have discussed the lede -- the opening paragraphs -- extensively in over forty long pages of archives: see the top of this page. I don’t believe Wikipedia asserts that Gamergate supporters are predominantly children; if that is in the article, it should be changed. I don’t think you do Gamergate a service when you assert of its proponents that "some are even women, such as shoe0nhead, [and] the pornstar Mercedes Carrera." The article reflects the consensus of reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note- Mr. Bernstein is referring to this, as policy. We cannot use it for claims about any journalist. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Greetings, PootisHeavy! As the participant in the above linked discussion, I learned DeepFreeze is not good as a source according to Wikipedian consensus because it is about the journalists, rather than ethics in broad terms, which they worry has the potential to be defamation. Also, Wikipedian consensus is very much against the Zoe Post (which I have not read). I admire its claim to be willing to change its pages if they are wrong, but we don't know who runs it, while newspapers have a masthead. This is a problem for DF's inclusion as a source on GG claims because not putting their site to a real, legal name implies they don't want to take the risk of being known if they publish something factually inaccurate or anything. Sorry. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While the Deepfreeze thing is obviously a nonstarter, there are quite a few sources covering Mercedes Carrera's role in Gamergate.[7][8][9][10] Whether they're enough/of the quality to warrant a mention in the article I'm not sure. Brustopher (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Mention of GG in passing

idigitaltimes (RS?): Gamergate, men that harass, Halo, bad

GG mentioned in passing: http://www.idigitaltimes.com/post-gamergate-study-reveals-men-who-harass-women-playing-halo-suck-playing-halo-459976

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't see a use for this: even looking at the actual published report (freely available here [11]) there's not a mention of GG in that, though clearly the hypothesis is aligned with the predominant perception of GG. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Adam Baldwin picture

Why was the image of Adam Baldwin removed from the article current version? I mean I guess it makes sense there's an image of Katherine Clark on there. But I don't get Baldwin's pic being removed. GamerPro64 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It was removed June 16 by MarkBernstein [12] with the edit summary "no need for a pretty face who has played a negligible role in the notable parts of this affair". At the time, none of the other article editors (especially Strongjam and Tony Sidaway who were also actively editing the article) seems to have paid much attention to that edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Good grief that's just silly. That doesn't even sound like good enough reason to take the pic off. GamerPro64 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know; I don't have strong feelings either way. A picture of Baldwin could be included, I suppose, but I am not sure it's demanded by the article. For instance, it would make sense to me that if a picture of Baldwin is absolutely necessary to the article, then by analogy, a picture of Phil Fish is as well. Just what occurs to me! Dumuzid (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Adam Baldwin's picture is not as relevant as compared to other named GG supporters like Christina Hoff Sommers or Milo Y. If we were desparate for an image to break up a wall of text in that part of the article, his picture would be fine, but in the harassment section where it was used, we already have a good # of images of the three main victims that break up the flow in that section. I added Rep. Clark's picture to the later section because that was where there was a wall of text, and her participation in this situation is more significant's than Adam Baldwin's. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly is now at least. Though there probably could be a better picture of her. GamerPro64 02:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To be brutally honest, she doesn't have many good photographs of her in the free-licensing space. The one I added I felt was better looking than the one of her on her actual page. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. They can't all be gems. GamerPro64 02:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Baldwin is a significant figure, he mainly has served to ReTweet some GG messages. I think the article could use some more imagery though.

I know I'll be accused of being nit-picky but could not refer to the women who were harassed as "the three main victims"? They are more than victims and this Literally Who business was trying to deny them their identity by erasing their name. Let's either be specific and use their last names or refer to them as the women who were harassed, rather than identify them as victims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Victim isn't a negative connotation, and does summarise their role accurately. It's also the most cited description of what they endured and is also notably used in the "Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus". The "Literally Who" bit has nothing to do with calling someone a victim of a crime (particularly when they were victims of a crime). In the article they are typically referred to by name in good order, but for shorthand referring to the 3 people who suffered the most harassment as "victims" on a talk page is far from inappropriate. Koncorde (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, the term is far from inappropriate. At the same time, the problem is that "connotation" is a subjective experience. You can say that 'victim' shouldn't carry a negative connotation, but not that it doesn't. That would be a bit like telling someone that his or her choice of favorite color is incorrect. For me, the term does carry some sense of a lack of agency. And you're right again that they are victims in this melodrama, but it also feels reductive to call it their "role," as it strikes me they play many other roles at the same time, even in relation to gamergate. But I am not the language police and am not here to tell you whether or not to use the term (there are far worse crimes in the world, like the word "irregardless!"). Just a reminder that language is not a scientific formula and our experiences thereof differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The victims / agents / subjects of harassment can have their own feelings about the word. However when crashoverride itself advertises "helping victims rebuild" and every reliable source in the article refers to them as victims, then I'm not buying the need to police Masems language. Koncorde (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, I am not here to police anyone's language. Buy whatever you like, and I will do the same! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What is Gamergate?

