Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Fan-art commercial "Fair Use"

I just found out that there's a fan-art picture used in the TvWiVG Kictstarter promotional video without artist's permission and she's never been told it's been used for promoting this video series funding.

Original picture

The artist in question is asking from Sarkeesian in an open letter if Sarkeesian has legitimately licensed the picture or does she have a 501(c)3 status (non-profit) as she claims in the interviews she's given. The main problem Tammy sees is she's not asked for permission, credited or told about the use.

Further note: The picture might not be usable for wikipedia without permission from cowkitty.

Artist herself perhaps a reliable source? Nosepea68 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As you've been told many, many times before (and as DonQuixote already told you at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games) we don't include material that doesn't appear in reliable sources. Your little push to insert poorly cited negative material into the WP:BLP of a person you dislike is tendentious and well past disruptive at this point.--Cúchullain t/c 15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no negative material ever exist on BLP subjects? And FYI, I don't dislike this person per se, it's her [working] ethics I have the biggest disagreement with (and no I'm not a corporate IP rights activist, nor am I an MRA, just skeptic humanist). And lets be fucking clear here, I have not put Anita Sarkeesian to the public eye, I have not made an article about her in wikipedia. I'm just bloody gob-smacked how the reliable sources present her and how cowardly the media acts when they can't criticise her. But, yea, what ever brings a buck to them...Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As you know, unsourced and poorly sourced material about a living person isn't going in the article. And your personal feelings are irrelevant and have no place on this talk page. This is really getting tendentious and disruptive.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Somebody put it in with a source. I skewered it with Better Source Needed since N4G is considered unreliable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources since it requires user-submitted content. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed it. Material like that needs a rock-solid source per BLP guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Nosepea68 Lest it be confused, your proposition above represents scandalmongering, and original research. When editors start going around creating stories, elevating minor events or drawing conclusions, it is detrimental to this project. I respectfully posit that maybe your dislike of this woman is clouding your judgment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Tell me when the FUCK I created a story or stories? I haven't elevated this nor have I drew any conclusions. FFS, gee ee tea ay gee are eye pee.Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So I guess my "I respectfully posit" lead-in was not gentle enough? When did you create a story? See the beginning of your post. Taking nuggets of a budding scandal and trying to make something out of it before all the facts have been properly reported in reliable sources is the creation of a story, and it represents scandalmongering at its basest. Wikipedians aren't reporters. Though we do often deal with current events, it is not our job to "get the scoop" on the breaking news before all the facts are in, particularly when there could be libel issues as they relate to living people. For all you know, someone paid someone, and the money is being held up in trust and never made it to the complainant. Who knows what happened? But if you don't have the resources to play Jimmy Olsen and follow up on those leads, then you shouldn't be posing as a reporter. And if you *do* have those resources, you should be running a reliable source. As for your exasperated spelling challenge, I think you are walking a fine line between constructive input and incivility. If you're going to publicly criticize this person for whatever your admitted bias is, then you should be open to contrary criticism equivalent to the criticism you put out. And I have yet to use profanity toward you or waste your time with phonics, except for these: Double-u pee, colon, bee el pee. Seriously, the first few paragraphs negates most of what you are proposing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You made me chuckle to myself at myself. I am obviously explaining it wrong, good point made there. I admit I jumped on this subject with more enthusiasm (money in a joke) than common sense. But you know, people like that fall to homeopathy more than often. So I must have thought I'm a person above the medium intelligence. Yes, you're quite right! Only things told in a neutral publishment are neutral. How can I be that stupid to think that the author of one picture is just asking things she have started to ask when she found her art-work used in a commercial medium she didn't get a dime from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, your personal feelings are irrelevant; all that matters is what appears in reliable, published sources. Please stop.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also read statements from a person who appears to be the original artist on a portion of the logo used. If so, this is worrisome and promotion of a logo with unattributed/uncompensated artwork is encouraging this sort of behavior? No axe to grind about the topic person in either direction, just a fan of giving credit and compensation where due

Here is what appears to be the original artist's statements on the subject

thanks Sandy Foderick — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC), Look, it doesn't matter who said what unless it's been reported by reliable, published sources. If it ever is, we can talk about whether it's really worth mentioning or not; until then it's just general discussion and that's not what articles or their talk pages are for.--Cúchullain t/c 17:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
With this BLP it seems only Sarkeesian managed Pravda is a reliable source. And isn't it encyclopedic to talk about person's [work] ethics say like Stalin or Hitler. Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain, Well, after reading we see that the creator of the work (THE ORIGINAL ARTIST) is indeed a reliable source. According to guidelines, published refers to "made available to the public in some form". Considering the artist's tumblr blog is, in fact, public, it is published. Therefore, it's a reliable, published source. It should be added.

