Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Gjoni, Depression Quest and BLP, again

I suppose I must again commence the Sisyphean task of the matter of Gjoni, Depression Quest, Kotaku etc. The text on this keeps changing so many times that it's impossible to keep track. Let me first lay out some facts:

Gjoni wrote "The Zoe Post". The post never mentions Depression Quest, never mentions a review; and it sure as hell doesn't mention a review of Depression Quest. In the post, there was a typo up for a while, which said "March" instead of "May". Some people on 4chan (and elsewhere) read the initial post, noticed the name "Kotaku" and made the (incorrect) inference about the favourable reviews for sex. This inference was debunked very early, and very definitively. Gjoni later corrected this typo, and explicitly disavowed this inference.

Absolutely zero sources disagree with these facts, because they're all true.

Now, we come to the nub of the matter: how to describe what happened? Some sources say that Gjoni himself "implied" (or the even more weasel-wordy "seemed to imply") the allegation of favourable reviews for sex. I am sure you can find plenty of sources stating this (some of them are linked in the WP article). There are also plenty of sources which state that the inference was drawn by people who read the post -- without assigning any intent to Gjoni (example, example), example).

IMO: here's what we should do. We should keep BLP in mind. To ascribe intent to Gjoni (implied or otherwise) is neither a good idea, nor is it even required. Shit happened, whether or not Gjoni intended it. The important thing is to note that shit happened, not to vilify Gjoni. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's simply not accurate to say it that this was done 'incorrectly', which is a nonbinary proposition. It is flatly and completely wrong, so 'false' is the better wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify: this section is not about one word. I am objecting to this whole paragraph:

The event that would come to be known as Gamergate began in 2014 as a personal attack on Quinn and her sex life, incited by a blog post by Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni. Called the "Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn had gotten a favorable review of Depression Quest because of her sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a video-game reviewer for the website Kotaku. Grayson never actually reviewed Quinn's games, and Grayson's only article mentioning her was published before their relationship began. Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this, saying that a typographical error was to blame for the insinuation. Nonetheless, a link to the blog posted on 4chan, where many participants had previously been highly critical of Depression Quest, led to renewed attacks on Quinn.

It strongly ascribes malicious intent to Gjoni. I would prefer the text which was there earlier, which was changed for reasons unknown to me:

In August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425-word blog post that quoted from personal chat logs, emails, and text messages to describe their relationship. The post, described as "a rambling online essay" in The New York Times, complained, among other things, that Quinn entered a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the Gawker Media video game website Kotaku. The post was linked on 4chan, where some erroneously claimed the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only article for Kotaku mentioning her was published before their relationship began. Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this.

. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gjoni claimed that Grayson wrote a favorable review. It's pretty clear that the only thing it could reasonably be was _Depression Quest_; this fact comes up over and over in the articles that debunk the favorable review nonsense. "Incorrect" implies merely factually wrong. "False" implies bias. And the entire Zoe Post was an exhibition of Gjoni's animus and bias. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you're flat out wrong. Have you even read the post? Read what I wrote above: the post never mentions a review, and sure as hell never mentions a review of Depression Quest, let alone one written by Grayson. Absolutely zero sources say that Gjoni "claimed that Grayson wrote a favorable review". (since there's a ton written on this topic, probably you can find some source which actually repeats this mistaken view, but the vast majority of the sources do not say this). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain you'll be able to provide us with reliable sources that support your point of view.--Jorm (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oblique references, learn how they are used. I suggest you read up about "5 guys burgers and fries". -- 01:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs)

Do people even read what I write, or am I totally wasting my time? Gjoni never made any claim about reviews or whatever. There exist sources saying that he "implied" (what you call "oblique references"). There are also plenty of sources who do not say that Gjoni "implied".

What is important is what Gjoni's readers inferred, not what he may or may not have implied. If 4chan didn't exist, it would have made no difference whether or not Gjoni "implied" anything. Gjoni's intent is irrelevant to the issue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, somebody implying something is an active act. Some sources not mentioning this does not mean it didn't happen. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when you say someone is acting with malice, you better have damn good reasons for saying so. Plenty of sources did not make this leap, but the passage in the WP article does.

