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.

Some positive or neutral coverage from non-insane media sources that could help make the article more even-sided

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/ http://observer.com/2015/10/blame-gamergates-bad-rep-on-smears-and-shoddy-journalism/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNKvF5jOXUk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguanaray (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as the Kain pieces go: discussed and rejected as a non-RS: Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_27#Review_of_Reliable_Sources. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All of those are opinion articles. They are not reliable sources on anything. Next. --Jorm (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the sources currently referenced are WP:RSOPINION tier only. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Except the sources list is full of opinion pieces about whether it's doing more "bad" than "good", which is not something that is objectively quantifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguanaray (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Tim Soret

Tim Soret apologized for participating in gg? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources so far

1. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3784512/one-last-night-game-developer-tim-soret-apologises-onstage-at-e3-over-gamergate-tweets/
2. https://www.polygon.com/e3/2017/6/12/15780174/the-last-night-twitter-history-gamergate
3. http://kotaku.com/e3-show-stealer-s-old-political-tweets-spark-internet-f-1796025311

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall if The Sun is RS. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm against mentioning that whole kerfuffle at all unless it attracts way more coverage than it has so far. Right now it's only tangentially related - in most situations, we wouldn't mention every single person who eg. got in trouble for using a label or whatever and then apologized for it. It might get a mention on a page for him or his game, but I don't think it belongs here. Eventually there might be a enough broader "where are they now" retrospectives on Gamergate as a whole that could support a paragraph on how people involved in it changed and evolved over time and where they ended up afterwards, maybe, but (unless this incident attracts way more coverage than it has) I doubt he would be worth mentioning even in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be too soon to include it. But I mention it for completeness, and a heads up. This kind of thing tends to draw interesting people to the GGC page.

Also, https://www.polygon.com/e3/2017/6/11/15779448/the-last-night-xbox-one-pc

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Another tangential data point from an RS: [1]. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Harassment, not Journalism Ethics

@Bilby: I can't agree with "and" instead. emphasis mine

• while Gamergate supporters claimed to be interested in journalism ethics, their "misogynistic and threatening" behavior belied this claim.
• claim to be challenging the ethics of game journalists through patently unethical behavior
• Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics
• more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists
• "perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism"
• "the movement's much-mocked mantra, 'It's about ethics in journalism'"
• while ignoring many large-scale journalistic ethics issues
• Vox writer Todd VanDerWerff highlighted an essay written by game developer David Hill, who said that corruption, nepotism, and excessive commercialism existed in the gaming industry, but that Gamergate was not addressing those issues.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can go with the section heading just being Harassment. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been very selective in that list. Most of the quotes in that section are arguing that the ethics concerns in GamerGate were minor, misplaced, or of lesser focus than the harassment, but they are not arguing that there were no ethics concerns. The subheading "Harassment, not Journalism Ethics" is not in keeping with the bulk of that section, as it says that it was not about ethics, in spite of the quotes that follow. You can only make the claim in the subheading if you can show that ethics was not a concern, and that's not what the bulk of the sources are saying. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the heading implies that nobody claimed they were focused on ethics concerns. But the section is about the dismissal of those concerns as a driving factor in the controversy. In other words, it answers the questions raised in the first part. Also, important distinction between "did anyone express ethics concerns at all?" - which is what you're focusing on - and "what was Gamergate about; taken as a whole, what was driving it, what did most of the people involved want and what were they trying to accomplish?" The section is answering the second question, not the first, and the header accurately summarizes what it says at the moment. That isn't to say that the section couldn't stand to be cleaned up and reorganized a bit, of course... I disagree with your reordering (which I reverted) since I'm leery of giving too much weight to claims that essentially all our sources dismiss to one degree or another, but really... it might be best to lead with the Ars Technica and Heron, Belford and Goker refs (which go into the most detail on Gamergate's origins and the roots of the 'it's about ethics' claims, analyzing it extensively from several angles) - specifically focusing on the analysis of the 4chan logs and the sources that detail how it grew and where it was focused, add the caveat from Heron, Belford and Goker that some well-meaning people were eventually pulled in, and cut out most of the rest, which are largely back-and-forth and mostly dependent on smaller quotes pulled out of context. If we did that, we could trim the entire larger section to the point where subsectioning isn't necessary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In regard to "I don't think the heading implies that nobody claimed they were focused on ethics concerns. But the section is about the dismissal of those concerns as a driving factor in the controversy." Yes, that is what the heading implies. "Harassment, not Journalism Ethics" is a clear statement that GamerGate was about harassment and not about journalism ethics, which is not in keeping with the content that follows. The content that follows is very much about how the harassment was a bigger part than the ethics, but doesn't deny that ethics was a factor. We don't need the subheading, and it is misleading. It seems to make more sense just to drop it.

