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.

Forbes contributor system

I was curious about this before, but never really looked into it until recently: The Forbes contributor system, under which Kain writes, is a blogging platform. Since he's not a professional in the field as far as I can tell, that means that per WP:NEWSBLOG we cannot cite him as a source. They don't appear to do any quality control beyond ensuring that the bloggers who post under the label avoid libel, so Forbes contributors are weak sources even by the standards of WP:NEWSBLOG,. which usually assumes more control than that. The lack of editorial oversight is specifically highlighed in that description of how it works (in terms of why it appeals to writers.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

His opinions have been cited by other sources, such as here by the BBC, and here by International Business Times. I don't see anything indicating he is not a reliable source in this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

He's a blogger, posting in a format that does not have the editorial control necessary for us to use him as a source. News sources can quote him when they want, of course, but we cannot cite him directly on this site; as we discussed above, simply being quoted by a news source doesn't make a blogger into a reliable source. Even established professionals are, most of the time, only reliable when they are published in a format where their publications have suitable editorial controls. WP:RS and WP:V aren't about "does this person have shifty eyes? Are they likely to lie?" It has specific requirements, which the Forbes contributor system fails to meet. The reason for WP:NEWSBLOG in the first place is because people sometimes take blogs posted on prominent websites -- like Forbes -- and say "hey, we can use this as a source, because Forbes published it!" But when it is under a system like this where they have few editorial controls, we cannot rely on Forbes' reputation; anyone can publish whatever they want as a Forbes contributor, expressing whatever views they desire and making up whatever they wish, and Forbes will only get involved if they actually commit libel or the like. Therefore, something published there isn't a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll refer this to these archived discussion here and the following one then, I believe this matter has already been covered: [1]--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that one's not about the Forbes contributor system -- those discussions are under the impression that his posts at Forbes fall under their usual editorial control. The revelation that the Forbes' contributor system is a blogging platform and lacks editorial control changes things, since it means that things posted under that system generally can't be cited directly. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your point is to address the Forbes contributor system, mine is to point out Erik Kain himself should be regarded as a reliable source. We can simply cite him by name and attribute his statements to him if that is the case here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't normally just consider a person a reliable source. There may be cases where we cite an established expert from a self-published source, but generally that should be avoided as if it's worth having in an encyclopedia then there should be secondary sources reporting on it. — Strongjam (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but again bringing up the instance that the article cites Arthur Chu directly for his opinion, which in your above statement should be avoided, and that Erik Kain has written for the same site as Mr. Chu.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? We cite articles published by reliable sources. If Kain writes a piece published by a reliable, third-party, publication then we could cite it. — Strongjam (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fact of the matter is Kain did and has, Forbes has done nothing to distance themselves from his statements, nor has Slate or other websites he's written for. Again, I can bring up the talk page discussion regarding Chu from awhile back regarding the above matter with Ms. Young, but to paraphrase the wording there was "Chu's statements are reliable because he's notable and Slate is reliable". The reasoning there should go both ways: either they're both viable or neither is on these grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact while I'll agree there are good faith intentions here, I believe when you start looking at some of the other sources this is going to create a rather slippery slope: several of these articles cited are not done by reporters or journalists, but contributors in the same capacity as Mr. Kain. If his statements are invalid on these grounds, then a lot of other citations would need to be re-examined too (case in point, Jessica Lachenal of the Mary Sue?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes can't distance themselves from his statements because he's not speaking for them. He's posting his opinions on their WP:NEWSBLOG contributor system, which means they don't exert any editorial control over what he says; that, in turn, means that things he posts there fail WP:RS. The things Chu publishes in Salon pass WP:RS because they are part of Salon's publication, not a blog, and therefore fall under its usual editorial controls. The key point is that WP:RS generally applies to publications (and the way things are published) rather than to people; the question isn't whether Kain is reliable, the question is whether things he publishes as part of the Forbes' contributor system are reliable in this context. And the problem is that they're not. They look like news pieces (which is why they managed to hang around for so long), but now that it's been noticed that they're not, they have to be removed. If he publishes other stuff under a non-blog format, we could cite those, but we cannot cite the stuff he publishes on Forbes under their contributor system. And see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you want to go over other sources and see if they qualify, go ahead. But note that the key issue here is that Forbes explicitly exerts almost no editorial control over its contributor system -- articles, even opinionated ones, can still qualify as WP:RS as long as they have editorial controls. The problem is that Forbes' contributor system lacks that and therefore nothing posted there is likely to pass WP:RS..--Aquillion (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Forbes contributor model is fundamentally different then Slate's published pieces. It is a blogging platform, not fact checked or under any real editorial control. Aquillion is being overly generous saying it is a WP:NEWSBLOG, I'd call it a content farm. I don't really give a damn if that means other sources are removed. If they are published under similar circumstances they should be. — Strongjam (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So for the record you're perfectly fine in removing sources from the article where the person cited is solely in a contributor capacity, and not actual site staff?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That's different then what Forbes does. If a freelance writer submits a story to a reliable source, they vet it and exercise editorial control, then it is fine to cite it. If they instead have a network of literally thousands of "contributors" and exercise no editorial control over the piece then it should be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm not seeing a valid argument against Mr. Kain here. In fact I will going further and cite that earlier discussions involving Gawker treated it as a case-by-case source relying on the reliability of the author and not the site itself here. In fact I'm certain I can dig through several GA and FA processes I have undergone where the author and not the website was questioned. I feel in this instance discussing the reliability of Mr. Kain should be the issue, and his presence in multiple publications as cited above in that archived discussion seem to indicate such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the gist of the argument. Gawker, while not the greatest source in the world, exerts significant editorial control over people who publish there; it does fact-checking, issues retractions, and so on. These things mean that when Gawker publishes something (even an opinion piece), that gives the piece a degree of reliability that lets it pass WP:RS, at least under certain conditions. The problem is that Forbes contributors have no such oversight beyond the bare minimum necessary to avoid legal liability; his posts there are, in effect, Kain's private blog, which means it generally fails WP:RS. This doesn't mean that the identity of the author never matters, of course; but if you're asserting Kain's reputation in the field is so great that it overcomes the lack of editorial oversight by Forbes -- that, in other words, Erik Kain is so well-known and reputatable in the videogame industry that we could use his private blog as a source -- well, I just don't see it. He's a columnist. We can quote him when he publishes somewhere that provides editorial oversight, like most columnists. We can't randomly cite personal opinions from his blog as though the fact that his blog is hosted on Forbes makes it reliable or gives it special weight. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Kain is an established expert, and Forbes (a 3rd party) has published his stuff. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he's only been published on videogames in the Forbes' contributor network, which is not a reliable third-party publication, for the reasons outlined above (the lack of editorial control means that it's not reliable.) Even if he were, note the next sentence: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." In the cases where Kain is worth covering, we can find other sources, since this topic has garnered so much coverage; we're not forced to rely on blogs here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

He's also covered the entertainment section for Forbes, but beyond that we are discussing an individual who has not only written for other publications but has also been cited for discussion by other publications. He is being cited here too in regards to this article for his opinion on matters related to the gaming and entertainment industry, something again other sites are utilizing quotes by him for his opinion. "Exercise caution" should not be read as "Exclude entirely".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