This is a serious question. I became aware of this topic because the discretionary sanctions on gender-related articles are named after it, and since then I have wondered what it is. This article is not much help, and neither was a Google search, which turned up all sorts of analysis, but no description of what the thing is in the first place. I gather from what I've read that some people on online forums harassed several female video game developers, and that there is some broader issue about sexism in video games (I think.) However, the title says "Gamergate controversy." What is the controversial part? Similarly, the article refers to "Gamergate supporters" - what does someone who supports Gamergate believe? The article is almost written as if "Gamergate supporter" means someone who wants these three women to be harassed - I assume there's more to it. The article keeps referring vaguely to concerns about journalistic ethics - what are these concerns, specifically? It doesn't seem to say. And what reason did the harassers themselves claim for their actions? Could the term "Gamergate controversy" be defined in the lede, instead of just saying "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture."? --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey. The confusion is pretty reasonable- it's difficult for people to understand the subject of the article with a cursory reading. I've made the lede a bit more blunt, and hope this aids in your understanding. I'll do some more work on elaborating on/explaining the 'Gamergate supporters' term when I'm not on a wifi network. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that is absolutely not a workable change. To start that it is claimed as a harassment campaign is not a fact stated by the sources (it is their opinion that it is), and even if we took the campaign aspect as true, there is zero evidence to demonstrate that the goal of that campaign is to drive women out of the industry. These are certainly valid opinions about what the intent of the GG movement is and necessary to document in the body, but it is far from any factual stance to be used as the explanation of what GG is as the lead starting sentence, 100% failing to adhere to neutrality. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to the controversy: the first is the issue of the claims of ethics in video game journalism (namely concerns on lack of disclosure, and putting story/message over gameplay and graphics in reviews and coverage of video games) that the group that are considered GG supporters have raised, and the counterpoints that the video game press and mainstream press have put towards that. That controversy was quickly overwhelmed by the second one, the use of harassment by people using the GG hashtag (which may or may not include members of the GG supporter group above) against Quinn and other developers, and the fact that this controversial harassment and threatening appears coordinated, what seems to be a result of sexist and misogynistic views, and has continued despite the amount of pleas and requests for it to stop by mainstream press. The two controversies are linked because they both started on Gjoni's revealing post (which both pointed to Quinn, and pointed out a disclosure/review issue with her game). Additionally while the GG supporter group is anonymous and claims to not be engaging in harassment, there's several questionable parts of their behavior as a group to beg the question if some of these supporters are engaging in harassment using the GG hashtag and using the ethics as a front, or simply taking a indifferent stance to the harassment as to encourage an environment that encourages it, and not taking advice to distance themselves from the GG hashtag to prove they aren't part of the problem. As best we know, we have no reasoning why those that are actually harassing are doing what they are doing, beyond knowing that Quinn and Sarkaasian were already targets of harassment before GG started; we can only speculate (from RSes) on their motivations