As to the reordering, at the moment the reader would be very lost when reading the section. Our first line is now:

"Journalists who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, these motivations were part of a culture war to suppress views with which Gamergate supporters disagree."

However, until then we've never really claimed that GamerGate's motivations were purported to be about issues with gaming journalism ethics. Ethics is mentioned in the lead, but only a couple of times after that, and only in different sections than the one discussing ethics. It isn't until the second paragraph where we say:

"Some Gamergate supporters contended that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues, leading to conflicts of interest."

That explains the first paragraph, but it is after we've read it. It makes far more sense to lead with the claim that GamerGate supporters contend that their actions were in regard to journalism ethics before we explain that they were wrong. At the moment we have things backwards - we claim they were wrong before we tell the reader what they were claiming. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby, why do you think "the bulk" of the section is about ethics in journalism? Isn't it because a lot of things have been said, the quotes then added here primarily by users sympathetic to the male gamer side of the issue? I think we should have a much more representative balance, one that sheds the bulk of these evasive statements. Once we do that, your argument against improvement suggestions being "not in keeping with the bulk of that section" would fall away. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we need to remove the sources because they don't take the stance you think we need to take? I suspect that the reason why the bulk of the sources are on journalism ethics is because the section is on the topic of journalism ethics. - Bilby (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am arguing WP:UNDUE emphasis has been placed on that stance. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here, I'm afraid. This may sound like a stupid question in context, but which stance do you feel has undue emphasis? I think that I may have been unclear earlier. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually think that a couple of sentences with regard to the 'self-description' of "ethics in games journalism" is warranted at the beginning of the section. To my mind, Bilby is right that we need to reference the claim before knocking it down, though with all due respect, the paragraph as it stood strikes me as a bit much. Just a bit more sniping from the sideline. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not been following all the changes in this article in the past few weeks. The whole section is talking about the debates about "ethics in game journalism". It's not clear to me why a subheading is needed at all. I have removed the subheading for now. We can decide whether one needs it or not, and/or what it should be called. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In the whole section, I think paragraphs one and two should be swapped. One should first say what on Earth the "ethics" allegations were all about, before knocking them down. The section is incoherent as written. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsindian & Bilby on this ordering. I think some pruning of the ethics claim paragraphs is needed.

The reason I think the heading is needed is because there are so many paragraphs on the topic. I actually think some pruning there is needed; those paragraphs repeat the same theme over and over.

The reason I think the heading should be "not" instead of "and" is that it's clear the ethics claims are being "dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics".

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As with the lede, I would prune those two paragraphs severely, probably more than consensus would support. Actually I would make them into one:

Some Gamergate supporters contended that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues, leading to conflicts of interest. Journalists who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, these motivations were part of a culture war to suppress views with which Gamergate supporters disagree.

I am open to discussing what would be need to create consensus: what compromise is between my severe edit and the existing edit. (note: My edit used existing sentences. I just rearranged and deleted things.)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have swapped the ordering of paragraphs one and two in the section, based on the comments by me and others above. Feel free to revert/edit/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No

Harassment is the most noteworthy facet of the controversy, but it is still one facet among several. That was the consensus evident in journalistic sources mid-2015, and it was the consensus of academic sources as of late 2016. Not to disparage any editors, but work on this article continues bike-shedding while remaining grossly out of step both with the actual content in sources it chooses to cite as well as the corpus of WP:BESTSOURCES that are available to be used. There is a great deal of insinuation and punditry about the ethics question that could be dispensed with, but replaced with precise and sober discussion of what views were held, by whom, and what rebuttals they received. Following the recommendations resulting from last year's RfC I will soon begin incorporating better sourcing and structure to the article in an incremental fashion, but stay tuned for the details on that matter. In the meantime, by all means excise material that seems undue, out of date, or misplaced in the article. Just don't do so under cover any general principle that the parts of the controversy unrelated to harassment are false or not seriously dealt with in the reliable sources. That would be a severe misapprehension. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes

Harassment is and remains the most noteworthy facet of the controversy, and it is true that it is but one among several. In earlier versions of the article, it could be (and was) argued that these secondary facets would receive coverage commensurate with the coverage of those facets. However, context and times change as does coverage. At this point in time, there are very few sources who believe that "ethics" was in any way a real part of the controversy, and those "pundits" who said otherwise are just that: pundits. The coverage within the article should and will reflect what the overwhelming majority of real, reliable sources say and not that of a few alt-right types.--Jorm (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we're on the same page with this. Rhoark (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we disagree vehemently. I don't care about the hurt feefees of your alt-right pals. Gamergate was about harassment; the fact that we even mention such a small part of it (the "ethics" concerns) as much as we do is probably too much.--Jorm (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think I have "alt-right pals" or am concerned about the feelings of anyone short of those who have been made by threats to fear for their safety. Perhaps we should simply discuss content rather than contributors. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Just another side note: there's a new article in the New York Times with some Gamergate thoughts. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs)

An interesting read, but clearly an opinion piece, and doesn't pass the context test for inclusion of anything in this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the New York Times Magazine has no business near this article. Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable opinion sources have every place near this article, when they publish pieces which are primarily about the article subject. When the context of their content on the article subject is tangential to or a minor component of the source, they are not reliable. Is it still Friday there? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, since I have received word from on high, I can hardly quibble, can I? Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it pretty remarkable that the NYT showed such an even hand, not obviously favoring Elam or Futrelle. It seems to support David Auerbach's theory that the mainstream is out of patience with both sides of the culture wars. Anyway, all of that is coatracks with respect to this article. The one bit of Gamergate-specific information seems to be that Gamergate forms a subpopulation that's distinct from prior Elam-style MRAs. Not sure that needs to go in right away, but it's something to chew on. Rhoark (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

for the time being

No header is better than this debate. The info is there. I'd rather spend energy on getting the article in shape, than spend too much energy on this. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Torill Elvira Mortensen - Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of #GamerGate

This is one of the academic articles currently underutilized on Wikipedia.[3] It's not open-access, but I'm sure savvy Googlers can find a copy. Although I would certainly not suggest that by itself it should define the agenda, I would say it is in the top decile of available sources. It could certainly better speak to aspects of the topic for which we're still citing a slew of hot takes from 2014.

To streamline its integration into the article, I have gone ahead and summarized the entirely of the article into wikivoice in bite-size chunks, annotated with the precise source text that supports each claim.

User:Rhoark/sandbox/MortensenAnger

Why go to such a length? Not to prepare specific text for inclusion, but to permit the community to inspect and validate my assertions about what concerns are more or less prominent in the literature. Certain points of fact I have sought to give more attention in our article have been met with suspicion that I have cherrypicked claims favorable to my interests while disregarding some larger thrust of emphasis elsewhere. It's my hope that seeing the source transformed entirely to wikivoice will facilitate the kind of close reading that has so far been absent from these criticisms.

Please review what I have done and raise any concerns you may have about whether my summary of any claim faithfully represents the source's intent. Doing this with just the one source would be of limited utility, but there are 2-5 other academic papers I have earmarked for similar treatment. With more texts dissected in similar fashion, more can be said about the quantitative weighting that different topics are given across the corpus.

Rhoark (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Many good things that are already mentioned in the GGC article. Some stuff that should be added.
2. A lot of editorializing not supported by cited text.
3. Not enough context info about people like TotalBiscuit or Milo; context without which the significance of what they said, and the effect of the fact they said is lost
4. Chess and Shaw? What is written leaves the reader clueless as to why they are mentioned.
5. There are too many references to fringe positions (e.g. Christina Hoff Summers).
6. Overly focused on detailed claims of GG victimhood. Lacks commensurate coverage about the harassment of the victims of GG.
7. Opinions stated as fact. E.g. "they belong to a persecuted subculture"
8. Belaboring things not related to the center GGC issues. E.g. "The diversity of opinions on the topic confirms that game players are not a single demography."
9. (con't)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I may not be clear enough that the aim is to render the entire source, with it's choice of order and emphasis, in wiki-ready text. If you see a mismatch between source text and my summary on a sentence level, that's what I want to hear about. As far as whether it gives too much attention to various things, your quarrel is with Ms. Mortensen. Rhoark (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