None of those things make him an established expert in this field; there's a huge gap between "this person is quoted somewhere" and "this person is a established expert." He's a blogger with sometimes-controversial opinions (which has sometimes attracted attention as a result); that doesn't make someone an expert in their field, certainly not to the point where we can cite blog posts by them. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly kind of surprised that he's still there as a source- I thought we established before that given it was a newsblog and he doesn't really have that much past experience in the field as a gamer or game journalist, we shouldn't be citing opinion or fact to him. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you read the above. We are talking about an individual whose writings have appeared in *multiple* publications, in fact I'm still rapidly turning up more such as The Atlantic as cited here. How exactly *isn't* he a reliable source if this many publications are quoting him and publishing his work?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man -- for the record, I think any of those articles at the Atlantic would count as a reliable source. But that doesn't mean that Mr. Kain always does, since The Atlantic has different editorial practices than does the individual. I'm honestly a bit on the fence about him as an expert on games -- has he published about them anywhere other than Forbes of which you are aware? Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick search actually turns up The Mother Jones discussing video game violence quite quickly. Most of his publications there involve politics. Can dig deeper if you'd like.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact I'll add two of the articles on The Atlantic are discussing entertainment. And cited as in the above by the Huffington Post in this video on #GamerGate here, one with Brianna Wu here, and the BBC here. Is that sufficient?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally consider someone an expert just because they were interviewed about it or wrote a column about it, but this isn't as clear cut as a scientific topic. Expert or not, there is no reason to use Kain's blog pieces here. We have no want for reliable, third party, sources. If there was anything that from by Kain's pieces that warranted inclusion in an encyclopedia it should be easy to find such things from reliable publications. — Strongjam (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kung Fu Man. For me it's not a question of "sufficiency," rather it's about trying to understand the totality of the circumstances. But I keep coming back to Strongjam's point. I'm not sure what there is here that can't be found in less 'borderline' sources (borderline meant only with regard to Wikipedia policy). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for the sake of comparison, let's look at the Mary Sue references: these are all 3 contributor sources. Are they not in the same boat, if not worse?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not that they are called "contributors" but Forbes contributor system. — Strongjam (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and I admit I'm going on a tangent here, but still a valid one: they're still contributors. Do we have evidence of greater editorial oversight from TMS than Forbes? In fact I'll point out one of these is written by a *subject in this very article*, and taken at face value. If Kain's statements cannot be cited, how can these?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the one by Wu is for a statement about Wu (WP:SELFSOURCE), and is also backed up with another source. As for the rest, Forbes model is fairly unique, hence the articles about it. If you have any links about the Mary Sue model that would suggest it's the same feel free to bring it up. — Strongjam (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe in the case of contributors it works the other way around, where you need to show proof of editorial oversight and reliability on those statements. Take reference 56, on the "woman acquiring her PhD on gamergate". This is covered in just one paragraph, backed up by a contributor who has no reference on the staff page, and is also a freelance reporter. Yet we've dedicated an entire half a paragraph to her article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so but if you find policy to the contrary ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for the time being, unless another mainstream source actively discusses the "PhD" and "Death Eaters" matters (as Aquillion has pushed a need for), I'm going to remove that source as WP:UNDUE.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source on that one if we do want to cover it. That seems to be all the coverage it got (aside from a mention here).--Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah unless that picks up I really don't see a need for it in the article. The "death eaters" thing didn't even catch on, though the lady doing her doctorate on the subject may get covered again down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

also [2]. . Note that this started with a question about Erik Kain, who we describe by both names or, sometimes, as "Kain". Here, we describe an expert but don't use her name , referring to her as "a woman" and "the lady". One source should be kept, one should be tossed right now now now. . What makes one thing different from the other? wait.... Don't' tell me. I know I'll think of it....MarkBernstein (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, Bernstein? Are you trying to make this a sexist thing? Are you trying to start something just because of that? GamerPro64 13:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Eric Kain is a noted expert in video games (which GG fall under) contributing an opinion towards a reliable website (Forbes). Sheena Goodyear is a noted expert in contemporary cultural studies (which GG also falls under) contributing an opinion towards a reliable website (The Mary Sue). Both sites use a similar contributor model to allow non-editorial-contral but oversigthed opinion and news pieces to be include. Either both are acceptable sources for this or neither of them are. A separate argue exists if the content of either should be included but to dismiss one while the other is kept based on RS arguments is clearly a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: They aren't similar models at all. The Forbes model is to give blog spaces to thousands of writers where they can post with no editorial oversight, no fact checking before publication, and a disclaimer of the opinions expressed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And from what I can see, the Mary Sue's "Contributor" system is the same thing. They have a separate staff of professional writers, but they invite other contributors to help give them content, but no indication this content is reviewed/edited/fact checked. And the piece in question from Sheena Goodyear is specifically labeled as such. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How is it the same thing? At Forbes a contributor can publish with no oversight, at Mary Sue they accept submissions and they decide whether to publish it, the piece also contains no disclaimer of opinions as far as I can see. — Strongjam (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes still reviews (not fact checks) to avoid any blatant problem articles, so that's the same as Mary Sue. Also from TMS's disclaimer page "The Mary Sue does not routinely moderate, screen, or edit content contributed by readers and is not responsible for the opinions or statements of contributors." which is the equivalent of the Forbes piece. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I think that's a misreading of The Mary Sue's disclaimer, though I am not sure, because it is not at all well drafted. The dichotomy above between "edited content" and "reader comments" leads me to believe that the 'opinions or statements of contributors' being disclaimed are not those in the articles themselves, but rather those contributors might make outside of articles. Thus, if Ms, Goodyear were to show up in comments (even to her own article) and say 'by the way, I know for a fact that Dumuzid has committed horrible crimes x, y, and z...." I can't go after the site itself under a respondeat superior theory. The fact that the disclaimer does not stake out "unedited contributor pieces" or the like, along with the lack of actual disclaimers on the articles, supports this conclusion, to my mind. But again, it is not the clearest legalese, so I am not sure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It’s unclear to me whether MASEM is arguing that sponsored weblogs platforms are equivalent to traditional journalism (in which case he is arguing to overturn policy on self-published sources), whether he is arguing that magazine articles not written by staff writers are unreliable (in which case he is arguing that moat magazines and all scholarly journals are unreliable -- also a policy upheaval), that he is arguing from private knowledge of the editorial process at Mary Sue, that he is arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of magazine editing, or whether he is trying to express something else. The masthead at The Mary Sue lists three Editors, two Assistant Editors, and a Weekend editor; it sounds to me like they're a magazine, not a weblog platform. Their page seeking new Contributors asks for the conventional story pitch -- again, this sounds exactly like a magazine and nothing at all like a weblog platform. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not lawyers here, but the intent of the Disclaimer page is surely to disclaim responsibility for reader-contributed content -- that is, comments on the articles, rather than to disclaim responsibility for editorial content. Note too the extensive comment moderation policy. The disclaimer also warns that some topics, such as gossip, are inherently dubious, but nothing on this article raises that problem. The magazine's editorial content is not disclaimed -- it cannot be -- and no distinction is made in the presentation of the article under discussion from the presentation of, for example, this note which, appearing under the byline of an editor of the magazine, cannot be disclaimed. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes is a magazine (with a much much longer history), and they do the same thing. The Contributor model has become very popular throughout new media sites. Everything about how TMS accepts Contributions reads exactly the same as Forbes accepts Contributions (as with nearly all other new media sites that use this approach); there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it. TMS's page for contributions is not for story pitches but if you can help provide them content regularly. [3]. So it is no different from Forbes. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's immensely different. As of 2013 Forbes had 2,500 contributors. In the last 24-hours they have published 150+ articles. Over at Mary Sue they're averaging about 3 or 4 contributor pieces a day. The models are completely different. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes also has a much larger editorial staff, compared to about 8 on TMS per their about page. From a purpose of evaluating a source, they are the same model. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence they are the same model? Because they look vastly different, and the Forbes model has been reported on extensively as being novel. Just because they both use the term "contributor" does not mean they are the same model. — Strongjam (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence it is, nor isn't; the way I read the pages at TMS it seems like it is similar "we vet but don't do rigorous fact checking" type approach that Forbes explicitly states. But it is has the hallmarks of being the same model that Fobres introduced used across many websites today, and this approach is becoming more common to crowd-source news. The point though still comes to the fact that we have two experts from two different fields, writing pieces in an otherwise-reliable third-party source, thus meeting the minimum allowance for WP:SPS. In Kain's part, since we know for sure that Forbes does not rigorously fact check, we should keep it to Kain's opinions as usable aspects. In Goodyear's case, as we don't necessarily know about fact-checking for sure but can verify it against another source, we can use the piece to report the fact about the difficulties in reporting, both based on using SPS as a baseline. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, with all due respect, you seem to be unusually obtuse on this. Aside from any impact on this page, can you really believe that "here's your own page, we'll pay for x number of hits" is the same model as "send us a pitch?" It's not outcome determinative for me, but it seems obvious that the sites rely on very different journalistic frameworks. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Their contributor page does not in any way suggest they are looking for one-off stories ; they want people that can contribute many stories, and the pitch is the type of stories they might write. And given that the entire model of journalism today is about drawing hits and advertising revenue, I see little difference in terms of evaluating whether to include an opinion of a expert in the field regardless because of how that opinion was published. WP:SPS is pretty clear that we can use these types of opinion pieces if editors want to insist that Forbes' contributor stories are web blogs as long as we've established the person is considered an expert in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, let's deal with one issue at a time, so my aging brain can keep up. Do you believe The Mary Sue's article is reliable enough to be included in the article? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with its inclusion (in fact, I think I added that part originally). I'm just at issue with the double standard here when for all purposes they seem to be equivalent editorial aspects at play. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, to be honest, I don't know yet where I come down on Mr. Kain's inclusion, that's something I am still trying to come to grips with. But whether I come down on the side of inclusion or not, it seems there is a very different basis to me. We are standing on The Mary Sue's own reliability for that article, as I believe it was edited and literally published by the site (i.e., someone at The Mary Sue pushed the button to put it on the web, not Ms. Goodyear). As for Mr. Kain, we would be relying either on his own stature as an expert (I'm on the fence here, mainly due to my own lack of research), or, perhaps (?) on Forbes' decision to include him as an expert. What seems clear to me is that The Mary Sue made a decision to publish the article in question, while Forbes made a decision to bring Mr. Kain on to its platform -- and to me those are different decisions (though they may not demand different outcomes). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, even when Kain or any other contributor hits "submit" on their blog post, someone higher up the chain at Forbes is doing a review before it hits the web. They aren't doing anything close to the job of a normal editor, obviously, and things that are a problem can still slip through the cracks (see the example in [4]), but it's not a platform that direct publication is done by the writer without any other input. And I will come back again to stress that both are experts in their fields and both sites respectively do have clear procedures for vetting these people before they are allowed to contribute (eg to make sure they aren't going to go off the handle). --MASEM (t) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, can you show me why you believe this to be so? Everything I am seeing is telling me that it's all on the contributors, but the information I see is circumstantial, so to speak, and often third-hand. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