If that's not enough for you, I have tweets confirming talks between the original artist and FemFreq, as well as statements by her producer. I can also easy source 4 news articles from gameskinny, groupthink, and a avoiceformen (admittedly that one is pretty biased, obviously). The first two, are, in my opinion, sites that do fact-check/are reputable. These claims are /not/ contentious claims about others, as they talk about the action, and indirectly Anita.

Also, if this does happen to be taken into consideration, I feel it would contribute (perhaps not to Anita's personal article, but perhaps FemFreq's) as this is indeed a criticism/blemish on their image. If you go ahead and say that a personal page is not meant for this, I needn't direct you towards controversial actions committed by celebrities. These very actions have been inserted in said personal pages. Why not here? I feel the harrassment, and consequently the pro, (or people who are neutral towards her) Anita supporters are being overly protective of her "image" here. What I mean to say is that in the hopes that slander does not appear on the page, they are being "too against" placing any criticisms. This neccessarily isn't neutrality either.

Thus, I think the whole predicament deserves a mention. If not, at the very least, because of the condrodictory nature of the producer's tweet. See here: It's clear the "movement" is not non-for-profit.

Halcónico (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Halconico

Drama on the internet is not news. This is a private issue between the artist and Sarkeesian. It will be notable, when it is notable due to support from sources. This is all synthesis and original research. Koncorde (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be added. It has been addressed on the @FemFreq Twitter handle and as such, received an official response straight from the horse's mouth. Ging287 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If the only place it has been mentioned is Twitter and personal blogs... then no, it doesn't belong here. Verifiability is a core tenet of Wikipedia content, and unless there are reliable sources addressing the issue, we cannot include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Care to elaborate why page has somewhat rich description of many issues that has nothing carved to stone like "reliably". I know the sample is very extreme but I can't understand different rules for different BLPs. And sorry, I really get wound up sometimes on this BLP because to me it seems that Sarkeesian is outside of [any] criticism just because internet trolls harassed her. That should not be the case, especially on the matters she talks outside online harassment. Online harassment is a matter of it self, but turning a blind eye to ALL criticism because subject was harassed is not encyclopaedic (IMHO). To me it seems there's an infinite amount of white knights holding the line for Sarkeesian, just because she was harassed.Nosepea68 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a source there then bring it up there and don't expect us to guess what you're getting at with your vague assertions. --NeilN talk to me 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As Halcónico said before, he/she has at least 4 sources, at least a few of which would pass WP:Verifiability. Why wouldn't this be added if we have the sources for it? Ging287 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources listed above meet WP:V. They are self-published sources without editorial control, which we cannot use unless the creator is a well-known and accepted expert in the field. Even there, there is a direct prohibition against using such sources in biographies: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. We do not republish accusations of illegal conduct that are presented only in personal blogs and tweets. If there is truly a significant legal issue here, it will be addressed in due time by external media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't know if they have editoral control or not until Halcónico posts them. I'm not sure how you can be making that judgement unless he/she's personally PMed them to you. Also, how would a news site covering the incident be a self published source? Ging287 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to every source already linked on this matter. If there are other sources, they should be posted here for evaluation. Vague mentions will not suffice - if they are claimed to be reliable sources, it should be trivial to post the links here for review.
One of the sources mentioned by Halcónico ("avoiceformen") is obviously completely unacceptable and, in fact, is blacklisted from Wikipedia. A "source" whose editorial policy states "Anti-feminist- AVfM regards feminism as a corrupt, hateful and disingenuous ideology based in female elitism and misandry. And AVfM regards all self proclaimed feminists as agents, unwitting or otherwise, of that hate and corruption" is prima facie unusable for anything on Wikipedia, much less the biography of a self-described feminist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC) + | At least, Gameskinny matches editorial control mentioned here. Ging287 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
GameSkinny allows anyone to post and contribute with no apparent fact-checking or significant editorial controls. [1] At best, this is very thin gruel.
Moreover, that article has been immediately followed up by what is largely a retraction: [2]