One should own one's editorial choices. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As near as possible, the only conscious editorial choices were to be more concise than the original and to omit tangential claims about football hooligans. If you see "editorializing not supported by cited text" the specifics of that would be valuable. Rhoark (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Trimming down the RS (part 1 of x)

So the first place references appear in the article there are five of them. That seems a little excessive. There are several places where there are a bajillion references. Should trim these down, if possible. And some of the references should perhaps be used in more places.

But first, a list of the just publishers:

list of ref in the article

BurgessMatamoros-Fernández2016 cite journal|last1=Burgess|first1=Jean|last2=Matamoros-Fernández|first2=Ariadna|title=Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: one week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr|journal=Communication Research and Practice|volume=2|issue=1|year=2016|pages=79–96|issn=2204-1451|doi=10.1080/22041451.2016.1155338|quote=Our findings show that, even when initially approached from as partial a perspective as the ‘gamergate’ keyword and hashtag represents, GamerGate’s issue publics are absolutely not concerned only or even primarily with ‘ethics in games journalism’ Chess 2015> cite journal|last1=Chess|first1=Shira|last2=Shaw|first2=Adrienne|title=A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity|journal=Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media|volume=59|issue=1|year=2015|pages=208–220|doi=10.1080/08838151.2014.999917 DustinTurner2016 cite encyclopedia|last1=Kidd|first1=Dustin|last2=Turner|first2=Amanda J.|title=The# GamerGate Files: Misogyny in the Media.|encyclopedia=Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age|year=2016|pp=117–139|publisher=IGI Global HeronBelford2014 cite journal|last1=Heron|first1=Michael James|last2=Belford|first2=Pauline|last3=Goker|first3=Ayse|title=Sexism in the circuitry|journal=ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|volume=44|issue=4|year=2014|pages=18–29|issn=0095-2737|doi=10.1145/2695577.2695582 http://abcnews.go.com http://apgnation.com http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ http://blogs.wsj.com http://edition.cnn.com http://espn.go.com http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu http://fortune.com http://gamepolitics.com http://herocomplex.latimes.com http://i.wow.joystiq.com http://iowapublicradio.org http://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/3/clark-calls-for-investigation-and-prosecution-of-online-threats-against-women http://kernelmag.dailydot.com http://kotaku.com http://metaleater.com http://metro.co.uk http://money.cnn.com http://nymag.com http://o.canada.com http://reason.com http://recode.net http://spectator.org/articles/63898/happy-anniversary-gamergate-love-adam-baldwin http://thecolbertreport.cc.com http://theweek.com http://thomas.loc.gov http://time.com http://venturebeat.com http://wgbhnews.org http://www.bbc.co.uk http://www.bbc.com http://www.boston.com http://www.bostonglobe.com http://www.bostonmagazine.com http://www.businessinsider.com http://www.businessweek.com http://www.cjr.org http://www.cnet.com http://www.cosmopolitan.com http://www.csmonitor.com http://www.ctvnews.ca http://www.dailydot.com http://www.derbund.ch http://www.develop-online.net http://www.diplomaticourier.com http://www.engadget.com http://www.escapistmagazine.com http://www.eurogamer.net http://www.fastcodesign.com http://www.firstthings.com http://www.gamasutra.com http://www.gamesindustry.biz http://www.gamespot.com http://www.ibtimes.com http://www.inc.com http://www.inquisitr.com http://www.latimes.com http://www.macleans.ca http://www.marketplace.org http://www.mcvuk.com http://www.metrowestdailynews.com http://www.newsweek.com http://www.newyorker.com http://www.nordicsts.org http://www.npr.org http://www.onthemedia.org http://www.pastemagazine.com http://www.pcmag.com http://www.pocketgamer.biz http://www.polygon.com http://www.psmag.com http://www.salon.com http://www.seattletimes.com http://www.slate.com http://www.sltrib.com http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk http://www.stuff.co.nz http://www.telegraph.co.uk http://www.thedailybeast.com http://www.themarysue.com http://www.thestar.com http://www.theverge.com http://www.torontostandard.com http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 http://www.vanityfair.com http://www.vice.com http://www.washingtonpost.com http://www.wired.co.uk http://www.womenactionmedia.org http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25207-permalink.html https://arstechnica.com https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-218/feature-brendan-keogh/ https://vault.fbi.gov https://www.fastcompany.com https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate https://www.nytimes.com https://www.theatlantic.com https://www.theguardian.com https://www.vox.com https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-reception-honor-womens-history-month https://www.wired.com Internet Monitor 2014 Cite conference|last1=Gasser |first1=Urs |first2=Jonathan |last2=Zittrain |first3=Robert |last3=Faris |first4=Rebekah Heacock |last4=Jones |title=Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World: Platforms, Policy, Privacy, and Public Discourse |accessdate=January 26, 2015 |year=2014 |page=18 |url=http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203011123/http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |archivedate=February 3, 2015 |df= Massanari2015 cite journal|last=Massanari |first=Adrienne |title=#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures |journal=New Media & Society |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=329 |year=2015 |issn=1461-4448 |doi=10.1177/1461444815608807 |url=http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |format=PDF |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128005809/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |archivedate=January 28, 2016 |df= Mortensen2016 cite journal|last=Mortensen|first=Torill Elvira|title=Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of #GamerGate|journal=Games and Culture|year=2016|doi=10.1177/1555412016640408 prominent 1 cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Gender at Work: Theory and Practice for 21st Century Organizations |quote=According to Anita Sarkeesian (2014), a prominent feminist critic of video games, ... |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102103216/https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781317437079 |author1=Rao |first1=Aruna |last2=Sandler |first2=Joanne |last3=Kelleher |first3=David |last4=Miller |first4=Carol |date=2015-11-19 prominent 2 cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Digitized Lives: Culture, Power, and Social Change in the Internet Era |quote=Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent feminist pop culture critic |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102072840/https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781136689963 |author1=Reed |first1=T.V |date=2014-06-05 ShawChess2016 cite encyclopedia|last1=Shaw|first1=Adrienne|last2=Chess|first2=Shira|title=Reflections on the casual games market in a post-GamerGate world.|encyclopedia=Social, Casual and Mobile Games: The Changing Gaming Landscape|year=2016|pp=277

