Talk:Zoë Quinn

Unprofessional conduct

No WP:RS for this. Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would go as far as to say, if we can talk about it on Bill Clinton's page, we can post it here? It's relevant controversy, and goes further than defamation. Zoe Quinn's Lewinsky Scandal [1] 24.170.47.108 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Completely agree. If people think this page is such of valid importance, her notorious cheating scandal should at least be mentioned. It was all over reddit when it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.206.96.149 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.67.218 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.186.150 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.160.76 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Fifth. I logged in to do it myself, to override the lock, but I would rather that the very public information be handled in a way that reflects more consensis. "The Link." http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ The Zone Post. Artoftransformation (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Sixthed. 118.209.21.232 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Disagree. To publish information on Wikipedia, that info can't merely be high-profile in an online self-publishing community. It must also be covered by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia policy states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For non-scholarly examples of these sources, it lists: "university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers, [and] electronic media, subject to the same criteria." In other words, even if the whole planet is buzzing excitedly about something that allegedly or actually happened, that info can't go on Wikipedia until a reputable outlet reports on it. That may seem like an unfair or limiting restriction, especially if you perceive an event or rumor as very notable, but it keeps the quality of accuracy of Wikipedia much higher. The website "thezoepost" is not a secondary source, it's primary, it's not from a reliable outlet, and it's self-published. So even if the content is very interesting or widely disseminated, it's not usable. A bigger outlet has to cover it. 75.119.242.175 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC) This. The places covering this do not count as reliable per Wikipedia's rules, so we can't use them to source the article. And even if this did somehow appear in more reliable sources, we would have to be very careful about how, and if, we covered it. That is because Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy forbids editors from passing on gossip. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 100% agree! Either the Article is important because of this and it gets included, or the article is not important and gets deleted! Without details about the corruption scandal in the gaming journalism industry she has part in, the article lacks importance! Anybody (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC) @Anybody: We've had this discussion already, and the article was kept - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Quinn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged"

I don't want this to become an edit war, but the word 'alleged' is inappropriate when describing Quinn's harassment. At WP we follow the sources, we don't provide our own editorials or commentary. Both reputable sources - The Mary Sue and The Escapist - indicate that what happened was harassment, and our article needs to reflect that. It's not up to editors to determine what really happened. If there are any reliable sources that suggest that it didn't, or that reports were overinflated, then that information can be added as well. Until then, the word 'alleged' has no place. Euchrid (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself. If anyone wants to read the Wikipedia policy behind this - and it will make things a lot easier for all the new users here if you do - you can find it at Wikipedia:No original research. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who IS interested in reading up on policy, in addition to the Original Research article, it's worth bearing in mind that it needs to be interpreted particularly strictly when, as in this case, the article is a biography of a living person. Anything which could possibly be seen as being insulting or defamatory needs to be very well sourced, and to not say or imply anything that does not appear in the source article. Euchrid (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So, if The Mary Sue and The Escapist were to report that Zoe Quinn was from outer space, and the only source they were to cite was Quinn's personal Twitter account, would her Wikipedia article have to state that she was from outer space as though it were a fact? Why should Wikipedia be limited to the bad reporting of The Mary Sue and The Escapist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephf5 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes sources do make factual errors, of course. For that, we have WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. Neither of those policies seem to be relevant here, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this as well, for the same reasons given by Stradivarious and Eurchrid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist article starts with the following header "[...] developer Zoe Quinn has REPORTED several instances of harassment". The Mary Sue article mentions "Then she took it down after a wave of misogynist harassment that APPEARS to have been levied simply because she was a woman attempting to talk about depression". I wish the Wikipedia article reflects the cautionous mentions. Therefore, the sentence "[...]Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." should be replace by something like "[...]Quinn has reported harassment...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.27.31 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist article has been updated to say they never verified any of the claims Zoe Quinn made before or after publishing. "Update: This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources would suggest that due to the potential bias of the source, in-text-attribution should be used in order to create a neutral stance. Alleged might be a bit too gossipy for WP (frankly I feel the whole situation is), but stating "Zoe Quinn has claimed" is not. 21:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.204.25 (talk)

We should state that she "reported" harassment as the Escapist article says early on. Also we have WP:IAR, and we have our own internal editorial standards to maintain. If a dozen RS's reported "John Doe murdered his son" instead of "John Doe allegedly murdered his son" then we would use our own judgement and use the latter sentence. Part of the reason for IAR is to make sure we are not bound to defer our own editorial judgement to RSs who report things as fact without having any evidence.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the best option (24.215.125.41 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Done. — flying sheep 10:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Source Bias

Carly Smith's and Susana Polo's articles are used as sources in the claim the article's subject was harassed online and via phone because of her work. However, both writers only use the subject's own tweets as evidence. It is also one of the publishing site's policy (The Escapist) to not fact check articles of this nature. A subject's own claims being used as a source is not up to Wikipedia standard and these articles should be set aside. It is gossipy, as there are various claims about the nature of what happened. In order to keep the sentence about harrassment there needs to be a another source that is not self referring. [Edited]~~Ron 70.185.196.205 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We have been discussing this in an above topic, and this case of bias is very clear. The publishing site (The Escapist) has also posted http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187 in reference to the 2013 article the wiki page is using as a reference. The take-away is this statement by the Editor-In-Chief of the website, "The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet." This shows that The Escapist is not a trustworthy source for this piece of news as it had not done any fact-checking and the Editor held a clear bias toward the subject. I recommend removing the mention of harassment from the main page, or changing it to state that Zoe Quinn made claims of harassment.73.32.61.213 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I went trying to find reasons not to do this, and oddly, I ended up agreeing with this edit request. Quinn's own tweets about the harassment fail WP:SELFPUB, and the cited articles just cite her tweets.

I think changing it to "claims of harassment" would be inappropriate, because it sounds gossipy and feels like Wikipedia is casting doubt on her claims, which should not be our intent. I am going to be bold and remove the sentence as contentious and insufficiently sourced for a BLP. Please feel free to put it back if you feel it was wrong of me to do so. I didn't realize the article was fully protected now, so nevermind! I do think it might be a good idea to remove that sentence, though. --Ashenai (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. I'm pretty unfamiliar with the background (I only became aware of the story yesterday) but I feel that statement from the Escapist does somewhat question its credibility as a reliable source, particular that they did no fact-checking before publishing the story. I'd suggest changing to state that she has alleged that she suffered harassment without weighting the statement one way or the other. Maybe replace that paragraph with something like:

"Zoe Quinn created Depression Quest, a game which details what it feels like to live with depression, and submitted the game to Steam's Greenlight platform. <edge reference here> Following its listing, Quinn alleged that she had suffered harassment from members of the Wizardchan image-board. <mary sue reference here> In August 2014, Depression Quest became available on Steam."

I reckon that would be a fair compromise as it mentions Quinn has made the allegations, as is done in the Mary Sue and Escapist sources, but does not comment on their validity which the current version appears to. -- Teh Cheezor ^Speak 11:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As well as the Escapist and Mary Sue sources, I found three others which I've already linked above.[2][3][4] That's five sources that say that she was harassed, and no sources which contradict that. Per the third bullet of WP:YESPOV, facts in reliable sources that are uncontested by other reliable sources should be stated as facts, not as opinions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. Also, the 3 additional sources listed have prior consensus as being reliable per discussions at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone point me in the direction of these "their policy is not to fact check" claims? Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In the Semi-protected Edit Request on 18 August 2014 discussion it was brought up that The Escapist 's Editor-In-Chief Greg Tito stated a special policy concerning sources for the publication. Here is the link to it for convenience: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187

Here is the quote again: "The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet. I do not support behavior of that kind and will strive to protect those who are feeling the effects of it. We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change, and will only choose not to post such stories if I decide they will do more harm to the situation."

This statement shows that this publication gives the special privilege of not fact-checking to articles dealing with online harassment. Thus this particular publication does not meet the WP:IRS standard which states "Articles should be based on...sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to that topic. I propose that the citation to The Escapist be removed from the Wikipedia article. ~~Ron 70.185.196.205 (talk)

Here is a list of the sources that claim Quinn was harassed online in response to her attempt to publish her work. The main problem is that Quinn is the only source.

Mary Sue Article - The article only cites Quinn's own tweets. So this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

The Escapist Article - Article only cites Quinn's own tweets concerning the harassment. So this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy. It should also be noted that the article opens with description of the event as "...Zoe Quinn has reported several instances of harassment." This language means that the writer, Carly Smith, acknowledges that the article has only one source and that the source is the person being described and could be bias. It should also be noted that this publication has a policy of not fact-checking when dealing with topics of harassment(as detailed above), thus this citation not meet the WP:IRS standard.

Computer and Video Game Article - This article, published August 12, 2014, covers the launch of Quinn's game and does not directly report on the harassment directly. It only cites Quinn's own tumblr account and does not specifically link it to what Quinn described in December of 2013. It is possible that Quinn is not referring to the event, thus it could be a miscitation. Regardless, this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

Venture Beat Article - This article, published August 12, 2014, covers the launch of Quinn's game and does not directly report on the harassment directly. It only cites Quinn's own tumblr account and does not specifically link it to what Quinn described in December of 2013. It is possible that Quinn is not referring to the event, thus it could be a miscitation. Regardless, this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

Game Revolution - The citation for this article is another article from the site Edge-Online listed below. Verifiability of this source should be contingent on that article.

Edge Article - Published on January 23 2014, this article is unique in that it seems the anonymous staff writer at the Edge has had an interview with Quinn. The details of the interview are not explained, but a number of quotes are attributed to her. However, it still fails to find any source that is not Quinn herself and thus still fails the WP:SELFPUB policy.

So there seems to be three sources for all these articles, Quinn's Twitter, Quinn's tumblr or Quinn's interview. Ultimately this entire ordeal concerning harassment seems gossipy and below Wikipedia's standards. I would propose one of two actions: Removal of the mention of harassment from the main article or a rewording of the sentence making it more reflective of the singular source nature of the event. An example:

"While attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported several instances of online harassment and a sexually explicit phone call." ~~Ron 70.185.196.205

You misunderstand SELFPUB. We're allowed to use third party sources if they are reliable and have a history for fact checking. CVG, VentureBeat, Edge, etc, all do. I mean, everything eventually traces back to first party accounts. This sort of logic would prevent anything ever being useable... Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite that, I think the IP makes a pretty convincing argument to write this in context and attribute the claims to Quinn herself - as the sources have. The IP's proposed sentence seems good to me.--v/r - TP 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I suspect a violation of WP:SELFPUB policy is that the primary sources used in the article ultimately are a handful of tweets by Quinn. When a living person's self published material has such a great influence on their Wikipedia article, it seems to risk violating that policy.

At the very least the language currently used to not reflective of what the cited articles state. The The Escapist article uses "...developer Zoe Quinn has reported several instances of harassment." and the Computer and Video Game article says "Writing on her blog, she explained that the benefits of publishing the game outweigh the risks of generating further abuse." The current sentence is "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." The suggestion is to change the wording to "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported several instances of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." which reflects what the cited articles are acknowledging. ~~Ron --70.185.196.205 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is for information (I cite) “about themselves [as long as] it does not involve claims about third parties [and only if] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity”. This clearly excludes disputed claims about being doxxed. We can use her as source on her views, and facts about her person (birth date, …), but not events about third parties targeting her in an attack. I’m sure we can’t just repeat her claims as fact, no matter how many times they are indirected from a single source failing WP:SELFPUB. — flying sheep 09:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what a self-published source is. Zoe's tweets are self-published, but news articles based on those tweets are not. An article published by a news agency is published by a news agency, not an individual. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Alleged harassment

I truly understand why the controvercy or "Quinnspiracy" is not mentionned due to lack of substainable proofs. But I don't understand why the harassment Zoe Quinn has supposedly suffer is thus mentionned in the article. Referenced articles link only to Zoe Quinn tweets which mentionned the harassment. How can it be a proof?

If the harassment has to be mentionned, it should be with absolut precaution like: "According to Quinn, she has been the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.27.31 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above - see #"Alleged" and #Source Bias. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We should wait until it calms down to do this, but yes, eventually the harassment itself should be covered, some of it is even happening on this talk page --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless a reliable website did an article on harassment on this talk page (unlikely), it wouldn't warrant mention. Same goes for anywhere the harassment is happening. Only if reliable sources are documenting it. If they're not covering it out there, we wouldn't cover it here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that she was harassed by that 4chan virgin group (sorry, forgot what the subforum's called) has actually been pretty debunked. She claimed it, then it happened as a result of people being angry at her accusation. Weird stuff, but yeah.

It's /v/ideo games. But I suppose /v/irgins works for us too. Starly396 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia trusting inaccurate sources?

Every single "citation" Stradivarius posted were mere reposts of the original, false article that was based solely on Zoe's word.. It's defamatory to Wizardchan to claim that they were harassing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.176.245 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Because another source covered it. Also, the Wikipedia article makes no accusation as to who did the harassing, only that it happened. No harasser is defined, so it's not unfair to anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the dox info that Zoe publicized was found to point to an unrelated motorcycle shop. Due to this controversy, it is also clear that Zoe's own words may not be able to be trusted.Starly396 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, even if the authors of the articles all come out and admit to outright lying, there is no process to have them removed because the only standard is verifiability, not accuracy. This is the problem of having an untrustworthy press. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that (we have, for example, decided that sources were unreliable on a case-by-case basis when their methodology was deemed to be untrustworthy), but in general, yes, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Tezero (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well shucks, we'll just have to create our own news outlet then. But I'm sure the world has depended on such a standard for hundreds of years, and this controversy is no reason to dishevel it.Starly396 (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Think about it this way: If we can disregard sources based on them being incorrect, how do we determine they're incorrect? If it's from another source, we can just use that source and the cycle restarts. If it's not, it's just original research, the opinion of a Wikipedian rather than a published, reasonably respected author - whose opinion is the average reader more likely to value? Tezero (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been quite fascinated for the opportunity to learn about encyclopedic standards and wiki's policies. I have tried to edit wikipedia before, but never given thought about what goes into building an encyclopedia. It certainly makes sense.72.89.93.110 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There are pros and cons. For example, Wikipedia is more trusting than print encyclopedias are in regards to reliable sources, which is one reason we're able to be much more current, but this comes at the possible expense of readers feeling they can trust everything we say. (On the other hand, we're more conservative in this regard than KnowYourMeme, with sites like TVTropes and fan wikis standing even further into the zone of quick yet spurious updating.) And I'll admit I'm sometimes frustrated with Wikipedia's standards, some of which I see as hindering common sense in the name of meaningless details, but I stick around because I consider that an acceptable sacrifice to make for being part of an enjoyable, educating, generally good-natured community. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would probably enjoy editing articles for fun, if I had an editor that didn't have colons for indents and tildes for timestamps and jesus christ how do I read this markup Starly396 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's like using a PC (or, more accurately, Linux) as opposed to a Mac: less user-friendly, but you can do whatever you want. Tezero (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Starly396: We have this: go to the top of the page, click on "Beta", and then enable VisualEditor. VisualEditor was made opt-in on the English Wikipedia (don't ask - it's political), but will do exactly what you just wished for. And for all the anonymous editors reading this, the ability to enable VisualEditor is a very good reason to create an account. :) It doesn't work on talk pages yet, though - there's another piece of software in the works for that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edited Source

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130525-Depression-Quest-Dev-Faces-Harassment-after-Steam-Submission-Update The escapist put out an edit to a linked source after it was found that the article was published without any 3rd party confirmation. Please change the main article to reflect the change.73.32.61.213 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist is still a major, relatively mainstream gaming news source that falls within the definition of a reliable source. I'd still prefer to have more sources to draw from, of course, and I'll try to find some more soon. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls."