While the situation has not been resolved to Smith's satisfaction, Sarkeesian has been in touch and the two are continuing dialogue regarding the use of Smith's artwork in Sarkeesian's work. Tamara Smith and Anita Sarkeesian have ultimately provided us with positive model for both criticism and response. It is a completely valid thing to criticize an issue, particularly if you feel like your work has been stolen. In both her initial letter and in her public address of copyright concerns, Smith was by open and honest, allowing for polite debate of the issue. Her insistence on polite dialogue and working through the proper channels has been amazing to watch, as has her clarification of copyright law. While simple bibliography may have circumvented this issue in the first place, Sarkeesian's willingness to engage is exactly how a creator of any public content should respond when faced with valid criticism. Hopefully Sarkeesian can continue to this dialogue to the satisfaction of her own followers and Smith. While I may still have some mixed feelings regarding Sarkeesian's initial use of the image (and whether Fair Use laws are completely adequate in many regards), I am appreciative of the conduct of both parties. Thanks to both ladies for modeling how professional an internet argument can be, and teaching me to: 1) hold my horses 2) check my sources.

This appears to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot and has no business in Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, That is not Wikipedia policy and therefore I will disregard it. And yes, they have significant editorial control. To try to dismiss it as 'no significant editorial control' is to try to negate it altogether. They prove it in this link: (Launchpowered owns GameSkinny.) Also, what about the Jezabel link? Ging287 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... Anyone can post Videos, Slideshows, or Articles here. Sounds like the same editorial policy as the NY Times or the WSJ. --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So I concede on GameSkinny, but what about the Jezebel link? Ging287 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the blog part of Jezebel. [3]. --NeilN talk to me 21:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As NeilN said, Groupthink appears to be Jezebel's blog section, where anybody can write their own posts. Little to no editorial control. Novusuna talk 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gah, OK. Thanks. If I find any other source that I think is reliable, I'll bring it up. Ging287 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing: Even if there are a few sources, what is there to report? Someone believes their copyright was violated, there was a brief Internets kerfuffle, then the two sides started talking to each other and... the end. I don't see what's possibly encyclopedic about it in the context of Sarkeesian's life. If there is actual legal action filed, that might rise to the level of encyclopedicity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess you have all had ample discussion on the matter, and I take it you don't need the links anymore? I just wanted to bring the articles to attention. I mean no disrespect to Anita, but my point after reading the whole issue on her "stealing" the art w/o permission, and no mention of it on her page (and talk regarding adding/ignoring said issue) made me feel like it should've been brought up. Like I (and others here) have said, I feel like just because she's been harassed extensively doesn't mean people should be overly protective of her. Thanks, Halcónico (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to inquire on what would get this fact added to the page. What would be a reliable source other than the complainee's original site? Also, post the other sources. I sympathize with you, though. Ging287 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS will answer most of your questions. Please study it, and if you have any specific questions not covered by WP:RS, feel free to ask. DonQuixote (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reliable regularly used source that reports on this I have found so far is The Escapist (magazine) [4]. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone reasonably object? Ging287 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. We have the thinnest of thin gruel, based not on independent reporting but simply uncritical repetition of a blog post, with no update as to the significance of the dispute or its outcomes. Wikipedia is not a news site, and we can afford to wait to find out if this is truly a significant part of Sarkeesian's life - which we can judge by the number and quality of reliable sources which report on the situation over time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you not apply uncritical repetition of Sarkeesian's word to radical feminist reporters? Like their articles are used as RS in this BLP.Nosepea68 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If you question the reliability of a source used in this article, feel free to point out which particular source it is here, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or tag the questionable source with {{unreliable source?}}. Otherwise, please stop your pointless and vapid ranting. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Nosepea68, the reliability of a source isn't determined by the adjectives that can be applied to the author, it's determined by the integrity of the publisher of the material. If you haven't figured that out by now, you should go read WP:RS. If an author is a radical feminist and writes for the New York Times, then yeah, we use their articles. If Hitler, Stalin, or Satan himself were published by the NYT we'd use their work. If Hitler had a blog, then not so much. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ging287 Object to what? To the inclusion of contentious information in a BLP where the proposed information has no inherent relevance to who the subject is, and only one source is provided? Yeah, I object. It's neither mandatory, nor inherently wise to include this information, as doing so might give detractors a platform upon which to voice their anti-Sarkeesian agenda. But more importantly, WP:NOTGOSSIP states: "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy". I doubt that the threshold of "high standard" is met with only one source. The story has no legs yet, but we're discussing the inclusion of content that says little more than that the subject was accused of misappropriating fan-art, something that is presumably a civil infraction. I don't see the significance to this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
One key issue that seems to come up in a lot of articles with a degree of controversy is undue weight, WP:RSUW. While the news piece is a valid reference in itself, it is as it stands the only one. While articles do use single references, it's usually in the context of a wider section/subject. Unless the story gained legs, any mention with a single source would be at best a footnote which is not, for lack of a better word now, "gel" with the section (whichever section that may be mind you). However while I also would take issue with its conclusion, I would still sit on it for the time being in case anything else does come up. For now though, not so much. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now that a seemingly reliable source has appeared ([5]) this seems like even more of a non-story. All it really says is that an artist claims Sarkeesian "stole" some fan art she made, but the artist didn't create the character and doesn't remotely hold the copyright. Sarkeesian claims her use is commentary on the copyrighted character, which is fair use. It's a minor news footnote, not encyclopedia material.