[5] "By far the most divisive network on this list is Forbes, which has staked both its brand and digital future on its contributor network. The network, whose population fluctuates between 1,200 and 1,300 contributors, is either the future of journalism or the industry’s end, depending on whom you ask. Forbes’s contributors — 40 percent of whom are either current or former journalists — can produce as many as 400 posts per day. While the network has a reputation for being freewheeling and unsupervised, its efforts are monitored by Forbes’ 40-person editorial staff, which help oversee the site’s output."(emph mine). --MASEM (t) 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I do not doubt that there is some oversight, but I still believe the publishing is done by the contributors themselves based on everything I am seeing (oversight and editing are different activities). Moreover, based on l'affaire Frezza [6], it's my belief that the editorial staff function more as a quick-reaction crisis management squad than as editors engaged in improving the contributors' writing. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Another source [7] "In a phone interview, DVorkin explained that the Forbes website is divided into many channels — investing, technology, entrepreneurs, business, etc. — and each of those channels has a staff editor, typically someone who has been at the magazine for at least a decade. “Each of those editors are responsible for final approval of recruiting and for monitoring all those contributors for the channel.” Each editor also has at least one producer working under him, responsible for editorial review, technology support, and content programming decisions." I am in total agreement they work more hands-off and tend to be more reactionary than precautionary per that incident above and another from the CJR link, but everything points to someone in the middle that checks content between the steps of the contributor pressing "publish" and it actually being on the web. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Masem:'s characterization of The Mary Sue’s editorial process, “there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it”, may be accurate -- I have doubts, but perhaps Masem has personal inside knowledge about this, too. If not accurate, however, it is entirely possibly that the publisher or managing editor would regard this as an attack on their personal and professional integrity. If I were writing this, I'd want to be very confident that what’s written above is an accurate representation of that organization’s editorial practice, and that I could prove this. We’re wandering very close to BLP and possibly to defamation. At the very least, if we don’t redact this, someone should contact The Mary Sue and ask whether or not they stand behind the story; since we're attacking their integrity, they deserve an opportunity to comment for the record. Since (a) the story was also reported by a second source, and (b) there is no reason for doubt that I can see, this is likely to induce much scratching of heads; that won't help the project if they decide to defend their reputation in court and point out that, even though we had no reason for doubt, Wikipedia distributed spurious allegations of editorial neglect anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussing if a RS is an RS and the nature of the editorial process is in absolutely no way a BLP violation. (Remember Auerbach?) And you are now making personal attacks against me (by trying to question my character), immediately stop. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I contacted Erik Kain, and he said Forbes contributors are subject to the same fact-checking as regular columnists. I asked about a link to any specific page explaining that policy and am waiting for a reply. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The question here is whether this particular piece was an editorial contribution or a blog post -- not whether contributors are edited as stringently as staff writers, which goes without saying. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Except everyone here is arguing that the difference between an "editorial contribution" and a "blog post" is the fact that there's someone that has done editorial oversight of the post before posted. And if Forbes does have this, then these contributions are not blog posts but editorial contributions just as we're claiming TMS has. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if there was editorial oversight (at best it's very minimal,) the articles linked to from here show that Forbes Contributor system has a negative reputation for fact checking, failing WP:IRS. At best these WP:NEWSBLOG, and generally we should treat them as WP:SPS. — Strongjam (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And as pointed out, SPS does allow us to use opinions of experts posted in this manner, if we take that as the worst case. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is fine, but policy suggests caution and we have a pile of reliable, third party, sources. I'm not seeing anything unique about his opinion that is required for the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because he provides a counterpoint opinion from an expert in that field that is necessary to cover this topic objectively, as previously identified from the bias RFC from several months back. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing something then as we weren't exactly using his pieces for much of anything. — Strongjam (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather certain I could and can find use for many of his articles to both bolster and offer counter points here. Frankly planned to prior to this but given the rapid-fire revert nature of several editors here without engaging in discussion first it's becoming excessively difficult to approach the article. You can hardly use what was removed as proof that "he had nothing to add" when we have this big an ongoing discussion on him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to be explicit: writing that “there is a high level vetting (but not fact-checking) process, to make sure the content is relevant to the site's interest and is not likely to sic a pack of lawyers on them, and that's it” is only a reasonable discussion of whether The Mary Sue is a reliable source if the writer knows that this is true. If this were speculation, then it would be an improper attack on the editor and publisher. If it were then published without due care for confirming its veracity, the publication might be construed as reckless. I am making no attacks against anyone’s character; I’m pointing out that, when we write that the editorial process at The Mary Sue is confined to relevance and legality without further scrutiny and care, we’d best be very confident that we stand on very firm ground. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is attacking the editor or publisher, we're discussing the source, and BLP does not apply to business entities. Determining if a site (not any specific person) has certain types of editing standards is not a BLP issue and is within the necessary discussion of evaluating a source as an RS. And as TMS does not have clear statements about how their process works, we may make judgement calls that might not reflect what they actually do. I'm going to stress that I am not against TMS/Goodyear as a source here, but that there's a double standard that's being applied to reject Forbes/Kain here. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

REVIEWING THE BIDDING: As I understand it, our understanding is that the Eric Kain’s piece was part of a branded blogging system, in which Forbes provides weblog services to people whom it publishes but that is not otherwise edited. The Mary Sue says it is a magazine, it has three editors and two assistant editors, and it requests that writers pitch stories to them -- in other words, it appears to conduct its business as would a standard magazine. The two cases do not appear to be comparable. As best I can determine, we have no reason to believe that Kain’s piece was commissioned or that its rights were purchased, and we have no reason to believe that the Goodyear piece was not commissioned or that its rights were not purchased. Finally, while BLP does not apply to organizations, it very much does apply to individuals who hold positions of responsibility in organizations: stating that The Mary Sue fails to uphold journalistic standards could, and in most fora would, be taken as an indictment of the conduct of its publisher and managing editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Who ever said TMS "fails to uphold journalistic standards"? No one questioned their non-contributor pieces here, just the contributor pieces, which are not clear where their vetting process sits for them. Also, the logic you are using to say that questioning editorial standards for any site is potentially BLP means we should be shutting down WP:RS/N as a trove of BLP violations (which it's not). As a tertiary source, evaluating what sources to be included, we can vet and evaluate the editorial practices at any site as a necessary function of building an encyclopedia, and should not be treated as an act of bad faith or BLP violations if the answer is not crystal clear (such as if in the case if someone opted to argue the NYTimes did not have editorial oversight). --MASEM (t) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What precisely do you mean by the phrase "contributor pieces" in the above paragraph? Do you mean, for example, "all writing credited to writers who are not among the seven staff members on the masthead"? Or do you mean something else? (As for the rest, you wrote a specific account regarding the editorial practice of a specific editor at a specific magazine, and despite repeated requests you have not indicated that you believe your account to be true or why you believe that to be true. You may believe this frees you from culpability, but others may find that less persuasive). MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Contributor pieces" are exactly what we have been discussing: those at TMS labeled at the top "Contributor", while in the case of Forbes, those where the byline is labeled "Contributor". And I never mention any specific editor. I mentioned a Contributor (Goodyear) that is clearly labeled as such by TMS website, but I never mentioned any of the full-time on-staff editors at all. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To get back at this, given that Kain has put out a retrospective on GG (though still under all the forbes contributor labels), there are several points Kain makes in this that are reasonable counteropinions to be included (for example, his believe that there are ethics problems but GG has focused on the trees and not the forest; that getting a label of GG was a way to finally pigeonhole the sides of a longer battle that started before, eg the culture war aspect, and some other points). Again, not for fact, but the opinion of a expert in the field published by a third-party with some (but not full fact-checking) oversight should be appropriate to include as we do with sources like the Mary Sue that use the same approach. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wa Post restraining order article