Please follow the sources and change it to "Quinn reported that she was..." 2.102.185.204 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Most of the sources out there continue to say that Quinn was harassed without qualifying that with "alleged" or "Quinn reported that", etc., so that is what we should do too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide those sources? As the two that are used say it came from her. Also, if you can find a different source that does state it on its own without noting that the only evidence is her word, that doesn't mean we should too (both as we have sources noting it came from her as well as the fact that we're individual editors who don't need to mimic a source's shoddy journalism). 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We report what the sources state. To do otherwise would be original research. Woodroar (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And the two sources we're using say it came from her. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine. They're secondary sources and they can use whatever primary sources they feel are appropriate. WP:OR goes into all of this. Woodroar (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They note that this is not confirmed and it is a claim by her. We should too, otherwise we're being dishonest and making it look like this is a fact when it's actually just a claim with no evidence. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This wording has been changed now - see #Removal of original harrassment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

News about how did Zoe Quinn got there:

Hat nonsense Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this true? I need clarification. What is it exactly that you're asking? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

User:Soffredo made the bold choice to insert content into the article regarding the incident which has been boiling almost over the top for the past few days and has made gaming communities go absolutely crazy. This is the 'bold' of WP:BRD. I did the R, and now we will commence the D for discussion. I reverted because in its current form, we can't state that someone allegedly cheated on another unless there is absolutely solid sourcing for it. Additionally, primary sources (the tumblr source) have very strict limitation on their use in this. I think that given its sourcing to Daily Dot, Vice, Kotaku, it does merit some mention. But the specifics of that mention should be clear, take a non-interested POV and be entirely neutral, all while compiling for BLP. Something like Zoe Quinn was the subject of an Internet controversy when her ex boyfriend produced a blog disputing her infidelity during their relationship; Multiple popular websites like Reddit, 4chan, and others went into a flurrygood wording, huh? about this, spouting allegations that she was gaming the system for positive press about her game, Depression Quest. Daily Dot and Vice have called these allegations as 'sexist' and 'harassment' against Zoe, contesting the notion and the credance of her boyfriend at all. Other websites have not collaborated these allegations. I'm open to any and all suggestions considering I just wrote that up on the spot and it has some weird wording...I don't usually do content creation. Tutelary (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to avoid controversy by using the word "allegedly" instead of stating she cheated on him, but ok? Make this even more complicated.. Also, you claim you want it to be neutral yet you go on to say "Reddit, 4chan, and others went into a flurry". What I wrote seems to work: {{tq|In August 2014, Quinn's ex-boyfriend [RedactedperBLPname] created a Wordpress blog detailing how she allegedly cheated on him with multiple people, some of which work in gaming journalism.[5] [6] Quinn commented on the incident saying "It’s a personal matter that never should have been made public,".[7] Kotaku stated that it had found "no compelling evidence that any of that is true." [8] [Soffredo] 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that stating that she cheated on another person, even if it is 'allegedly' is a BLP vio, especially since we only have the words of his ex boyfriend for that fact. Again, we need to take the disinterested viewpoint as outlined at WP:NPOV. 'Allegedly cheated' also sounds inflammatory. Also, what I stated was not out of context, The Daily Dot and Vice both mention Reddit and 4chan by name and their exaggerated reactions towards it. Maybe take a gander at the sources you're trying to use. Tutelary (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well we both know the articles may be biased. Let's use my addition, which is 'neutral' unlike yours. [Soffredo] 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell Crisis his KYM and reddit citations are great, hahaha. Also, is it fair to cite [RedactedperBLPname]'s blog as well? Starly396 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The KYM article actually has more cites about this than WE do. Conversely, the article on themarysue cites nothing apart from Quinn essentially saying "I'm being harassed, no seriously, just believe me" Crisis.EXE 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote The Daily Dot about these issues: "Thing is, there are no publicly known facts to support this theory. There is, however, a lot of hot air." And "[the gaming community] has twisted [RedactedperBLPname]’s dirty laundry into a narrative of industry corruption—a tale that is not based on provable fact." Claiming that this passes WP:BLPGOSSIP seems to me optimistic at best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was the one to originally insert "allegedly", "alleged", etc. into the section, but that's apparently frowned upon because it's too gossipy. When we finally do write this section, we can use these as reliable sources for all of it:

• Social media and gaming websites would not discuss the story. When this website did, "myself and my colleagues have been subject to threats, illegal attempts to obtain personal information, and illegal attempts to hack the editor account of the site." "YouTube personality TotalBiscuit has also reported that he has become a victim of harassment from defenders of Zoe Quinn and other indie developers for his Twitter post on the subject" "JonTron, has also come under harassment" "Zoe Quinn’s claims that 4chan hacked her personal Tumblr account to obtain nude photos has been debunked, after attempts to spread the images made it apparent that they are crude Photoshops." http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/the-kotaku-zoe-quinn-scandal-the-aftermath-and-thoughts/

• Most websites refused to cover the topic, while being willing to cover other such topics as and when they've been revealed if the offender was a man: http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/the-schism-of-gaming-zoe-quinn-nepotism-and-white-knight-journalism/

• The Editor of Kotaku states that Grayson and Quinn have been in a relationship: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

• "John Bain aka TotalBiscuit has been raked over the coals by a significant segment of the indie dev Community [including Phil Fish] over his comments regarding the Zoe Quinn Scandal": http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-of-justice-total-biscuit-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/

• "The main thrust of the anger over Quinn involved her perceived nepotism in having what many gamers believed were unethical relationships with other members of the gaming industry and the gaming media." "Quinn's friend Phil Fish came to her aid, launching a strident defense of her character" His company's site was hacked and much personal and business information was released. http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/

• Quinn hampered a project for female game designers. http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/the-quinnspiracy-continues-vivian-james-indiegogo-is-reportedly-hacked/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/indiegogo-campaign-hacked-this-weekend-but-wasnt-part-of-a-widespread-attack/

• Refers to a Reddit thread which states, among other things, that Ben Kuchera funds Quinn on Patreon, and has written about her; and the article states that in the wake of this two gaming sites have changed their policies with regard to such situations: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Polygon-Kotaku-Revise-Their-Policies-Amidst-Controversy-66962.html

Apologies for lack of formatting. I've only occasionally edited Wikipedia, not sure how this all works.

Willhesucceed (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These are useful sources that could be used to write a section on this, yes. (See also #Reliable sources recap and content in article and some of the other sections further down.) However, I don't immediately see anything in the sources that confirms the allegations that you made in the post above, and we can't insert poorly sourced, controversial claims about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, per the biographies of living persons policy. So I've redacted them. We need to be very careful about including claims about Quinn even here on the talk page, as they may unwittingly contribute to the harassment she is currently under. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I tried to organise and summarise them in some fashion above. I'm not trying to start a witch hunt; how are we supposed to decide what goes into the section if we're not allowed to discuss the topic here? Willhesucceed (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the WP:BLP policy, contentious claims about the living person can be included in the talk page exactly once. Any other mention to them should be made through a hyperlink to the section where they were first discussed, so as to avoid repeating them everywhere. Diego (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about Kotaku article reliability

I just wanted to point out that, unlike the vast majority of sources which rely on Zoe Quinn or her ex-boyfriend's personal statements, the Kotaku article actually performs "original research". In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author. The article refers to an investigation of Gawker/Kotaku staff and, implicitly, Nathan Grayson as sources. The article is a primary source for refuting the allegations since it relies on an internal source. However, I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable secondary source for the *existence* of the allegations. Press releases, like this article, would usually work as sources, but in this case, Kotaku could be seen as a participant in the drama because of Nathan Grayson. Corax rarus (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That link goes to a 404. Euchrid (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corax rarus, this is a common misconception about sources. WP:OR and WP:V means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to base our edits on reliable, third-party published sources, and cannot reference our own personal knowledge or experiences. These policies do not prohibit journalists from original research; on the contrary, they require it. All of the persons mentioned in this article and their works (Tweets, blogs, etc.) are effectively primary sources, and Kotaku is a secondary source because it is investigating and writing about the primary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks User:Woodroar. I was just concerned of WP:NPOV since the journalist's colleagues are also at the heart of this drama. So this source should be sufficient to at least the existence of the controversy? (Also, User:Euchrid, I've fixed my original link above) Corax rarus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is another policy that only we as editors need to follow. Sources can and often are subjective, sometimes in a good way but sometimes in truly horrible ways, but it's our job to remain objective in how we reference them. But to answer your question, I don't think it's a particularly good source for that claim. Not because of Kotaku's reliability, but that the source doesn't adequately cover the controversy. It essentially says "several people inquired about allegations and we found they didn't have merit for these reasons" but nothing beyond that, no mention of harassment or trolling or anything like that. Since we would have to read between the lines and that's original research, the most we could get from this article is that they find the vague allegations are without merit. Obviously just my opinion, and I'd welcome others to chime in. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to also add that the article also states that "Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship." which was a point of contention (whether Zoe actually had a romantic relationship with others between November 2013 and July 2014 as the ex-boyfriend claimed). Corax rarus (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it does, per WP:SYNTH we can't use multiple sources to combine material or imply conclusions, especially on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What review are you referring to? The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review. This appears to be supported by other sources. It also appears to be supported by simple OR since AFAIK, even opponents of Zoe Quinn haven't been able to show any review. (They appear to now be discussing "favourable coverage" or similar rather than a review. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's either a typo or a misunderstanding. "The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review." The Kotaku article discusses a review by refuting the rumors that one exists. The second "review" in my comment refers to the mention of Quinn's game in an article which was a review but not a review of Quinn's game (this was a review of a reality TV show). Anyway, the point was that both Grayson and Quinn's ex-boyfriend mentioned that they had romantic relationships with Quinn during the same timeframe despite being enemies (Grayson threatened to seek legal action against the ex-boyfriend and Quinn over libel). Kotaku would be the reliable third-party confirming the conflict (since Quinn and her ex-boyfriend were biased primary sources), but apparently we can't say A+B=C as per WP:SYNTH. Corax rarus (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how "In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author" was meant to imply there was no game review but only a TV show review. It seems to imply there was a game review but Kotaku claim it was written and submitted before Quinn cheated so you comment does seeming unnecessarily confusing. At no stage did you mention a TV series review, or mention there was no game review.

Yet what we know is Kotaku refuted the "allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased" not by saying the "review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author", but simply by saying the review on her game doesn't exist. They also mentioned that the only time Grayson wrote anything "involving Zoe Quinn" was the article on the reality show which they state was from before the relationship begun.

Note that the article Kotaku linked to about the reality TV show wasn't what would generally be called a review either (particularly not in reference to a TV show). It was a "behind the scenes" news or story style article look at how everything allegedly was wrong with the reality show. It's not a review or evaluation based on having watched the TV show and offering an analysis/review/evaluation of the TV show based on this viewing (or reading or listening or playing or whatever). Which is what most people expect when someone mentions a review of a TV show (or book or play or song or game or whatever), as per our article. It doesn't even sound like the author has seen the show, and they definitely don't seem to be claiming they have. (To be honest, I'm not sure if the show was ever actually shown to anyone or because it was cancelled, it basically never became a product anyone could really review.)

If you want to nitpick, you could perhaps say the article was a review of allegations surrounding the filming of and problems behind the show. But calling it a review of the show is a real stretch.

The simple fact is, if you had an equivalent story about the latest Star Wars film or The Big Bang Theory or whatever, very few people would be claiming it was a review of the film or series. If the people making allegations about Quinn are claiming that article is a review, it's no wonder no one trusts them since it's sounds a lot like a lame attempt to deny they were wrong about the existance of a review. (Although as I've said, as far as I know most of them have now moved on from claiming there is a review, instead talking about favourable coverage or whatever.)

Note that this isn't simply nitpicking, it's an important point. If we were to ever cover the story in this level of detail (which I doubt), it would be important we mention Kotaku's primary defence in relation to allegations of a biased game review is that there is none. Similarly, considering that many people would not consider the article on the TV show a review, it would be fairly confusing for us to call it one (except if we are quoting someone who does call it a review) or to imply a review exists since most people who have followed the story will be wondering "what review" and many people following our links to the "review" will think they must have followed the wrong link.

BTW, I stand by my comments. The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any game review. The only thing it does is mention there was no game review which isn't what I would consider "discussing a review". Still, if you disagree and feel this is "discussing a review", we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't consider it an important point since I made sure my comment was clear in saying they did mention there was no review. So there should have been no confusion that they did deny there was any review from my comment.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources recap and content in article

Hello. I know that there are a bunch of sections regarding this but the discussion should be centralized towards one specific section, and that I feel as if I were to continue discussing it in other sections, that the discussion would be the focus of one specific person which I would be responding to, not the entire page. So, I'd like to recap; There have been a bunch of different 'questionable' sources which have reported on this, and we have to be able to separate which are reliable and which is not. Here are a few 'indisputable' (one that wouldn't have its reliability called into question)

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html
• http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal/
• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest
• http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/22/hackers-post-fez-developer-phil-fishs-personal-information-and-take-control-of-his-studios-website/
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-01-game-jam-reality-show-cancelled-as-indies-wouldnt-put-up-with-its-s
• http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-chilling-effect-of-misogynistic-trolls

Here are the sources that -may- be reliable and usable but needs further investigation;

• http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/747559-embarrassing-week-gaming-industry-concludes-welovegamedevs-twitter-campaign

Surveying all the 'indisputable' sources above, I feel that it has a place in the article as what has been done to her and Phil Phisher is a reasonable thing to mention. One line of 'sexual explicit phone call' doesn't do itself justice. I am proposing the following content be added to the article in section called 'Harassment'. The 'sexual explicit phone call line' would be moved to this section. The 'indisputable' sources would be used for this section.

After her ex-boyfriend contested her infidelity and asserted other allegations on his blog about her, Zoe was the subject of harassment in her day to day life. This included the doxing of her personal information, the alleged hacking of her Tumblr account by 4chan, sexually explicit phone calls, including 'an individual jerking off into the phone', the calling of her place of work, death and rape threats, as well as other threats. The motive was the unfounded assertion that she had used sexual favors for favorable reviews on gaming websites.

Phil Phisher, after defending her on Twitter, had his personal information doxed, name and address as well as banking information and passwords.

So yeah, I'm open to any suggestions you guys might have but I feel that the way she was treated belongs in the article, and the line of 'sexually explicit phone calls' doesn't do her justice. Tutelary (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk about bias. Wasn't it you who said we should take a non-interested POV and be entirely neutral? (See here.) I don't get why you reverted my original proposal which was neutral. It's as if you're not content until we agree to bashing on Reddit and 4chan. [Soffredo] 16:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions I'll remedy that, but we have multiple different BLP violations redacted on the talk page and I'm trying to make it adhere to that...whether that's wrong or not. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We have several types of sources on this:

1. Screencaps and other primary sources. Primary sources are not only appropriate, but preferable, to cite when it is about whatever the primary source is - videos, still images, Tweets, ect. are cited for many articles about the specific events involved in said videos, still images, Tweets, ect., and this is entirely appropriate. Mister Angry Boyfriend is not a RS for anything but his claims, but it is not inappropriate to cite his claims directly as a source for his claims, along with other sources. Given that he has been noted by several press outlets, and the allegations were responded to by Kotaku, it seems like his claims are at least notable enough to be worthy of mention.
2. Media reports - we need to be careful on this front, especially given that the accusations include those of press corruption, silencing people, attacks on people, threats against careers if the subject matter is covered, ect. One of the major axes of criticism on Zoe Quinn is that she and her friends had been using social justice issues as a cover for their own ill behavior, and several of the links cited above were involved in such activities.
3. There is evidence to suggest that her claims of harassment and "doxxing", both the initial ones on Depression Quest and her more recent ones, were partially or wholly fabricated. This needs to be noted, and there are primary sources which attest to this. Again, we should cite actual people for this, not do OR, but this research has already been done externally, and therefore is not OR. What we need is to choose RS's wisely.

We need to keep a NPOV about this stuff, but censorship of Wikipedia is unacceptable. We have some sources which are prominent enough to be picked up by Google News for Zoe Quinn sex scandal, and as such seem like reasonable enough sources to use:

• http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/zoe-quinn-between-anger-and-depression-quest-27793
• http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/08/sex-scandal-involves-female-game-developer-zoe-quinn-kotaku/
• http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/kotaku-and-zoe-quinn-accused-of-exchanging-positive-press-for-sex/
• http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest

I'm not super happy with the Motherboard article, which reads very much like a rant and has been amended several times due to factual inaccuracies, which doesn't speak well of it being well-researched, but eh, it is potentially usable with some caveats. There are some other things as well:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M - Internet Aristocrat's video is noted by several of the sources on this subject matter; is it worth using? It contains a lot of information, but is pretty much a rant. On the other hand, several sources pointed towards him, he has over 60k subscribers on YouTube, and the video has about as many views as anything on the subject matter. A lot of ordinary news articles don't pull 600k views.

Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing clear right now is that she claimed that she was doxxed and harrassed. The sources only report that claim: They cite her twitter and blog and use “alledged”, “claimed”, “[Quinn] reported” all over the place. Until this is settled, we shouldn’t turn those claims into a undisputed fact. I have made a small edit in this vein. — flying sheep 10:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• We do now have enough reliable sources that we could write a section on the controversy. Thank you, Tutelary, for taking the time to put them together, and for indulging my strict interpretation of the BLP policy while we discuss this. I remain unconvinced that we should include a section about this controversy, though, in light of WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'm thinking particularly of the part that says Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. We have satisfied the first of these three points beyond all reasonable doubt, but I do not think we have satisfied the second or the third. None of the stories linked above present the allegations against Quinn as true; in fact, most of them actively say that they are false, and Motherboard and The Daily Beast both say that the controversy isn't important. I find the idea of adding a section on the controversy very hard to reconcile with the wording of the BLP policy here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  Assertions of what happened don't need to be true to be documented in articles, only what is substantiated in reliable sourcing and with regards to BLP and NPOV, which is what I attempted to do.. Which is why I put the 'unfound assertion that she did X and Y for Z' because that's what the RS stated, that it was an unfound assertion. But why I really want to add this is because again, a single line mentioning the harassment doesn't do itself justice, and leaves the readers with more questions than answers...like, 'Why was she harassed?' and 'Why did she get that sexually explicit phone call?' Maybe a good model to take after would be Anita Sarkeesian's article, where it was substantiated that she was harassed and describes in depth what happened with regards to BLP. It's been in stable condition (absent a few {{cn}} and {{pov}} tags) so it might be a good thing to look at. Maybe we'll need to get discussing that future RfC if we can't come to an agreement. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  In most types of articles, assertions don't need to be true for us to be able to include them. But I would argue that assertions about living people do need to be true, because of the part of the BLP policy that I linked. WP:BLPGOSSIP is an extra requirement on top of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and means that our criteria for inclusion of material is stricter for BLPs than it is for other kinds of articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and it makes sense. But did you look at Anita Sarkeesian (the article) and how it's formulated to document the harassment but not the allegations? Tutelary (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to set up a standard for which sources are considered reliable in order to cover the controversy. In the spirit of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and given the recency of the event, I believe we shouldn't depend on the past reputation of their review process but on the way they cover this particular incident - any source covering the event should provide direct hard evidence for their claims about the persons involved, not rely on hearsay. Please remember that this is a BLP, so any disputed or controversial content needs to be held to the highest standards. Diego (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I've read the Anita Sarkeesian article now, and I agree that it does a good job of sticking to BLP while still covering the harassment she received. There is a key difference between Sarkeesian's case and the one that we have here, though. Sarkeesian began being harassed as a reaction to her announcement that she would make Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, and there's nothing in the BLP policy that prevents us writing about that. In Quinn's case, though, discussing the reason that the harassment began would inevitably involve writing about Quinn's private life, and however we word it, that is on much shakier ground with regards to BLP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying {{An ex boyfriend made allegations about their relationship}} doesn't give away anything private. Especially since it's been reported in numerous reliable sources. Zoey Quinn herself has published a response to the fact that the allegations exist, as a press release. The controversy exists. We don't need detail about the specifics of the cause. There were allegations, from an ex boyfriend, one of them related to a Kotaku journalist, some people responded with concerns relating to professional misconduct on both Zoey and the Kotaku journalist's part, Quinn reports being harassed in response. But written more neutrally. No private details, nothing excessive just enough to cover the RS without leaving room for accusations of censorship in either direction. SPACKlick (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there're multiple sections on the controversy I'm not sure where best to put this, but there's a new citable article on the topic: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/ JamesG5 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would consider Ars Technica reliable, but not in this case. Anyone following this mess via 4chan or reddit is pretty aware that Ars Technica and possibly twenty other sources are shouting this whole "gaming is dead" narrative all at once only because they've exhausted trying to censor the majority of people not buying whatever narrative these traditionally reliable sources are saying anymore in regards to the controversy. If it has to be used though, I would take it with a grain of salt. Honestly, I wasn't even aware they were going into this drama. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Potentially biased wording