I spot these possible problems:

• http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/
• http://blogs.wsj.com
• http://reason.com
• http://apgnation.com
• http://www.themarysue.com

I note, that the might be ok, but they jump out as things that should be looked at (blogs, problematic RS, etc)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources I don't recognized immediately (as good RS (e.g. Time) or problematic sources (e.g. blog.*)):

• https://www.fastcompany.com
• https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-218/feature-brendan-keogh/
• http://www.womenactionmedia.org
• http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25207-permalink.html
• http://i.wow.joystiq.com
• http://gamepolitics.com
• http://metaleater.com
• http://www.derbund.ch
• http://www.fastcodesign.com
• http://www.firstthings.com
• http://www.mcvuk.com
• http://www.nordicsts.org
• http://www.onthemedia.org
• http://www.psmag.com
• http://www.pocketgamer.biz

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Many are sources for their own opinion, or for their more technically / culturally aware summaries (compared to the often unintentionally hilarious and out of touch Telegraph and co). Slightly wary of the removal of sources without clarifying the subject matter should be re-written to better reflect those remaining, and those remaining should hold the critical information used as the basis for the initial inclusion unless the matter itself can be seen as crufty. There are plenty of otherwise unimpeachable sources so I doubt culling some will be an issue on that front.

I would say, Joystiq (now folded into Engadget) is definitely an RS, but obviously what and how it is used is a different matter entirely. Metaleater was a source for the self-published Liana Kerzner piece that notably itself became notably notable for having an opinion on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Two basic issues with the listing of sources in this way. First, reliability of sources is always in context. Second we use not only for to support facts, but also for getting an idea of the relative weight one should devote to each aspect of the phenomenon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Per our policies, more reliable sources are apportioned more relative weight. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's novel. Which policies would those be? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS AGE, WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest doing a little more legwork yourself to understand what these publications are before raising any red flags. Almost all of them are the subjects of their own Wikipedia articles, which could be a good place to start. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note:

• There are over 100 sources.
• I only listed a few I think have problems. I've done some legwork; there is more to do in some case. Take that as a heads up that I might remove some these sources as failing to be RS. If someone thinks they should remain; they might want to provide a reason.
• And then a few that are quite new to me as RS. Not bad out of 100+ RS, I think. Perhaps someone would like to help with the task of checking RS. Or not.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

More than happy to assist (as time permits); though, as other editors have mentioned, reliability is always contextual; and each source will need to be evaluated in the context of the content (of the article) that it verifies, and how the verifying content (of the source) is included in the source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also as PeterTheFourth mentions, evaluating the reliable sources has implications of weight.