--Cúchullain t/c 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Currently, Feminist Frequency is registered as a corporation, not a non profit organization: | That being said, you're partially right. She doesn't own the character. She owns her own art of the character, and has copyright automatically upon creation. Even if this is 'Fair use' per commentary, she still received money for it, and the fair use doctrine prohibits this as it's commercial use. | That's pretty much not the point. We have a reliable source that accurately depicts the incident and we're holding off from adding it...why? It's not libelious, and per WP:NPOV, we can make sure it depicts all sides in a neutral manner. Ging287 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ging287 Being a non-profit and being a corporation are not mutually exclusive. There are numerous corporations that are non-profits. In fact, you may HAVE to incorporate to be a non-profit. Have you ever heard of a non-profit individual? Some examples: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR. Boy Scouts of America. All of those have corporate records that you can locate by searching the California Secretary of State site. The page even says that nonprofits are included. And here is a step-by-step guide on how to establish a non-profit corporation in California. This is exactly the type of problem that original research creates--armchair reporters who try to cobble together fact scraps, (some patently wrong,) and turn them into a hodgepodge of nothingness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems somebody have filed Feminist Frequency as a non-profit corporation (site doesn't tell who has filed or owns the corporation). and that can be confirmed at using Secretary of State ID: C3587383 or name. The [weird] thing is its Incorporation Date: 07/05/2013 . Which is nearly same as the first video's release date (tinfoil hat; real reason for the production delay). Nosepea68 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Please don't engage in original research directly under the posts explaining that original research is inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I repeated what the source says to show that this is basically a news footnote. Again, a disagreement mentioned in one reliable source (so far) is not encyclopedic material. Further, your own research and interpretation of the material may or may not be accurate, but they don't have bearing on the discussion per Wikipedia's no original research policy.--Cúchullain t/c 22:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoid, I concede on that point. I am a reasonable person. I'm not going to go all out when you've plainly rebutted me. Cuchullain, here is another potentially reliable source. Ging287 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
What is that source's editorial policy and expertise on the subject? Our article describes it as "a blog about the politics of computer and video games started by freelance journalist Dennis McCauley". Not particularly encouraging.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Copyright law is largely irrelevant to the particular incident about the fan art; every character in the logo is similarly copyrighted to their own authors, so the claim by has no more weight for infringement than any other character; either the whole collage infringes, or none of it. What matters is that the reaction from the blogosphere has been reported by a major professional magazine, with Sarkeesian acknowledging the incident; that's two sources, one primary and another one secondary and independent, enough to provide due weight.
Given that the article already dedicates a big amount of space to everything reported by professional bloggers about the Kickstarter campaign and video series, this one article doesn't feel out of place; it merits at least a short one-liner, which is the amount of text that we have granted other similar writers covering the topic. Alternatively we could raise the bar for sources and reject every reference posted by a professional blogger, which would reduce the weight of coverage about the Tropes vs. Women series to a much more reasonable size for a biography. Diego (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This trivia doesn't "merit" anything, as argued by numerous editors already. The "Tropes vs. Women" coverage does need to be reworked, especially as we now have an article on the series. Unfortunately little work has been done to either article.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually while I would argue against its merit as it stands, two sources (EDIT: more it seems now) is enough to not outright dismiss the story. As mentioned before I would still sit on it for the time being in case any follow stories appear. Granted WP:RSUW considered, being personally my bigger concern. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So the main qualm now is WP:RSUW? Ging287 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There are at least two qualms. First is that the sources that made a big deal about this "story" aren't reliable, and thus can't be used. The reliable sources that have picked it up make it clear that it's a pretty trivial fair use disagreement. Understanding that, we need to worry about the story receiving due weight, which may well mean no weight at all. There are a number of policies and guidelines that speak to why these kinds of stories may not be appropriate in articles even if they've come up in one or a few reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; it's not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information; it needs to be careful articles don't become WP:COATRACKs where every bit of trivia gets inserted, especially in biographies of living people, etc. And yes, a number of these issues are explained in the WP:RSUW essay.--Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, is a reliable source. They have an editorial policy. They are not blogs. They can be used. We are not reporting it as news, 1. It's not journalism. 2. We are not covering it as a news report. 3. Is not relevant. 4. It's not a diary. Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing. We aren't going to focus the entire article elaborating on the fair use controversy, but it does deserve a mention. 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talkcontribs)
There exists a consensus that at this point, it does not deserve a mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus at this point. To use that as an excuse is trying to stifle discussion. Ging287 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My recommendation then, is to open a Request for comment. This will allow editors from varied backgrounds to contribute to the discussion as well as centralize and focus the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Doing that now. Would you have a problem with this as the question, Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia Page? Ging287 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The question needn't be that vague. It would be better (since this page is a text wall) to summarize the dispute a la: "The subject of this biographical article, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist commentator (or whatever she is described as) was accused by an artist of using without permission fan-art created by the artist. The art was used in a trailer promoting a feminist documentary. One reliable source has reported on the controversy. (link goes here) Can/should the details of this controversy be included in this biographical article?" Formatted for attractiveness and adherence to detail, of course. It might also be worth summarizing the pros and con arguments, though maybe not. Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've inserted most of your words except a select few into the question. Ging287 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
She's officially responded. Can we include it now? Ging287 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador Award 2014