In the description, her game is described as a game which details what it feels like to live with depression which seems both biased and misquoted - the referenced article explicitly highlighted that it's an attempt. Perhaps a change to a game which attempts to detail what it feels like to live with depression or something less definitive would be more proper? Pomfland (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

'Attempts' implies the opposite, though. I'd prefer the less flower "a game about the experience of depression." Euchrid (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of original harrassment

I don't want to get into a revert war here, but editors are now removing reference to the original round of harassment - the one that followed the release of Depression Quest in 2013. I know that some feel that the most recent round is in question, but surely that incident (or incidents) isn't also in question? If it is then I haven't seen any debate. Euchrid (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is well documented by reliable, third-party published sources. I think that some editors take issue with the secondary source being based on a primary source, but that is the definition of a secondary source. A reliable secondary source gains the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require by using what they consider to be quality primary sources. The sourced statements should be restored and tags removed. Woodroar (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It does look like Diego Moya and Mdann52 are confusing the two incidents here. Quinn is the victim of two bouts of online harassment - one last year, debated in the #"Alleged" section, and one that is ongoing, most recently debated in the #Reliable sources recap and content in article section. The comment of mine that Diego referred to in his edit summary was about the ongoing incident, but the content that he removed was related to the 2013 incident. That said, I'm in two minds here. One the one hand, most of the "dispute" about the 2013 incident is merely an extension of the online abuse that Quinn is currently receiving - in actual reliable sources covering the incident, there is very strong agreement that she was the victim of actual harassment, not mere "alleged" harassment. On the other hand, one of the key sources covering this, The Escapist, issued an update saying that they got their information from Quinn's Twitter account and from no other sources. This means that the sources aren't completely unified in their coverage of the 2013 incident, so there is room for discussion on what exact wording to use. I think that WP:WEIGHT indicates that we should not add "alleged" or similar qualifiers to the harassment wording, but we shouldn't pretend that The Escapist hasn't issued an update, or to try and stifle debate about it. I think that removing the material from the article is a reasonable step to take while we discuss this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Concor with the above. I removed the material as it have been contested, not due to any previous discussions here, especially as the sources may not be as reliable as they first seem. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that Quinn reported harassment, and The Escapist seems to be being very cautious, but not unreasonable, in highlighting that they did not independently confirm the issue. This, though, is because much of the harassment was alleged to have occurred over the phone, and therefore cannot be independently verified. Given this, I have no problems with having a statement that Quinn reported being harassed when Depression Quest was listed at Greenlight, per the wording here, as the report is not an issue that is in dispute. This much should remain in the article. Part of the current round of attacks and harassment also includes the rather unsavoury claims that the original harassment didn't occur, but beyond including "reported" we should avoid entering into that. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of the two separate incidents, the problem with the removed sentence is that it was written in an ambiguous way that could applied to both - as the new wave of harassment has also been linked to re-publishing the game after Robin William's death. I chose the reported wording as a neutral term to avoid alleged, thus getting round the WP:ALLEGED problem of uncertainty. I could agree to restore that wording if it's made clear that it refers only to the 2013 episode. I also think it could benefit from more references supporting it, specially from journalists that report on the king of sources they've used to reach their conclusions. The references in the article (the Escapist which explicitly denies having confirmed the claims, and The Mary Sue who doesn't explain how or whether they contrasted the information) don't set a high enough standard for a BLP. Diego (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard we are looking for is not proof that she was harassed, but proof that she reported being harassed when the game was put on Greenlight. The Escapist seems perfectly reasonable for this, but if there is a question, Quinn's talk at GDC, as summarised by Polygon [9], also covered the issue. Then we have Gameskinny, Edge, Digital Spy and Forbes. Even those attacking her now acknowledge that she reported harassment. This point isn't in dispute. What some people are arguing now is a different issue, and we're right to take that cautiously. But that doesn't mean we can't cover something that happened many months ago, has no direct BLP issues, and is relevant to the release of her game. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

At no point I said we should not cover it - just that we have to be delicately exquisite in the way we include it in the article; and the existing sentence -with its ambiguity and its disputed tag- was not that. From the sources you provide, I think the one from the Edge would make a good addition - it actually names YouTube, Reddit and 4chan commenters so that readers can follow the track of the harassment for themselves. The Forbes one also does a good work in providing context, although some editors at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian have objected before to using Forbes commentators as references. Last but not least, the Polygon article is interesting in that it provides extensive coverage of Quinn's own words, which may allow us to expand with due WP:WEIGHT the article including a sentence or two about her take of the whole matter.

As for the August 2014 incident, it seems too soon to say anything about it yet - the recency of all it makes it unlikely that coverage from journalists can be considered reliable. Let's wait some time after the significance of it settles and give time for writers in professional media to do their job and research the topic with care - or at least let's include only references that are backed up with hard evidence. Diego (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, those sources listed above - the GameSkinny, the Edge, the Digital Spy - don't just say that she "reported harassment", they say that she WAS harassed. GameSkinny says "Because for the SECOND time, Zoe Quinn is being excessively harassed by online users, reportedly from the site Wizardchan", Edge says "The backlash filled Quinn’s Twitter stream" and Edge "Quinn has received sexist abuse and been harassed with phone calls." For us to reword them, rather than reflect what they say, smacks of synthesis to me. Euchrid (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept "reported", simply because it is also accurate to what happened, and works as a compromise. I'm unwilling to accept not covering the issue at all. Personally, I'd rather leave of the "reported" as well, but if it removes the "dubious" tag then it is a step forward. In regard to Diego Moya's point, I also have no desire to see us covering the current round of harassment at this time, because it represents a significant BLP problem, being based on gossip and unfounded allegations.

Assuming that the current proposed wording is:

In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.

How do we approach making it less ambiguous? Would adding the date (December 2013) address the issue? - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding the date would make it clear that the sentence is not about this month's re-release. Diego (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible sourcing for controversy.

This source seems to address supposed subjects like censorship of posts on Reddit and 4chan. Leaving this up to debate, but when the majority of sources like Kotaku and RPS are being accused of taking sides, this one particular article seems to be a good add to an otherwise controversial, ongoing scandal. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/08/25/gamers-revolt-another-take-on-the-zoe-quinn-scandal/ Citation Needed | Talk 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting read. I've not heard about the Bright Side of News site, can it be usually considered reliable? They are a commercial web site with editorial staff founded in 2009. The author of that piece isn't listed within the staff but seems to write regularly for the site, and it seems that all contributions are sent to the editorial team for review.

I like that the in-depth analysis is grounded on links to external sites, rather than being mere opinions from the writer (this piece contains a good dose of those too, but I don't see it all that relevant for the BLP; the sources it links to are verifiable though, as all of them are online). This means it could be used as the basis to provide some brief background of last week incident if/when we decide to cover it, in particular if other reliable sources happen to highlight some of the same points reported by this analysis. Diego (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of it's reliability, it definitely doesn't read like an blatantly biased opinion piece, and the in-depth analysis looks good enough at the very least for a grounds for debate over inclusion. Citation Needed | Talk 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This other article linked from the first is also a non-videogames news site, that provides a very different perspective on the topic, and also gives external links to the websites where all the drama is happening (including to the originating abuse post from Quinn's boyfriend). It appears to me that this is a clear case of two competing points of view, which emerge as significant when the news are covered by professional writers and are given quite different spins. Diego (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at the author alone and looking at her other articles already wasn't doing favors for that particular source. Here in lies the big issue; being that the majority of people who are reporting on the scandal either have an agenda that is pro-Zoe or pro-SJW amidst a damning pile of evidence provided by people who supposedly got screwed over and a unholy triple alliance between 4chan, Tumblr, and reddit over the whole issue, so what we're left to work with is basically on par with tabloids. It's a complete NPOV nightmare. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"a damning pile of evidence provided by people who supposedly got screwed over" And what pile of evidence would that be? Also, I do not see how the Bright Side of News article is any less POV than Marcotte's.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe what would be useful is reading what WP:RS says about biased sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be included. I'm just saying that Citation Needed seems to be selective in what constitutes a biased source, since both the aforementioned sources read as conflicting POV. Also, the "damning pile of evidence" was not mentioned in Bright Side of News. The closest thing to evidence is the mass Reddit etc. ban, but that by itself does not contradict the accusation of harassment. So I'm still waiting to see a reliable source for this "damning pile of evidence".The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this source considered reliable(http://www.themarysue.com/mighty-no-9-dina-abou-karam/) but brightsideofnews isn't? Stevenbfg (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the story itself and not Wikipedia itself, here is a "damning pile of evidence" that goes through the sources for the original harassment story in December and explains how there was never any evidence it took place. Obvious, this isn't a reliable source. https://imgur.com/a/4VOcx72.89.93.110 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally articles from publications with editorial standards are seen as more reliable than imgur folders as potential sources for the encyclopedia --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't submitting it as a reliable source. But it is "damning evidence", in the sense it proves to a reasonable observer there was no evidence for the harassment mentioned in the article.72.89.93.110 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Somehow this post appears relevant to the conversation, with respect to accepting internet crop images as evidence of anything. Diego (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mary Sue, bias, WP:RS and double standards

An editor has rightfully removed the The Mary Sue source, as it a) is very biased and b) isn't a reliable source. This double standard is frankly ridiculous. You guys deny any source that presents the other side of the controversy as not meeting WP:RS, biased, and WP:BLP, but not a single shit is given when the source is pro-Zoe Quinn! Why? Does BLP count for nought on the other end of the spectrum? I DO NOT SEE THE MARY SUE BEING LISTED ON ANY RELIABLE SOURCES LIST, SUCH AS WP:VG/RS! Not only that, but The Mary Sue has said THEMSELVES that the write articles based on a feminist perspective, therefore they have PROVEN THEMSELVES to be biased pro the subject. Using The Mary Sue in this article while discounting other sources than offer an alternative viewpoint is the equivalent of using only North Korean state-run newspapers on the North Korea article then dismissing and removing all the other Western/American sources that criticize North Korea as "biased". WTF Wikipedia? Stellarcomet (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention as already said above the following RELIABLE SOURCES are not allowed in the article

http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/zoe-quinn-between-anger-and-depression-quest-27793

http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/08/sex-scandal-involves-female-game-developer-zoe-quinn-kotaku/

http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/kotaku-and-zoe-quinn-accused-of-exchanging-positive-press-for-sex/

http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest

because, as I quote User:Sergecross73, "regardless of its writing, it supports the sentence in the article." WTF Sergecross73? How about WP:BIAS and WP:RS? Stellarcomet (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't even try to play the ridiculous North Korea card because no one on any side of this minor controversy has gone before a firing squad, been arrested, disappeared or sent to a re-education camp at hard labor. Gamers have no conception of hard labor anyway. Pretty much all the sources under discussion are gossip sources, pure and simple, and gossip is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. We would all be better off if people would take their gossip elsewhere. Like the rest of the big wide internet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, a source being biased isn't the same thing as it not being reliable. Almost all newspapers have some kind of political leaning, for example. See WP:BIASED for Wikipedia's guideline on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Every source that we could possibly choose to use will have an opinion one way or another. The fact that The Mary Sue is a feminist site doesn't have anything to do with its reliability. It's a professional blog with an editorial staff, so it's fine to use. This article would fail the bias check only if it included only one opinion, or excluded one, though bear WP:UNDUE in mind when considering that. Euchrid (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not avoid my argument. The Mary Sue is not listed at WP:VG/RS, so you guys CANNOT deem to to be reliable by yourselves, especially not on a WP:BLP. As for your reasoning, you say "professional blog with an editorial staff", well guess what, Gamer Headlines has one too! And not only that, Game Revolution is listed at WP:VG/RS, so you have no reason whatsover to not use it!. Hilariously, User:Mr. Stradivarius, you claim that a source can be biased but still reliable. Nice job contradicting what you said above. User:Euchrid, "This article would fail the bias check only if it included only one opinion, or excluded one" well guess what, this is EXACTLY what is happening here, we only show Zoe's side of the story and not the other side. Checkmate. Stellarcomet (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A source can be biased and still reliable (because at a certain point, *all* sources are biased), but The Mary Sue's reliability seems to be in question. "A blog with an editorial staff" doesn't seem to be a good standard since anyone can make a blog with 2-3 people and call that a source.72.89.93.110 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problems with removing the Mary Sue source. We have three other sources for that sentence, after all - if anything, having four is a case of WP:OVERCITE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stellarcomet: Which argument above are you talking about? I've made quite a few posts on this page. Also, WP:VG/RS isn't necessarily definitive - new sites can always pop up, and consensus about a site's reliability can change. Also also, Wikipedia is not about winning. We are all here for the same reason - to create a quality encyclopedia article. Or at least, that's the idea. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

VG/RS only documents video game specific sources. You'll note that the New York Times isn't listed on there either, but it's still a usuable source. So that complaint us invalid. And as already stated, it's not a definitive list anyways. But regardless, there's a ton of sources that support the claim, so it doesn't really matter if we use the Mary Sue source or not. I do think one of the other RS's should be tacked on just because people have complained endlessly about the statement. I can see someone, down the line when the article isn't heavily monitored, trying to remove it because they think the Escapist is biased, and then removing it altogether because they think it's at that point "unsourced", when it would actually be easily sourced. (EDIT: I'm suggesting sources Stadivarius listed in other sections, not the crap sources listed in this section so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What problems do you find with the sources listed by Stellarcomet? They don't seem much different to The Mary Sue in terms of reliability (except for Kotaku, which is an involved party at this issue and could be used just as a primary source). Diego (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I'd rather use the sources that are commonly used and have an active consensus in favor of their use, rather than some of these random websites that aren't very prominent at all. I'm not sure why this is such a big to-do. After the new rewording, no one appears to actually object to the actual content. Why the heck does it matter if it was sourced by a feminist source if they accurately support the statement, and no one's actually contesting the statement? It's not being used to make an especially pro-feminist statement. It can just as easily be sourced by prominent websites like Computer and Video Games or Venture Beat, so let slap them in the article and move on, rather than wasting our time on bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If a source is used for one sentence, it's usually considered reliable to use it for other unrelated sentences in the article. Then, for fairness we'll have to admit any other reference with the same publishing standards, such as those at the beginning of this thread. If the criteria is to use sources with "an active consensus in favor of their use", then The Mary Sue must be removed, as there's no consensus for it given the above comments. Diego (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one's really established a good case for it being unreliable, or specifically that the other's are equivalent for that matter. But again, it doesn't matter, there are several undisputedly reliable sources in there now, and there's nothing in the Mary Sue source that can't be found in those other ones, so this is resolved. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the burden of proof on having to demonstrate the reliability of a source rather than the other way around? I think this is the problem people have, other sources were rejected up above as being unreliable, probably fairly, and there seems to be no basis for themarysue's reliability.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't relate to the current controversy, but rather to something in December of last year regarding her game. It should be mentioned, as well as the current controversy cited by sources from both perspectives besides just the majority SJW ones or just the ones claiming journalistic integrity or she's lying. That being said, two of the sources from Gamer Headlines and Game Revolution could also be used. 75.76.124.246 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I've started a discussion at the WP:VG/S Talk page. The Mary Sue is part of a media company started by a co-anchor of Nightline and they've been cited by USA Today, Wired, PCMag, and Time. Woodroar (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

coverage in a reliable source?

Might this piece from Slate help break the logjam? David in DC (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an well-written, thoughtful opinion piece, but it's not news coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Really great piece, thank you for sharing, but I agree that it can't be used as a source --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep trying. How about this, from the Daily Beast, this, from The Globe and Mail or this, from the Lake County Record-Bee. Please keep in mind, some opinion pieces include reportage that can be used. There's some wiki-acronym for this principal. I'm off in search of it. David in DC (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION permits opinion pieces appearing in reliable sources to be used for the author's opinion, as long as the prose starts with something like "Tech expert Cornelius McGillicuddy says...." This is a genuine controversy. The way to tell the story may well be to use quotes from writers without ties to the parties, who've done some independent reporting, and written opinion pieces in reliable sources about what they've learned.

For an example of this approach, check out the Aaron Swartz and US v Aaron Swartz articles. David in DC (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the Slate is a [[[WP:RS]] and the quote is in the scene setting devoid of (most opinion). This source seems to be absolutely worthy of including a brief NPOV outline of the issue in the article. There are many sources showing this controversy exists. Slate, Globe and Mail, K Pop Starz, BrightSide of News, The Mary Sue, Motherboard, Daily Beast, Gamer Headlines, Kotaku to name just a few They're not all top rate sources but Slate and Kotaku are pretty solid sources. It seems clear that;

1. There were allegations
2. Some people responded to the allegations with regard to professional misconduct
3. Some people claim people responded to the allegations with harassment [I suspect true but not certain any source establishes it]

Surely those three things can be worked in to a short neutral paragraphe without violating WP:BLPSPACKlick (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You removed a statement that was sourced reliably (by The Verge), I would just like to point out. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Was that aimed at me? If so I apologise, could you post a diff because I can't find the edit. SPACKlick (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A few more mentions of a controversy: Adam Baldwin is currently describing the Quinnspiracy as #GamerGate on Twitter. Several days ago Engadget also mentioned a "mess". Old Guard (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

harassment?