We do use "controversy" as the term because it is the most neutral stance; while there's claims of a GG movement, it's not taken with any seriousness by many sources, and to call it something like "GG harassment attacks" or similar is making a large assumption about the nature of who's involved. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede reads as though it were written by a committee of lawyers--and this is not a good thing (though I understand why it is). I know this issue has been rehashed many times, but I think, while the history section does a good job, a sentence or two in the lede about the genesis of this whole to-do could be useful for newcomers and those passing by. I would suggest something like "The controversy began when some users of social media expressed disapproval of a female video game developer's private life, including alleged improprieties involving a journalist. Over time, these users began to shift their public focus to accusations of unethical behavior against the developer and a broader set of video game targets. It garnered significant public attention . . . ." I think some precis of this sort would be a help in the lede. Then again, there are wiser minds than mine here! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede is presently set up to set out as much blame as possible on the GG situation for the harassment - which is arguably what the press has done but not what WP should be writing as per NPOV and SOAPBOX. Setting up the lead to be as close to the actual facts as possible - which is really the sequence of events in Aug and Sept, in that Gjoni posted, and while some took to that to debate ethics under the GG hashtag, the engagement of harassment and threats under the GG hashtag quickly overwhelmed it. Once that is set up then discussion of the impact of the harassment, and the debunking of the ethics claims can be made. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP can only do what the RS provide. And given the number of times you've brought this idea here and at other place in WP, where you haven't gotten support, you should drop this stick. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I am not sure what you make of my suggestion! Larger debate aside, I am trying to make the lede better insofar as it currently deals mostly with the abstract 'culture war' sorts of issues. When someone not already immersed in the topic stops by, like Sammy1339 above, I fear that the absence of a concrete sentence or two in the lede adds to the general confusion. I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts on this, or if I should just go away! Either is fine by me. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that what GG is, if one had to describe it in one sentence for the lead, depends on which side of the issue you sit on; if you are a member of the journalism side, they want to describe it as a harassment campaign; if you're on the GG side, they want to describe it as a consumer revolt. There is no right answer that we know of because what GG actually is is a mess, most of the people involved using anonymity to make it impossible to truly know what is going on. We can access the actions, but we really can't say what it is simply. Hence why it would be better to start off in the lead on a neutral historical review of how it came about, and then move into why it is a problem and criticized by the press. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's more or less my goal as well. I thought everyone agreed that it was the so-called "Zoe post" that really kicked things off, and I thought everyone would agree that there was an attempt to switch the focus of gamergate as group and hashtag to ethics. How successful that attempt was is up for debate. May I ask, would you agree with those propositions? Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Gjoni posting is unanimously reported as the point GG started. While it is claimed by most of the press that the ethics angle was raised as a cover for the harassment, in part based on logs Quinn claimed she got, I do not think we can state this as a fact, given that there are GG supporters that claim they do not engage and try to combat the harassment and want to discuss the ethics angle, and that we (press and Wikipedia alike) basically have no insight otherwise into the purpose or membership of those using the GG hashtag. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, you'll note that in my propositions, there's nothing about intent. I think the attempt to pivot to ethics is pretty close to objective fact; many have said this was as a cover for harassment, gamergate has argued it was a "consumer revolt" over ethics sparked from a somewhat unfortunate source. Either way, it seems fairly noncontroversial to me to say that gamergate attempted to switch the focus to ethics -- so long as we don't try to analyze the motives for doing so. Am I wrong? Dumuzid (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"it seems fairly noncontroversial to me to say that gamergate attempted to switch the focus to ethics" is a statement about intent; we have no idea what the driver was for when ethics came up vs when harassment started. I don't disagree that the opinion of many sources is that this was done to cover the harassment with the ethics angle, but to state it factually is ascribing an intent that we have no facts to support that. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion is that the "ethics" line was started by non-gaters to mock the behaviour up to that point, but was latched upon because of its meme-ability.

Back to the original topic - the lede has been a mess since the beginning because if the insistence of using the word "Controversy" instantly means this is a discussion of the Controversy rather than the group (I understand the ant takes precedence, but the fear of using a "#" to differentiate has never made any sense). I've argued this on at least 3 occasions (maybe 4) but it always ends up a clusterfudge discussion and the lede remains a mess. In reality this is an article about the harassment attributed to a hashtag, so anyone coming here for any more than that is always going to be confused. Koncorde (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not conveying what I mean very well. Let's go through some hypothetical intents, if you'll forgive my bloviation!

(1) Ethics was a way to cover up harassment. It was just misdirection. Here we could say people "attempted to switch the focus to ethics."

(2) After the start of gamergate, a number of people said "I don't care about lurid details, but I think there's something shady going on here. We need to talk about this." Here we could say people "attempted to switch the focus to ethics."

(3) People with pre-existing ethical complaints saw gamergate as a way to talk about things that had been bothering them for years. Here we could say people "attempted to switch the focus to ethics."

(4) There were people who were disturbed by the negative tack the hashtag had taken, and with the best of intentions, wanted to take the focus off of individuals. Here we could say people "attempted to switch the focus to ethics."