Seeing this just added though having read the reference earlier (and also seeing it brought up at Quinn's page), is this really needed in the present article? If the situation on the restraint order goes beyond just the local court to a significant free speech vs privacy rights situation, then that might be useful; but here it is more noise above and beyond noting the original restraining order and how it was attributed to the claims on Gjoni's intent, and that's driving far off the GG subject otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I added it for BLP reasons. If we're mentioning that Gjoni has a restraining order against him, it should be noted that a prominent lawyer views it as unconstitutional. Alternatively can the source be used to note that Quinn has filed for the order to be vacated? I would have preferred to add that, but wasn't sure whether I could source that information from an opinion piece. Given that it's from a lawyer involved in the appeal it's highly unlikely to be false information. Brustopher (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly say that I have no qualms including the motion to vacate the order as sourced from Mr. Volokh, but how can the existence of a restraining order, whether unconstitutional or not, possibly be a BLP issue? Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

A restraining order is something that reflects extremely negatively upon a person. If there is a chance the order is illegitimate it could be an issue for us not to note that once legal experts have. If the order is vacated it would be an issue for us to claim it is still in place. Brustopher (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I of course agree that we should note if the order is vacated for any reason. But Volokh is arguing that the court exceeded its authority in granting the order; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Gjoni's conduct or lack thereof. If the potential for reversal upon appeal can be a BLP issue, then every judicial decision is suspect until the appellate window has run. Or so I would think! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You may have regarding what Volokh is arguing. I'll change the information to the motion to vacate being filed. Brustopher (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What I think I have a problem with is that it is presently undue weight on the issue of the restraining order, and we're only talking about a court brief which is the academic opinions of the writers as opposed to case law. At this point in the situation, I'm wondering how much of this is critical towards the GG situation. It's a rabbit trial to cover it now in that it gets severely off the topic here to handle explaining the sides. It might become a central aspect of GG, it might not, and to that I'd actually argue to omit even the mention of the order until we know more on the judicial ruling. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I am definitely sympathetic to your view here, but I am torn because this does seem like an important offshoot of the 'creation moment' of gamergate, so to speak. I could very easily go either way--and even if the order is overturned, someday, were someone to write a history of this mess (heaven forbid!), the order would be a necessary part thereof, I think. Still, I just don't know. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an option to remove the restraining order facet in the first place, it is a minor offshoot right now, not necessary to understand GG as a whole, and thus eliminates the need to discuss the counterpoint that gets us offtrack. Or, alternatively, moved elsewhere outside of the history section to an analysis piece, to talk about it where there's some room. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. We shouldn't be using it to support any statements regarding a living person. I have removed the source per BLP for now. If consensus says we include it, we can add it back. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts sourced from the opinion piece, regard legal proceedings in which the reputable legal expert who has written the piece is involved. The chance that this claim is in anyway false is close to 0. If anything this statement should be included per BLP, to note that the restraining order will likely not be in place for long. Brustopher (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still his opinion regarding a legal dispute involving two (named) persons, claims about other (named) persons' legal opinions, and even claims that a (named) body of people made an incorrect legal decision. There's literally nothing in here that doesn't involve claims about an identifiable living person. For all I know, he's absolutely right, but it's still an opinion piece. Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would normally lean against inclusion of this claim, but if the restraining order is mentioned in the article, it should be mentioned that it is in the process of being vacated. I think the reputation of the writer is enough to justify its usage. I've brought the issue to WP:RSN for further discussion. Brustopher (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand the concern of a BLP violation about Gjoni. Personally, I'd rather remove any claims about him rather than back them up with an opinion piece. We really shouldn't be making any claims regarding living persons unless backed up by a watertight, reliable news source. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disputes about the legal decisions made by the judiciary in the course of doing their job is definitely not a BLP issue. That's how the entire court system works in the appeals - identifying what they believe is mistaken application of law towards the decision. That's not any type of claim about a living person but about a decision. There still things we'd treat as BLPs in the WaPost article (it explains why the case is named as such, which is something we as done on Quinn's page should very much avoid per BLPNAME), but in the general case, discussing and outlined why a legal decision might be wrong using established law isn't a BLP violation. I am still on the side of not including this due to the rabbit trial aspect. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both Woodroar and Masem here. Agree with Masem's opinion that it's a minor offshoot at the moment, and with Woodroar about just removing the whole bit Gjoni. I don't think it's important for the readers understanding of Gamergate. As an aside, I think BLPPRIVACY is better policy to cite here, the principle of BLPNAME applies, but BLPPRIVACY is much more direct in its language. — Strongjam (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Article from Spiked

[8], from the liberal-leaning magazine Spiked (magazine) (which is odd as most of the other media support for GG has come from the conservative side, but in reading, I think this side is more backing GG in the consumer aspect, while the conservatives appear to be backing GG from the social/feminism aspects). It's one source, and thus would be far too much to give more than a sentence-worth of time, but I think between this and other conservative works that back the GG side, we probably need to have one paragraph to explain that these works are backing GG for various reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't think we can use Irene Ogrizek RS. She's rather well known for posting anti-feminist stuff to A Voice for Men. And I think it's OR/Synth to "xplain that these works are backing GG for various reasons". Thought I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does her opinion on being anti-feminist matter? It's still an opinion (and I stress, as an opinion, not statements of fact) that is a different opinion from mainstream but aligns with what GG has said it is. It's not OR to list out what sources back GG, just as we have listed out sources that have condemned GG based on the original accusation. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men is the more salient point. That opinion would have problems with UNDUE and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's not OR to list out what sources back GG" is not the same as "explain that these works are backing GG" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, why does it being A Voice for Men (which I do recognize is a not a very popular viewpoint) matter? And I stress again that given all the various media that is apparently right-wing that are reliable sources for their opinions (not facts), that it is not undue for a short paragraph to outline some of these sources or persons that have come out in favor of GG. As to the second, I would make sure that we have to make sure the language of the source article says with clarity they support the GG movement or the like, rather that just writing about it and then talking their own ideals but without support. That's not OR to do that as long as we're not guessworking on if they support or back GG. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you want to your pet OR again. No, you have to back up things with RS. No OR. No SYNTH. I don't disagree with what you want to write, but I haven't been able to find RS to support it. "Though I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, from reading some of the GG posts/statement some of them want to claim they are liberals. So your notion of self-report is weak. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then we don't even need to ID the slant these other sources take, but still should be including these other sources that appear to speak in favor of GG. We can let the reader review the author or work, and make the judgement of which slant these works are, but importantly, they are counteropinions to the mainstream view that should be at least touched on within a single paragraph at most. The only reason I was considering the slant angle is for narrative grouping but that's not required to do it. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I'd just like to note that to me, you're edging a bit close to "opinions on the shape of the Earth differ" territory. Counteropinions are not, again to me, deserving of inclusion by dint of the fact that they are counteropinions. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking FRINGE here, however. With "shape of the Earth", ample volumes of scientific evidence clearly put any flat earth stances in the FRINGE category. With a controversy where no right answer has been determined or likely will be determined, there is no such application of FRINGE, though we still need to be wary of UNDUE, and hence why its not a call to drive equal balance of viewpoints. But as per the RFC, when we are aware of biased coverage of a topic within the sources, we should be looking towards including other sources so that we can eliminate that bias in WP's writing. Again, one paragraph at most to outline opinions that these other sources have taken is in no way a violation of policy and in fact helps us to document the controversy better. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Masem, is that a 'right answer' has been determined- Gamergate is and has been since inception about the harassment of diverse voices and those who seek diversity in the gaming industry. Please stop beating the horse- you've killed it, it's dead, walk away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, can't accept that nor can WP write as if that is fact. That's the predominant view, but it's just a view, not an answer. There has been nothing presented in any reliable source that we on WP should be taking as the definitive result in considering NPOV policy. Thus presenting alternate opinions from the mainstream is appropriate to do. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

So then, Masem, your argument relies upon an identification of Spiked as being part of the mainstream, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would argue Spiked is mainstream in that it is work that doesn't focus on one area of interest like gaming sites. It does not necessarily represent the mainstream political views because of its specific political slant but that's not how I'd identify "mainstream". --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so 'mainstream' for you is essentially a test of topics covered by a potential source? Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, to avoid confusion (which is my fault) let's avoid getting too far away from the accepted term for mainstream media which generally encompasses the large media sources like NYTimes, WaPost, etc., which by this would put Spiked as an alternative source. Spiked would fall into the non-gaming press, which along with the mainstream media (this exact definition) are better sources to help bring the situation to broader readership and thus more appropriate for the encyclopedia. So to reclarify: Spiked is a non-gaming source but also not part of "mainstream media", but that does not invalidate it as a reliable source for alternate opinions to the predominant opinion that most mainstream media and some other alternate non-gaming and most reliable gaming outlets share on GG's intent/purpose. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When you write "Nope, can't accept that[...]" as a flat response to this every time people point out the fringe-ness of your viewpoint, then reiterate your past points that have been shut down again and again, all I can see is "I didn't hear that". PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Several others editors have pointed out the situation with this article that suffers from the entrenched views of a few; it is not just me. I've listened to all the arguments presented, and as others have pointed out, there is no compelling case under WP neutrality policy to accept that "GG is about harassment" as fact. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RS. Find it. Then edit with it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RS for opinions as best as I can tell. Plenty of other RSes have been presented for similar reliability of opionions, as well as showing that the existing RSes like NYTimes and WaPost do not actually state things like "GG is only about harassment" either as opinions or as fact. But attempts to use these appropriate are nearly always argued away by some editors. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Masem here, and frankly I'm reading the above and noticing that the statements of several editors are boiling down to "this isn't saying what I want the article to". The same people arguing to systematically remove any source that does not paint this subject as a harassment movement should not be turning around and shouting that a mainstream source saying such is "fringe". It has become increasingly apparent that several editors have made up their minds on what the article should say, and frankly I do feel additional arbitration may be needed. Because as this carries on it does seem we have a valid case for multiple editors trying to enforce ownership of the article, and not making any attempts to hide that their personal feelings on this subject may be affecting their neutrality towards developing an encyclopedic article on the matter.