This is a quick first pass. If there's low hanging fruit that can be dealt with here in this quick pass, then there's some benefit. That's a lot of sources to go through, over 200. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Having previously reviewed all but 2 or 3 of them, most of the 200 are WP:RSOPINION tier only. I'm genuinely not sure where that leaves WP:WEIGHT. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are way more than 2 or 3 that are more than RSOPINION. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we can cut out the sources that are both 1. blogs or otherwise not RS, and, 2. are only used to cite a statement that already has a better source. Even if we could make an argument to use them in some cases or for opinions, there isn't really any reason to when we have a better source already. Then we can look at what's left and figure out if we can / should find better sources, rewrite the section in question, remove it, or if we can justify using a marginal source there or whatever. But having a low-quality source next to a high-quality source doesn't accomplish anything. --Aquillion (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That, too. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I have a problem with http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ . It's a blog. It hasn't gone through an editorial process. I think it should be removed. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/11/07/new-online-tool-lets-twitter-users-report-harassment/ This is behind a paywall. I can't see it. The whole "blogs" part of the url makes me suspicious. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Got the archive to open finally. Dunno what to think about the blogness. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To Do: I'm planning to replace http://blogs.wsj.com ref with https://www.wired.com/2015/05/wam-twitter-harassment/ . The wired source is more current and has less crystal ball than the blogs.wsj one.

I may also use it to replace some of the http://www.womenactionmedia.org refs. I don't think we should use a self-ref for " was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet" but the wired ref will work for that. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Another note: WAM probably deserves it's own article. They have moved on from GG. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm planning to replace http://blogs.wsj.com ref [etc.] -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done "replace some of the http://www.womenactionmedia.org refs" I had to find another source. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Some removed refs:

• There was one http://www.derbund.ch ref. The way it was used out of context implied something about GGers, but it was actually about gamers in general. I removed it and the part it was supporting in the article; as a statement about gamers in general it wasn't interesting.
• http://www.pocketgamer.biz: I removed this one, too. The site doesn't have an editorial policy. The site is a marketing newsletter. The person making the opinion doesn't make the opinion notable (not an expert or academic).

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure http://www.mcvuk.com passes the sniff test.

• The first ref (GG and Blizzcon) could be dropped. There are three other refs.
• The second ref (GG and Arkham Knight) could be replaced with: https://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8846691/batman-gamergate-easter-egg-arkham-knight

Gregory Perreault, Tim Vos - The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance

The second in my series of papers to digest:

User:Rhoark/sandbox/PerreaultParadigm

Even though I set this one as second on my list months ago, it fortuitously speaks directly to some of the main open questions on the talk page right now. Right out of the gate it identifies journalism ethics as a main strand of the controversy.

(As matter of fact, it identifies it as the main strand, though we can chalk that up to the fact it's appearing in the journal Journalism. As I have argued in the past that we should modulate claims in light of the author's interests and field of study when it comes to gender studies journals, I would advocate no differently here. Another paper operating from a journalism background is here[4] That one will be worth breaking down as well, but in the interest of balance the next paper on my list approaches the topic mainly through the lens of sexism.)

The claims here are operating on several different levels. First off, it's a top-tier source that is principally about game journalism in the Gamergate controversy, immediately putting to bed any claim that this is not part of recent or high-quality coverage. It explicitly states that the ethics angle was a significant part of journalistic coverage in the controversy as well, putting editor claims to the contrary now more than ever in tension with the RS's. Finally, it shows that meta-level claims about journalists' motivations for covering or not covering the ethics claims are a subject of serious, scholarly interest.

