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.

Topic Shift: to hat or not to hat (and the Topic original can go archive)

collapse top|There is absolutely no way the article is improved with this meta-discussion of alleged censorship. This talk page is not a forum. If you believe an editor is unjustly hatting, unhat what they have hatted. If they continue doing so, bring it to any of the many conflict resolution avenues available. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is clearly biased and lacks citations. Please improve it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations are not required on talk pages.

There is no apparent bias in the statement "Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner."

Therefore, this is not a substantive reply, so I am free to reopen this thread as soon as appropriate on the grounds that the topic of the thread is article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, please be bold, but pay mind to WP policies. I only meant to reference the recurrent nature of issues on this page. Dumuzid (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

PetertheFourth, MarkBernstein, and TheRedPenofDoom's responses are basically as far as this conversation can go unless Mythiran has enough reliable sources on the topic to indicate that the harassment against GG supporters deserves more weight in the article. Adding it to the lede now would be undue weight. If Mythiran has actionable changes to suggest for the article, they can start a new section to discuss those changes, but there is no more discussion to be had here. Kaciemonster (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is how talk pages are run on Wikipedia:

When a conversation has gone as far as it can go, it will stop. At that point, the clock begins ticking until it ages off into the archives.

If you believe that the fact that there is no more discussion to be had in any thread on any talkpage of any article on Wikipedia means that it is appropriate to close and hide that thread, you are mistaken. Instead, the thing to do is to simply say no more and let it age into the archives. Stop closing and hiding threads on this talk pages in this way.

On the other hand, do close and hide threads if they contain BLP-type violations or are off-topic, or some other important reason. Do not close them because there is nothing more to say, because they have become tedious, or because you are sick and tired of having the same discussion over and over and over. The reasons given for closing the thread in question are wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note Gamaliel's response on the hatted section above: "The talk page is for discussion of potential article changes and improvements, not for a meta-discussion about alleged censorship. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a question that has already been asked, but it is also perfectly acceptable to respond to that question by noting this fact and closing the discussion when nothing new has been added." Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to close and hide conversations on the grounds that nothing new has been added. When nothing new has been added, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives. In the meantime, the threads will not be hidden from talk page viewers, who may be less likely to repeat the question again, or otherwise benefit from reading them. Also, until that time, it may be possible that something new might be added. Just wait and leave it alone. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

See, I think it is acceptable to close and hide conversations on these grounds because the sheer volume of sea-lion complaints (like yours, in fact) cause everyone to spend a pointless amount of effort and energy continually refuting the same conversations. You're not here to help with this page; you're here to hinder. --Jorm (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy requires that attempts to exploit talk pages for purposes that do not contribute to the project should be promptly removed. One such purpose is echoing political talking points in order to gain a wider audience -- for example, repeated "wikipedia is bias" without any specific recommendation. Another purpose is punishing a group's enemies by rehashing rumors and sexual innuendo on the talk page, warning others that, even if WP:BLP keeps the material out of the article, it will nevertheless be broadly circulated through Wikipedia talk pages. Both these tactics have been employed here at great length. Enough. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Jorm, that may be your opinion, but that's not how we do things on Wikipedia, and also, apparently faulty logic to the extent that it is true that people are less likely, not more likely, to re-hash the same points over and over again while they can see that they've already been discussed and they can read what was said. Instead of closing and hiding such discussions, you may ignore them, or direct them to FAQs, or give some stock answer of your own, so there's no need to worry about wasted time and effort. Chrisrus (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:HORSEMEAT. WP:NOTAFORUM. Read the FAQ and archives. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

When you grow tired of a thread, just don't read it or post any comments to it, or just say as you have here "Read the FAQ and archives, but do not close and hide it.

This is not a discussion of the referent of this article, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. "Read the FAQ and archives" might have been a good reply instead of closing and hiding that thread, but not to this one, unless there is a helpful thread somewhere in there on the topic of when to close and hide threads and when not to. Chrisrus (talk)

Maybe Gamaliel disagrees with Chrisrus since he collapsed the section immediately above with pretty much same comment as Jorm. The talk page is a workspace, and filling it up with this kind of junk is beyond annoying already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find our reader's feedback "annoying". However, finding a talk page thread annoying is not grounds for closing and hiding it.