I really do want to assume good faith here, but I think some of the editors need to look at this thread and ask themselves if the article was instead slamming Gamergate, would you be fighting so fiercely against its inclusion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unusable, due to the WP:FRINGE reasons mentioned above, also well below the threshold of quality for sources that has been argued for elsewhere in the article. Artw (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE cannot apply to the idea of stating other opinions of what the GG movement might be given that there's little actual evidence of what it really is (in contrast to the flat earth theory where piles of evidence exist otherwise), and that the statement that "GG is a harassment movement" is clearly controversial. ("The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." per FRINGE). And per the RFC from early on this article, we are allowed to use less-than-perfect RSes to overcome systematic biases in the media to stay neutral and objective. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that there is anything controversial in calling GamerGateva harrasment movement since that is how it is consistently described by reliable sources. also is there really an RFC that comes to that conclusion? Show me. Artw (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any such RFC succeeding; and if so, consensus can change. I would definitely assert that there is a clear consensus here against using "less than perfect RSes" like that today. Deliberately using poor-quality sources simply to "balance" a view unequivocally goes against WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not consistently reported that way in sources; there was an analysis of main highly reliable sources a few months ago here that point out that while there is clearly some connection between harassment and the GG movement, and that universally the way the movement behaves is encouraging that harassment, the most reliable sources do not outright make the claim that GG is a harassment movement. Add in that we have RSes that contend that GG is anything but a harassment movement, and that makes the statement "GG is a harassment movement" contentious, and thus under NPOV should only be treated as a claim and that we should be attempting to document the situation by at least giving other opinions some time too so that the reader can actually understand the situation. And the RFC is here [9], which I direct to the closer's statement " Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term." --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of that RFC in no way support your position whatsoever. I'm a bit amazed that you would pass it off as such. Artw (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your other link fails to convince also. Artw (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'liberal-leaning'? Spiked is a libertarian magazine, and as such both right-wing and generally pretty hardline anti-feminist. I don't feel that this opinion piece is particularly noteworthy, given that, in that it's from a relatively obscure author writing for a relatively obscure, non-mainstream source, saying exactly what we would expect an author there would say about anything that they feel touches on feminism or cultural issues. It's normal for a everyone in politics to say "this current controversy is really about my pet issues" about high-profile topics, but without a higher-quality sources backing it up, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spiked was born from the ashes of a magazine called Living Marxism, and is run by a self proclaimed Marxist. [10] To describe Spiked as liberal leaning isn't entirely untrue. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another from American Spectator

[11]. Again , a conservative work, and again likely bundled into the same issues above on usability. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that great care would have to be taken with that one. BLP issues abound.— Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to refrain from calling sources fringe, but this is a full on conspiracy theory Surrey with the fringe on top. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is just uncritically regurgitating claims that have been better covered elsewhere, with a really bad analogy and a lot of mistakes. Not worth touching in any way. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much what they are saying, but that they are saying something (this and the Spiked article above, for example, do not appear to be op-eds and there's no cautionary language that I can immediately find on either side to distance the views of these authors from the published work itself. One can argue these works, overall, are op-eds by nature, but they still appear to be editorially controlled) Given that the involvement of the mainstream, more-centralist media is part of the GG situation, the aspect of non-centralist papers commenting on the situation is an important point. It's possible to dismiss that they are just latching onto the general attitudes that the GG side has shown, but it's still a separate view from that of the mainstream. This is why it would make sense to have, at most, one paragraph , or even just a sentence, to describe notable persons and works that have spoken in favor of GG (such as Yannipolis/Brietbart, CH Sommers, Young, and these politically-slanted works). We don't need to go into any great detail of what they say (particularly if it goes into BLP claims), but to flatly ignore that there are several voices opining on the situation from otherwise reliable sources for opinions is not an objective approach here. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that it is interesting that these politically-minded sources are, at times, latching onto GamerGate - this is a good example of something that reads as if it was written specifically to appeal to that particular market. But I'm wary of trying to draw any sort of picture from the presence of these articles without a source discussing them. I seem to recall that one of the paper's I'd read had made some mention of the nature of the Yannipolis/Sommers support, so perhaps there was something useful to frame the point there? - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Yannipolis and Sommers have stated in their own words they support GG, and both were involved in setting up the DC GG meetup. Cathy Young also appears to support GG per her Reason.com piece (and to note that Sommers, Young, and Singal (who is not) are scheduled to be on a Huffington Post piece tonight as I write this, talking about GG). But as to these articles, and related to AirPlay, is the nature of the media's coverage of GG. It is very very unlikely that the mainstream media is going to point to articles from the political ends that are critical of their coverage of the situation. Ideally either something from a neutral party at the AirPlay event, or a work like CRJ, would probably comment on this fact, but I'm pretty confident we'd be holding out for that. To add, do note that the UPI report on the bomb threat mentions the GG believe about the media bias [12]. (This also relates to the airplay section later). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did find this Irish Times blog piece that talks about this while searching for some secondary sources on Airplay. I'm not really familiar with the paper, the author, or exactly how they manage their blog pieces though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

SPJ Airplay

Just curious to know if this article will be updated to cover [SPJ Airplay]. I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but at the moment, the article tells only one side of a fairly controversial subject. The fact that the Airplay consisted entirely of discussions about Journalistic Ethics, and contained no harassment at all should at least persuade moderators that this article doesn't fairly describe Gamergate. Rocketmagnet (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When reliable secondary sources cover it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Now covered by Reason (magazine) [13]. To note it is by Cathy Young who was in attendance at Airplay. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC previous articles by Carhy Young in Reason on the subject of Gamergate have been rejected for inclusion here (material removed by The Devil's Advocate due to BLP concerns), probably a bad move to use her as a source here. Artw (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the archives to this; only that there was a push to remove her stuff because it was weak and likely counter to the desired view here. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! WP:AGF. Anyway, my issue is that we already cite her for a few other things, and her viewpoint (and the viewpoint of Reason (magazine)) is comparatively fringe / non-mainstream, so I'd worry about giving her opinions and focuses WP:UNDUE weight. We can't repeatedly cite one journalist from an outlet like that without risking giving too much weight to a comparatively fringe-y interpretation of events; this extends to coverage from there being worth less in terms of determining relative weight and inclusion than, say, the New York Times or the BBC. The article is already excessively-long, so I don't think we can throw in a random journalism event on it just because one libertarian outlet mentioned it; nor do I think (based on current limited coverage, anyway) that covering it would really help understand the subject. We can wait a bit and see if it has a significant impact on how the topic is seen and covered in higher-profile sources, then come back and cover it later if it is; there's no need to succumb to WP:RECENTISM. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Masem: We only use Young twice in the article now, so I'm not too worried about undue weight. However this is a primary source, as Young was a panellist at the event, I think we need some secondary sources for any analysis of the event. At the moment the only thing that seems to have shown up in secondary sources was the bomb threats. — Strongjam (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't come as much of a surprise that people on a panel intended to discuss ethics in journalism, at an event about ethics in journalism, run by a group focused on - surprisingly - ethics in journalism, ended up discussing ethics in journalism. None of which is indicative of anything special, and doesn't reveal any more about GamerGate than telling us that some members (if we ignore the interrupted afternoon session) can stick to a topic. But although it doesn't really say much about GamerGate, I would like to see some mention that the event occurred, (beyond the bomb threats) as it was significant within the wider discussion. What I don't know is where to put acknowledgement that it took place. Maybe under "Debate over ethics allegations"? - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