She got 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards honour her with Ambassador Award 2014. Not sure these are RS but anyway here goes. , , . So maybe add a section named Awards or slip it in somewhere else in BLP? Perhaps add it in the fork too. Nosepea68 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Already added under Feminist Frequency. Some other placement may be better, maybe it will become clearer as the page is cleaned up.--Cúchullain t/c 04:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd put it in the top part as she got it as a person who created Feminist Frequency. Nosepea68 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cúchullain, she's nominated for Women in Gaming Ambassador Award [as well]. Perhaps worth mentioning in Awards and recognition? The best source I found was

Nosepea68 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue with our use of the Kickstarter collage

BusterD brought this up with me some time ago, and we need to hammer it out:[6] what is our justification for using the Kickstarter collage in the article? Regardless of the now-resolved issue with the fan art, the collage includes images of copyrighted characters. Obviously Sarkeesian is making a fair use claim for her own use, but it's dodgier for us, as we're just using it to illustrate Sarkeesian's series. It's especially dodgy in that we also have this to illustrate the series, so it's not as if it were irreplaceable. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason Wikipedia should be using it at this time. There's no strong reason "fair use" makes sense as a current rationale for inclusion. I see User:Zero Serenity has kindly updated the image, and I (for one) appreciate that user's helping ensure Wikipedia didn't make itself more a part of the recent artist kerfluffle. However, the original image was used in association with the Kickstarter project, and was kept in use for a while only because we didn't have a better image with which to identify the Tropes series. Now we have a logo. I'd say remove the image and tag it for deletion. I'd be interested in the cases others might make. BusterD (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Third time's a charm!alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist criticism