I looked up this article because I just heard about the story, and found it pretty disappointing. All it says is 'Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls' - that's hardly the sum of it, is it? This is a woman who's been subject to one of the largest and most severe campaigns of misogynist online harassment in recent memory, to the point where that's what she's arguably best known for. Better coverage of this is surely justified, and sources exist. (Contrast Anita Sarkeesian, another high-profile victim whose article rightly devotes considerable material to the harassment against her.) Right now, this article makes it look as though Wikipedia is trying to play down online harassment (it doesn't even describe it as fact, it just says 'Quinn reported'), which is really not a good look for us. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it's a topic that's under discussion at the moment. Take a look at the rest of the Talk page to get an idea of what's going on. Euchrid (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is the balance between covering the harassment and furthering the harassment. With Anita Sarkeesian we had an easier problem, in that repeating the nature of the harassment was not a BLP concern, as the harassment was generic and didn't generally (with some exceptions) make direct and problematic allegations. On the case of Quinn, repeating the allegations in covering them gives oxygen to some very nasty and questionable claims. Thus the task of covering the issue without causing further harm is complicated. I'm confident we will cover it, and based on what I've seen of the approach here, I'm confident that we'll cover it well and with full deference to BLP. But (like with Sarkeesian) it might be a slow process to work out how. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I already attempted to do this with a NPOV and BLP in mind in my 'reliable sources recap' section. It was wholeheartedly rejected. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, reading the comments here has made reconsider my earlier position. Covering the controversy is problematic, but it's getting to the stage where not covering it is also problematic. Perhaps the best balance would be to cover the allegations in the most generic way possible, and then describe the harassment itself in slightly more detail. I still worry that covering the details of the harassment itself could be unwittingly furthering it, however. It's one thing to have details of harassing phone calls, Twitter messages etc. on news sites that may be forgotten about in a few years' time, but it's another thing to have the details forever enshrined in a Wikipedia biography. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is accurate. There's been a lot of rumors about Zoe Quinn, and reports by Zoe Quinn of harassment, and very little evidence of either. We have little to go on and the benefit of being able to wait for better sources to become available, and we should use that benefit rather than jumping to conclusions and posting things as facts.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

.AioftheStorm is absolutely correct, "jumping to conclusions" is a BLP violation, I strongly recommend not doing that - on either side of the issue. Dreadstar ☥ 03:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? A warning that we shouldn't jump to conclusions is a BLP violation now? We need to be cautious about what we say, but then, that seems to be the point that AioftheStorm was making. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Very seriously. Very...and I suggest you carefully read WP:BLP before you post your jumped-to conclusions here as fact. Attacks against BLP's must be supported by reliable sources; and attacks against other editors here is not allowed at all. Don't jump anywhere on a BLP unless it's sourced. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly respect your intentions, but I think there may be a bit of confusion about what AioftheStorm was trying to say. I'm hard pressed to see the BLP violation in warning people not to risk BLP violations by jumping to conclusions. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One way of 'jumping to conclusions' is if I read source X, then source Y, and say, "well if source X says this and Y says this, then unsourced Z must be true. Violation of OR and BLP, quid pro quo. but, you know, if it's not clear to you, then maybe you should ask that question on WP:BLP/N on why jumping to conclusions my violate BLP. If it happens here again, I'll make sure it's very clear. Dreadstar ☥ 04:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the policy you're citing, WP:NOR, specifically excludes talk pages. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. Tutelary (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And you have my statement wrong, it's actually an application of BLP that makes OR on a talk page violate BLP. You cannot synthesize sources to make an unsourced allegation in an article or a talk page. If you care to discuss this concept, the do as I suggest above and take it to BLP/N and stop discussing it. I'm telling you unsourced attacks will be met with sanctions even if you think jumping to conclusions protects you from violating BLP. Period. Dreadstar ☥ 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just saying that NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, that's all my statement consisted of. BLP does and still applies, but I think you're overapplying it here for stuff that just isn't a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the question of what I'm attempting to address won't come up again. No OR to make BLP-violating statements. That means in the article, where it violates both BLP and OR, or here on the talk page where it violates BLP. Don't jump to conclusions and post unsourced criticism either in the article on or on the talk page. Can't be clearer than that. Dreadstar ☥ 04:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think (I hope) Dreadstar is agreeing with AioftheStorm and not admonishing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm reinforcing what AisoftheStorm said, certainly not admonishing them for a very correct and wise statement. Sorry for any confusion.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you updated your statement to make that clearer - I clearly misread your intent, but the wording seemed ambiguous at the time. That is fixed now. I am generally concerned that we find a balance between discussing the issue and making BLP violations, in that it is difficult to work out how to address the issue in the article if all discussion is shut down. The balance is tricky, although I have no disagreement that accusations and potential BLP violations are just as bad on the talk page as anywhere else, and should be removed on sight. - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think calling the 'attacks' as being made by misogynists to be an unsourced attack, but I'll allow others to make that determination. I've removed it from the section heading because it's inflammatory and unnecessary - this is not a forum people and using it as such brings one awfully close to WP:NPA and WP:BLP violations, and I don't think we need to be lenient on these articles, too many attacks already. I've clarified above. Thanks for pointing that out...! Dreadstar ☥ 03:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that user Robofish took issue with the line 'Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls'. This sentence is in reference to Quinn's December 2013 release of Depression Quest and not the more recent controversy and flame war. The two issues should be considered separate and thus the Wikipedia article is accurate. As of now there is no entry on the ongoing issues. ~~Ron --70.185.196.205 (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally there is reason to doubt the harassment occurred to anywhere near the extent it was reported as. That's not related to the article itself, but it does mean Robofish is likely mistaken to think it is /under/represented in the article.72.89.93.110 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh good lord, covering the current controvery requires no OR, no Sunthesis It's all clear as day in the sources. To copy my bulletpoints from above.

• There were allegations from an ex boyfriend
• some allegations related to a kotaku employee
• Some people reacted in relation to PRofessional misconduct
• Quinn reported receiving a lot of harassment in response. [I phrase it this way because of the sources I personally have seen perfectly willing to *rephrase on new sourcing]

Each of those points can be sourced to slate, kotaku, quinn's statement and/or Mary sue. So someone with better writing skills write a proposed paragraph. SPACKlick (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well almost every source focuses on the harassment itself, so we could very briefly summarise that. The real BLP issue is that we can't assert that the things that she is being harassed for actually happened as there is no real evidence, but it is difficult to cover it at all without at least touching on it. If we detail why she is being harassed, there is a definite risk of a BLP violation in how we word it. If we even suggest that she may have slept with people for coverage then we have breached it. Remember, there are tabloid rumours that are better sourced than this. Nobody reliable has touched the topic or supported what happened. At the moment the harassment campaign is ongoing, so I imagine that editors here are very wary that Wikipedia does not become a part of it. The website has faced a lot of criticism for not being friendly to female editors anyway. Furthermore, it's hard to say, reading through this, that some of the people here are not part of this harassment campaign on other websites. That is why it is not included yet, it's too complicated an issue, the people on the talk page have polarised views, and including the information in article in a way that breaches WP:BLP could get the editor who does so banned. We need strong consensus to include it, and that won't happen until people can agree on it. Ultimately, we should be cautious. I imagine the anti-Quinn camp won't be happy with a write up that doesn't explain what she is said to have done, but it would be nearly impossible to do that without breaching WP:BLP --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit

I just edited the article to include a harassment section with npov and BLP in mind. This is primarily the content from 'reliable sources recap and content' section. Do revert me, I just want to see some accelerated discussion happen. There are millions of RS documenting the harassment and we should too, but without certain small sentences of context of her ex boyfriend and what not, it wouldn't make sense. I tried to minimize that with BLP and NPOV in mind. Tutelary (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've pared it back a bit, removing things I couldn't find in any source (except the doxxing because I remember seeing that in a source, just not which one). I still think between the allegations blog and the reported harassment there should be a sentence about the misconduct responses but I don't yet have a phrasing for it. SPACKlick (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think the last sentence needed to be deleted, it's looking better than I expected. Is there really no provided reference for the doxxing? I saw the phone number multiple times and I swear a few news sources have wrote on it --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's looking stronger after the edits by Ongepotchket and David in DC, I would suggest removing the "alleged" from hacking --94.175.85.144 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I added it back (since it was removed) because Daily Dot, the source that's sporting it also mentions it's alleged, so the article should reflect that as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person who started the section above, just wanted to say I approve of this addition to the article, which as I was saying really needed to be there. Thanks for being the one to bite the bullet and add it. I still think referring to 'alleged harassment' is a bit weak when there's not much reasonable doubt that it took place, but I guess there are reasons for wanting to strictly adhere to NPOV and reliable sourcing on this article. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh...a recent edit did that. I just changed it back, because the only 'alleged' thing that I saw was the 4chan bit...maybe someone saw something that I didn't, but I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that she was harassed. Tutelary (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• A problem with this line:
  • reportedly including publication of sensitive personal information online[14] and alleged hacking of her Tumblr account by 4chan.[14]
• What happened was a post was placed on Zoe Quinn's tumblr account stating she's been hacked by 4chan and posting personal information later shown to be false. At the time of the tumblr post an anonymous post was made on 4chan stating "I have hacked Zoe Quinn!" and directing people to the tumblr account. This post was responded to by hordes of 4chaners claiming the anonymous post to be from Quinn and claiming the post to be a set-up. This line should therefore connect the alleged hacking of her Tumblr to the publication of sensitive personal information because they were one in the same act, and this sentence should acknowledge 4chan's claim that it did not hack her. A significant issue that we have though is that there are no RS's which don't lazily skip over and misrepresent details, if you look through RS's you will notice slight contradictions and missing info between them. I do think though that overall the additions right now are fine.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

{{notability} 177.125.213.212 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As the article has recently survived a community deletion discussion related to notability, this does not seem to be an appropriate tag. Kuru (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct

I added a new section about the recent scandal. Lemme know if you see any problems. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already reverted it. You really need to look over some of this talk page. You used a lot of sources that should not be used, especially on a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Zoe Quinn blog post - you are quite right, I misunderstood the standards for using such things (though it was not my primary cite on the information anyway, save for one thing which I sourced elsewhere; was sloppy in the first place). Do you want me to remove the Reddit cite as well? It is more of a press release on Reddit re: the removal of the posts than anything else, and it is not inappropriate to cite sources on themselves. Given that the cite is about the removal of the posts, and the RS confirms that the posts were removed, AND that it was the original source of the explanation given in the RS, it seems logical to cite the Reddit post the same way we might cite a press release or something similar. I can remove it (the information is available in the other citation), I just thought it would be logical to link to the original source as well, given the specific situation. Were there any other sources you took issue with? Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What was the particular source and the Reddit link? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here:

• Quinn privately contacted Reddit mod el_cupacupcake, who subsequently purged thousands of posts from Reddit in the name of preventing harassment and the distribution of personal information,[10]

As I noted, I could remove the cite to Reddit, as it is sourced elsewhere, I just thought it would be appropriate to cite the original source re: the cause of the removal of the posts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One other thing he may have objected to was the citation of TotalBiscuit's video re: why it was made, which is also sourced by a secondary source but I thought I would link to the primary source as it is talking about itself.

• A video documenting the scandal on YouTube was pulled down due to a false copyright claim by Zoe Quinn, or someone claiming to be Zoe Quinn,[11] leading John Bain to create a video documenting the accusations.

References

You should probably learn what proper sources means. Youtube isn't a source for a wikipedia page, and neither is a blog post.Countered (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the cite is not necessary but I thought it would make sense to link to the primary source, as it is about itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem if you're able to back it up. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted - this text is what has been debated above, and needs consensus before including. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Even the section header is a BLP violation. Who are Wikipedia to claim what is "personal misconduct" (frankly, what even is that?) Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On further perusal, I've rev-deleted the whole thing, there are accusations of impropriety not only against Quinn but about others, and the sourcing simply isn't strong enough to support stuff like that (not to mention issues of WP:UNDUE). Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By those standards, this article should not exist. I'm fine with deleting it if you believe that this does not meet notability standards, but claiming that the "sourcing isn't strong enough" when there are over a dozen articles on the subject matter (and many, many thousands of non-reliable sources asserting the same thing - Zoe Quinn sex scandal gets north of 72,000 hits on Google) seems really iffy to me. The stuff about harassment has a similar amount of weight; Zoe Quinn is a very borderline case for notability, and almost all of her notability is as a result of this and the previous episode of harassment. Note that Joshua Boggs and Loveshack Entertainment, her employer and the company she works for, don't even have wiki pages. Why do you feel it is given undue weight, given that this episode is precisely why she is (possibly) notable in the first place? Kotaku, Grayson's employer, even commented on it publicly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a section header? I'm not married to the section header, but I'm not sure what else to call it. Scandal? Allegations of misconduct? Ted Haggard uses "scandal and removal from church" and "other allegations surface". Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the rev-deletions. Even counting the /pol/ sock, there has been 36 complete deletions of revisions on an article that was made four months ago for a indie developer that is only notable for a Twine game and an ensuing controversy over journalism that probably makes up 75% of the reason she even has an article on here. How many of those are honestly violations of WP:BLP? I'm not accusing any admin or anybody else of a cover-up, but I've never even seen this happen on some high-traffic articles. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 23:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think folks are going a bit overboard on it; when something is sourced using nothing but RSs, and isn't a personal attack or anything of the sort, it probably doesn't need to be reversion deleted. And now some folks are trying to keep it from even being discussed on the talk page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the rev-del. I was contemplating it myself. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing Zoe Quinn to Ted Haggard? Because no, just no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP

Look - let's be very clear about this.

• Some of the claims in that "proposed" section are not sourced to reliable sources. They also imply - without exactly saying it - impropriety on the part of living people apart from Quinn. Posting them on the talk page is just as much a BLP violation as putting them in the article.
• A huge section titled "Scandal" or " Misconduct" in an article which is otherwise practically a stub is not going to fly. If the reason for the article existing is to disparage the subject then it should not exist.
• A discussion of what should be in the article can be achieved without posting the exact text.

Thankyou. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Talking Ship describes the issue of her relationship with Joshua Boggs, Nathan Grayson, the claims of sexual impropriety, and the allegations of nepotism. It is {strikethrough|a reliable source.} labelled soapbox, and thus should probably not be used as a primary citation.

Bright Side of News describes the issue of her relationship with Nathan Grayson, the accusations of corruption, nepotism, unprofessional behavior, and the greater context of the issue. It also talks about the censorship which ensued, as well as documenting the actions of el_cupacupcake regarding the removal of posts, and questions of his neutrality. It also talks about the GamesNosh thing, in addition to GamesNosh itself discussing the issue with its host. It also addresses the whole "social justice warrior" issue and the backlash against people like Zoe Quinn who speak down to gamers and accuse them of bigotry. Again, Bright Side of News is a reliable source.

Game Revolution goes into a number of the allegations - the issue with Nathan Grayson, censorship, the backlash against TotalBiscuit, notes about Zoe Quinn being doxxed, Kotaku's response, and the attack on The Fine Young Capitalists' game jam. Again, they're a reliable source.

Kotaku confirmed that Nathan Grayson had been involved in a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn but claimed that the relationship started after his article about Zoe Quinn, and noted that he did not write a review of her game (something I'm not sure if we should include, because it is known to be factually untrue - i.e. should we include a denial of something which is known not to be true in the first place? Not sure.) and that the only article he did write for them for Kotaku was written before their relationship began. They claimed that they had no evidence of misconduct on his part. Kotaku is a reliable source.

Slate is a biased source, but we can still make use of them for documenting the response; they documented harassment of Zoe Quinn, as well as beseeched gamers not to pursue Zoe Quinn but pursue men instead. I think they're a reasonable source to use for the response, and they did document the broad strokes of the scandal. Slate is a reliable source, even if they are biased, and so we can use them so long as we take care to do so.

Daily Dot covers the issue as well, and while the title of the article is offputting, and they obviously have their own take on the issue, they again document a number of the issues - the allegations of impropriety, the censorship on Reddit and elsewhere, the YouTube takedown, the anger of gamers over industry corruption or the appearance thereof, as well as talking about misogyny and harassment of Zoe Quinn, and the questions surrounding the original coverage of Depression Quest. They are a reliable source, and much of the article is very useful.

New Media Rockstars is fairly brief, but notes the accusations regarding her affair with Boggs and Grayson. If we needed another source for the "he did not cover Depression Quest", it hits that as well, though I think that's covered and I don't think it is really worth including to begin with given that no one is asserting otherwise in any RS (or at least, if they are, I missed it). It also notes some of the TotalBiscuit issue. I'm not super fond of this source, but it has editorial oversight, so it qualifies as a RS. Everything I had cited to them I cited to another source as well.

The Daily Beast is a biased source and was only used for documenting some of the reaction, as well as the harassment of Zoe Quinn. It, too, is a reliable source, even if it is biased and not at all trying to be neutral. It can still be used for documenting the response of feminists, which it does, and given that is a part of the story, it seems reasonable to use for such.

There are some other potential sources we can use, but I think all of the core issues are covered by the above sources. Now, which of these do you feel are not reliable sources?

Contrary to what you say, we do in fact have articles which exist wholly because of a scandal - Monica Lewinsky being an obvious example, so obviously it does "fly", and it isn't unreasonable - if someone is mostly notable for one thing, their page is going to reflect that. On the one hand, I do agree that Zoe Quinn is borderline in terms of notability, but on the other hand, we're talking about something which has tens of thousands of hits on Google, and the most notable thing about her is the controversies which have surrounded her, and previous attempts at getting the article deleted have failed, so I think the consensus is that the scandals are clearly enough to keep her in, which means we need to document them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "TalkingShip" is not a reliable source. It's an pseudonymous group weblog and the piece you cite is an anonymously-posted op-ed in their "Soapbox" section. Entirely unacceptable for disputed material about living people.

Similarly, the BrightSideofNews piece is a clearly-labeled op-ed post ("Analysis" = opinion in a journalistic sense) and is not suitable for sourcing disputed material about living people. It contains literally no evidence of anything, and simply uncritically repeats anonymous rumors.

Again, the GamesRevolution piece is an op-ed post and is not suitable for sourcing disputed material about living people.

The New Media Rockstars piece notes clearly that there is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone, and that the claims are based on nothing more than "misinformation floating around on 4chan" and other unspecified sources.

The Daily Beast is generally a decent source, not "a biased source." You may not like their take on the issue, but they are far more of a mainstream source than literally any of the gaming blogs you posted.

Slate is also a mainstream and well-respected reliable source; the fact that their take on the issue disagrees with yours does not make them "biased."