To note, the UPI article on the bomb threat [14] does also go into the reasons there was this Airplay panel in the first place, so the reasons for the panel can be sourced better. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Use the existing source to acknowledge that Airplay occurred beyond the bomb threat. - Bilby (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps under the "public perception" then. "Supporters of the movement, including (list), were able to present arguments at the SPJ AirPlay event in August 2015, describing how they believed that media coverage of Gamergate has been biased." --MASEM (t) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Except almost no one agrees with the 8chan/reddit boards that the abortive SPJ panel was significant, and it received scant coverage. At the same time, the Hugo debacle received a good deal of coverage, much of which explicitly identified the slate voters as Gamergate supporters who were being repudiated by the WorldCon membership. Oddly, reddit and Twitter are all aflutter over SJP in Wikipedia, with nary a word about the much more significant coverage of the Hugo Awards. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea if anyone agrees because it has received scant coverage so we don't know what the mass media thinks. We know there are other off-center works that think it was significant because , to them, it puts forward that the media have skewed the perception of GG. Additionally, this article is not the place for the situation with the Hugos beyond the purported connection of the "puppies" groups to GG. Instead, that is properly covered at Hugo Award#Since 2000 including the strong reaction to the net result there. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vocativ on divisions w/ GG movement

[15] Note that the article does tread close to BLP issues (it names two specific GGers as part of the GG leadership alongside making extreme claims on the group), but it comes to state that part of the issue of the leaderless nature of GG is that it has created in-fighting of factions within the movement (particularly a difference between the "SJW" side and the ethic side) and does not give any idea of unity to their message. It also has a few updated states (10 mill tweets of GG since August '14, and an estimated 50,000 GGers based on KIA sub numbers). --MASEM (t) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really says that. It says, more or less, that comparatively few people involved in it think it's only about videogames or ethics, and those who tried to be outspoken about those subjects were rapidly marginalized and forced out by the angry reactionary culture warriors. The overall gist of it is that the discussion of ethics is mostly a marginal aspect that caught the attention of a few people, but that the overarching scope of Gamergate and the people who are most enthusiastic about it are more about using that as a bludgeon in their culture wars. It definitely states, pretty unequivocally, that "ethics only" is marginal and has been forced out While they're unscientific, one of the polls it cites says it makes up as little as 4%; even the other one only has it at 17%. And the article cites numerous people -- including both outsiders who have analyzed it and people from inside it -- who say that they don't think it's primarily about videogames or ethics. --Aquillion (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Which stresses to the point that we shouldn't be calling it outright an harassment movement either because there's no idea what GG really is internally. But I will still point to the fact that it does document infighting within the movement which has contributed to its lack of a message or effectiveness. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We do already cover both the fact that there are aspects to it other than harassment, and the fact that there are divisions and confusion over how to define it. But our overarching coverage has to reflect the relative weight given in reliable sources... and, honestly, if you read "fight SJW colonization" as being the side that mostly focuses on harassment (which is itself obviously a controversial position, but which, I think, is how most of the sources that divide Gamergate into 'factions' read it -- with the usual caveat that they define 'harassment' differently than you might), then not just that article but informal "internal" Gamergate polls (to the extent that that's a thing) seem to back up the way we're weighting it. At the very least, virtually every source, including that one, seems to agree that while some people bought into it as their main focus, "only ethics" is a very minor part of the controversy overall. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As a note, we have nothing about the divide in the article. We mention ethics and SJW as two aspects of what GG is stated is about but do not make it clear as this article states that that's actually a noticeable division within the movement, and that the SJW side tend to have the numbers and/or make the most noise as to also drown out the ethics aspect. This is partially why the mainstream press calls out the movement as disorganized, if there's this type of infighting and lack of unified vision. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Vocativ even a reliable source on Wikipedia? I've never even heard of it until it was suggested as a source before and even then there wasn't a clear answer. GamerPro64 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Was curious about this myself as I'm not familiar with them. Nothing on RSN, the Notable stories section on seems to suggest they have a positive reputation fact-checking, but I haven't dug into it much more then that. As long as we avoid any claims about living people I think its fine, if a bit weak given it's young age as a publication. If there is a specific statement we want to source from there we could take it to WP:RSN if needed. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the two factoids that I think help on scope: 10M tweets and 50,000 KIA subs as estimate of GG size (which CRJ used before), are pretty straight forward to verify and consistent with information out there; a source like this can simply be used as to indicate an "as of" marker. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean sure. We're close to a year of this happening. If there's no other article that has mentioned this yet we can use it. Might be a different story once day 365 hits. GamerPro64 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia: The Ideologically Driven 'Encyclopedia' of the Absurd The Wikipedia controversy began in January 2001 and concerns one-sided political propaganda, which must be fought tooth and nail in order to get anything even resembling the truth covered. It is most notable for a harassment campaign that sought to drive several non-feminist editors from the site, including everyone who has commented on this page who is not absolutely dedicated to supporting radical feminist causes in their coverage and only giving coverage exclusively to radical feminist perspectives. They sandwich anything not from a radical feminist source, when it must be covered at all, between sentences containing pro-feminist denials of anything any non-feminist says both in the sentence immediately before, and in the sentence immediately after the non-feminist's view is mentioned. The campaign of harassment was coordinated by both editors and staff and included threats of banning people simply for adding the truth, no matter how many or how credible their sources are. Wikipedia has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over feminism, in which feminists assert the total dominance of their ideology over existing institutions, denigrating anyone who even questions this as "ignorant" despite not being able to name any specific facts which they can claim said people are ignorant of. Some of the people using Wikipedia have said their goal is to provide a "neutral point of view" by opposing non-feminist editors simply trying to cover GamerGate in the same way as Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, which they say is the result of a conspiracy among non-feminists. These concerns have been widely dismissed by Gamergaters as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics GamerGate is concerned with. Users of the GamerGate hashtag launched email campaigns, targeting the advertisers of publications which clearly engage in unethical practices, you cretins. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Clever wordplay aside, I notice you mention the truth being dismissed from "credible sources." Can I ask which credible sources you are referring to, and what truths from them you'd like to integrate into the article?Brustopher (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Off-topic. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Perhaps Wikipedia should institute an "Assume Non-Cretinism" policy? Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much until returning to edit in the Frankfurt School/Cultural Marxism area and now here. Do you think Wikipedia has been a manifestation of a culture war over feminism? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) This article is a prime example of the failings of Wikipedia's model Gamergate's predominant focus has been on the unethical practice of games journalists. Is it any surprise that the journalists that you've used as sources have seriously inflated claims of harassment in order to deflect this criticism? They're not neutral parties. And neither are so many of the editors pushing their agenda on here. The only responsible thing to do is to wipe the entire thing clean and start over, with very strict arbitration. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I find it endlessly fascinating that the only neutral arbiters when it comes to gamergate are supporters of gamergate. It's really quite remarkable. Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I'm rather certain Masem isn't a Gamergate supporter. On subject though, you can understand the concern when the same editors go out of their way to shoot down or remove any sources not covering the subject in a negative light, and then claim WP:UNDUE on others because those sources are present. Frankly I find that both fascinating and a tad bit concerning as a long-term editor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Not as endlessly fascinating as how the only acceptable narrative on a supposed encyclopedia are from those who oppose gamergate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) The rules for the acceptable narrative are quite explicitly set out in WP:WEIGHT if you want to check them out. If anything we err on the side of taking GamerGate claims more seriously than our sources. Artw (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Uh huh, except that certain regular editors of this page have fought tooth and nail against the inclusion of any source that speaks about Gamergate in favorable terms, even when it's from a publication used elsewhere in the article, e.g. Polygon. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Scetoaux, I know venting feels good, but you are a far more experienced Wikipedian than I am. Why not suggest changes to the existing article or draft a new one? I daresay if we simply erased the current article and tried again, you'd be just as dissatisfied. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Try it. If nothing else, it'll bring the agenda-pushers out front and center. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I mean no offense, but "try it" is not a particularly compelling argument. Just for myself, I don't find it that difficult to analyze editors' stances or to figure out who is here to improve the encyclopedia and who is not. By all means, advocate for the course of action you think best. But in the meantime, it might help everyone if you tried to improve the existing article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC) For what it's worth I would actually be pretty interested in seeing what a draft rewritten from scratch would look like. I've been thinking about writing a draft solely using sources published in academic journals, to see if it would reveal anything interesting. Brustopher (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Right now the number of academic sources is very low, less than 10 judging by a google scholar search (using "-ant" to avoid the biology side, and ignoring hits from newspapers and mainstream magazines and websites). I've said before that I fully expect that there will be a wealth of papers in a few years from the social sciences that will try to understand GG (and probably other of these culture wars like the Hugos) from a psychological and cultural standpoint, but that will take a lot of time. We do need to recognize the bulk of the sourcing for this now and for at least a year or so from now is going to come from "current affairs"-type sources (newspapers, magazines, and websites) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) FYI "Gamer gate" with the space has a few hits as well. I've also had good luck adding other related terms in to try and filter out ant articles (e.g. Quinn, Sarkeesian, video games, etc...) — Strongjam (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not necessarily proposing it as a replacement for this article, but more as a way to brainstorm ideas for improvement. 10 sources is more than enough to write something substantial worth discussing. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles probably have less than 10 sources used. I might get started on it some time this week. Brustopher (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Off-topic. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Welcome back to Wikipedia! I see that you've been an editor for many years but hadn’t been around much, having semi-retired in 2013 until returning. Interesting how often that happens! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Mark, please assume some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) My God, Bernstein. At least take this to peoples talk pages before you act condescending in front of others. GamerPro64 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Remember to assume good faith about assuming good faith, Kung Fu Man and GamerPro64 (you especially should know better as a hopeful to the admin position)- to my eyes, Bernstein seems positively angelic with the leeway he's giving our friend Scetoaux here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin in American Spectator