A caveat on my own editorial involvement in this particular breakdown is that more than half of the paper is about its own methodology and theoretical underpinnings. I saw no way those claims would serve any use in our Wikipedia article, so I broke with my intention of fully rendering the entire paper. What I've summarized starts about halfway in with the "Background" section and leaves off a few paragraphs from the end. If you see anything left out that would be relevant on the wiki, do say so.

Rhoark (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Using journalism as a fig leaf for harassment is the actual main strand of the majority of RS. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

1. This paper is trying to make a point of limited interest to the historical events around GGC: journalistic paradigm maintenance
2. That it has an ethics selection filter on the events of GGC isn't surprising. But that selection bias isn't actually support that those points should have more prominence in the GGC article.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As a point of fact, there are discussions happening right now on this page to the effect that RS coverage that is especially recent and high-quality should be more prominent in shaping the article. For the rest of it, you're reiterating the point I just made about how sources will approach the topic from a pre-existing area of interest. Rhoark (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(as a side note: "you're reiterating the point I just made" this is a good thing. It means there's some consensus around some things. Echoing/confirming things is a good thing in communication.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just as long as we apply consistent standards in interpreting the significance of the author or journal's scope of interest, regardless of field. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

topics first then details: Debate over journalism ethics allegations

"Debate over journalism ethics allegations" section has points related to the sides of the debate. The section is long. Present the major sides. Let the later paragraphs provide details. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the first paragraph doesn't even present the major sides accurately. That whole first part needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect the sources, and we still face the problem of describing GamerGate's argument after we say they are wrong. It isn't as pronounced now, but remains present.

I'll tackle the wording first, and then we can revisit order, though. It is more uncomfortable that the sources currently don't match what is being attributed to them. - Bilby (talk)

Original order is better. Also ForbiddenRocky, the article is under 1RR which your two reverts (1, 2) violated. Please be more careful. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I'll revert. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If the section is about the debate, then question of the debate should be presented first. Not GGC's claims. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There are three things happening in this section:

1. Explaining GG claims
2. Refuting GG claims
3. Criticizing GG

The first two things form the debate. The last item could be separate out, and put into it's own section, perhaps? I'm not sure this is a good idea, but I think the mix of criticism with refutation makes presenting the debate more difficult. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, this isn't about refuting or proving their claims. This should be about presenting and discussing based on the sources. Perhaps part of the problem is that we are too focused on refuting as the goal? - Bilby (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the RS refute the GG claims. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Then that will come out in the discussion. Our goal isn't to refute or prove, but to present neutrally. - Bilby (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The refutation is already there. And is given due weight given the RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But that isn't the goal. Perhaps because the goal seems to have been refutation, we seem to be misusing sources to make general claims that they don't really support. For example, the line "Many of Gamergate's claims have been rejected as ill-founded and unsupported. The Week, Vox, and Wired, among others, stated that discussions of gender equality, sexism and other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue." has seven references, but it is only partially supported by those sources. I suspect we've been looking for sources to support claims we want to make a little more than what was probably best. - Bilby (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the goal was refutation so much as context. Which is the refutations are part of the context. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not how you described it just above. You stated that we explain then refute. At any rate, I am concerned that the desire to show how wrong an group is - not just here, but elsewhere in WP - can lead us to use sources and structure to present that view over presenting the information in a more balanced manner. It isn't necessarily the case here, but it need to be handled carefully. - Bilby (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the RS that the GG claims are refuted strongly. How we present them right now is in the debate format - the format is just structure. The content is the same. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they aren't strongly refuted. I'm arguing that our goal should not be to refute them, but to present the argument. However, our urge to refute them can lead to questionable use of sources and structure, which is a potential problem. - Bilby (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. I think though, the problem is that the refutations and claims are entwined in the RS. If you look at our quote farm, you'll see that a lot of them (and the other RS) are in the form of "claim x belied by behavior y". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's an issue, but not the core one. At any rate, when I get the chance I'll go through the sources again and see how we can reword to better match them in that section. - Bilby (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

adding criticism of gg section?

How about this outline?