In your justification for closing and hiding this thread, you seemed to say that talk pages are not the proper forum for discussions of talk page improvement. This is not true. Talk pages are for article improvement, so talk page improvement supports article improvement. Countless talk page threads all over Wikipedia discuss changes to the talk page, such as for example which projects the talk page should place it under, what FAQs might be added, and so on and so forth. So your justification for closing this thread is demonstrably not correct, and I will open it again.

If you want it to go away, just don't anybody add to it any more, and it will soon go quiet and age off into the archives and out of your sight. Or, you could just not look at it.

Hiding a thread only increases the chances that the same topic will come up again. Hiding threads does not decrease the chances that someone will ask the same question again, so frustration with repetitive talk page subjects does not support hiding them, but rather the opposite. Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK is this not a matter for consensus? It would seem that there is fairly wide agreement here. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK,"the prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy, and consideration." Closing and hiding threads because one finds them annoying is not in accord with any of these values, which represent long-standing project-wide consensus that trumps the behavior and preferences otherwise that may be found in this thread. Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, everything after RedPen's comment should be collapsed as it's off-topic. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How reader feedback about this article is dealt with is on-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How reader feedback about this article is dealt with has nothing to do with rewriting the lede, which is the section that you've posted all of this in. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I've created a subsection at the topic shift. Chrisrus (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not "feedback" about the article. it is whining campaign by people who want think the wikipedia article should not represent the reliable source coverage of the subject. We are not here to be their therapists and listen to them whine. over and over and over for Thirty six pages of archives -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

lol for fucking ever @ lecturing Jorm about how we do things on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh. I was going to let that one go but yeah. :)--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic about your emotions, but calm reasonably is the best approach.

It may seem like "whining" to you or me, but if someone leaves a thread on talk pages of articles on Wikipedia saying, for example, "This article seems biased to me. Please fix it so it's not so biased.", then that constitutes clear on-topic reader feedback, and we are to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and not assume negative motivations without serious proof.

We can then leave a brief stock reply polite reply, perhaps pointing them to FAQs, or ignore it completely. Then, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives soon enough, but in the meantime. The fact that such reader feedback might seem tedious or annoying to you because you've heard it all before: the fact that you are sick and tired of answering the same questions again and again and again, does not mean that you should close and hide that thread. Closing and hiding such threads is at odds with the core values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy and Consideration. You should allow those who choose to engage that person at length about why it seems biased to them or explaining to them why it has to be written this way: this is allowed. In fact, that is all the more reason to leave it in such a way that such people can see previous threads on the same topic asking the same question and not bother making that comment themselves.

On these grounds, I will reopen such thread on this talk page as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't justify leaving these threads open on the basis of their service to new editors and then say that these threads will pose no bother as they will quickly disappear into the archives. A quickly archived thread, hatted or not, does no service to new editors or old ones. If editors choose to use threads in a productive manner, then they should remain open. Otherwise, they should be closed. That should be the only criteria. Threads should not be left open solely because an editor wishes to make a point about openness and engagement. You can make that point by actual engagement with these editors, not demanding that others do so in manner that you prefer. Every editor should conduct themselves on the talk page with those three values you mention in mind (Communication, Courtesy and Consideration) but they can do that without leaving unproductive threads open indefinitely. Gamaliel (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaving such threads open doesn't require justification; closing and hiding them does. During the time that they remain easily readable on this talk page, others will be less, not more, likely to start another thread saying basically the same thing, so the argument that closing and hiding them is justified on the grounds that we are tired of the same old repetitive threads makes little sense because hiding them away before they age off into the archives lessens the chances that a talk page viewer will realize that someone has already made that point here before and that they will read the previous reply and get his or her answer that way instead of starting a new one basically saying the same thing. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