The Daily Dot, which is also a decent reliable source, states that "Allegations made by Quinn’s ex have brought about an Internet maelstrom, a sustained campaign of harassment—again—against Quinn and her family, and widespread accusations by gamers that Quinn’s alleged personal relationships are a sign of corruption in the gaming industry. Thing is, there are no publicly known facts to support this theory. There is, however, a lot of hot air."

This article is not a place to repeat and extend unsubstantiated accusations, scurrilous rumors and anonymous tabloid garbage about Quinn. The fact that a few gaming blogs are repeating that anonymous tabloid garbage uncritically ("Gee, we don't know if it's true or not, but someone on 4chan said that Quinn did XYZ") does not make it worthy of inclusion in her Wikipedia biography. The reliable sources that are discussing the issue unanimously state that it's nothing more than scurrilous rumormongering bullshit wholly unsupported by anything factual. We are not here to drag Quinn through the mud for you and this article will not become a dumping ground for "anti-SJW" loons to spout nonsense.

Your entirely-inappropriate comparison of Zoe Quinn to spree killers is absurd, ridiculous, offensive, out of order and I request that you voluntarily remove it before I redact it for a violation of BLP. Good God, do you have any sense of proportion whatsoever? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should review the guidelines about news organizations in reliable sources. As they note, news articles are very frequently a mixture of fact and opinion. None of these sources are The New York Times, but on the other hand, they don't have to be. Pretty much all of the material can be verified - there is actual documentation of many of the claims available, which these articles frequently link to - which makes the reporting considerably less dubious as they are citing their sources and providing evidence of what occurred. As all of these groups have editorial control over their content, they are (at least potentially) reliable sources, though you are correct as regards the Ship article that it may not be the best of choices either. If you have another good source for the subject matter, feel free to suggest it!

The idea that these are "scurrilous claims" is more than a little off; the identities of Arnott, Boggs, and Grayson aren't in question, and that she had a relationship with Grayson shortly after he wrote a positive article about her has been confirmed by Grayson's employer, Kotaku. There is no indication of slander or libel in any of this, and the fact that it is so well documented due to social media sites and instant messaging makes things pretty easily verified. People have been questioning Zoe Quinn's integrity and the integrity of those she was involved with. The whole thing is a scandal, so it certainly isn't good for her reputation, but that is not our call to make as editors; it is our job to present things neutrally. If they reflect well or poorly on people, so be it, but we should not be the source of such - it is our job to document and explain, not to push for a position on an issue.

The Daily Beast and Slate are both biased sources, at least in this case; the fact that they are widely read by people who agree with you does not make them unbiased or neutral, and popularity has nothing to do with NPOV - do you think Fox News is neutral? It is certainly popular, but I don't think anyone is about to claim that Fox News is unbiased. That doesn't mean that we can't make use of things reported on by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Slate, The Daily Beast, ect. A cursory examination of the front page of Slate reveals an article which is positively shocked that Michelle Bachmann told the truth about something - hardly the epitome of unbiased news reporting, however much I may personally approve of the sentiment. The articles in question both are full of bias and do not attempt to act from a neutral point of view, and indeed seem to be amongst the least fact-checked of the articles. If you want to talk scurrilous, claiming that all the people who are interested in this are misogynistic - now that is scurrilous, and simply untrue, though there undoubtedly have been a number of people who have said nasty things to and about Zoe Quinn (and she has responded in kind). Undoubtedly harassment has occurred, both by Zoe Quinn and her friends and her detractors, and there is ample evidence of such, though people being unpleasant to each other on the internet is hardly new.

I was not comparing Zoe Quinn to spree killers or Monica Lewinsky beyond noting that we have no policy against writing biographical articles for people who are primarily known for a crime or scandal. I happen to be interested in serial killers and spree killers and thus was aware of the fact that we do indeed have numerous biographical articles of that nature. I'm not really sure why you got so upset; I was not implying that Zoe Quinn murdered anyone. Certainly no RS has alleged such.

The only reason she has a Wikipedia page is because of what you called "scurrilous accusations". It has been decided that she is notable; if you feel that she is not notable because everything about her comes either from "scurrilous accusations" made by her or made about her, then you are free to recommend the page for deletion. She is borderline, and I could see saying that episodes of alleged internet harassment and personal misconduct do not notability make. On the other hand, tens of thousands of google hits for Zoe Quinn sex scandal indicates a great deal of interest in the subject matter.

The allegations that she slept with people are far from unsubstantiated; the allegations that she slept with people to get ahead in her career are unsubstantiated. However, a great deal of the controversy around her is precisely because there is the perception of impropriety, as is documented by these articles, so it is pretty much impossible to talk about it without making note of them; they are precisely why the whole thing became (possibly) notable in the first place.

My intention here is to document the scandal; she has a page and the scandals she has been involved in are the only notable thing about her. If you feel that these scandals do not rise to the level of notability, that's fine. But please assume good faith; I'm not out to demean or smear Zoe Quinn. However much I may personally disagree with her behavior, it is my job as an editor of Wikipedia to present content in a fair, even-handed and neutral manner. There is a considerable amount of interest in the subject matter and I feel that we can source it and document it, and that we, indeed, must do so if this article is to exist on the encyclopedia.

Incidentally, regarding analysis, I think you misunderstand what news analysis is; news analysis is not meant to be an opinion piece but a deeper analysis of the subject matter. Someone writing a news analysis article about ISIS would go into the roots of Suuni-Shia conflicts, regionalism, oppression under Saddam Hussien, support and opposition from neighboring countries, the weakness of the central government, ect. Rather than reporting the news it is about dissecting the news and giving a deeper view into the subject matter. It is very different from an opinion piece, where the author adopts a stance on an issue. The Bright Side of News differentiates between analysis and opinion; they tag them separately and have them marked out separately. You'll find news analysis, analysis, opinion analysis, ect. Opinion articles, likewise, can be attached to a wide variety of other things. An opinion article is obviously difficult to use as a reliable source, per the RS page, but news analysis is not the same thing as an op-ed. See this page from the Boston Globe for an explanation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea that these are scurrilous claims is a little off - No, it isn't. None of them have been reported and verified in actual reliable sources. What you have is a jilted ex-boyfriend's blog and a feeding frenzy of speculation and harassment. Social media sites and instant messaging are exactly the opposite of what we consider reliable sources, and "documentation" in the form of alleged screenshots is worthless.

We have absolutely no interest in publishing "allegations" that an unmarried person had sex with someone based only upon a jilted ex-lover's blog post. Comparisons to Monica Lewinsky are entirely inapt for reasons that should be screamingly obvious but since they apparently aren't, I'll list them: 1. had sex with the president, 2. had sex with a married man, 3. became the focus of a Congressional investigation and impeachment proceedings, 4. went on TV a lot to talk about it, 5. cooperated in writing a book about it.

By your own admission, the other "allegations" are entirely unsubstantiated and, as such, have absolutely no place on this encyclopedia. We aren't here to republish rumormongering and whisper campaigns.

Your claim that "the scandals she has been involved in are the only notable thing about her" establishes your interest here - you are here only to smear her, because by your own admission, your only interest is in publicizing things you think make her look bad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

All of her notability comes from three things: claims of harassment which boosted Depression Quest through Greenlight, the failed Game Jam reality TV show (which is pretty borderline, as it was a flash in the pan), and this. That's it. Most game developers aren't notable enough to have Wiki pages, and that's especially true of many independent game developers with sparse resumes. Note that most of the people involved in this are not considered to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles; neither Grayson nor Boggs are considered to be WP:NOTABLE.

You seem to be upset at the idea that the press reports on sex scandals, but they do this on a regular basis for public figures, and for better or for worse, Zoe Quinn has tried to make herself a public figure. We have articles about Princess Diana and Prince Charles and that whole fiasco. We don't judge whether something is sordid or not; our job is to report on notable things, whether that be a scandal or some new disease or a popular amusement park in Florida.

Wikipedia's job is not to speculate, but to report and reflect and communicate information about noteworthy things. If you don't feel that Zoe Quinn is noteworthy, then I suggest that you push for deletion of this article. If you do feel that she is noteworthy, though, on what basis do you exclude this? Merely because something reflects poorly on someone does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion; I'm sure Ted Haggard and Monica Lewinsky and everyone else who has ever been involved in a public scandal would rather the world forget about it, but that doesn't mean we don't report on it. On the other hand, we don't report on someone exchanging sex for a promotion at a local Burger King unless it gets substantial coverage. This little fiasco has garnered enough attention to make it to the press, and thusly, we should report on it if we consider Zoe Quinn a noteable subject.

You also seem to not understand the meaning of the word "unsubstantiated"; it means "not supported or proven by evidence". Is there evidence here? Yes, there is; the RSs link to it and present it. So it isn't "unsubstantiated".

I'm not opposed to the idea that she isn't really notable, but I'm not really for it either; there is a lot of interest in the subject matter, and it has persisted for a while now, which suggests that it may be notable. On the one hand, the coverage regarding the harassment re: Depression Quest may not qualify as being independent of the subject as it was all repeating what she said, and this scandal pretty much messes up the whole Game Jam incident as well as regards her notability precisely because of the [conflict of interest] which has made this incident a scandal. This incident thus may be the only thing about her which actually meets the notability criteria for her as a person, as there is actual coverage of her which is independent of her, not merely repeating her claims about herself, and which has no conflict of interest. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR so I'm not sure what else there really is here.

Reporting on something which happened is not smearing someone. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One is not required to assume good faith when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and you have repeatedly made negative, derogatory comments about the article subject which have clearly established your POV about this person, your particular interest in this person and your intent to include as much negative material as you can possibly include.

The meaningful claims (of some sort of quid pro quo) are entirely unsubstantiated by any meaningful evidence. Someone's YouTube video or Photoshopped screenshot does not qualify as actual evidence. You just admitted above that "the allegations... are unsubstantiated," so which is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof - in fact yes, you are required to address other editors using the recommendations of behavioral policy always. If you are unable to avoid commenting on the motives of other editors instead of discussing specific claims about content and the references supporting it, you should step away and take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak, at least from this topic. Diego (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya - Once again, I don't need to assume anything here. The user's own statements about their feelings about the article subject are now public record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof You need to avoid making personal attacks. If you keep making edits like this one against any editor, I'll report you as disruptive. Diego (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya Report that all you wish, because it'll go nowhere - it's not prohibited to note that a user is here to push an obvious POV about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like /v/'s work is paying off for them, as they've added Milo Yiannopoulos to their ranks alongside Adam Baldwin (yes, the actor), TotalBiscuit, and Christina Hoff Sommers. The fruit of this has produced a Breitbart article that is likely to be given a follow up by him later. There is also an Examiner article that has just been put out there, but I'm unable to use it due to a edit filter (which is also giving me the assumption we aren't allowed to use it).

• http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/01/Lying-Greedy-Promiscuous-Feminist-Bullies-are-Tearing-the-Video-Game-Industry-Apart

I'm also noticing that the more articles we have coming out, regardless of what side of the conflict is putting them out, the less they're starting to do more with Zoe Quinn, and more about the whole "GamerGate" movement. While it's probably a long way from having it's own article (Gamergate doesn't count), it is getting more attractive to me and possibly others to start a completely new article. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "GamerGate" could be a section of a larger article about video game journalism controversies - there's long term coverage of criticism of the media *and* the trolls creating campaigns against it, with things like the Doritos-gate and other episodes of harassment against feminists such Anita Sarkeesian and other women developers. I've just found this reference that (tongue-in-cheek) summarizes the various documented points of view about the Quinnspiracy, I think it can be used to structure a section with various references covering all POVs with balance. Also this piece provides in-depth analysis about the background of misogyny in gaming. I think there's more than enough material for a combined piece that explained the cultural background of the whole thing - or maybe there's enough for two new articles, one about VG journalism controversies and another about harassment in tech culture. Diego (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The breitbart article is absolutely unusable in any way. We might as well discount that. In discussing Quinn and games journalism in general, it is worth remembering that so far there have been lots of accusations, but the one journalist that she is accused of being connected to never reviewed her game. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Breitbart, that seems about right - see previous discussions at the RS noticeboard, in particular this one. Diego (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag with a longstanding reputation for publishing garbage. The company you keep. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag" isn't exactly being civil or helping anybody trying to collaborate on an article. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article - "Lying, greedy, promiscuous feminist bullies..." is fully indicative of the mentality from which these arguments are coming from. It's actually helping a lot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting for a second it's an opinion piece. I'm stating that directly pointing the finger at me by saying "your cause" is completely being uncivil because it implies I'm blatantly trying to turn this article into a blame piece. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The case in point is that there are sources, both from the perspectives of various journalists and people involved (regardless if they're pro-Zoe/devs or pro-4chan/Reddit/Tumblr/anybody else with an opinion against Zoe or game journalism supposedly being corrupt. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

International News

Not a RS, but this ended up getting noticed by an Italian gaming website, and garnered an article in The Guardian as well, both of which may be indicators of notability as it made international news. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Another ANI thread

An FYI: I've just opened up a thread on ANI about this article: see WP:ANI#Zoe Quinn again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What the BLP policy requires

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This is black-letter policy.

In reading the reliable sources, what this mess boils down to are allegations that Zoe Quinn had relationships with some people, and half-spoken whisper-rumors that one of these relationships amounted to a quid-pro-quo with a game reviewer.

1. Wikipedia doesn't care who Zoe Quinn had relationships with; it is neither notable nor encyclopedic and we are not a tabloid catalog of a person's sexual relationships.

2. Wikipedia doesn't republish unsubstantiated rumormongering; there is no substantiated evidence that there was any sort of quid-pro-quo and we are not a vehicle for spreading titillating claims. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find any sources really discussing it because none of them actually want to make the claim themselves - it amounts to a whisper smear campaign.

Bearing in mind that we are required to write biographies conservatively and that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is my belief that the existing discussion of this issue in the article is more than sufficient, and that anything more violates both the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who writes "LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag with a longstanding reputation for publishing garbage" is, I feel, incapable of telling me how to speak neutrally. Starly396 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Breitbart is an acceptable source for anything shouldn't be editing BLPs. It's not a partisan thing - same goes for DailyKos, LittleGreenFootballs, etc. Although Breitbart does have an especially bad reputation even among partisan hackery sites. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a reliable source for anything, let alone a BLP. We have had a number of issues on Wikipedia where their "journalism" has turned out to be, simply, stuff they made up to suit their agenda. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does, in fact, care who you have sexual relationships with if it is notable. No one cares who Bill Clinton slept with when he was in college, but Monica Lewinsky has a biographical page because Bill Clinton had an affair with her while he was president. The idea that this is some sort of general policy is simply false; it is relevant if it is notable.

2. Wikipedia does publish unsubstantiated material if it is notable, or is necessary for understanding notable things. Just look at any of the various Conspiracy Theory pages. Again, this is general Wikipedia policy. It is important to note that the fact that Zoe Quinn slept with three of these people has been substantiated - in fact, Kotaku even made note of the fact that Grayson had a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn. And this is the source of the controversy, and should be noted - the fact is that who she slept with is precisely why people made a big deal out of it. We cannot omit that fact.

Wikipedia cares about WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and other things. It does not exclude either of the things you listed, and indeed, we have numerous articles covering exactly this.

However, the page should not support unsubstantiated material but describe it if it is notable. Wikipedia does not say that reptilian aliens run the planet, but we do have an article about the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia has an article about the Shooting of Michael Brown, and people's reaction to the issue.

Which is precisely what this article should do. It should:

1. Report notable facts from reliable sources - and the fact that she slept with these people has gotten tons of attention means that it is probably notable.

2. Report the reaction from the gaming community, much as we reported the reaction of people to the shooting of Michael Brown.

We should not be saying that Zoe Quinn traded sexual favors for career advancement, any more than we should say that Michael Brown was shot because he was black. But we can - and should - report on what reliable sources are talking about in terms of the reaction. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that we do not publish conspiracy theories about living people, and we do not mention conspiracy theories in their biographies.

Again, your comparison to Monica Lewinsky is entirely inapt for reasons already discussed on this page repeatedly. If Zoe Quinn was to become the subject of congressional investigations, to go on television and write a tell-all book about her experience, the comparison might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We do publish conspiracy theories about living people all the time; the 9/11 conspiracy theories are an example. Heck, some of the stuff about the shooting of Michael Brown qualifies as a conspiracy theory about living people. We only publish conspiracy theories about living people in their articles if they are notable for them - David Icke's page makes note of them, for instance, and Barack Obama's page made mention of them at one point, before they were pushed out into the 2008 election sub-article because his biographical article is so long. It really depends on the person in question and their notability relative to their general notability - most presidents have conspiracy theories surrounding them, for instance, but generally don't rise to the level where they are worthy of inclusion in the main article, though they are usually mentioned in various sub-articles.

As I noted, I was pointing out that the idea that any of this stuff isn't included in Wikipedia is simply false; Lewinsky is simply an obvious example of someone who is notable soley because of a scandal. And frankly, it is very comparable with Zoe Quinn, because the only reason Zoe Quinn is notable is because of various controversial incidents she has been involved with.

In the case of Zoe Quinn, she isn't especially notable outside of said controversies - she is more of a scandal attached to a person than a person attached to a scandal, seeing as her notability outside of this is sharply limited. Frankly, I'd be good with getting rid of the article entirely, but seeing as consensus has been that we should keep it, we need to deal with that fact. Would you support the deletion of this article? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a task for you. Go to our article on George W. Bush. Please find a single mention of the conspiracy theories about him and 9/11 on that page. Can't find any, can you? That's because it's entirely inappropriate to insert fringe conspiracy theory nuttery into his biography, and so we do not. That conspiracy theory is far more widely-held and notable than anything remotely related to Zoe Quinn, and George W. Bush is far more of a public figure. If we don't mention 9/11 conspiracy nuttery on George W. Bush, that should be a good clue for you that we aren't going to mention conspiracy nuttery in Zoe Quinn's article.