[16] Baldwin self-written piece in American Spectator, speaking in broad terms of a GG goal. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also related is this interview/debate between Georgia Young, Cathy Young, and Jesse Singal on Huffington Post Live from yesterday [17], where both Youngs point to the same issue that Baldwin speaks of regarding biased reporting of GG that have been pointed out in other off-centralist/right-wing-ish sources previously identified. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Look a counter-opinion Why I Became Anti-GamerGate: A Transgender Woman’s Evolution On The Issue. I suspect this week will have more "one year later" things to look at. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow. They have their own "GamerGate" section on their website. With articles like Why GamerGate Matters To Me As A Black Developer. I think they're all considered to be opinion pieces, though. GamerPro64 16:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good place to bring this up, I suppose, as Adam Baldwin holds such a curious place in this context. While he coined the hashtag #gamergate, as I understand it, he's not particularly an expert on video games, video game journalism, harassment, or anything else sort of pro or con, unless we widen out to 'culture war' proportions. It just strikes me as a bit funny that in a way he's the originator, but for most things his opinion isn't really usable? Am I right about this, or have I lost the plot a long the way? Happy to hear others' thoughts. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He did originate the term, so I don't think it's completely out of place to have his opinion on what he thinks GG is about. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. Could be worth noting what the person who coined GG thinks about all of this after an entire year. GamerPro64 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind on the Rise Miami News aspects for GG, is that after the bomb threat at AirPlay they offered to publish any opinion relating to GG. So there are a lot of op-eds there - mostly pro for obvious reasons - but they are op-eds by random people and not necessarily any expert authority on the situation. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think those Rise Miami pieces are really useful. I think of them more as "Letters to the editor". — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. An interesting retrospective for the most part but essentially on par with citing community game reviews in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues with dealing with coverage of GG from mainstream

Please note that I am not considering this source for including (it is a labeled contribution/op-ed from GamePolitics), but it does bring up points that as editors here we have to be careful of that I have pointed out before many times; this just confirms those points.

[18] describes how reporting on GG brings ire from both sides of the situation (in this case, anti-GG got on Good's case for writing neutrally about GG instead of condemning it) The key point is that in talking to Polygon's Owen Good, Erik Kain, Jesse Singal , and a few others, that they all notes that modern journalism stories mix fact and opinion, compared to old-school journalism where fact was segregated from opinion (they disagree which is the better approach, but all acknowledge this difference). To that end, this points for us as a tertiary source that just because something is said by a reliable source does not make it fact or truth because of the new school of journalism which mixes opinion with fact. That means we should be less hesistent to be using NPOV and not taking RSes sources as facts at their face, but instead where there is any type of contention to make sure it is labeled and attributed as such. This does not mean that all these RSes are unreliable or unusable, but only that if they are making superlative or labeling statements that are contested by others (such as "GG being a harassment campaign", we should be attributing these as opinions. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a basis for a radical shift away from WP:WEIGHT in this op-ed. Artw (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against WEIGHT; it is still the predominant opinion of mainstream that GG is about harassment and that we have to report appropriately. But the key is to recognize it as opinion and not fact, which amounts to careful wording choices in some parts of this article, not massive editing changes. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact/opinion distinction here is something you have invented for yourself and for anything beyond 1+1=2 is effectively meaningless. Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview of any subject from the opinions of reliable sources, for this article and for others, and has always done so. The WEIGHT guidelines and others others are all based around this and give us a working model of how to do so and this article confirms to that model. I see no reason to make a special case for GamerGate and ignore all that.

Look, you've spend a year now trying to get us to ignore WP:UNDUE so you can paint a rosier picture of GamerGate, so I know you must be familiar with all of this, it's getting rather tiresome having to repeatedly tell you how Wikipedia works. Artw (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing against UNDUE. I have said repeatedly that we need to still respect the fact that the predominant coverage of GG is decidedly negative and critical of it, and thus the article will be heavily skewed towards that opinion.

The key point however, is that WP's goal is to provide neutral coverage, and that means recognizing for a controversy and a social situation where there is not necessarily any right answer that we are supposed to be documenting the different points of view without saying which side is correct. And that means that we should not be immediately assuming that just because it is the most common view of mainstream media that their view is 100% correct. This is what NPOV demands. (See WP:NPOV/FAQ - "Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.") I am not asking for any "special case" as this is ingrained in NPOV to make sure we are documenting the views instead of presuming either side is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what it is you're specifically arguing for here. In your ideal world what would the article look like? What are the opinions that are stated as fact in the article, and how should they be modified? Brustopher (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to go into specifics but there are two things broadly that should be done. First, the article must be written on the factual nature that no one knows what GG really is, instead of coming out the door as the article presently does that it is a harassment campaign. While a claim made by many sources, it is also contested by those in the movement as well as the various off-center sources, as well as in sources like the NYTimes and WaPost. It appears as a harassment campaign, but we cannot write the article on that presumption. There has been harassment associated with GG (the history section isn't going anywhere), but we should be treating it factually that we have no idea who is actually engaging in the harassment, though plenty of finger-pointing from the media that it is the movement doing it. This, I should note, does not require major reorganization or rewriting but the appropriate wordsmithing throughout the article.

Second, once its understood that we have a movement that we cannot directly associate with the harssmet, is to make sure that we don't treat their broader claims and activities with resentfulness. (There's only one claim that we have to come out and say has been proven false, and that's the one about Quinn and Grayson that launched the whole thing). The fact we have sections called "Debate about ethics concerns" and "Efforts to impact public perception" is making it look like WP is treating their claims with scorn, which we should not be. As the NPOV/FAQ says, as long as we attribute those claims to the group, this is not WP endorsing those claims. Once we have introduced what the movement is and their claims and what other things they have done, then we can go into the criticism about those claims and the legitimacy of the movement as a whole, which are also valid to include. And it is very likely that this criticism will take more space than the statement of the movements claims, per UNDUE. Doing that is properly documenting of the controversy instead of trying to push one side of it. This would require a reorganization and wordsmithing of information that is already there, but not otherwise changing the existing sources.

This is not the only two changes that would need to be made but they are the broadest two that should be addressed first. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first point: the article doesn't start by claiming Gamergate (the group) is a harassment campaign, merely that the controversy surrounding it is "most notable for a harassment campaign." As most of the coverage surrounding Gamergate has focused harassment this is true. Also I don't know of any sources that off-center or not that deny completely GG's association with harassment. There are also sources that specifically note harassing or negative comments on twitter and gamergate forums on reddit and 8chan. It's fair enough to say GG can be associated with harassment in some way or another.

Your second point I find more understandable. We have a lot of sourced that mention certain beliefs and views popular amongst Gamergate supporters, and these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves as. As for sections titles, what would you suggest as alternatives? Brustopher (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the first point, I personally find that the use of a Wikipedia term of art (e.g. notable) in WP:MAINSPACE tends to set off alarm bells, primarily around POV. It may be better for this to be phrased in natural English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the first point, we have this sentence from the lead "The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." Now, I'm not saying this is factually wrong, but it is a very nuanced statement that makes it appear that #gamergate is just about harassment. It sets the tone for the entire rest of the article to say "GG is bad, okay?" And we shouldn't be doing that. There's a better to phrase is to say that on the onset of Gjoni's post, there is documented evidence of coordination of harassment; but coordination of harassment since that point is not shown, it's only perceived by trends that harassment continues. This is the type of language that seems fine if one starts with the thesis "GG is a harassment campaign" but fails to hold up when considering how we should present the sources under NPOV. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact/opinion distinction is a clearly and unambiguously a core content principle; see WP:5P and WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. With respect, the assertion that Wikipedia attempts to construct the best overview from the opinions of reliable sources and other such suggestions that Wikipedia should present opinion as fact are patent nonsense, the repetition of which is approaching WP:CIR. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, let's put it like this: the opinion of any Wikipedia editor on what is fact and what is opinion is itself an opinion, and one that can be subject to bias, which is why we lean on the balance of sources to determine what to treat as fact, not individual editors. Artw (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually. On Wikipedia, that's what consensus is; it's not one editor's opinion, it is what the consensus of editors are, which includes what past policies and guidelines as well as opinions of individual editors. That's why we are supposed to have discussions and !voting and the like. This is our role as a tertiary sources - we have to make such editorial decisions on what are reliable sources, which materials from RSes are appropriate to include, and so on to still write a neutral article that is an appropriate summary of the larger topic. Again, this is outlined in NPOV/FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