1. History
   1. Further harassment
   2. Coordination of harassment
2. Gamergate activities
   1. Efforts to impact public perceptions
   2. Targeting advertisers
   3. Sad Puppies
3. Criticism of GG (here)
4. Debate over journalism ethics allegations
5. Criticism of GG (or here)
6. Social and cultural implications
   1. Gamer identity
   2. Misogyny and sexism
   3. Law enforcement
7. Gaming industry response
8. Gamergate representation in media
9. Reducing online harassment

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, criticism should be in the context of what aspect its criticizing. If it's criticizing sexism, it belongs in the sexism section. If criticizing letter writing campaigns to advertisers, it goes with that; etc. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that GG as a whole has been criticized. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best to phrase such a section (if any) in terms of what is being criticised. E.g., we have a 'further harassment' section, which some people may view as criticism of GG (criticism of how much they kept harassing people). We could have a catchall section for whatever criticism doesn't fit in any other section, I'm just wary of the title 'Criticism of GG' over something that may be more descriptive. I do appreciate the work you've done so far and continue to do! PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nordic Journal & a quote & DiGRA

So I found this quote sitting in the reflist: "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women's rights as citizens." I moved it to the main article near the related citation. Not sure if that was right. I'll let someone else evaluate that.

The ref NJSTS mentions DiGRA. However, I note there's no mention about what happened WRT DiGRA and GG. Should we add that to the activities section?

https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/6/6901013/whats-happening-in-gamergate

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/11/gamergate-supporters-attack-digital-games-research-association

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/13/silverstring-gamergate-adhd-compelling-games

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11289690/Dyson-rejects-Gamergate-returns-advertising-to-Gawker.html

Or add more info to the influence section re: "operation firefly" "operation digging digra" "operation disrespectful nod"?

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

I've lingered through this page for a while, and I come to believe that this article is the least neutral on this Wiki. I say clean up the article so it can be seen from a neutral point of view. Hopefully I'm making sense here.

-- Hug0905 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please was more specific about where you see the article failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Artw (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely Fluoroantimonic acid is less neutral? Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide some RS to support some edits. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Piss off, dearest friend. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth:You should perhaps delete this yourself... -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I will never log off. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

cnn cv. gamergate

Heads up

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-anti-cnn-harassment-campaign-is-using-the-gamergate-playbook
• https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/07/doxing-what-is-explainer-cnn-trump-gif-twitter/
• https://www.wired.com/story/journalism-isnt-doxing-alt-right/
• I saw a Vox article, but can't find it atm.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Add to "Gamergate representation in media" section?

https://www.bustle.com/p/degrassi-next-class-addresses-islamophobia-terrorism-by-giving-voices-to-those-most-affected-68471 -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

looking back? wide effects?

https://www.cnet.com/news/gamergate-to-trump-how-video-game-culture-blew-everything-up/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly combine with the CNN material above? We're going to need a "legacy" section at some point and this looks like the foundation of it. Artw (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/magazine/hunting-the-manosphere.html -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New article - calling spades spades

"In the aftermath of Gamergate — a coordinated harassment campaign disguised as a crusade for “ethics in gaming journalism" -..." - https://mic.com/articles/180888/erik-wolpaw-chet-faliszek-old-man-murray-untold-origins-of-gamergate-harassment-abuse-gaming-culture PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This article remains one of Wikipedia's most notorious articles to this day. Could we completely rewrite it from scratch to remove all the POV and accuracy issues (and hopefully upgrade it to GA status)?

If we can't WP:STARTOVER with this article, we'll just add all the important mentions of the Wikipedia article into the article itself. Zakawer (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You could do a replacement article on a sandbox and then try to merge with or replace this one with that, but that might be hard because this article as it stands is a pretty good summary of the sources, which is normally all articles have to be to achieve Good Article status. However, the critics are right, most of the sources are either parties to the dispute or rely on ones that are, so their reliability on this topic might not be the same.

As I see it, people like you should first work first on getting their side of the story published somewhere WP:RS. A peer-reviewed article in a prestigious journal could trump many news media sources. Once that happens, then would be the time to turn your attention to this article.

Another idea is that there might be another referent to the term "Gamergate", a scandal among the games media, that would be different from the referent of this article.

Interestingly, major Wikipedians, including Jimbo Wales, have agreed in principle that if there is enough published about a particular Wikipedia article, we could actually have an article about another article on Wikipedia. He said specifically that having a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia's article on Gamergate might be doable at this point. I haven't checked in a long time, but as I recall, there might be enough out there at this point to create such an article about this article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)