By the way, your statement that "Zoe Quinn is a scandal attached to a person" is literally exactly the mentality that we reject when writing encyclopedic biographies and precisely the mentality that our policy prohibits from the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn is a game developer marred by salacious rumor-mongering from the 18-35 bro gamer crowd...a crowd with significant overlap into the Wikipedia community, regrettably. Extra care is needed here to ensure that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are properly adhered to. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We also need to take care to avoid the appearance of WP:CENSOR, which is a part of the controversy - that she uses her influence and her support within the social justice community to censor anything which reflects badly on her. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In several years lurking at Wikipedia, I think I have seen a single correct use WP:CENSOR—the above is yet another mistake. The above comment should be deleted as yet another unsourced attack on a living person. Working on fantasy roleplaying games should occur on other websites, and it is time to close down the misguided attempts to use Wikipedia to amplify attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Relevant Material

Per @Diego Moya:’s request in the ANI, and in the interest of moving the article forward, I have compiled a list of things which I feel are relevant and can be sourced.

• Quinn's ex-boyfriend [RedactedperBLPname] released details of her personal life on August 16th, 2014. Sources: The Daily Beast
  • No, the blog post is entirely unacceptable as a reliable source for anything about any living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't about the living person, it is about its own date of publication. That is generally allowed under WP:RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, no. Such material is not allowed in any way, shape or form in the biography of a living person. You really, really need to understand our sourcing requirements for biographies. We do not include anything that is self-published by anyone not the article subject. A blog post by a jilted ex-lover is the very definition of what we categorically exclude. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The blog post from Quinn's boyfriend is already covered in the article through The Daily Beast reference. Given the requirements by BLP policy to protect privacy, it's better to address indirectly through third references that evaluate its significance rather than link to it directly. Diego (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn became romantically involved with Nathan Grayson shortly after he penned a positive article about her on Kotaku. Sources: Bright Side of News, Game Revolution, Kotaku
  • Not shown to be encyclopedically relevant to Quinn's life. Connecting the two events is prohibited original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not synthesis; Kotaku directly notes exactly this. Positive should probably be removed, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Outraged gamers posted numerous comments on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and the forums and comments sections of many game journalism websites demanding an investigation of the claims, accusing Zoe Quinn of using improper personal relationships to advance her career and garner positive coverage in the press, as well as accusing the independent gaming industry and gaming journalists of nepotism and corruption. Sources: Bright Side of News
  • "Outraged gamers" aren't reliable sources, and comment threads anywhere are not reliable sources. Those accusations are scurrilous, completely unsupported by actual facts and have received zero credence in any mainstream reliable source. If nobody wants to actually put their name on the accusation in a widely-respected reliable source, that suggests that the accusation has no business on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a documentation of what happened - outraged gamers did X, Y, and Z. The cite is not outraged gamers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "Outraged gamers" isn't a person or a thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Uh, it is a group of people, like "protestors". You'll find "protestors", "police", ect. all over the place. Not unusual. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• el_chupacupcake subsequently purged thousands of posts from Reddit in the name of preventing harassment and the distribution of personal information. Sources: Bright Side of News, >Post on Reddit explaining removal
  • This issue is adequately discussed in the article, as we make mention of the harassment of Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unrelated posts about improper and unprofessional behavior and discussion on corruption in the video game journalism industry were also removed. Sources: Bright Side of News
  • Hey look, another unrelated attempt to coatrack this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. It is directly relevant to the above because it was done at the same time and was seen as censorship, resulting in a further backlash, as noted in the source. Possibly should just merge these two things, as they're directly related and not actually two separate things. The perception of censorship on Reddit was part of what enraged people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn issued an invalid copyright claim on a YouTube video by MundaneMatt documenting the incident; the video was restored on appeal. Sources: New Media Rockstars Request, appeal, and restoration notice from YouTube (primary document)
  • The tumblr link is a link to a copy of the takedown request, appeal, and restoration notice from Youtube. Per WP:PSTS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case, the document shown is of Zoe Quinn's copyright takedown claim against the video in question, and the restoration notice from YouTube stating that the copyright takedown request that they recieved was invalid. NMRS article speaks about the context of the takedown in the incident, as the attempted censorship of this video was the factor which caused John Bain and others to get involved. Please stop removing things that you don't like; if you are unhappy with sources, simply deleting material makes it difficult to keep track of what is going on. I had simply assumed that it had been removed by accident. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not removed by accident. You have continuously posted material that makes claims not in sources or beyond what the sources say. In this case, the very same source you are using [12] states clearly that is not proven that Zoe Quinn requested the material be removed, and word it as an allegation, not a fact. Yet you continue to state that it was. Read and stick to the sources, or we need to kill this entire discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright takedown notice has Zoe Quinn's address and phone number on it (blacked out for obvious reasons). Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright takedown notice was a scan posted by the person who is claiming that Quinn forced his video to be removed - he's not a reliable source. The reliable source describes it as an allegation. We stick to that. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The takedown of MundaneMatt's video caused John Bain to comment on the issue and condemn censorship; Bain subsequently become the target of harassment by Zoe Quinn’s supporters. Source: New Media Rockstars
• The censorship of the video caused InternetAristocrat to make several videos documenting the incident, one of which received over 750,000 views. Sources: >New Media Rockstars, can cite video itself on itself for view count.
  • We really, really don't care that someone made a YouTube video about this. It's the opposite of a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • YouTube videos are not infrequently noted in articles if they are relevant; the video in question was linked from a number of sources of coverage. IIRC the Project Chanology page mentions the YouTube videos which were related to that nonsense. It is potentially relevant. Could be removed, though; what do others think? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Lack of coverage of the scandal by several major websites lead to additional charges of a media blackout and a coverup of corruption by gamers. Source: Bright Side of News
  • "Charges" by whom? Anonymous randos on Reddit? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Per the article: "The blanket censoring of voices across different mediums earned even more ire from the community, leading to an even greater conflict." Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Kotaku released a press release defending Grayson, confirming that he was in a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn but stating that it started after he wrote the article about Zoe Quinn. Source: Kotaku
  • Not encyclopedic. We don't have any interest in becoming a catalog of who had relationships with whom. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is entirely encyclopedic because the issue was re: his and her professional integrity. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • We literally don't care who she had sex with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you care about; what matters is whether or not it is notable. The entire incident became notable precisely because of who she slept with, as was noted by several articles; were it not for the who, no one would have covered it. The fact that Kotaku had to issue a press release defending one of their reporters - and that they took the allegations seriously - is evidence that yes, people did, in fact, care. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• GamesNosh’s webhost asked that they remove a post documenting the scandal and the ensuing coverup. Source: Bright Side of News, can possibly source GamesNosh itself as it noted the issue and it is about itself?
  • Not relevant to Quinn, unless you can prove that she was responsible for asking for the removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn claimed that her personal life was no one else’s business and refused to address the validity of the complaints laid against her, save to note that Grayson had not written a review of Depression Quest. Source: GamesNosh, could possibly cite Zoe’s post itself as well as it was about herself and her reaction? Possibly could site some other sources as well?
  • This is classic "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense. "GamesNosh" is not remotely an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • She said exactly this, they sourced it TO Zoe Quinn herself, they link to her statement in the article, and GamesNosh has an editorial staff. Why are they not even remotely a RS? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Because they've been around for not even one year, have no staff listing on their website beyond "GamesNosh™ is a wholly owned website and content platform maintained and created by Christopher Heeley" and it has no known and established reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity. Their "Staff tweets" box contains no tweets from anyone not named Chris Heeley. That suggests that GamesNosh is basically his personal blog with perhaps a few guest posts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn reported that she had become the subject of harassment. Source: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
  • Yes, and this is adequately discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Several journalists associated with feminism and the social justice movement claimed that the scandal and harassment was motivated by sexism and misogyny. Sources: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
• Other journalists beseeched gamers to focus on the men involved in the scandal instead of Zoe Quinn. Source: [Slate

Those seem to be the relevant facts: what happened, who was involved, what the reaction was. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All this seems comprehensive and well-researched enough. I support adding it. Considering Quinn was a virtual unknown before these incidents, this information is pertinent to the article. JQ (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What is in the article now is sufficient enough detail to describe the events at hand; a female game dev's personal information was leaked by an ex-bf, who also made salacious claims regarding a relationship with a journalist. The information leaked has been used to harass her and her family, and that unknown parties have hacked at least one of her accounts to post more harassing information. The only real thing that could see expansion here is the general theme of harassment and misogyny that women in the gaming industry are subjected to. As reliable sources, e.g. here, begin to tie together the plight of Quinn, Sarkeesian, and others...that is where the article can be fleshed out more. Not in the reprinting of potentially defamatory claims by the subject's ex, not in the the twitter/4chan-sphere of gamers' claiming quid pro quo in the journalist's coverage of the subject's game. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the entire reason the incident became noteworthy rather than yet another stupid fight between SJWs and gamers was because of who she slept with, it is very hard to omit that information. At the very least Grayson should be mentioned, as his involvement was a major flashpoint and drew an official response from Kotaku. Incidentally, the initial reports of her harassment re: Depression Quest are somewhat problematic in that they are not independent of the source; all the claims came from Quinn herself, which is generally a problem as far as reliable sources go - we try to avoid such, and it was noted by several folks that there was no independent confirmation of said harassment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "she's probably just making it all up" defense, which is only a shade below "she was asking for it". Seriously, educate yourself. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

While I am an uninvolved-editor, Tarc, your comment seems to verge on being both uncivil towards Titanium Dragon and logically-fallacious, as you don't respond to their concerns and instead proffer what's debateably a non sequitur. I'm endeavouring to assume good faith (AGF) on your part, but it's challenging to do so when such open condescension and hostility is manifest. Not to mention that you (unintentionally?) misrepresent TD's comment and post w/ quotes some pretty incendiary language to make it seem like TD said this! Why? I'd strongly encourage you to "check yourself before you wreck yourself" as the saying goes - pause, and check-in with TD, who you don't seem to be treating with the collegial respect and professionalism that their authentic efforts to contribute to Wikipedia merit. Azx2 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that independent confirmation or other evidence is important. There is a plethora of evidence for the most recent round of harassment. The original round of harassment was reported by Quinn and, as far as I can tell, never confirmed by any secondary source, and has since been questioned by several; they simply repeated Quinn's claims uncritically. This is an issue because it lacks independent sourcing, and Quinn herself didn't present evidence of said harassment. Having multiple independent sources is important for reliably sourcing stuff and creating notability; if a bunch of newspapers just copy each others' news stories, that isn't multiple independent sources, it is a single source copied multiple times. This is an issue with AP reports at times as well. This is, in fact, part of the problem with Zoe Quinn's notability, as I have noted previously; the article probably shouldn't have existed before this whole nonsense happened, and frankly, if it hadn't existed before all this nonsense happened, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't require independent confirmation of reliable sources, either in their choice or analysis of primary sources. If we did, every reference—every single reference on Wikipedia—would be somehow unconfirmed until another reliable source came along and interviewed the same person, performed the same analysis, etc. I seriously doubt any tertiary source would abide by such an unrealistic (and unnecessary) standard, as it is literally impossible in many cases. Reliable sources are considered reliable because we trust their judgment. Woodroar (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We trust reliable sources because they check their facts (among other things), which is part of why we look for places with editors, editorial standards, ect. and don't use random blog posts. For example, The Escapist notes that they don't fact check claims of harassment, which means that The Escapist would not be a RS for such (and kind of raises questions about their reliability in general, but that is neither here nor there). This is especially an issue when it comes to biased sources, and if there is evidence that facts aren't being checked, then they aren't really reliable. This can also be an issue if outlets are simply re-reporting things which are reported on other sites, as it can generate information out of nothing and result in an odd game of telephone. We try to use the best sources possible so that we can communicate verifiable, accurate information on notable subjects. There are plenty of "reliable sources" which claim that Obama was born in Kenya, but we don't say "Obama was born in Kenya" in the main article about Barack Obama because A) other, better sources say that he was born in Hawaii (and indeed, there is primary documentation of such) and B) because the sources which claim otherwise are biased sources. We do report on the Birther conspiracy theory, but we don't present their claims as truth. When reliable sources contradict each other, what do we do? You know the answer as well as I do - we try to be accurate, and if the thing is actually a source of conflict potentially report on it. Or possibly not report on it at all if it isn't clear if it is important yet or not, or if the situation is unclear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We have never, to my knowledge, required reliable sources to fact-check individual stories or to state whether they have done so, or declined a source because they didn't consider fact-checking necessary. Sources simply must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) or a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:V). We have plenty of articles with statements based on an unnamed witness, for example, and have not required assurance that this witness was vetted. A reliable source states it, we trust them, and so we report it as such. Woodroar (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You apparently haven't edited much at controversial topics if you haven't seen the reliability of a source challenged. Reliability is always contextual and relative to the particular claims supported by the reference (it's there in the guideline: see Definition of a source and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "the piece of work itself can affect reliability" and "the reliability of a source depends on context"). When one claim in a presumed RS is contradicted by an incompatible claim in other RSs, editors look at the evidence on how the sources have arrived to their conclusions - if the source asserts that they have fact checked the claim and that they have an editorial process in place, we usually trust them; but if they don't, then we use them by attributing the claim as WP:RSOPINION, or not at all. This is exactly how reliability is evaluated and the reason why the Reliable sources/Noticeboard exists. If the contradicting claims are made from sources of equivalent reliability, we report both claims per WP:NPOV, or none of them. Diego (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing comments not tied to specific article improvements and subsequent responses. Per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG, this talk page is for discussion of article improvements, not general discussion about the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentally there are more or less four "narratives" here: The so-called "social justice" point of view, that all the attacks on Zoe Quinn are because of misogyny and sexism. In their defense, there is plenty of very nasty language being directed at Zoe Quinn and her supporters. The "anti-SJW" contingent, who feel that Zoe Quinn and her compatriots are attempting to hijack gaming journalism and protect themselves from criticism while acting as bullies to others, hiding behind the shield of social justice and suppressing negative coverage about themselves in the name of promoting the cause.[Redacted] The "gaming journalism is corrupt" point of view, that this is a symptom of the larger issue of corruption in the gaming industry, and this incident brought it to a head. These folks tend to focus more on Grayson and the indie gaming community [Redacted]. In their defense, two websites ended up changing their policies as regards journalistic disclosure and what stories writers were allowed to write on as a result of this, and Kotaku felt it was necessary to defend Grayson against allegations of impropriety. The "there are no angels" point of view, that this is an ugly internet fight between two groups of people who hate each other with a third group of people trying to use the scandal to advance their own agenda. In their defense, see the three narratives above. This makes it very important that we keep an eye on our sources in this case and make sure that we avoid letting any biases in our sources creep into the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Even more important would be if we observed WP:NOTFORUM. Everyone should stick to plausible proposals regarding the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I've restored the above comments, minus the BLP violations. Discussing the approaches to cover the topic is part of the process for building the article. In this case, building an analysis of the existing and document-able viewpoints is necessary to ensure that the article is WP:NPOV compliant, and the above comment is a valid first step for that. Diego (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I dislike redacting comments, because they no longer represent what the author said. That said, this is simple opinion, and not particularly useful. It is also partially inaccurate: the two publications which changed their policies did so for reasons incidental to Quinn - one was unrelated, and the other was not because of actions by Quinn, but by the journalist. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Everyone needs to keep in mind the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines. All discussions need to focus on prospective article improvements; editors' personal opinions and interpretations are inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I'm quite aware of that. But as I've explained several times at this talk page, identifying the points of view expressed by the available sources is not done for enjoyment of small talk or to express ourselves, it has the ultimate goal of ensuring compliance of the article with core content policy. I would call guaranteeing such compliance an article improvement. Diego (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Much of the conversation above is just editorializing about the story, not proposing specific, actionable article improvements. This is not appropriate and further comments of that nature will be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)It would be more constructive that you engaged in analyzing the issues that other editors have raised in order to achieve consensus, rather than stretching the limits of WP:TALKNO. Do you have anything to contribute with respect to the differing points of view by which reliable sources are covering this topic? Diego (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to become involved in editing the article at this time, but I'll help make sure it and this talk page are free of BLP and other policy violations. What will be most "constructive" will be for editors to use this talk page to discuss specific, reliably sourced improvements to the article rather than their own feelings and interpretations. Stick to that and there won't be a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry Cuchullain but since there are BLP issues with the specifics of the many threads of this controversy without slightly vaguer discussions to narrow the scope of the content appropriate for the article how do you propose we start making actionable article improvements without riskiing violating WP:BLP? SPACKlick (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Carefully, as you should with any BLP. Suggest reasonable, productive changes you want to make along with the reliable sources that support them, and if there's consensus they will be included. Avoid general discussion about the topic or using the talk page as a forum for expressing your personal opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Small edits to harassment section

So I wasn't sure this fit in any of the above discussions so I thought I'd start a new section to try and build consensus for the following changes. (Normally I'd just boldly make them but this topic is sensitive enough)

1. First sentence Oversourced - 4 sources for what amounts to a quite simple claim is overkill. I'd prefer two or at a push three. I suggest removing the Escapist and Marysue. but I'm open to ideas
2. First Sentence remove the mention of Steam Greenlight. It's mentioned above so strikes as repetition in the article especially given how small the article is. I'm also not overly comfortable with the way in which it distances the reported claims from the fact they are reported.
3. Second sentence remove the mention of Steam Greenlight. Again just repetition.
4. Second sentence change "put up" to Published. "Put up" doesn't read very well I've looked at various synonyms but published looked best to me, open to suggestions.

Harassment

Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment, both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.[13] Shortly after the game was released on Steam, in August 2014.Subsequent to this, Quinn stated that she was subjected to various forms of harassment,[14] reportedly including publication of sensitive personal information online [15] and hacking of her Tumblr account by an individual claiming to be from 4chan.

The two changes I didn't make because I couldn't find solutions to them were two wording issues in the final sentence. Subsequent to this, Quinn stated... Just doesn't read well to me. "Following this" "After this" both seem better but not perfect. Also ...Quin Stated that ... reportedly including duplicates the reported nature making it sound like possibly the reports come from unknown sources elsewhere. anyway, what do people think? SPACKlick (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1 - The Escapist is the reference we used to verify that the initial claims of harassment are traced back to Quinn herself, although it could be replaced by this article from the more prestigious The Globe and Mail, which also attribute them to her. I'm OK with removing the Mary Sue.