Why are people even ascribing malicious intent to Gjoni? Why does every tragedy need a villain? Would it not be a tragedy otherwise? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It blows my mind that people are still trying to trot out the "no malicious intent/it's about ethics in journalism/criticism is not harassment" arguments even today.--Jorm (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to read a single comment of yours which adds anything except ignorant snark. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Yikes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The RS supports the text. That some editors refuse to acknowledge that which is obvious, and well supported, is not grounds for weasel wording what Gjoni did. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Title this article: Gamergate

This is related to the above section, but there's a simpler and better solution to the matter. This article should simply be called "Gamergate". It's beyond ridiculous that the main page for Gamergate is for the ant. Then we can sidestep all the silly discussion about whether it's a "controversy" or not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In 20 or 30 years no one is going to care so much about the entitled whining of the manosphere. But the Ant will still exist, even if we don't.--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I support Jorm's comment here. gamergate -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that Wikipedia will exist in 20 to 30 years, so it's completely irrelevant. On scholar.google.com the top results I find are about #Gamergate (the online shitshow), not Gamergate (the ant). If you look at the past 4 or so years (since GG started), it's even more stark. The pageviews on this page are many orders of magnitude greater than the other page. Not only that, I'm pretty sure that a fair amount of pageviews on the ant page actually are by people who mistakenly go to the ant page: you can see this by the weird spikes observed on the ant page, which happen to coincide with one of the periodic episodes in this soap opera.

There's absolutely no logical reason (except snobbery) to keep the ant page as the main page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, let's keep this civil. Accusing others of snobbery isn't going to help. Second, perhaps you should read through the Archives on this talk page, as this topic has been discussed extensively. If you have a new argument to make, or just a different take on the proposal, feel free to discuss it here and see if others agree. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I did make an argument (the entire first paragraph). I have indeed read through the archives; indeed I participated the last time there was a move discussion. I am not sure if there have been any more since then, but it's been more than two years, so perhaps it's time for a new one. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for Kingsindian's position, I think the current situation is the best for now. If indeed the online donnybrook holds the public mind for a few more years, it may well be worth revisiting. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, so far the only argument you're making is "it's better known." While a good point, as Dumuzid points out, this is still a rather recent event. It may turn into a minor point of history that's barely a blip on the radar, while the ant exists for centuries. So I don't see an *urgent* need to move it, meaning we'd need more reasons than what you've presented so far. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the only argument I'm making. But consider the following fact: the page on the ant was created a month or so before this article. Consider a counterfactual: there was no page on the ant, and this article was originally titled "Gamergate". Now, suppose someone came to this page and argued about moving this page to "Gamergate controversy", so that the ant would have the main page. Would you do it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I like to think I would -- scientific etymologies tend to be "stickier" in language than do less systematic coinages. If circumstances prove consensus is against me, I wouldn't lose any sleep over this proposed change; I fear, however, I am not going to be a proponent of it any time soon. Happy Monday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The question wasn't directed to you, but I call bullshit on that answer. What does that "stickier" comment even mean, except as a put down? I'll make a $10 bet on the following proposition: "Five years from now, you'll still be finding new articles on Google Scholar about this shitshow". I'll even give odds if you like.