I promise I'll drop it after this, it's just that I don't see how that wording implies intent beyond the concept that the change was the result of a conscious impetus; perhaps that's the issue? I don't mean to in any way (in this proposed sentence) link the ethics pivot to covering up harassment. Even if, arguendo I ascribe every pure-hearted motive in the world to gamergate, I still think it apt to say there was an attempt to focus on ethics. I guess what I don't follow is why you see this as irrevocably tied to the "ethics as harassment cover up" idea? I apologize for being so thick, but my summer weekends tend to start Thursday afternoon, apparently. Dumuzid (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that ethics aspects were not absent at the start of this mess - they were always there alongside the harassment. Key dates here are Aug 16 , the date of Gjoni's post; Aug 20, the date Tolito @ Kotaku posted debunking the allegation; Aug 21 Phil Fish doxxed; Aug 24 KIA board at reddit is created; Aug 26 Sarkeesian posts a video in Tropes vs Women series; Aug 27 Baldwin uses "#gg" hashtag; and Aug 28 Leigh Alexander's "Death of gamers" article (and several more like it) published. We can easily see from sources at that time (for example Vice on Aug 19, Daily Beast on Aug 22, Slate on Aug 27) that the coverage was about both the ethics angle (mostly focused on the accusation at Quinn), running alongside the same type of harassment that Quinn, Fish, and many other game developers and the like had been getting over the last 2-odd years; at this point the harassment wasn't being treated as strongly and with the same condemnation as it is now because it looked like more of the same that they had been getting. (Arguably it was about when Sarkeesian became a target of harassment - eg at the same time of the Death of Gamers articles - when the coverage turned from trying to ascribing both sides to specifically denouncing GG for the harassment in a much more condemning tone. And then when the USU bomb threat happened, that's when the mainstream media got involved and followed suit). Now, I will agree that towards the back end of this period, there was an organization of those that wanted to talk about ethics to coordinate their discussions, thus the formation of KIA. That created a signal boost to try to overcome the noise that the harassment aspects were created. At that point, I can totally see how one can get to the conclusion that this signal boost was an artificial thing directed by those in the harassment as to try to shift focus off harassment, but we don't have any evidence to that end; it could have also simply been done in earnest to distance themselves from the harassment too, but we also don't have any evidence to that end. That's why I have a problem to try to claim any type of motive or intent for the ethics side as a fact. We can state that the push of ethics was meant as a cover for harassment as part of an attributable claim, but since no one has any documentation of the full picture of GG at that point in time, no one is in a position to state anything as fact. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I am still failing to get my point across. Would you agree that users of the hashtag #gamergate began with a focus on Ms. Quinn, and at some time thereafter, for some reason, underwent a shift towards a focus on ethics more broadly? What I think is missing from the lede is a mention of that "signal boost" you reference without delving in to the motivations behind it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree they shifted from focusing on Quinn to broader ethics within a few weeks of Gjoni's post. I just don't think we can say why they did that with absolute certainty. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, my goal is just to help construct a narrative for those unfamiliar with the events, and I get the feeling that many people say "Okay, it starts with this bad breakup . . . wait, why are we discussing Gawker?" If you'll go back up and read my proposed sentences, I was simply trying to describe the very early days of the controversy. I can see how the word 'public' might have given the impression that I was talking about ulterior motives, but I did not intend to. Again, I think the lede could use a value-neutral description of the 'signal boost' to help them understand how we went from 'The Zoe Post' to Kotaku in Action as it exists today (for lack of a better description!). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Urgent: Please redact "...logs Quinn claimed she got." This insinuates that a living person made an untrue statement; no reliable source believe that allegation, which merely employs Wikipedia to extend the harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. Saying someone claimed something is not saying they lied; it just remains a statement without any way to validate it. The only validation was from a 4chan thread, but that doesn't give any source where the other logs came from. They may be true, they may not be, we will never know. Hence saying she claimed to got those is a perfectly cautionary stance. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Very well. You claim this is policy, and so -- since you are an expert on policy as well as on Gamergate’s inner workings -- I will comply despite my misgivings. Quite a lot of the article may need revision to bring it into compliance. To begin, let's change the language on the origination of the Gamergate hash tag to read:

The controversy, originally termed the "quinnspiracy", adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate",[19][23][29][30] which Adam Baldwin claims to have originated.[30]

OK with everyone? This, too, is a statement without any independent validation.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no insight on GG's inner workings so please stop once again with personal attacks.

And no, that's not appropriate because we actually have a source that says Baldwin was the first to use it, it wasn't a claim he made. Article [13] and "To clarify the above article, actor Adam Baldwin was the first to use the hashtag #GamerGate, according to results on the Twitter analytics website Topsy as noted by Cathode Debris." --MASEM (t) 19:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to suspect a strong insight into Gamergate's inner workings. If this strong insight existed you'd know that even the people running the IRC say at the very worst she took parts of the chat log "out of context", and that "claimed" is completely the wrong word in this scenario. Brustopher (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Same situation, exactly. Someone claims to have analyzed logs. We'll find lots more example of "claims", I expect. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Escapist[14] mentions how the logs show moderators being hypervigilant about sockpuppets saying damning things in order to screenshot themselves. (Redacted) Rhoark (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I've redacted and suggest you rephrase. You appear to be claiming that a particular person said damning things in IRC in order to screenshot them, the source does not make any such claim. — Strongjam (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the exact text from The Escapist:

Because of the strict anonymous nature of the 4Chan forum board, the threat of an impostor or a "shill" entering the group is mentioned often. Quinn said that this is one of the reasons why she entered the group and posted the screenshots. "I want these anonymous jerks to be a little more fearful that maybe the stranger they're discussing hacking plans with isn't actually on their side," she said.