the hatting has plenty of justification, from WP:NOTFORUM to WP:DEADHORSE to WP:NOTFREESPEECH to WP:NOTHERAPY to the Thirty six pages of archives where the same pointless baseless and unsupportable suggestions have been redregged every week. Where and how exactly do you foresee any improvements to the encyclopedia from encouraging such pointless discussions continuing on and on and on? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If a person there starts a thread by giving some reader feedback which is too vague to be very helpful, such as maybe "This article isn't good. It shouldn't be written in this way", then that constitutes on-topic reader feedback, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE might or might not apply if that the person that started that thread had already done so, but unless there's some suggestion of that, it doesn't apply. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFREESPEECH only applies if someone claims Wikipedia has violated his/her legal right to free speech, such as the First Amendment of the Constitution, by not allowing an edit or banning them from the project or something. WP:NOTFREESPEECH doesn't justify silencing anyone, but rather say that if we have already done so for some other, non-WP:NOTFREESPEECH reason, free speech rights are not grounds for reversal of that decision, and the person has no legal rights apply to the State, not to Wikipedia, so they can't sue. No one is using such arguments here, so it does not apply.

I'm going to have to ask you how you think WP:NOTTHERAPY justifies the closing of the thread in question.

By invoking WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this way, you seem to mean that exceptions should be made in this case because it's different from other articles' talk pages. But there are many articles' talk pages on which the same objection comes up repeatedly and frequeently, so this article is not unique. Take for example the article Persian Gulf, the constant threads about how the proper name is "The Arab Gulf" are not routinely closed and hidden against the rules, they are instead generally left alone for others to see and be discouraged from starting another. The decision was made long ago to instead have such things as FAQs and stock responses for those objections that recur frequently, because this is effective and in concordance with the three C's of WP:TALK: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly I am surprised that you are not aware that this page IS different than the majority of other pages. It is the target of organized offsite disruption. It became the subject of an ArbCom case within 4 months of its existence. It has Thirty six seven pages of archives generated in less than 10 months (as compared to 7 for Persian Gulf over 10 years ) So, yes, in the interest of actually improving the encyclopedia measures that may not apply other other pages are completely appropriate here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The widespread criticism of and attention to this article is more reason for us to be particularly vigilant about treating everyone fairly and strictly according to the rules. We must be extra careful to maintain strict adherence to the rules and to treat everyone fairly and courteously. There are other explanations for the large archives other than "organized offsite disruption", and therefor no reason to resort to conspiracy theories and emotional overreactions to normal on-topic reader feedback. This article should stand as a proud example of how we treat people fairly, as many eyes are on it.

Sorry dude. we are not here to "treat people fairly" - particularly organized disruptive campaigns. We are here to create an encyclopedia. IAR is the POLICY which is the basis for improving the encyclopedia by not wasting anyone's time, actual contributing editors or sea lion meat puppets, by re-re-re-re-re-hashing discussions that have no basis in policy or sources and will never actually impact the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dude, what's your goal here? For real? You've provided exactly zero suggestions for improving the article except for "Listen to every idiot who comes around and sea-lions the living shit out of us and wastes our time". Are you trying to white knight for the pro-gamergate crowd and aren't willing to dive into the actual article? Is this the best you have?--Jorm (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and either stay on-topic or open another thread in an appropriate place. Chrisrus (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this falls under WP:NOTAFORUM ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages don't have talk pages of their own to discuss them. Discussion of talk pages management belongs on that talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we should be discussing content. More than half of this huge massive pointless discussion is discussion of the discussion of whether or not we should hat topics that are going nowhere fast. Please just take it to ANI or something. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM "Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." &

The discussion Chrisrus is trying to have belongs at: the talk page for talk page guidelines ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good place to discuss ways of changing the talk page guidelines to allow exception to usual talk page governance in cases where a different user every day seems to open a new thread saying something like "This article is biased. Please redo it so that it's less biased." to the point that usual remedies such as archiving, FAQs, recommended stock answers, and so on are not enough, and where most regular talk page editors are becoming so overworked that they would like to resort to closing and hiding all such threads as they appear. I am not making such a proposal.

Meta-talk page discussions, by which I mean discussions on a talk page that are focused on improvement to that talk page itself, are supposed to take place on that talk page. If that weren't the case, none of the meta-talk page topics could be rightly discussed on talk pages:

1. Discussion of whether and which disclaimers should be posted on the top of the talk page.
2. Discussion of which projects the talk page should have, and in which order they should appear.
3. Discussion of whether to have FAQs and how they should be worded and edited.
4. Discussion about the press coverage box.
5. And so on.