I have been seeing this "oh this is just a flash in the pan which nobody will care about in the future" comment for years now. Last time there was a move request (in late 2015), I had a long discussion with Thibbs who claimed that the interest in this term was already dying (since it was down from its peak in late-2014). They even made the rash prediction that this topic will be of little or no interest to people at this same time next year. Well, I mentioned that the monthly pageviews at that time were about 80-90k. What was the monthly pageviews this year? Answer: 85k. How did that prediction work out? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, "stickier" means "tends to stay in the language longer with the same meaning." I did not mean it as a put down in any way. The term "dinosaur" has proven far "stickier" than "23 Skidoo." That is not to say there's anything wrong with "23 Skidoo." Have a great day! Dumuzid (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian I'm also surprised that the entomological community has less chance to produce interlink to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it really speaks to the long-term staying power of this term as primarily a video game topic. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The best you can hope for is the same as the solution achieved in the arguments between the Germans and the video game people who were fighting circa 2007 about the term "DDR". I see they have most recently settled on a disambiguation page. In fact we have one at Gamergate (disambiguation) too. Would it make life better if the video game people didn't have to be assaulted with the original scientific term when they came to read about the juicy details of the women who have been harassed via GamerGate (note the correct use of CamelCase)? I don't find the argument that there is any confusion between the articles credible anyway. There appears to be no correlation between the two pages so there is no confusion between the two articles anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the harassment campaign more notable than the ant? The trolling is barely a blip 4 years after the fact. I don't see it gaining in importance. The ant will continue to have import for years more. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The trolling is such a blip that, in 2018, Gamergate is still being linked to everything from Star Wars to Trump to neo-nazis, and writers are celebrating the death of people who didn't blanket condemn GG. This article should really be renamed Gamergate now because the media and entertainment industry have no intention of letting such a clickbaity topic die. That's what RS > Common Sense gets us. AWildAppeared (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you underestimate the allure of myrmecology. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple more recent sources on the enduring legacy of GG in multiple places: "Alt-right internet mobs are attacking celebrities with their own jokes. The irony is stark" and "Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, and the Gamergate School of Journalism". More in the first than the second, but it does suggest that GG-inspired harassment is not going away quite yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "Gamergate (hate group)"? ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "The Creator of a GamerGate Subreddit Deserves No Credit for Deleting It". Waypoint. 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ Lees, Matt (2016-12-01). "What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right'". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ "Domestic violence task force calls GamerGate a 'hate group' at congressional briefing". Polygon. Retrieved 2018-07-14.
^ Allaway, Jennifer. "#Gamergate Trolls Aren't Ethics Crusaders; They're a Hate Group". Jezebel. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

Shutdown of KotakuInAction subreddit and its return

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Make the article more accurate and unbiased

The article labels Gamergate as a harassment campaign. This is only one side of the story. It doesn't cover a ton of important things, and is very clearly written from the perspective of someone who opposes the movement, rather than an objective viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioLuigi0404 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@MarioLuigi0404: What is the other side of the story? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The side of those who support the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioLuigi0404 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

They get their say; but since there are no reliable sources that support the "reforming game journalism" version, by definition the article mostly explains what the reliable sources report: the harassment campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that show that there is, actually, "another side to the story"? Because there isn't, as near as all of us can tell. You can go back to reddit, little one.--Jorm (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This article should be labelled NPOV

There is no consensus on whether this was a "harassment" issue or a "revolt against journalism bias" event. Yet, this article heavily leans to the "harassment" point of view, which is obviously not neutral. In such instances, isn't it Wikipedia's policy to slap an NPOV tag until both points of view are equally reflected in the article? But of course, the article is "protected" so that no such tag can be added ... Doesn't this sound like the KGB when it pretended to "protect" soviet citizenry ?

I think that this kind of thing is harming Wikipedia's reputation in a really stupid way. And this is too bad because, from my experience, Wikipedia IS reliable in 99.9999999 % percent of its content (I use it constantly for teaching purposes). Yet, one hears increasingly often that Wikipedia is "biased" because of a small number of articles like this one.

I think that the Wikipedia community should come to grasp with the fact that the encyclopedic format is utterly inapplicable to such issues.