It doesn't prove whether any particular statement is sincere, but in Quinn's own words, her purpose for being there was to create confusion on that point. That should be an incredible red flag for a Wikipedia source. Rhoark (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: That just says she was there to take and post screenshots. Please stop try to extrapolate it past that. — Strongjam (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: No, in both Quinn's words and the Escapist's interpretation, she is making a statement both about what she did and also what her motivation was. Rhoark (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The new lede is a vast improvement, so thanks to the people who did that. I still have some confusion though. Please understand that in the following I'm still commenting as an almost-total ignorant, so I apologize if I'm getting things wrong. The article still doesn't clearly say what Gamergate is. Reading the "Gamergate activities" section, it's apparent that the group may not have a coherent, common set of ideas; yet, I have to believe that since the scandal involved coordinated harassment by many people there must have been some reason, real or imagined. Generally when dealing with hate groups the group's ideology should be explained before specific examples of things they've done, or condemnations of them. For example the Ku Klux Klan article soberly explains where the KKK came from and what its motivations and ideology are, before going on to say nasty things about it. This gives an unfamiliar reader necessary context. This article, by contrast, just dives directly into specific examples of abuses, and only later muses about why they might have happened. I understand that not everybody is in agreement about what the ideology of Gamergate is, but in that case, isn't the standard practice to include all notable views, rather than none of them? I'm getting a little bit more insight by reading between the lines in the later parts of the article body. So for example, the statement from the middle of "Debate over ethics allegations", the statement "Alyssa Rosenberg of The Washington Post said that some of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns about video game reviews are actually rooted in Gamergate supporters' belief that video games are appliances rather than art and should be reviewed based on feature checklists rather than traditional artistic criteria" makes some sense out of the otherwise bizarre comment by Masem above that GG supporters had ethics concerns about the coverage of story instead of graphics. Still, this doesn't sound like an ethical concern exactly, and I'm left wondering if there's some further subtext I'm missing. It's also totally problematic that the article goes into a "debate over ethics allegations" without having clearly said what those allegations were in the first place. At a minimum, I think some basic re-structuring should be done, like placing the "misogyny and sexism" subsection ahead of the specific examples of abuse against Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu. Furthermore, if comments that the movement is incoherent, such as found in the second paragraph of "Gamergate activities", are really the best that can be done, these should go near the top or even in the lede. It's probably not appropriate for the article to start off with the "History" section, since the subject of the article hasn't been clearly established by that point. Fundamentally though, I'd just like to see more clear and explicit information, and less hemming and hawing. But I also realize that including that might cause a lot of editors major headaches, so you can consider that a commentary, not a demand. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem when a lot of the information that established the issues with those concerns have been scrubbed, buried, or marginalized, and I've pushed many times to try to have an organized section to at least explain what is known as the motivation of the group as best described by reliable sources; we have most of the information already, just spread out and reduced to critique rather than documenting. (For example, the point on "GG supporters had ethics concerns about the coverage of story instead of graphics" involves understanding that the indie game market has allowed for games that are more about a message or story to be developed; some of these become media darlings, like Depression Quest and Gone Home, when they have actual very little gameplay, when compared to games like Halo or Call of Duty. The GGers do not like that reviewers will ignore the lack of gameplay while praising a title for a story and/or message, and part of that is their ethics claims that these reviewers have connections to the developers as to play such favors, but it also what they consider unethical to try to review these games on a same scale as your average AAA release, thus begging if they are playing favorites even if there are no person connections. We had material - sourced- early in the development of the article that addressed this but it has been scrubbed since).