Discussion has devolved into back-and-forth that violates WP:TPG and WP:NOTAFORUM. Once again, comments need to be about article improvements, not general discussion of the topic - or each other. Editors also need to keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Repeated violations of good talk page behavior will be considered disruptive.--Cúchullain t/c 02:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the same editors who think of her as some sort of scholar/victim needing to be saved will say this is just YouTube, but the channel is run by the magazine, so it is the same source. Please amuse me with stretched logic as to why this can not be allowed in the article. But please make it original: don't just repeat the same nonsense that was used to exclude Destructoid's notable and valid criticism of our favourite damsel in distress70.75.28.225 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We've already established that the Escapist is characterized as a "situational" source by the WP:VG/RS guidelines, meaning not everything it puts out is assumed to be reliable for video game topics (let alone other things). This video recalls Hahnchen's comments here: "As someone who is familiar with the sources at WP:VG/RS, The Escapist is reliable for news. It's tagged as 'situational' because it also hosts video series which are primarily entertainment rather than information (like Fox in a way)." In short, Escapist may be usable for some things, but this isn't one of them. Better luck next time.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Especially No Right Answer by itself. Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition) and Moviebob (The Big Picture) have both come to say she's got very good points so saying "The Escapist" has this opinion is just wrong. It's just those two. Plus, NRA (Ugh, I just realized what that's an acronym of) tends to be heavily scripted and done for comedy purposes. So, reliable? No, I wouldn't say so. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Much like Destructoid, a video game publication, is a "situational source." But their valid and accurate (not to mention respectful) critique of Anita's "work" on video games is not allowed. Why? Because they have no women's studies training, even though they limit the scope of their criticism to her claims regarding the facts of the games and leave all women's issues out of it. But none of the pro Anita reliable sources are peer reviewed psychology or sociology journals. They're just people talking about how heroic she is for standing up to the online critics. That being the case, this article should be strictly limited to the harassment she claims hurt her feelings, and led to her receiving a whole bunch of money to make YouTube videos. Unless, of course, you want to include the videos of her contradicting herself: "I love video games" vs. "I'm not a fan of video games." That last bit will be called original research but it would be quite appropriate to say simply "Anita has claimed many times to love video games. However, before becoming famous she has said "I'm not a fan of video games." The source would be video of her saying these things and no editorializing would be necessary. Given all this, the fact that the article exists in its current form suggests that there is something very wrong with the editorial process here; as does the fact that angry editors will immediately look for strange reasons to dismiss all this, and win the argument. (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy. You seemed to have disregarded what we said and then went on to quote mine her (For the record the phrase is "I'm not a gamer" because she doesn't like to play so many violent video games. This quote without context is compelling, but with context makes sense as gamers at the time played tons of violent games.) We will take criticism when it's from proper Reliable Source. The Escapist can provide news and critical opinions, but No Right Answer is not considered part of their critical series. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, she said "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games [in order to make some silly video]" Get it now? Doubt it. (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Publish your observation in a reliable source so that we can cite you, a secondary source, properly rather than interpreting a primary source which Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to do. DonQuixote (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, you've already been warned about bad faith and now you can add insulting other editors to that list of offenses sofar. But I will entertain this specific video. It was shot in 2010. The kickstarter took off in 2012. Huh. Two years can change the mind and tastes of somebody especially with the rapid fire pace of video games. This does not even come close to discrediting her in academia, nor does it convince me she is a fraud. Zero Serenity (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Except she claimed to be a "life long gamer." Anyway, despite the fact that she has not been published in any peer reviewed journals, and says rather silly things, as well as having a complete disregard for honesty, she has a massive fan club here, who is prepared to ignore facts and reason in an effort to keep her hero status alive in their minds. It's weird, but there's nothing I can do about it. (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
However, that video may be RS for whether there are, in fact, too many dicks on the dance floor. This talk page seems to lend some credence to the notion as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite true. This talk page does demonstrate that there are "too many dicks" on the talk page. Of course dicks, to borrow the terminology of another editor, before you get on ME for using the crude term, in this case would be defined as people who dogmatically reject all the facts proving that their hero is a silly person who could never pass peer review. Why not? Because there is consensus amongst psychiatrists that men and women are indeed different. That is not to say women are inferior in any way, but the vast majority of women do not find men who need to be rescued by some action woman sexy. They definitely do find large men who could rescue them sexy. If you disagree with this, you are either amongst the small minority of women who think otherwise, or a man who is not large and attractive to women. (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is intended to improve the article. Just because certain people don't like the recommendations doesn't mean they wouldn't indeed improve the article. It would improve Wiki's reputation if there was not an effort to exclude valid and reliable criticism (Destructoid, mainly) of someone with no ability to pass peer review, while pretending that she is a "great scholar." (Yes, I used quotes because an editor, who happened to be an admin, referred to her as such in a previous discussion. What a joke.) (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This section has been condensed to limit soapboxing. Yet, you continue to soapbox. Please stop soapboxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Soapboxing is defined as pointing out the weakness in your arguments? I didn't know that. (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Soapboxing defined as somebody using this talk page to drone on and on about subjects with which nobody except the speaker seems to care. Nothing has put forward is new, useful, or directly related to improving the page. What he or she fails to know is that the droning has caused most everyone to tune that ip editor out. There's something of the WP:ICANTHEARYOU going on. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC) You're not pointing out the weaknesses in my arguments, since I neither recall ever tangling with you, nor have I attempted to project a POV at this article other than objecting to the introduction of fringe content unworthy of inclusion in a biographical article. If you mean the collective "you", that's fine, but my personal opinion is that you are soapboxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I know you people just ignore reason and logic. You've been excluding reliable and valid criticism with phrases like "go away" for years. What do you expect people to do? 'Find peer reviewed criticism and....' Except you people have not done the same. Again, her work is not respected by academic publications as it goes against the consensus held by the American Psychiatric Association, but you editors pretend that she is worthy of an article completely exclusive of valid criticism from RS (again, Destructoid). And yes, you is collective. (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, have to admit that we haven't found any peer reviewed criticism either...that's why there's no criticism (positive or negative) mentioned in the article. Please go find one (positive or negative) rather than soapboxing about a non-peer reviewed article (Destructroid), which being non-peer reviewed is far from valid or reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not the standard, but Anita hasn't met it. (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So...what standard are you talking about? The standard here is the standard for an encyclopaedia or a textbook, which relies on citing reliable sources. Please go find a reliable source rather than soapboxing about a horrible source that doesn't meet the minimum level of academic standards.
As for Anita, she's not editing this page so she doesn't have to do anything other than be a person mentioned by notable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Peer review is not the standard. Is the NYT peer reviewed? Nope. Destructoid is not either, but it is an RS. Yes, a situational RS, but we are talking about video games. They may not have any credentials when it comes to women's studies, but they simply discussed her lack of knowledge concerning the games themselves. There is no reason to exclude them. (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Peer review is standard for academic criticism. The NYT has it's own standard for reporting news, which is fact checking. Note that reporting news is not the same thing as criticism. The NYT is not a RS for criticism and neither is Destructoid, which is considered far less reliable than the NYT. An encyclopaedia's standard is to consider the sources within context and to give due weight with respect to the reliability of a source within that context. Destructoid is a horrible source for this type of criticism (positive or negative). YouTube is a horrible source for this type of criticism (positive or negative). Please study WP:RS as it goes over this as well as providing several examples. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
DonQuixote stated: "there's no criticism (positive or negative) mentioned in the article." Yet there is a response section which is full of praise from non peer reviewed sources, all of whom have less relevance to this subject than Destructoid. This is why I not only don't assume good faith, I can see the obvious dishonesty. (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Praise isn't the same thing as criticism. And sorry if I missed that one criticism, but I don't edit this article regularly.
Scholar Nate Carpenter reviewed the "Damsel in Distress" video positively in the journal Women & Language. Carpenter commended the series for rendering the ideas and language of media criticism into a format accessible for a general audience. He found it limited in failing to analyze the cultural milieu that perpetuates damaging tropes, but overall found it an "intelligent, engaging, and entertaining point of departure" for viewers interested in media studies. (emphasis mine)
So, yep, we have exactly one criticism from an expert published in a scholarly journal. Notice the difference between that and the Destructoid article, which is "criticism" from an amateur published in a "situational" source that's far removed from the area of study in question. (I haven't had the chance to access Carpenter's article, so I don't know if it's actually a peer reviewed analysis of the videos or merely a review. If it's not an analysis then it's not a work of criticism; see below, Boston Globe et al.)
As for the other sources, such as the Boston Globe, they don't criticize her arguments (positive or negative), they review her work from a pop POV. They describe the works, provide background information and give their opinions. Notice the difference.
The Destructoid article and the YouTube videos are written from a pop POV but they try to argue against the videos by amateur analysis--that is, they try to emulate experts while at the same time bypassing the peer-review process. So, no, not reliable sources given the context. DonQuixote (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The link does not suggest that this Nate Carpenter's article was peer reviewed. Anyway, I repeat: all this favourable stuff is allowed while Destructoid, whose article is topic specific and covers their area of expertise, which they are recognized for, is not allowed. I do accuse the editors here of blatant dishonesty in their effort glorify Anita, despite the proof of her own dishonesty. I'm sure Don, or some other editor, will come back and make some rambly, nonsense defence of this policy, but it will only serve to justify the loss of my respect and donations to Wikipedia. At least neutral observers wanting to see the truth of Anita's character can have a laugh at the determination of her acolytes to hide from reality. (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
For one thing, Women & Language is indeed peer-reviewed.[7] For another, sources used in articles don't necessarily need to be peer reviewed, even though several used here are (Women & Language, Television & New Media, SIGITE '13). Sources do need to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and higher quality sources are given more weight than lower quality ones.
That Destructoid piece has been discussed to death. As it's essentially an op-ed piece in one writer's unedited community blog, the consensus has been that it's an unusable self-published source. This video is in a similar boat: it's evidently created for "comedy purposes"; it's not a reliable source even for video games, let alone anything else. Neither source remotely compares to peer-reviewed articles or pieces from reputable newspapers, or even to reliable video game sites with a strong editorial process. Sorry, that's just a non-starter.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The Dtoid article was written by their reviews director. It's been admitted that Destructoid is a situational RS. Since they're an award winning video game magazine, and the subject here is video games (the facts of Anita's claims regarding video games are discussed, separate from women's issues within them), I don't see the problem. I'm sure others will. (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It was written in the writer's unedited personal blog in the part of the site where anybody can make a blog post. It's effectively a self-published source, which aren't used without good reason, especially in a biography of a living person, and especially when so many superior sources are readily available. We've discussed this piece repeatedly; the consensus is very unlikely to change.--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
"We've discussed this piece repeatedly; the consensus is very unlikely to change" I know70.75.28.225 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