If what you are saying were true, all of these "meta-talk page discussions" would be considered "off-topic" and not allowed on talk pages, so some other place would have to be used for meta-talk page discussions, such as the establishment of talk pages for talk pages. But as such discussions occur all the time on such talk pages and as there is no other place for such discussions, it is clear that what you are saying is not true, and that meta-talk page discussions are indeed considered on-topic. So please refrain from closing and hiding meta-talk page discussions on the grounds that they are off topic and instead belong somewhere else, because, given the facts, that is demonstrably untrue. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Hi. Sorry to bother you, but seeing as you were the last administrator to step in this is your punishment for your good deeds. What dispute resolution steps could I take re: Chrisrus being disruptive by constantly unhatting and posting in a long, useless section on the talk page? It seems just minor enough to not really be actionable, but it is incredibly annoying and it also seems to be done for no real reason other than to be irksome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to go to WP:AN/I.--Jorm (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus is correct w.r.t hatting of discussions. The Talk Page guidelines, and the instruction/explanation for each of the methods being used to close discussions are clear that discussions should not be closed by involved editors.

• WP:TALK - Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins; however, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear.
• Template:Archive top - When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
• Template:Hidden archive top - This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
• Template:Collapse - This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

All emphasis directly copied from the sourced pages.

It is not disruptive to discuss the inappropriateness of involved editors closing discussions. What is disruptive is the continued use of these methods to prevent discussion of the article content. If a discussion offers nothing substantive, simply allow it to age out to the archive pages naturally. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check

this diff. I found that where the mention of the restraining order was a bit odd, and so reworked a few things to getting the mention of the order in a more logical place (alongside where Quinn had to flee her home), added a reason why Quinn saught the order (due to the post going to many sites as to poke the horent's nest), and reworked a bit of the narrative to flow that better. Did not intentionally want to change anything else. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(And the only reason I point this out is that this is around the "false allege" aspect of the Quinn/Grayson claim, which I know is a touchy area). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I reworked slightly, personally I think we can just drop the "The claim was quickly proven false by Quinn and others" bit and just say that the allegations were false upfront, but I didn't want to change too much. — Strongjam (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a subtle language thing here. "Falsely claim/allege", at least as I read it, means that the detractors purposely made up a claim knowing it to be false. This is not how the sources present how the allegation was made, in that how the detractors believed, based on Gjoni's post, that she had a relationship and thus believed, in earnest, that she used that to gain positive press. They point to the prior game jam article as such positive press to support their allegation. Obviously, we know that claim is false due to lack of any review, Kotaku's statement, and Quinn's statement, no question, but the original allegation was not falsely made by the detractors, just shown false. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to rehash the argument, but I've always been OK with 'erroneously claim' or any other synonym, but we need to be quite clear in the sentence that there was no factually basis for the claim. No review existed, we don't even need the benefit of hindsight to see that the claim was false. — Strongjam (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Erroneously claim" is fine, that's appropriate. But remember that what they are saying is that they had 2 "facts" (though how true those facts were at the time, we don't know): Gjoni's statement that Quinn and Grayson had a relationship via his blog post, and that Grayson had written about Quinn before. They added those to get to a conclusion that was clearly false - that Quinn used Grayson to gain a positive review - but they didn't start that claim from a vacuum of no information, which is why we should be careful to say that they "falsely claimed" this. The claim is false, or they made an error in making the claim becuase of the lack of the review (or that they were considering the game jam coverage as favorable review) - no question on that point. Just that we can't say that they purposely falsified the claim. (Or as another example which I know I can speak to without BLP question: I know there have been some outside WP that call me a GG Sea Lion, but that claim is false since I don't side with GG's aspirations at all. They did not "falsely accuse" me of this, because I can totally see how my editing pattern would infer that I'm anti-anti-GG or thus pro-GG, so they believe some some degree of earnest that this is true. They did "erroneously claim" this, or that they made a claim that is false. It's a very subtle language thing, basically). --MASEM (t) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