2 - Good points, I agree with the change.

3 - It's important to convey that the game was sent to Greenlight on two occasions, December 2013 and August 2014. The sentence removed at the previous point could be moved to the first paragraph of Life and Career.

4 - OK with Published. Diego (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

On1 I thought that was still clear in the two references I left, will need to read again.

On 3, I agree that it's important I thought it was conveyed in the prior section if it's not we should clarify it there either way. SPACKlick (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change. I didn't realize that The Escapist and The Globe and Mail were referring to the two different episodes of harassment, so I've not removed any reference at this moment. Diego (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't use The Escapist as a RS for claims of harassment; they have directly stated that they do not fact check such things, and thus are not a reliable source for such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, that's true for all the sources we have. All them have been called into question. The Escapist is actually the most reliable for the information it contains, being the only one that has reported on how they obtained it. [[

WP:NEWSORG|Publishing retractions]] adds to the credibility that the source has a review process, not retracts from it. Diego (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of crucial information in the article

Having read through the talk page and followed news from reliable sources like Guardian or The Slate, one thing here is missing and would confuse reader. The article now claims Zoe Quinn became object of harassment as a result of post about her infidelity. However reliable source as above(even if disagreeing with accusation) clearly mention that the reason for the internet reaction to Zoe Quinn was not infidelity per se, but alledged "sex for favors" situation in which her game received favourable coverage and publicity t by people she allegedly slept with. While we do not have to dwell on the complexity of the issue, it is mentioned by major news now, and current wording in the article is misleading. This should be corrected to reflect what mainstream news sources are saying(with objectivity of course)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Except that even one of those sources says "The fact that the review she was accused of “buying” doesn’t exist hasn’t slowed the self-righteous haranguing, of course. That’s because the “ethics” question is a paper-thin excuse for what’s really going on, which is that the video game world is thick with misogynists who are aching to swarm on any random woman held up for them to hate, no matter what the pretext.". Wikipedia certainly isn't going to join in with that. Ever. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• The claims are 1. not being made by any reliable source and 2. provably false. Wikipedia has no obligation to republish provably-false claims about a living person, much less a person who is not a significant public figure and where the claims are little more than anonymous gossip. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of biography pages where wrongful accusations are described.Wikipedia isn't about "truth" or wrong or right but simply covering what is reported and presenting a neutral condensation of facts. Both Guardian and the Slate are reporting that the cause of the internet reaction was not infidelity but accusations of nepotism and "sex for favors" thing. As such we can write that these news media have described the reasons for the reaction as accusations of nepotism and sex for favours. Of course we should also report that the parties involved denied this( I believe Kotaku published a statement about this as well). And that is it. To claim or suggest in the article that the reason for internet controversy was infidelity goes against what the mainstream sources say.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to edit the harassment section with the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and mindful of WP:BLP. Mr. [RedactedperBLPname] did not make his accusations anonymously. His name has been reported. They should be attributed to him by name. What's outrageous about this is impossible to convey without at least touching on [RedactedperBLPname] 's wildly inflammatory, hateful accusations. They need not be dwelt upon, but they need to be touched upon, else the true nature of the reactions receives less than due WP:WEIGHT. The Slate piece, used only for opinions attributed to the writer, per WP:RSOPINION and the attachment of Mr. [redacted] name to his deeds accomplishes this. Please consider leaving them stable for a day or two, to reflect on whether they comport with WP:RS and WP:BLP. In my view, they really do. The newest bit, from the Guardian, also helps provide due weight to the incendiary nature of the reactions. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to edit out part of it that is shown as false in a primary source. The ex never accused Zoe of trading "sex for favours" that reaction was generated entirely in the minds of readers. (The work was also published anonymously under the moniker "the ex"}

There was a typo up for a while that made it seem like Zoe and I were on break between March and June. This has apparently led some people to infer that her infidelity with Nathan Grayson began in early March. I want to clarify that I have no reason to believe or evidence to imply she was sleeping with him prior to late March or early April (though I believe they’d been friends for a while before that). This typo has since been corrected to make it clear we were on break between May and June. To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no reason to believe that it was sexual in nature.

— The Ex, Important Clarification, http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/

I'm also editing out the quote from the Guardian because I don't believe it is encyclopaedic in nature. I'm also unsure it's worth mentioning the David Auerbach quotes. I do think the reference to conflicts of interest should be in the article as well as the clear refutations of it from Kotaku but I don't know what RS gives us grounds to include it. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, Business Insider took notice. Their summary of the Zoe Quinn incident: "Game developer Zoe Quinn was harassed after a former boyfriend wrote a blog post about her, accusing her of having personal relationships with video game journalists. The gaming community exploded, alleging that her personal relationships advanced her career and that the game journalism industry is corrupt, and culminating in a trending #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter." Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME

In its entirety:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Which part of this policy calls for deleting the name of the living person who set this kerfuffle in motion?

His name hasn't been intentionally concealed. His name appears in The Globe and Mail. He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. I'm aware of norms that argue for the omission of names of alleged victims of sexual assault, and they might well be coextensive with WP:HARM. But the names of alleged perpetrators of such harassment? Confirmed in The Globe and Mail? Really? David in DC (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

He intentionally concealed his name when he posted. Removing the name doesn't change the context. His name only appears as brief mentions in blogs and news media. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. Of what context? All the relevant context is that he was Zoe Quinn's boyfriend. Also, we concealed Zoe Quinn's real name, because it appeared in few to no RS so it wasn't encylopedic to state, and given that she used a fake name anywho, we should respect that. We should also err on the side of caution on including real people's names. I have not seen his name plastered in article titles, only revealing his connection as her 'ex boyfriend' and that's all the relevant context that is needed. The specific bit you're looking for in BLPNAME is Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it... We should keep it omitted due to privacy concerns for the individual at hand. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but it seems consensus is in the other direction. So be it.

You may have noticed, I redacted it above on the talk page, too.

Now, what on earth is wrong with this direct quotation, attributed to the Guardian "According to The Guardian, Quinn has "had to pack up and move in with friends, after [this] online campaign of hatred against her." It's a reliable source and it's not an opinion piece. David in DC (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

IT's of no encyclopaedic value. WP:BLPGOSSIP states Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It may be worthwhile in an article called Responses to TheZoePost but it's not revelant to a disinterested article about Zoe Quinn. SPACKlick (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand why newbies are feeling bitten here. I'm feeling bitten and I'm no newby. There's a pervasive sense ownership in the hair-trigger edits going on around here and, believe it or not, I'm usually a BLP warrior on the exclusionary side of the debate. That a major newspaper has reported that the subject of a BLP has felt the need to move because of harassment is not gossip. It's a significant, factual development that would figure in any biography, wiki or published on old style paper. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick, I agree with you on the name, it should be omitted, but I'm not seeing the proof that omitting the mention that she was driven from her home in a section entitled 'harassment' would be beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if we've been a little zealous David in DC. WRT to the name, it simply violates BLP. WRT to the Guardian quote, I'm not convinced on the house move, but after you Boldly added it, I reverted it and now we discuss it. This is how editing is meant to work. I've queried whether it's relevant to a disinterested article on the subject. What does it add for the reader? SPACKlick (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Section relating to "conflict of interest"

Suggesting adding a sentence to the end of the harassment to cover the conflict of interest discussion.

Amanda Marcotte stated, in her article at The Daily Beast that "the harassers are accusing Quinn of an “ethics” violation" regarding her relationship with a reviewer at Kotaku however she goes on to say "the review she was accused of "buying" doesn’t exist".ref

I'm not overly happy with it so I'd appreciate input before anything similar goes into the article but I think it hits the key sourceable. Some/Much of the harassment was justified (legitimately or by excuse) by appeal to the ethics violation with regard to Kotaku. There was no review. I don't know if we have enough of a source to mention the one mention of depression quest by the reviewer in question. I also don't know if it would be considered relevant as all parties suggest it was written and published prior to anything related to this controversy SPACKlick (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following addition:

The situation prompted the news media to discuss the ethics and integrity in video game journalism. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] After several days of debate in the gaming world two support initiatives emerged, a public petition signed by developers condemning harassing speech and calling for tolerance and respect in the gaming community, and a Twitter campaign supporting game developers. [21] [22] [23]

We used a similar wording at Anita Sarkeesian to cover the discussion in press about mysoginy. Diego (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

More Reliable Sources

I've given up on editing this article. Life's too short.

Instead, I'll post reliable sources here and let the owners of the article others demonstrate how they think the sources should be handled:

The death of the “gamers” and the women who “killed” them Ars Technica 28 August 2014. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Embarrassing Week in the Gaming Industry Concludes with #WeLoveGameDevs Twitter Campaign Crave Online. 22 August 2014. Bulleted, factual account that's significantly better than ours. David in DC (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamers Sign Open Letter Against Online Harassment PC Magazine. 2 September 2014. Includes "Recently, Zoe Quinn, the game developer behind Depression Quest, also found herself confronted with online abuse after an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post that suggested she traded [Redacted because the owners of this article substitute the TRUTH for what appears in reliable sources.] for media coverage of her game on sites like Kotaku. She denied it and evidence of it having occurred was scant. But the Internet backlash was swift and harsh, and those who came to her defense also found themselves the subject of threats and hacks." David in DC (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What this seems to prove is that gaming blogs have remarkably lower standards than the Wikipedia has. Writing about Mario & Zelda apparently doesn't translate to ethical, responsible journalism about living people. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Which of these sources is a gaming blog? Ars Technica, Crave Online or PC Magazine? David in DC (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These are all reliable sources, appropriate for use in a Wikipedia article.Euchrid (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite the whole point, which is giving undue weight to tabloid-like accusations. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more of their descriptions of the harassment campaign. Note that none of them say that "Quinn claimed she was harassed", but rather they state that it was a real thing that happened. Euchrid (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right, please see The Escapist and The Globe and Mail. Diego (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making. Euchrid (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there are sources saying that Quinn claimed she was harassed, and The Globe and Mail states that the reports about harassment are traced back to Quinn herself. If you want to change the neutral wording that we have arrived to by consensus, use a reference that provides direct, verifiable evidence of instances of the harassment that Quinn received, or who put their reputation on the line by explicitly reporting that they have checked it and are not merely repeating things by hearsay. Diego (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Reliable Source: Petition Calls For End To 'Hateful Speech' In Gaming Industry In Wake Of Rape, Death Threats Against Developer Zoe Quinn International Business Times. 2 September 2014. David in DC (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability and Summarization

This talk page is to discuss proposals with a reasonable prospect of improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, let's back up for a second here and take a deep breath and think about this. People are concerned about WP:UNDUE. We have issues with biased sources. We are dealing with something which is presently ongoing. How important is all of this? Is this all notable, or is this the footnote to something else? Today Google News found that the battle between the SJWs and gamers was notable enough to actually be noticed, and there's a number of articles on the subject matter, but they only barely mention Zoe Quinn, and the mention of her is more or less as is in [Business Insider], which is as follows: "Game developer Zoe Quinn was harassed after a former boyfriend wrote a blog post about her, accusing her of having personal relationships with video game journalists. The gaming community exploded, alleging that her personal relationships advanced her career and that the game journalism industry is corrupt, and culminating in a trending #GamerGate hashtag on Twitter." Is there anything else that NEEDS to be said about this? If not, we could potentially more or less just write more or less this; obviously we'd need to rewrite it and wikify it, but this more or less seems like an adequate summary of the incident. It is short, sweet, to the point, and doesn't go down into the nitty gritty details. The censorship issue, the specifics of what was revealed, the misogyny issue - this could all be added, but I think the above is fairly easy to agree on. Honestly I'm not sure how notable Zoe Quinn is, because this is A) about as much coverage as she has ever gotten and B) isn't really that notable in the grand scheme of things as of right now. As I noted above, "Zoe Quinn made a game which she may or may not have been harassed for, was romantically involved with a gaming journalist which she was definitely harassed for, and got accused of being corrupt" is more or less all there is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) That is pretty much what is already in the article, given that it doesn't mention anything about using personal relationships to advance her career, as we don't generally cover allegations that were shown to be false. As the allegations were disproven (there was no review), there are concerns about repeating them. In regards to notability, the last time this article was at AfD was before the current issue started, so it wasn't relevant to the determination that she was sufficiently notable to warrant an article. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC) The allegations were not disproven; I'm not really sure where you got that impression. The allegations are that she used her personal connections to advance her career. The idea of a "review" was just one of about a billion accusations, given that she (and another person she had a personal relationship with) did, in fact, receive positive press coverage from people she was personally involved with, she got hired by someone else she was personally involved with, and the allegations are also that negative press coverage about her is suppressed by her friends. These have not been "disproven". One could argue that the initial claims of harassment by Wizardchan have been "disproven", but we have them in the article still, IIRC. And we do in fact report on "disproven" things all the time anyway, such as Conspiracy Theories, though we note such if it is notable. But that being said, this stuff is not "disproven". Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Ah, the wonderful morphing nature of these claims. Yes, there were specific allegations that there was a quid pro quo. Of course, now that it's been disproven, they're attempting to backpedal. There is nothing notable about a person using "personal connections to advance her career." Everyone uses personal connections to advance their career. It's called networking, and it's not unethical or illegal. We literally don't care if she was hired by someone she knew - that happens all the time. People hire people they know — I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a "scandal." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) There is something notable about it when it results in news coverage of accusations of corruption and nepotism. And nepotism is widely considered to be unethical behavior, though it does happen all the time. As for the idea of the claims "morphing": from the very beginning there were a wide variety of accusations. You are creating a false chronology of events, that people changed tacks after finding something was false, when in fact from the very beginning there were a large number and variety of accusations, as shown by the RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC) We aren't a catalog of every accusation ever made against someone. If you can't document specific allegations made by specific people in specific sources (and not "a blog said some people on Reddit said something") in a concise and NPOV manner, that would suggest that there isn't anything notable to document. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Just a note: Your use of the term "SJWs" to describe Quinn's defenders clearly establishes your POV on this matter. It's a derogatory term used only by those who dismiss the very idea of social justice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I've tried to be nice, but you continue to fail to assume good faith on my part. If you cannot be civil, please leave. I'm not sure what else you would call such folks; that is the name I most frequently see associated with them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC) How about just "people who disagree with this negative characterization of Quinn"? Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) If "used personal connections to advance career" were notable enough to go into an article, then it would need to be included for literally every successful creative person on Wikipedia. Euchrid (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC) When the allegations about Grayson were looked into, it was determined that he never reviewed her game, never provided any significant coverage after they began a relationship, and the only significant coverage he ever wrote was before they entered into a relationship. [24] And that is what the reliable sources are reporting. As to Wizardchan - no one ever disproved anything. There are claims that it didn't happen, but that, in itself, is a type of harassment given that it can't be "proven" either way. At any rate, we don't continue the harassment by providing every detail about what was alleged: Wikipedia:AVOIDVICTIM. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) The allegations are more complicated than are being claimed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Not so much "complicated" as "ill-defined". Are there any reliable sources that actually make these allegations? Or is it all forum posts and Twitter? Euchrid (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC) The RSs aren't making allegations; they are recording other people making said allegations. I suppose one could argue that they are making said allegations themselves by repeating them, but... yeah. I mean, I guess you could point out that they are "asking questions" in some cases, but I wouldn't say that they were accusing people of anything. Well, there are some which are, but... TBH a good RS shouldn't BE accusing anyone of anything; they should be reporting and documenting and talking about what is going on. If something was "accusing" someone of doing something like this, it would probably be a problem, because it would be a sign of bias, which makes them harder to use. This is one of the problems with using some of the sources, such as The Guardian - the source is openly biased. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wording the accusations

I don't think we should be using the word "infidelity" here. As the majority of the reliable sources have said the accusations are unproven or false, and seeing as this is a BLP and that WP:BLPGOSSIP applies, I think we should avoid repeating the substance of the accusations as much as feasibly possible. Instead of saying "accusing Quinn of infidelity", it would be more BLP-compliant to say something like "making various accusations about Quinn's private life". We could perhaps follow that with something like "and her personal relationships with figures in the gaming journalism industry". I'm not saying that we should use the exact wording that I've proposed here, but I think we are being more specific than we should be. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support those changes. The particular details are not relevant to the ongoing story and subsequent coverage in the media, and the BLP policy limits the depth by which we can report the incident in a biography. For readers interested in learning the particulars, we provide links to sources covering them. Diego (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a great phrase in this opinion piece that's usable per [RS:OPINION]] that may be helpful in describing the blog post without repeating the gossip:

No one should be treated like an object. Christine Barr, writing in the Paris, Tennessee Post-Intelligencer, said "An ex-boyfriend posted information designed to embarrass her, and the gaming community went off on her, hacking her accounts, posting purported naked pictures of her and harassing her as only anonymous trolls can."

It's the phrase "posted information designed to embarrass her" that I'm suggesting might be a useful addition to the page. The rest is provided so that I'm not accused of cherry-picking or taking things out of context. I do not claim that RS:OPINION permits the use of the remainder of the sentence. I'll leave that call for others, but "Christine Barr, writing in the Paris Post-Intelligencer, said "An ex-boyfriend posted information designed to embarrass her..." seems pretty useful to me, given the BLP concerns I'm reading on this page. David in DC (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposed rewording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly, actually; this is weaseling, and also is not supported by the RSs. The accusations which set the whole thing off were that she cheated on him with game journalists and developers; this is both accurate and verifiable. The RSs have NOT stated that that was false; indeed, I'm not sure that any of them have disputed the claim that she cheated on him with these folks, or at least that he accused her of doing so (which is what we are, ultimately, reporting), and Kotaku confirmed that she had a romantic relationship with Grayson outright. It is important to understand what the accusations were because they A) are what lead to the claims that she was corrupt by the gaming community (because of who it was) and B) are what lead to the harassment, both of which are notable and verifiable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those accusations are totally meaningless and non-notable. We literally don't care about Quinn's personal relationship choices and the concept of "infidelity" outside of marriage is, at best, subjective. If there is *anything* notable about this, it is the disproven allegation that a relationship amounted to a quid pro quo for positive press coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How are they non-notable? They've been noted in literally dozens of RSs at this point, and are vital to understanding what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

They're non-notable because they're irrelevant to a conservatively-written encyclopedic biography of a game developer, whose private life is no business of the public's. There is no legitimate public interest in it.