Sarkeesian has been listed as being the first female to receive the GDC Ambassador award, though this is not the case. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the GDC awards (, Sheri Graner Ray is actually the first female to receive the award. Soapy1978 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

According to your article that you posted, she won the "Developers' Choice Award", not "Ambassador Award". So, statement still stands. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this, Sheri Graner Ray won the 2004 "IGDA Award for Community Contribution", which was discontinued after 2007.[8] This may be a predecessor to the "Ambassador Award", launched in 2008,[9] but I can't find anything specific clarifying that. The cited New York Times source does verify that Sarkeesian "won the ambassador award, the first time a woman has received that honor",[10] which is why I added it; Sarkeesian also mentioned it in her acceptance speech.[11] She's clearly the first woman to have received the "Ambassador Award" under that name, but that point may be somewhat confusing if this is basically the same award under different names. What do others think?--Cúchullain t/c 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well there's a curveball. (I flipped the answer while we discuss this.) I am unsure which side of the fence I'd fall on this one. The Community Contribution award sounds like it is to the development community as opposed to community at large (which is what the ambassador award sounds like it's for). Do we have better definitions of what the awards are for from the GDC? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right. From the links, "The Community Contribution award embodies the goals of the IGDA and recognizes the significant contributions that an individual has made in building community, sharing knowledge, speaking on behalf of developers and/or contributing to the art form of game development". It appears to have only been awarded to game developers. On the other hand "The Ambassador Award honors an individual or individuals who have helped the game industry advance to a better place, either through facilitating a better game community from within, or by reaching outside the industry to be an advocate for video games and help further our art." It's mostly gone to people who aren't developers. In the very least there's been a change of focus. As I can't find anything specific connecting the two, I'm leaning to just trusting the New York Times' judgement and leaving the line in there.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
we attribute the analysis "The NYT says it is the first time a woman ...." if another reliable source later points out an error in the NYT's analysis we should remove it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Might be of some interest. Sheri Graner Ray confirms that the two awards are not the same and congratulates Sarkeesian ( -- (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 02:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)