“Erroneous” is not satisfactory here, as an erroneous claim might represent an honest mistake. The claim was: Quinn traded sex for reviews. There were no reviews. No reasonable person would make this claim without knowing whether or not Grayson had written reviews. Either the claim was a lie or it was reckless: "false" is needed here. (We could accept as a compromise that we say the claim was either false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, but that’s not going tot be popular with Gamergate advocates.) But "mistaken" is literally irresponsible and we cannot use it -- especially since our sources all agree that the claim was false, but none have presented any reason to believe it was mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as if we have no idea if the claim was mistaken, we have no idea the claim was made purposely false, and again, we know they based their claim on "facts" from other sources. It wasn't made in a void of information and without any sources that say they made it falsely, we can't say it was made falsely. It was a claim since prove false, no question. It might have been made recklessly but again, we have no sources for that. But we absolutely cannot say it was made falsely with the RS gives and it would be OR to say this otherwise. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No. A reasonable and prudent person will, before shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, take reasonable steps to assure himself that there is a fire. A reasonable and prudent person will, before saying that “this woman exchanged sex for favorable reviews”, take reasonable steps to assure himself that this claim is true. There is no void of information: there were no reviews, period. You would not say that falsely shouting "Fire!" was "erroneous" because the shouter might not have known whether or not there was a fire, would you? Especially if you know that (a) the fact that there was not fire could easily be ascertained, (b) there was never any evidence of fire, and (c) the person falsely shouting “Fire!” did so from desire to disrupt the performance. This endless wrangling over questions we have settled months ago is tiresome and disruptive. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

They are taking the game jam article as a review/positive coverage, which we know was not a review. That existed; just that you, me, and the rest of the RS discount that as a claim of being positive coverage. To say they made the claim falsely requires a statement from a RS on the intent that they made these falsely; if you don't have an RS, it then is original research to assign motiviation. I have no question the claim was made disruptively, but both truthful and false claims can be made disruptively, but that's a separate issue. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking the game jam article as a review is, in the 'fire' analogy, like taking somebody lighting a cigarette as a grievous threat to the lives of the crowd gathered in the theater. I think 'false' will do just fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the claim being "false" is 100% fine, no question. But to say the claim was falsely made is ascribing intent, and unless you have a source that specifies this was the intent, it's original research/peacocky. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't actually understand what your concern is. If somebody alleges something that is false, they are falsely alleging- it's not really about intent so much as it is about the accuracy of the allegation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See my example about me being called a Sea Lion off-wiki. It's alleged based on faulty logic from available data. But it was not made falsely,; making the accusation falsely would mean they knew it certainly 100% false to start with and were only making the accusation to cause disruption. It is a false claim since I know I'm not a Sea Lion, but not made under false pretenses. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your assertion that a false allegation is defined as an allegation knowingly falsely made- I just don't agree with it at all. What would you use to support the assumption that the reader would assume it was knowingly falsely alleged rather than just falsely alleged? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Falsely alleged" means that this was their motivation. We cannot presume their motivation ourselves (that's original research) so we need a source that reports that their motivation was to falsely allege this statement to Quinn. Without a source, we are making an unverified claim. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps our article on false accusations can help shed light on it- it describes it in that false accusations can be knowingly made. That is, not all false accusations are knowingly made, so the assumption that our readers will automatically assume it was knowingly false is, er, misguided? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Which states "...proposing the term "false allegations" be used specifically when the accuser is aware they are lying...", and we have no awareness if they knew they were lying. It was only until after Kotaku made the statement that absolutely falsehood was known. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, which is the opinion of researchers Poole and Lindsay, and Wikipedian Masem. I'm not sure that indicates our readers will assume as you assume that a 'false allegation' means one that is always knowingly made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You told me to look at the wikipedia article to see about it, and I provided information it says (that line was just one sentence, but the rest of that article collaborates that that willing made up information, when the truthfulness of that information was not known until after the fact). --MASEM (t) 00:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Urgh, fine, here's the relevant sentence quoted just for you- "A false allegation can occur as the result of intentional lying on the part of the accuser; or unintentionally, due to a confabulation, either arising spontaneously due to mental illness or resulting from deliberate or accidental suggestive questioning, or faulty interviewing techniques." -paraphrase as "a false allegation can occur [...] unintentionally". PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As the rest reads: "Unintentionally from a confabulation from [cases]". Yes, it can occur unintentionally, but please show what sources say that the ones that proposed it have mental illness or were in questioning or interviewing Quinn. We can't make that assessment on our own without making original research. I can tell you that from reading the GG side, while their intent was not ethically, they honestly (in so far this is what their dossier still says) believed that there was positive coverage from the gamejam. Of course, we have no sources for that we can use, but we also have no sources that say they purposely made up the claim based on zero information, or that they inadvertently made that claim, so it is best for WP:V and NPOV to simply state that they made the accusation, and the accusation was quickly proven false. We've already identified that the prior harassment of Quinn was bad enough, in addition to how Gjoni's post was put to places where Quinn's detractors would read it, so reading between the lines it's a fair conclusion (that does not need to be stated) that accusation was unethical, but we simply cannot say they falsely alleged this. (And I've been checking to find any reliable sources that make that claim of "falsely alleged", but no one says that; they affirm the claims false but not that they were falsely made). This is the type of wording we have to be absolutely correct on. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't think I will ever understand why you are convinced that 'falsely alleged' means 'knowingly falsely alleged', nor do you seem willing to accept that other people might read 'falsely alleged' as 'falsely alleged'. It is unreasonable to expect our readers to always interpret it as 'knowingly falsely alleged', and thus I am in favour of 'falsely alleged' in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