What may be notable is the claim that one of her relationships amounted to unethical behavior in a matter of public interest - to wit, that it affected journalistic coverage of her work. That claim has been disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether we refer to it as infidelity or not (and I think we shouldn't because of the lack of sources for timing and definition), the fact that there was an accusation of a relationship between a reporter and her and that was the justification, whether actual or just professed, for a lot of the negative response (including some or much of the harassment) and this is reported on in some of the sources already linked. As for the allegation being disproven, the only thing that was disproven was that Nathan wrote a review (he did however give the game top billing in January 2014 on Rock Paper Shotgun) not that there was no quid pro quo with any of the accused. However there's no solid source for any quid pro quo and that's why it can't be included. However it's definitely relevant to include that there was an accusation, admitted to that there was a relationship between the reporter and Zoe. SPACKlick (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

January 2014 is well before the relationship is alleged to have occurred, which means it's irrelevant. It is precise and accurate to state that there is no evidence to support any claims of a quid pro quo. In the absence of any evidence and in the absence of any reliable sources making the allegations, we have no reason to treat them as anything more than scurrilous anonymous gossip-mongering conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, we don't need to give them any credit, however as the espoused reason for the bulk of the backlash they are relevant to the section of the article on harassment. The Accusations included one relating to a relationship with a game journalist. Many people responded that this was a conflict of interest issue. This response included/led to the harassment we are discussing. It's relevant, and discussed in WP:RS. Therefore it should be in the article, maybe we should focus on how to word it so we don't give the impression that the accusation of conflict of interest is truth. SPACKlick (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Two disputed sentences on Harassment

Two sentences have been re-reverted twice today Posting here for further discussion.

Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment, both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.

where the dispute resolves around the bolded section and as it's merely a style of prose matter for me I have no desire to change the current version and

Quinn was targeted by "a disturbing harassment campaign", including publication of sensitive personal information online and hacking of her Tumblr account by someone claiming to be from the 4chan imageboard /v/.

Where the dispute again revolves around the bolded section and the alternate versions replace it with lines similar to "Quinn reported being subjected to various forms of harassment". I feel the second better reflects the entirety of event and that if the sentence is about Zoe Reporting then it cannot have the Amanda Marcotte quote because it would appear to attribute it to Zoe.

Having made a further review of sources I was confusing the 2013 harassment reports and the 2014 harassment reports. I think the 2014 may well be sourced enough to remove words such as claim, report or allege altogether. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of the reports is questionable given that most are reporting about the incident as hearsay, and several RS have traced back the reports to Quinn herself - including The Escapist for the 2013 episode and The Globe and Mail. Could you please tell us what references have you found that provide verifiable evidence of the 2014 harassment that would dispel those doubts? Diego (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing here only the 2014 harassment, every article i have read on it, even those with less favourable biases towards Zoe Quinn, report it as her being harassed not her claiming to be harassed. I haven't seen any sources distancing their reporting with words like claim, report, allege etc. We don't need to show that the source has done full fact checking for them to act as a WP:RS even on WP:BLP SPACKlick (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you haven't read this and this. For my part, I haven't seen any direct evidence of the harassment, certainly nothing published by a RS. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:DIVERSE, we do need to check for direct evidence when there's a reasonable suspicion that the reports at multiple sources are mere word-for-word retellings of the same original, and we have a reliable source stating that this is going on here. Verifiability tells us that "they are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others", so they shouldn't be used in a BLP. Diego (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it is enough for the woman to say "this happened to me" and for her to point at what happened, e.g. the site hacking, defacing, etc... What are you waiting for, a file on the police blotter? Tarc (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be OK with that, but Wikipedia articles require verifiability, and the burden for proof lays on those wanting to include the content, more so for a BLP. Nobody to whom I've requested proof of the harassment has been able to provide them, so there are serious doubts that this can be verified. I've tagged accordingly, and will remove the controversial content if the neutral wording that we achieved by consensus is not restored. Diego (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion about two separate claims. The first is covered by the sentence "Quinn has reported that in December 2013, while attempting to publish Depression Quest, she became the target of harassment". That's the case which people have argued is unproven, because the harassment was described as having occurred over the phone and on an online forum which doesn't archive posts. It is the one referred to in the two links Diego just provided. Accordingly, consensus was to qualify it with the statement "Quinn has reported ..." as it wasn't (and couldn't be) independently confirmed nor disproven.

The second sentence, "After the posting, Quinn was targeted by 'a disturbing harassment campaign' ...", covers the current controversy. That one isn't in question, as the harassment has been very public. Accordingly, we haven't been qualifying that statement, as there is no need to do so, and the sources have been consistent in describing it as having occurred, rather than as having been reported.

Personally, I don't like the current qualification on the first sentence, but I'm ok with it as it was a consensus decision, and it is accurate. I don't see any need for any qualification on the second sentence.- Bilby (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The escapist refers to the harassment in 2013 so isn't relevant here, that's already covered. The Globe and Mail says "Even if the allegations against Ms. Quinn were true, it is hard to justify the extreme levels of rage being spewed online,". And the below sources, already discussed here or in the article

• Vice "Hordes of angry gamers attacking a woman on the Internet" "This week's target of the largely anonymous hivemind ... is ... Zoe Quinn" "It is here that the harassment campaign—which includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents—tries to bill itself as justified:"
• Talking Ship "Of course, the abuse that Quinn has received in the aftermath of this is utterly unacceptable and unhelpful." "Gamers, too, need to mature..., rather than attacking people."
• Geekenstein via n4g "Does any of this justify the harassment Quinn has received? Fuck no."
• Daily Dot "The gaming community has unleashed a stream of vitriol and harassment against feminist gamer Zoe Quinn"
• The Daily Beast " a disturbing harassment campaign organized against indie game developer Zoe Quinn" "the harassment campaign “includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents.”"

I'm sure there are more.

For balance I also found game revolution saying "There are also accusations that Zoe is lying about harassment and misogyny" SPACKlick (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned about using The Daily Beast as a source here; it is extremely biased. and we can source this information elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that with so many sources for the information we would be better using one that cannot be as easily accused of bias. Vice gives solid details on the harassment campaign, it's not so easily quotable but see below for its content. (Also to note I moved your post outside of mine to keep attribution clear, if you need to break up a post please copy the author attribution into it) SPACKlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The game revolution piece is likely to be referring to the 2013 harassment, not the current one, as it is the 2013 incident which was questioned. - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am under the impression it is referring to the current stuff as well. SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, an opinion piece rather than serious journalism, as it admits itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken that it is referring to current harassment with that line - the statement simply says that there are accusations that she faked harassment, and we know that those allegations exist, are currently being made, and and refer to the 2013 situation, as questionable as those allegations may be. As no source is saying that she is faking harassment now, (because, after all, it is clearly happening), there's no reason to assume that the statement is referring to anything other than the 2013 case. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In the current harassment Quinn has claimed to be doxxed, and there have been counterclaims that either it was posted by her or someone connected with her in order to draw sympathy. None of it is particularly well sourced but it's out there and I don't think we could efinitively exclude it from the above source's intended meaning. All of the above being said, it's not relevant to anything that will be included in the article in future without more reliable sources appearing, discussing it in more detail. SPACKlick (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit much into it. But it isn't a concern, given that we've agreed that we can say that she is currently being harassed. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, that may prove useful to ensure neutral wording at the article. Do some of the sources include links or descriptions of the kind of harassment received, and the names or authors of the videos? I'll check them later with more detail, but some pointer to direct evidence would accelerate the search. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that you are unsure if she is currently being harassed? The current situation isn't under any dispute, and it isn't being questioned by any sources. The 2013 harassment was questioned. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Vice has a lot of details, more than we need really. "the harassment campaign—which includes sharing her personal information, defamatory YouTube videos, and weird phone calls to her parents" "a digital mob has taken to accusing Quinn, not ironically, of creating "a negative image for all current and future female game devs with her actions" and "[setting] back women in the video game industry." "moderators were still deleting Quinn-related comments violating the site's guidelines (i.e., posting her phone number and address)" SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn is unquestionably being harassed, though some of the specifics (phone calls, for example) cannot be confirmed and are disputed - it is hard to tell if she has actually been doxxed or not, whereas other folks (Phil Fish) certainly have. I think we should simply note harassment rather than trying to go into the specifics of it. The motives behind the harassment are disputed; in truth, this is because there are a variety of people doing it with a variety of motivations, and Quinn herself has been harassing others (the copyright takedown on the YouTube video, as well as being perceived as ordering the harassment of others, such as John Bain), so some of it is also retaliatory in nature. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source is reporting anything remotely resembling the idea that "Quinn herself has been harassing others." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are reliable sources talking about censorship through false takedowns but its relevance is questionable. To get to the productive part of the discussion. I agree that it is likely better not to go into details on the harassment possibly to mention that it was widespread or varied if we can source those summations. SPACKlick (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof or even evidence that the takedowns originated from Quinn, and a good-faith takedown claim cannot reasonably and neutrally described as "harassment" anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As the reliable sources are linking to Reddit [25] to support the claim that her personal details were leaked, and the Reddit mod leads with "Earlier this morning Zoe Quinn was Doxxed on Reddit", there isn't much reason to question that something happened. The current statement, "After the posting, Quinn was targeted by "a disturbing harassment campaign", including publication of sensitive personal information online and hacking of her Tumblr account by someone claiming to be from the 4chan imageboard /v/." is well supported by reliable sources, none of which are questioning that it occurred. Let's just stick with what we have. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources refer to the harassment as something that happened, not something that was reported. The notion that Quinn falsifies harassment against herself, which is what is implied by the the weasel-word "reported", is a fringe opinion with no place in this article. Euchrid (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the 2014 harassment agreed and I don't think anyone's currently disagreeing with that (although there is some disagreement over how best to source it and how much detail to include). With respect to the 2013 harassment the words reported or claimed are absolutely necessary because that's what the reliable sources say. I wouldn't call the idea that SOME of the harassment is falsified fringe, but I would say it is certainly not verifiable through any of the reliable sources I've seen. SPACKlick (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page due to today's edit warring, which has BLP implications. Use this time to hammer out any wording changes and additions here on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed you referred to today's events as edit warring. There were 1, 2, 3, 4 changes (6 if you include disputed tags), one of which was mine which was followed by a prompt trip to the talk page to discuss the matter [and admit I was mistaken in my revert]. Since the last revert all involved had come to the talk page to discuss it (bar Edward321). How as this an Edit War? I'm not saying some time to work things out a bit better on the talk page is a bad idea but I reject the applied label. SPACKlick (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of edits today (and part of last night) have been editors reverting each other. That's an edit war, and it's made worse by the potential BLP implications of most of those changes. I'll lift the full protection if editors here come to an agreement on what should be changed, otherwise this week will be a good oportunity for all sides to make their proposals without the worry of disrupting the mainspace.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Really this has been the case for several days at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera source

Any thoughts about the article put out by Al-Jazeera? http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no byline. It isn't journalism or even an OpEd, it is just a "these people tweeted X" and "those people instagrammed Y" collation of data. Tarc (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not certain how useful it is for this article, given he sources we already have but it seems a reasonably well sourced summary of the GamerGate trend with some information which will probably be in this article, although as I say sourced to articles dealing with how the overall controversy directly relates to Zoe Quinn. Good find though. SPACKlick (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you obviously have no idea what journalism is and should remove yourself from this article. I've already forwarded my concerns to your superiors. Trying to control history is not your job. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm, "forwarded my concerns to your superiors"? There are no such things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, gamer types need to blow off steam sometimes. The point was, it simply isn't an actual "article", it is just list of personal tweets and opinion of random people. It may be interesting to read, but it is really of no value to this Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you are clearly biased, demonstrated by you accusing me of being a "gamer", a term made derogatory in recent days by the Zoe Quinn camp and her supporters. You are biased, and your position requires you to be unbiased. That is a conflict of interest and you should remove yourself from this matter entirely. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that every single one of your edits about Zoe Quinn (both here and on the Pay To Play article) has had to be revision-deleted due to BLP concerns, I suspect it is unlikely that Tarc is the one that should remove themselves from this matter. Please don't step over that line again. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process. They are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators Continue violating your own policies, gentlemen. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Protecting a page because of concerns over policy violations is not "becoming involved in a dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc has been restricted from editing other articles which had to do with social justice-related persons/issues in the past (specifically re: Manning and transgendred people) due to his ill behavior, and has been consistently aggressive here as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry, there's no requirement that editors are not biased, nor that they recuse from editing; the only thing forbidden is pushing your bias into the article. I'm biased, you're biased and the references we use are all biased, so Tarc can participate too. Neutrality is expected to happen from the process of confronting the opposing views, and what we call neutral is itself a bias towards verifiable content (as opposed to The Truth) and diversity of views, which we expect will produce content valid for all readers.

@Tarc, the source provides analysis and commentary of the GammerGate name and conversation (connecting it to Sarkeesian and Quinn) which, coming from a reliable source, provides significance so we can use it for a sentence or two describing the concept. Diego (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kids, we're discussing the Zoe Quinn article and the al Jazeera source; if you have a problem with me or something from my past, then find the appropriate (i.e. not this one) venue in which to discuss it. Black Kite is not involved in this topic, nor with you Mr. Ministry, so he is free to take any admin action upon you or other disruptive editors as he sees fit. Any admin action can be challenged of course, so you will be free to do so when (and I'm pretty sure we're at "when" no, and not "if") you get blocked. As for gaming, I was rolling a 20-sided die likely long before most of you were born, and still do a bit of WoW and LoL in the present. It seems that the Gen X crowd has a more innate sense of respect for women that is wholly lacking in some millennials. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Please be WP:CIVIL; insulting people by stating that they are misogynistic because of their age is wholly inappropriate. As for the source itself, I've been seeing an increasing use of embedded Twitter posts in news articles of late to illustrate what is going on in the world; it is very strange to see, but is probably some kind of new normal. I suspect it will continue. The article seems to be about summarizing what is going on, which seems legit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source and can be included as source of information in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that article is literally nothing more than a listing of tweets. There is no reporting involved - it is nothing more than a collection of 140-character opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, a reliable source considered thoes 140-character opinions notable enough to include in an article. They are now secondary sourced to a reliable source and as such are worth considering. From memory there's not much in there for this article but the contents can't be dismissed out of hand. SPACKlick (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate becoming increasingly notable

It appears that "Gamergate" (ugh, why do we let the internet name these things?) is becoming increasingly notable; we've now gone from about a dozen articles about Zoe Quinn to more than a hundred which show up mentioning her on Google News. Business Insider alone has written more than one article about it, as has The Guardian, and it appears to be all over the place now, greatly overshadowing the original coverage by the looks of things. As usual, the level-headed folks who suggested that we sit back and wait before messing with the article at the start were right. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and interestingly enough, essentially all the coverage focuses on the "vicious online assaults" of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others, with The Week describing her attackers as "the gamer Taliban" who commit acts of "online terrorism." Paste noted that "It started with an angry ex-boyfriend releasing private information about a female game developer, Zoe Quinn. Paste didn’t mention that because the personal life of a game designer is not news. ... Whether it’s hate, fear or simply the grotesque joy horrible people find in maliciously denigrating others, this entire #GamerGate nonsense is built on silencing women and shutting them out of games." Notice the focus of the reliable sources, which we are required to mirror. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Just to note that I've added an elipsis into the above quote where a portion was excluded in order to preserve accuracy. SPACKlick (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Only if you're only reading the editorial pieces - which, as you yourself complained about above, we shouldn't be. On the other hand, the articles which are actually, well, news articles seem to be about how the revelations about Quinn lead to not only her harassment but an ugly fight on the internet. We've got articles like [this], and [this], and the Al Jezeera article, and [Business Insider's new article about the growing rift between gamers and game journalists], and [this about it being about corruption]. We've had [the FBI talk about harassment] and stuff even unrelated to Quinn and Anita, like [Polygon and Kotaku] getting caught with writers violating their ethics policies. [What Culture] ran an article about it, and the first thing the article noted was "it's not about sexism". Now, that's not to say that people aren't mentioning the harassment - virtually every article does mention it - but the ethics issues are being mentioned very often and given focus in many, many articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you dismiss clearly-reliable sources such as Paste and The Week while relying on GamerHeadlines.com and "What Culture" for your allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, a number of articles have mentioned the term "social justice warrior", including Forbes of all places. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera especially notes the the controversy is not about infidelity but about using sex to advance games and alledged corruption in gaming journalism. They also mention a rift between gamers and gaming journalists who in several cases started to become social/ideological activists instead. While the latter probably belongs into Gamergate article some poor sould will have to create, the first part needs to be presented in the current article as the at the moment the readers can get impression that Zoe Quinn was harassed solely due to allegations of infidelity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol, no. What you're trying to do is water down the harassment by echoing the accusations from the jilted ex-boyfriend's blog, i.e. painting the picture that Quinn deserved it. Angry video gamers may be claiming that as their source of their bubbling frustration, but their opinions and their personal motivations mater nothing at all to this person's Wikipedia biography. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think more of these articles are starting to focus more on the whole movement versus Zoe Quinn, despite her being almost inevitably mentioned. If a couple of people were willing to help out draft a independent article relating to the movement as a whole. Nothing more is being accomplished from all these discussions on this talk page other than editors on both sides throwing remarks. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, nobody is trying to water down the harassment and nobody other than yourself has suggested anybody deserved harassment and abuse for any reason. We're trying to see what happened, that can be verified, in reliable sources. If those sources give details on the harassment, we'll discuss the encyclopaedic merit of going into detail vs a broad summary. If they give reasons given by the harassers, we'll debate the merits of including that vs not detailing motive. I do agree that the details are starting to be more about the *sigh* "GamerGate" controversy(ies) and therefore are probably not for this article and like Citation said above there may now be enough for that kind of article to be created. SPACKlick (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is doing that, as are several others here, and I will call out misogynistic comments when I see it. Do not presume that you are in a position to give instructions to other editors. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)