The consensus is the sources don't support you rewriting the article to support a factually dodgy POV. Artw (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there is no consensus of the sources (unlike, say, the established shape of the earth where there is irrefutable evidence towards that). Yes, you have several predominant claims being made (such as GG being a harassment campaign) but these are also contested by other sources as well as the group that the charges are leveled at. As such, they are contentious statements, and per NPOV we don't treat the claims as facts; we don't eliminate those claims but simply attribute them as claims to the major press and don't take a side in the matter. We are required to write this way as a neutral work. It doesn't matter if the counterside is a dodgy POV, because we aren't judging the situation. This is what separates us from just simply mirroring what is said in the media, we actually have to present it in a neutral way, and the way GG has been handled by the press (as indicated by the above link) means that our job is not as straight forward as simply repeating the sources. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful, as you say you're actually interested in the topic and not merely trying to score rhetorical points, to take a look at some of the extensive literature on journalism. You're writing as if New Journalism is entirely new to you -- Tom Wolfe’s anthology came out 42 years ago! -- and as if the postmodern turn never happened, and that the turn away from postmodern epistemology also never happened. This gives your argument the appearance of tendentious special pleading -- that we waive NPOV for this article alone because the sources are all bias! bias! bias! -- when in fact you may merely be discovering for the first time that Pulitzer, too, is capable of being problematized. Perhaps I have done you an injustice.

Wikipedia's policy is indeed naively reliant on the utility of the accepted consensus of reliable sources, and yes, this is often problematic. This is an encyclopedia, and relies on notions of truth or at least utility that have been doubtful since Diderot and Descarte and untenable for a century. If you'd like to teach postmodernism to your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that).

In the meantime, Wikipedia is not going to be "hesitent," as you suggest it should be, to rely upon the consensus view of received sources. Press commentators since Carlyle and Marx have joined you in railing against the bourgeois complacency of this reliance. But if Wikipedia were to imagine that the reliable sources are all biased against Gamergate, the Marxists will point out that the reliable sources are demonstrably biased against the proletariat, fundamentalist will observe that the reliable sources are patently biased against Revealed Truth, and off to the races we will go. There’s a huge epistemological literature on the question; again, if you'd like to educate yourself that’s never a bad thing, and if you’d like to educate your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that, too).

Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion. That this problematic is certain, but there is no help for it. Of making many books there is no end, a preacher once said. There is no certainty; all is vanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against this statement "Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion." (emphasis mine). UNDUE/WEIGHT has to apply. I am not saying because of this new journalism where opinion and facts get mixed without clear bounds that we have to give more excessive weight to other sources. As I stated above, harassment associated with GG is the predominant viewpoint in mainstream, it is impossible to ignore as their stance of what GG is. But this is where I turn back to what you said, that we're looking to summarize the weight of the relevant opinions, and that's the point of the above article - that because of new journalism there are a lot things that are being reported in the words of these journalists in the tone of being fact but that are at their root opinions. And because of that, and that they are contested facts, per NPOV, we take care in ascribing such contentious claims as fact, so that we stay objective and neutral in the face of new journalism. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You mistake me -- or maybe you just seize on my use of "opinion" to score another high school debating point. Who can tell? I can’t. But “received opinion” is, in Wikipedia terms, a synonym for "fact": we acknowledge as scientists that all truth is provisional but these facts are what (almost) everyone agrees to be (almost) true. Reflect for a moment from whom (or Whom) we receive these received opinions. Other contested facts include the second law of thermodynamics, the reality of evolution, the historicity of the Holocaust, the meaning of My Little Pony . . . MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. Opinion is opinion on WP, we don't dance around terms like that, and we take very careful steps to avoid having opinion reported as fact per NPOV least we break neutrality and objectivity. The methods of new journalism make it that we as a neutral source are not required to take what an RS says as fact at its face if it is clear that the statement is considered contentious by others. No one has a right answer for many of the open questions on GG, which is the usually case for any social controversy (like Occupy Wall Street, for example). It is opinions battling opinions. This is how we're supposed to report any controversy as long as it remains a controversy (which GG is, there's no evidence of it having ended), and particularly when the media itself is part of it, we need to be even more careful in how we tread. It doesn't make the mainstream sources any less important than they are, just that we cannot a priori assume they are reporting all facts just because the article lacks the "op-ed" byline. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I will disagree with the statement Wikipedia is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion, in the sense that it appears to be intended above. We document opinions as opinions, we don't simply repeat them because they are popular; there is no follow the sources policy or guideline.

I also suggest that it is a palpable false equivalence to suggest that matters about which there is scientific consensus (second law of thermodynamics, theory of evolution) or significant historical record & academic consensus (historicity of the Holocaust), are the equivalent to matters where we have only the utterings of a series of internet pundits each pushing their own agenda.

Opinions are like Nelsons, everybody's got ones. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK: you're not really interested in journalism or epistemology, I guess. If you believe that the New Journalism means that reliable sources need not be treated as reliable sources, you believe that Wikipedia policy is, and always has, contradicted itself and is meaningless. That seems a good summary of this argument you persistently make, and which has in all the many thousands of repetitions acquired no support anywhere. And a pony. 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources does not mean they are 100% accuracy or correct. It means they have fact checking to the best of their ability, but because of new journalism, in the presentation of the material can still be opinionated and skew facts or present opinions without support.

This goes back to a discussion about reviewing the sources from a few months ago. If you carefully read the most reliable sources , like the New York Times or Wa Post, they do not directly state some of the claims that others have made without carefully wording it as an opinion or an observation but not as fact. Less reliable sources (particularly when we get into the gaming media) are less prone to this meticulous checking, and hence they made claims as fact that we have to be careful about. Are they bad sources because of this? No, just that we have to recognize these should be stated as opinions and not as facts as NPOV directly outlines. This is particularly true that this is a social issue, there is no right answer here. There's predominant opinions, but that's it. Document the controversy, not become part of it by blindly accepting one side where there is clear contention from the other side(s) of the situation.

Also, you are now personally attacking me again, please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, I read through, and tried to make sense of the above, but, in faith, could not. Researching New Journalism and Advocacy journalism, and the long storied discussion of these in journalism & academic circles, I can't reach any conclusion other than that you're suggesting that actually, it's about ethics in journalism; but I'm not sure if that's an accurate reflection.

I'm certainly not seeing anything that indicates that we should present opinions as facts, in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV, which seems to be the central point of Masem's concerns. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Masemt, I'm not attacking you. I've been trying to decipher your apparent discovery of modernist and postmodern thought, but that seems to have been a misunderstanding based n your chance use of terminology that, on other circles, has meaning. Here, apparently, it doesn't. My mistake; I'll try not to make that one again. RYK: if you're seriously interested in these questions, start with Eagleton, After Theory. Wolfe himself is always worthwhile as well. Have fun. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to point out in light of what Masem is trying to get at, consider this from today, which bases the notion that this particular shooter was 'a Gamergate supporter' when anyone with half a lick of sense would check out the steam account mentioned and quickly realize this was entirely made up. Now consider the fact that this entire piece was based of one individual's statement, and that even if he hadn't been blatantly trolling them it would've still been taken in by these journalists. That's where citing these sources as fact and not opinions starts becoming a problem. There are several lines that take the word of one individual and state it as a fact, when in reality it's their opinion and their recollection of the events related to Gamergate. While it's not our place to try and figure out if Quinn, Gjoni, Wu, Totilo, Bain, etc are telling the truth, we should stick to "according to so-and-so", than to present their statements as without a doubt facts. I don't really care where your opinion lies on this matter, that's just good common sense editing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Williams played online video games with the group known as Gamergate… I don't even know what to say. GamerPro64 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many, many sources have reported on Quinn, Wu, and other gamergate victims. Each has found their claims entirely credible; I believe in fact that not a single major report in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Boston Magazine, have cast any doubt whatsoever on their claims. Yet, for some reason, this Gamergate talking point gets trotted out regularly on Wikipedia. Why would that be? Hmm.... I can't seem to put a finger on it. Anyone? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be aware that the press does elevate the claims of victims when the victims are sympathetic towards the readership and/or those attacking the victim are not. (GG hits both sides here). The recent mess with Rolling Stone is evidence that sometimes bad reporting happens when such aspects come into play. This is part of the overall caution that we have to be aware of in new journalism. That said, in this situation, we have all three stating they have received harassment themselves (as opposed to someone else speaking for them). Per BLP policy we must assume this is true (they have received harassment) until clear evidence is made by the reliable sources against this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)