First I will say I apologize to some degree: by falling back to the definition of falsely (which I'm pulling from here [1]), then yes, "falsely" can be used to mean "incorrectly" (the intent here that Peter is suggesting) though it also can mean "insincerely". That said, in the context of this article, which is about a controversial subject, we should be using language that the least chance for misinterpretation in context, and this is the situation here. "Falsely alleged" has two significantly different meanings, and while one is correct, the other one is very subjective (that is, the "insincerely" side), meaning we should have the backing of many sources to use this term, or otherwise use a more direct, non-conflicting wording that is more representative of the sources (most which do not have any adverb on the "allege" action, but immediately state the disproven claims following). The wording "falsely alleged" has just enough potential for misinterpretation that includes making subjective statements about the intent of a group of people that if the sources aren't using that, we should avoid that. (A similar case: we use the language "Quinn was forced from her home..." which, in other situations, has sometimes be an exaggeration, but the press universally use this term to describe this for Quinn's situation, so no question we should use this here, we have sourcing to back that up). --MASEM (t) 04:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged" implies that correct/incorrect has not been asserted. "Falsely alleged" implies intent or else we would describe it in temporal order. (i.e. "X alleged Y, which was later determined to be incorrect."). By placing "false" before "alleged", we imply intent. Consider the fictional case where a person convicted of rape was released after DNA evidence exonerated him; we would not describe the victims courtroom testimony as "She falsely swore that he raped her." The use of "falsely" in that placement implies an intent to decieve more than the veracity of the statement and we wouldn't allow it. This is pretty basic comprehension and we should not be using "falsely alleged" unless we have a source that describes an intent to make a false allegation. It's too easy to write it temporally correct than to imply an unsourced intent at any level of English comprehension. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate

I would like to suggest adding next to "Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics....", located under the section "Debate over Ethics Allegations" this counterpoint from David Auerbach.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/05/google_searches_and_racism_why_big_data_studies_don_t_explain_society_as.2.html

David Auerbach: "None of the big-data analyses of Gamergate showed much of anything about harassment despite attempts on both sides to spin the results. Newsweek’s Taylor Wofford claimed that a Brandwatch study of Gamergate tweets showed that Gamergate was mostly about harassment, except that Brandwatch’s classifier wasn’t able to determine whether 90 percent of the tweets were positive or negative. The study showed nothing, but Newsweek wrote it up anyway."