However, I will say that because as little is known about GG supporters, I think the history section is the best manner, as that is all clearly factual stuff that has happened. Quinn et al were harassed, it has been ongoing, etc. The issue is that who has done the harassment in relationship to who the GG supporters are is unknown, beyond the use of a common hashtag. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The narrative element of the History is terrible. I was just looking at how it could be tidied up and realised that we start talking about Gamergate harassment before even identifying the Gamergate hashtag. Koncorde (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the harassment started before the hashtag was used (Aug 16-17th vs Aug 27th). --MASEM (t) 14:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I know, that's the problem. History section suggests all harassment is done by gamers and Gamergate (paragraph 1 runs through to September 2014), Gamergate hashtag section says actually it was only after August 26th and Quinnspiracy came first. End result is the narrative is a mess because the context has been robbed to create the Gamergate Hashtag section. Koncorde (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any way to cover this subject and not first cover the harassment following the Gonji post through the present. It is what this topic is notable for, unfortunately. It's also recognized that the GG movement (or whatever you want to call it) was a result of the harassment. It does "help" in our summary that much of the activity of the movement that we can document was limited to a few months, and while overlapping with the harassment, is more separated outside of running parallel to it, so that if we were to be more cohesive about the GG movement as a singular section, describing it as what grew from the initial harassment/social media push, it at least would make more sense immediately following the harassment history. And then after that we have the press's stance that effectively tear into both the movement and the harassment overall, which is absolutely necessary. I just don't think there's any way that the movement presently can be covered before the harassment aspects since it was a fallout of that. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

...yeah I have no idea what you just said past your first sentence. I have no interest in covering the movement, only that the narrative is screwed up. How can we say in paragraph 3 "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest" when the Gamergate hashtag is only introduced four paragraphs later and outright says that is started with the Quinnspiracy... The context is a mess. Koncorde (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a narrative chicken-and-egg problem that we haven't properly introduced what "GG supporters" or "GG movement" or whatever prior to the part in the history of harassment where their role is important. Taken the sentence of issues "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest.", it could be rewritten as "Statements in the post led some online users to allege..." and then after the next sentence that starts "The claim was...", we could bring up that "Nevertheless, a portion of these online users to continue to describe ethical problems they saw in video game journalism, first using the #quinnspiracy hashtag but soon shifting to the #gamergate hashtag and calling themselves the Gamergate movement to highlight their platform." (or some similar language). This makes all subsequent mention of Gamergate after that point in line with that and should be clear what a "GG supporter" is without , at that point, getting too deep into the ethics/stance they have and saving it for later. I would even go as far to say that in the first sentence of the next para "After the blog post, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign." I would add "...often done either under the #quinnspiracy or the #gamergate hashtags." (or something to that effect). --MASEM (t) 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark's major revision to the lede

@Rhoark: -- I personally don't think this lede revision is an improvement, but I have some questions. Was Baldwin critical of video game journalism in creating the hashtag? It was my impression from the sources that he was mainly critical of Ms. Quinn, not herself a journalist, but I might be wrong. What is the support for the social justice vs. classical liberalism proposition? And why remove Ms. Wu from the list of those targeted by gamergate? She would seem to me worth including, whatever one's opinion of her. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam said it better than I did below. I'll leave this here for transparency's sake, but ignore this section. Dumuzid (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert

I've just reverted Rhoark's changes to the lede, for a number of reasons. It removed Brianna Wu from the lede, even though harassment campaign against her is covered extensively in the body. The last paragraph about the hashtag being coined about the state of video game journalism is not supported by the body of the article. It removed relevant details about the scope of the harassment. The bit about it being described as a conflict between advocates of social justice and "the classic liberalism ideal of free speech" also does not appear to be supported by the body. All in all, the previous lede did a better job of summarizing the article. — Strongjam (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Further, we have extensive evidence that the hashtag has never concerned "video game journalism" because few or none of the notable campaigns undertaken under the hashtag have any discernible relation to journalism. As CJR observed, if there was ever any concern for journalism, then writers, editors, and publishers might have been subjected to relentless harassment. Instead, vile threats were directed at women who are not journalists. I observe that this bold proposal flies directly in the face of the consensus of this talk page. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia does not make judgement on the subjects it covers. I don't care if every major source has trivialized the notion that the hashtag was used for discussion of ethics or that it might be a cover for something else, they still report that there were ethics issues discussed under the hashtag, and for WP, that we should be including without any additional judgement on that fact alone. We later can discuss how the press believe that nothing of note came out of the ethics or that they are bogus or that they are all conspiracy theories, but we absolutely cannot pretend that there wasn't ethics discussions from the hashtag. Taking the press's side is judgemential and fully unacceptable for this article. (Note that except for the first sentence of the lead that was changed by Peter and replaced by Mark, I do agree that the current version post-reversion by Strongjam is about as close to current consensus as will allow, but we have to address alot of the tone of this article first to get the lead into better shape). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The sources agree that the purported "ethical concerns" were, to be blunt, fake; reporting fake concerns as if they were genuine is far from encyclopedic. Accurate characterization of the subject is mandatory; it's what Wikipedia does. We do "take the press’s side" on this subject as on every other subject: Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources report. The Columbia Journalism Review is widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative source on ethics in journalism, and every other significant authority concurs in its judgment. It is providential that reporting what the best sources conclude is not in fact (in your colorful term) "judgmential." To demonstrate that it is not "fully unacceptable" to follow the sources, we can point to its acceptance here from the outset, despite an unprecedented and widely-reported campaign directed against Wikipedia and its editors. The lede still fails to accurately characterize Gamergate as a conspiracy, or its actions as terroristic -- both conclusions amply supported by the body. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not take any side in a debate or a controversial subject. We document both sides (so we are still being faithful to what the press have claimed in their words with proper language and attribution and clearly with the weight in favor of their take on the issue), and do not try to say which side is right, as we have no idea which side is right here. NPOV tells use to keep contentious statements as claims and not report them as fact, as it the case of much of the analysis of GG's situation. To do anything else is purposely making this article a SOAPBOX and unacceptable under all of WP policies. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says that we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe notions, conspiracy theories, and other fables -- even (and especially) those that complain that they receive no coverage in reliable sources because the press is bias. Moreover, can and does judge that some “sides” are wrong in the sense that crimes are wrong. We can and do agree with the proposition that to threaten to cripple a software developer if she dares to attend a conference is wrong. This is not soapbox; it is simply a proper respect for the opinions of mankind and for the sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If a group is central to the topic of an article, there is no way that FRINGE applies to that topic. GG's views in the context of the GG controversy are important to establish what the situation is. It is like saying that a third-party presidential candidate's views should not be reported on his page because they are not mainstream views that >95% of the voting population do not accept. And no one know who has done the crime here, so it is absolutely not appropriate to take the stance that because a crime has been done, that everything that is possibly connected to it is guilty and thus we should trivialize their views. Further, even for convicted criminals, if we know their rationale for committing the crime from secondary sources, we discuss them, we don't discredit them. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: please drop this stick. You have yet to provide RS for this position of yours. There is no both sides; there are discredited stuff and what the RSs say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The press is not the authority on the matter here to be able to judge their view as the absolutely right one. It is certainly the one that falls in line with the moral compass, but we don't write towards that. The entire situation is a social controversy, so that means there is no right answer here, unlike what one can prove with science and research, and we cannot act like one side has "won" or "lost". We're supposed to be documenting and that means recognizing there are two sides that need documenting. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, provide the RS that back up what you want to write. There is no RS for it. You haven't gotten consensus for this in 6 months, because you have failed to provide RS that backs up your desired edits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There's one thing I can't argue with, which is that as long as the body has problems, that's a procedural justification for the lede having problems. The draft is about 30% done.

Regarding Adam Baldwin, I'll just refer to his interviews.[15][16] Even if you doubt the reliability of the publications, his own reasons for starting the hashtag are validly WP:ABOUTSELF.

Regarding Brianna Wu, if you're going to name 3 people getting harassed, Wu would undoubtedly be the 3rd. I only named two for parsimony. Gamergate as we know it would be non-existent or very different without Sarkeesian or Quinn. It cannot be understood without knowing how its history intersects those people's. Wu is just #1 of the "numerous other individuals".

Sources describing an undercurrent of debate between social justice and freedom of thought/expression include: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Some of these are more reliable, some less. Some are pro, and some anti. Some make it the central theme of their article, and some give it a mention. What's inescapable is there's broad testimony for a third strand of pro-GG thought that is neither about video game journalism nor anti-inclusivity.

Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I don't have a real problem with the Baldwin stuff, but it does strike me as a bit of rewriting history; I'm not sure how we should judge his own declarations against the reliable sources' interpretation. As for Wu, it seems clear to me that she is a prominent part of the story and belongs in the lede, but reasonable minds can differ. Finally, with regard to free speech, I, personally, would have no problem with a bit more of that discussion in the article. The opposition you set up of "social justice" as against "classical liberalism" seemed to me to bring a lot of unstated assumptions and unnecessary 'baggage' with it. But furthermore, this is, again, as I see it, the problem with trying to cover gamergate. Is there a third strand of pro-GG thought? Absolutely. And a fourth. And a fifth, and so on to infinity. I see free speech frequently associated with gamergate, but not much beyond the conclusory concept that "free speech is good and we need more of it." Pinning down any actual views of "gamergate" is as difficult as ever. Thanks for the response. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult due to two contributing factors: that GG is amorphous with no real organization so figuring out what views represent them is near impossible without using secondary sources to distill that down for us, and the lack of actual such coverage in secondary sources due to how the press have decided to cover this. But it still can be done, and as our job to try to document this, we should be doing our best to outline any major points of view that have been attributed to GG's side that have been in secondary sources, even if these sources go right into ridiculing those points after stating them. We have the ability as a tertiary source to separate that train of thought and include both parts - what GG believes without the criticism of the press, later followed by why that's criticized by the press - and thus documenting to the best of our ability to avoid prejudgement. It's not impossible but it is a hard task. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Masem, but if we are to deduce "what GG believes without the criticism of the press," which reliable sources would you suggest? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For example, we have several sources that summarize GG as having "ostensible ethics concerns" (give or take wording choices). We as a tertiary source should be able to recognize that "ostensible" is a matter of opinion (of the press) and that they are still saying, in a source we can use, GG has concern about ethics, and then later iterate that the press consider this claim "ostensible". It's just a matter of recognizing that if the press is criticizing a specific aspect of GG's view, we can still describe GG's view separated from the added criticism, and then later include the criticism so that we're still reflecting the predominant view in the media. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That would unduly legitimize the "ethics concerns". They need to be presented in the context of how they are viewed by our reliable sources. — Strongjam (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. Consider that for each of the 2 or 3 points we can raise about GG's ideals, we have at least 3 or more sources that go and debunk it, plus the overall wealth of sources that call the whole GG movement bogus. The balance in the sources is clearly critical of any of these points and so we're still maintaining the balance that is presented in the present. A false balance would be to try to find sources that don't presently exist (in reliable manner) that would justify the GG's POV to give that point more weight than simply mere repetition. But in absolutely no way should be be shying away from simply reporting in a sentence or two on each of the major points what GG says, prior to getting deep into the critical nature of the rest of the press. Definitely not a false balance. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I have no doubt that you offer the idea in good faith, but I would also be very concerned about stripping reliable sources of their context. To me it comes dangerously close to the Fallacy of quoting out of context. Dissecting the RS in that way seems to me a very slippery slope. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Except we've already done that with this article in how it is presenting the most extreme stances as to present a heavily critical view of GG. And no, I disagree that if a source primarily goes into criticism about a GG stance point, that at least means we can document that GG has that point, making sure that we still include the criticism of that point later. (It would be a problem if we took an article strongly critical of GG and only pulled out the supportive points about GG and throw the rest away, that would be taking the article out of context). --MASEM (t) 17:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Your differentiations (last parentheses re: QOOC) appear very much different in theory, but what does that mean in practice?

Concept	Example article	! Example of concept distillation
Strongly crit. thing/pull support only	paragraph to distill from	distillation
Crit stance point of thing/mentions stance point crit.	paragraph to distill from	distillation

Just to demonstrate you point, could I have you make two paragraphs where you show what you mean in the table above? (Note: the content of the table doesn't have to be about GG). Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with your assertion that "there's broad testimony for a third strand of pro-GG thought." The vast majority of sources you linked to are blogs or opinion pieces, mostly from a handful of libertarian voices with no connection to GamerGate beyond their attempts to connect it to their own pet issues; the few non-opinion sources only touch on it in passing, and represent only a tiny fraction of the overall coverage. For instance, you cited four pieces by Bokhari, by my count. It feels to me like you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to an extremely marginal view of the controversy. But viewed in the context of the overarching coverage this topic has gotten, your list (which I assume represents extensive work on your part) does not impress; if that's the best coverage you can come up with, I think you've pretty thoroughly affirmed that the current article is fine. As the article says, there have been numerous people who have tried to exploit the controversy by connecting it to their own politics; we mention a few editorials along the lines of what you're saying, but there's no real evidence that it's a remotely significant aspect of the larger controversy, and your repeated failure to find more than one or two usable sources that even mention it -- combined with your continued reliance on opinion pieces by the same tiny handful of people who people have repeatedly tried to give WP:UNDUE weight in this article -- only reaffirms that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering that most of the mainstream coverage of GG that we are using as sources are primarily opinion pieces from people not connected in any way to GG or video game coverage, it it hypocritical to claim that these other sources that have been pointed out don't work as sources. We cannot work on the assumption that the mainstream press is "right" in their view of GG, only that it is the most predominant. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What is this about? Forbes: Pixels, GG

GG is prominent in the article, but what? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/07/22/adam-sandlers-pixels-is-bombing-with-critics/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Promising New Source

That time the Internet sent a SWAT team to my mom's house, Boing Boing and Narratively. A useful source, and also mandatory reading. (Redacted) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Krano, what erroneous claim about a living person did the article linked make? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Eron never made the claim that favours were traded. Also the source accuses him of harassment which could be WP:BLPCRIME and the accusation that the post contained anti-woman material could be considered WP:LIBEL because that opinion is based on a false claim Krano (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)