Ylevental (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to include that, you're free to add it yourself, Wikipedia being the encyclopedia anyone can edit and all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I included it. Ylevental (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Slate says one thing ("[t]he study showed nothing"), while the clear majority of sources (Newsweek, Brandwatch, Andy Baio, Venturebeat, etc.) say the opposite. Giving Slate a greater (or even equal) number of sentences is absolutely undue. (The balance isn't so extreme to exclude Slate entirely, so one sentence is probably fair.) Beyond that, the actual experts in sentiment analysis—Brandwatch and, by extension, Newsweek, since they commissioned the report—are clear that the tweets were about harassment. Unless Auerbach is also an expert in sentiment analysis, we shouldn't present his opinion as if he were. (If he is an expert, that's something we need to state.) And that's where it gets tricky: how do we balance the minority opinion of a (possible) non-expert against the majority opinion of experts who actually ran the study? Keep in mind that we've had issues in the past where Auerbach felt we were distorting his statements. I don't recall the specifics, but it's something that I certainly feel we should be sensitive towards. Right now, I'm of the opinion that we should remove the Slate source, because the only other option is to give a very short summary of Auerbach's opinion and to make clear that it's the opinion of a non-expert. And I don't think that's a good option at all. Of course, just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach seems to have written a few anti sentiment analysis articles in the past,[2] [3] so it's clearly an area he's interested in but I'm not sure if he's an expert or not. I'm going to ask him on his talk page and see if he gives an answer. Bosstopher (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but this editor appears to have been involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia in the very recent past (they created an article for Dixon D. White and then bragged about how stupid Wikipedia was for accepting it on reddit ([4]). They're following the standard pattern of "make enough edits for autoconfirmed and then dive right in". Accordingly, I'm reverting their changes in order for a greater discussion.--Jorm (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear to other people, when someone creates a page specifically to fuck with the movement ('I tricked SJWikipedia into creating an article for "Dixon White"') and is proud of it and claims the falsehood ('I know that Wikipedia is really leftist so I wanted to see if Wikipedia editors would fall for the hoax. Anything makes it on Wikipedia if you use "approved" sources, which means if those sources lie, then that lie is going on Wikipedia. They almost 100% did (but found out his name was a pseudonym).'), then I don't think it's possible for us to trust that any edit they make in the future is "good faith".--Jorm (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that in this case though, we can set aside differences for the moment, as I genuinely believe that Auerbach's opinion might be worthy of inclusion. Ylevental (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On inspection, I'm not sure Auerbach's opinion is notable enough for inclusion- he's not really a big name in data, making his opinion like that of any other random person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

However, Taylor Wofford of Newsweek also isn't a big name in data. And even he says in his original article "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women." Also, it would be a good idea to mention that most of the tweets are neutral. Ylevental (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be misleading. Those classified as 'neutral' were just tweets that the algorithm couldn't identify as being positive or negative. Of those that could be, the overwhelming majority were negative. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's alright for now, but we need to see if Auerbach's opinion counts or not for sure. Maybe find another data expert to talk about it. Ylevental (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach is, at best, an outlier. If he's included, we also need to note the overwhelming weight of sources that disagree -- starting with the Columbia Journalism Review and proceeding through the rest of the world's press. WP:DUE and common sense suggest that we need not discuss each WP:FRINGE opinion. Furthermore, the actual wording of the proposed edit is wildly unencyclopedic and inappropriate, even after the editor had been made aware that their previous bad behavior on Wikipedia had been noted and requested good faith. Auerbach is a journalist, not a data scientist; his highest degree is a B.A. and he not, to my knowledge, published any peer-reviewed research in this field. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are specifically talking about the criticism or commentary on the Newsweek/Brandwatch study (and not just rote repetition), there's not that many POVs either side to start with. The Newsweek piece is repeated but without commentary about the method/analysis in many sources (for example: [5], [6]), but where there is actual discussion of whether this is good data or bad data or something else, there's little - there's the Slate piece, there's this: [7] (which agrees with the results though states the conclusion may be overreaching), and then I'm sure a handful more; so including Auerbach's opinion would not be FRINGE on that aspect.
That said, I don't think we need to include any analysis on the Newsweek study outside of simply making sure it and the conclusions were attributed properly to them; the criticism or commentary on the methods is an issue all to itself that would weight down the GG at this point. Separately, I am seeing a trend about the media's treatment of GG coverage as a potential future section from a few more recent sources, which Auerbach's bit would be a part of, but this concept is far far far from having any sufficient weight in good RSes to suggest inclusion at this point. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how to phrase the counterpoint, but I think there are enough sources (including an SPS which might be useful, Brian Keegan's post on the subject) to qualify the assertion. I'm perfectly ok with stating (as we do) that Newsweek and Brandwatch conducted the student, reporting some of the results and noting that there was some pushback against the study. The clearer we can be with the reader the better. We want to state the main objections tersely and in such a way that they're not vague "so and so had a problem" but specifically "this was so and so's problem". Protonk (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Auerbach a primary source in this regard? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't involved in performing the study, so no, his comments on the study are secondary. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to his notions WRT his conclusions re big data. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If the topic was "Auerbach's opinion of big data" yes, it would be primary. But if we're talking "big data" in general, he remains secondary, commentating on skewing of big data to make points. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what he's doing. "Studies that explain systemic racism using Google searches are fascinating. Don’t trust them." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's his opinion on the topic of big data, and thus a secondary source for the topic of big data, since he is otherwise not connected to the topic directly and offering a transformative take on it. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach's response regarding expertise

I asked Auerbach on his talk page for information WRT any possible expertise in the area. His response was this:

I have a degree in computer science and worked in big data at Google for 5 years, have worked on IETF RFCs, and have a bunch of software patents to my name. I've worked with sentiment analysis design and code--which is how I know it's mostly garbage. Bernstein's claims about me are incorrect and he has criticized me in the past. (I in turn have criticized his company Eastgate's work in the past, though I was not aware of him at the time.) What I wrote is patently true--not that that counts, I suppose. Have fun arguing. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd comment but I urgently have to go consume my own body weight in free alcohol. I'll leave this for everyone else to discuss. Bosstopher (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds pretty experienced to me. Ylevental (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies to Auerbachkeller on missing his Google years; the biography I found didn't emphasize it and the natural place to look -- the research literature -- was empty, and of course a BA is not typically a research qualification in the sciences. Doing some digging, unless Auerbach is related to Nina Auerbach, author of the wonderful Our Vampires Ourselves, our only point of tangency seems to be his 1998 Rain Taxi piece with which I'd forgotten about (and would have been unlikely to connect to someone working in a different field entirely some seventeen years later!) If I recall it correctly -- and I may not! -- it suggested a distaste for hypertext fiction specifically and, if I may generalize, for postmodern literary fiction broadly, a sentiment about which Sven Birkerts, Laura Miller, and Michiko Kakutani were separately writing in this era. Advocates of that position can certainly come to dinner, or at any rate may stop by for a drink afterward.

I, too, am skeptical of automatic sentiment analysis. If the Baio study also mentioned in that paragraph -- but not cited -- is the Gamergate.me paper, I was quite critical of that. I'm far from convinced that the paragraph adds anything significant: we have two studies which we use to report facts that surprise no one (i.e. that Gamergate has been contentious). Why not simply drop the paragraph? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did you find that he has a BA? Because I was googling and I think that's another Dave Auerbach. If the data is useless however, maybe drop it altogether. Ylevental (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

His LinkedIn profile: [[8]] BA Yale, currently columnist at Slate. Is that wrong? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I only see "BS, Computer Science 1994 – 1998" Ylevental (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing the estimated GG size statement from CRJ

In 2 edits prior to this [9] Mark B. removed the Newsweek statement and the Baio article - both that were statistical analysis of the tweets - which is based on the above discussion and partially I agree with in that because the stats are fuzzy, they don't help that much. But this also removed the statement from CRJ that estimates the size of the GG userbase from the KIA subscription number. I restored just that part of Mark's edit (as Mark's change did not comment on this data piece), but Peter then removed it in the diff above. Arguably it is only a measure of participation at one forum, but it is also much less fuzzy of a stat. It also gives a magnitude of how many people are actually "involved" in the GG side, which is a completely objective piece of data that we should be including simply to give the reader how big this might be; the fact its only 10,000-some people then shows it how minor a point it might be as if it were 100,000 ppl (a more respectable fraction of gamers), or maybe just 1,000 ppl (a extreme minority). I see no reason this number from CRJ should not be included to keep some type of objective discussion of the nature of the GG side in place. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly I agree with removing it simply because it's such a meaningless statistic. I know I've heard far larger and far smaller estimates for the size of GG's supporters, and I'm not sure the number of subscribers to a subreddit (especially such an outdated statistic) is meaningful re:support size. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

CRJ, a highly RS, thought it was, and it is the only established estimate that we can actually source. We do need to include the time frame because yes, it is outdated, but it was also near the height of when the harassment aspects were in full force, and thus probably the most significant point in time. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)