Here is a suggestion: Why not adopt a different format for the few articles of this kind (controversial contemporary issues)? Why not adopt a forensic-like format, like the minutes of a trial, in which there would be two (or more) accounts displayed side by side, each presenting a particular POV, together with a voting system in which readers could decide to support one of the accounts. The order of appearance could then be decided by the voting results, for example. Fi11222 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not decided by votes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As a teacher you should know that you do not teach things "equally". You teach the notable, reliable, evidence about the subject and then, for context, you may also mention some smaller aspect of alternative view points and counter-claims from similar notable, reliable evidence and sources. If the alternative opinions are utterly vacuous or stupid formulated, or without evidence, however you probably choose not to present them at all. Not all opinions matter. Koncorde (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That's true, but there are differences between scholarship and building a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built primarily on reliable, secondary, published sources. Primary sources are used in a limited fashion, WP:Original Research not at all. For scholarship, the literature review is important, but so are primary sources and original research. As a result of this, there are cases when perfectly valid information is not suitable for Wikipedia. As a corollary, if Reliable Sources are biased or in error, this can carry over to Wikipedia. I agree that this can create problems, but it's not likely that a solution will be implemented without systemic reform. Xcalibur (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure 4chan (and other such groups) would agree to the "votes decide content" method... Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Accusation of making "false claims"

Just a little notification: Should NorthBySouthBaranof or anyone else here care to read my last replies to the above thread that I started, you'll have to go on "View history" first and look at the revisions that have been undid by a certain manchild here who apparently cannot tolerate any criticism or opposing opinions, or just doesn't like the taste of his own medicine very much. Since I've experienced first hand what the "discussion" culture here looks like and realized it's completely pointless to continue this as long as condescending people like Jorm censor any reply they can't counter, this will be the last you read from me here. Hopefully in the future there will be more unbiased and mature admins responsible for articles like this. Billy7 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Have a nice evening, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercedes Carrera

GAMERGATE’S MERCEDES CARRERA ARRESTED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF A YOUNG CHILD https://www.newsweek.com/mercedes-carrera-gamergate-melinda-smith-actress-rancho-cucamonga-1322242 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This part might be useful for RS:

"Prompted by false allegations made by an ex-boyfriend of game developer Zoe Quinn in 2014, Gamergate activists harassed women game developers and video game analysts. While adherents claimed Gamergate was a crusade against journalistic bias they saw in games journalism, several of their principal claims were false, including that a game developer had sex with a game reviewer in exchange for a favorable review (the site ran no review of her game)."  -ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow. While that story is stomach-churning, more grist for the mill. I'm not sure it's needed anywhere right at the moment, but good to have. Thanks FR. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly-useful CJR piece.

This piece devotes a large amount of text to it, discussing its nature and aftermath and particularly connecting it to the origins of the modern anti-progressive YouTube network. It feels like we could update or expand some parts of the article based on coverage like this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of making "false claims"

This is a waste of everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It says in the article: "Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims." - As long as there is no evidence that the alleged victims actually faked some of these "harassments", it cannot be proven or disproven if those claims by Gamergate supporters are 100% "false" or not, so just using the word "falsely" as if they were already completely disproven makes absolutely no sense. I suggest the removal of the word "falsely" in that sentence, so we can add at least a little tad of objectivity to this utterly biased article. Billy7 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Billy7 -- in this case, it seems to me your quarrel is more with the sources cited for that claim than anything else. Moreover, as I read it, the adverb "frequently" modifies "falsely claiming" thus meaning nothing has to be shown to a level of 100%. At this point, I think the sentence is pretty good as it stands, so I would oppose the change, but reasonable minds may differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know which sources you mean, since that sentence or paragraph doesn't have one of those little numbers pointing to a source (sorry, I don't know what those are called). Even if you could look at it like you said, with the "frequently" modifying it enough for the statement to make sense, I'd still say the wording kinda distorts it in a way that would make most or close to all readers think there were ONLY false claims of that nature. If the word "falsely" is dropped, the sentence would be just about "claims", which could be - partially or completely - true or false. That's a lot more neutral and basically still states the same thing, except it doesn't solely focus on proven false claims. Billy7 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The claims are false. Therefore, we'll call them false. We state facts as facts, not opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? ALL of such claims? There is no possible way to ever prove that. If anything, you can prove that some specific claims in that direction were false. If you just generally say "they are false", you are basically saying ALL such claims are false and there is no way any "victim" could have possibly ever written such a harassment mail herself, which you'd have to prove, which, again, is absolutely impossible. Either specify the exact few couple of claims that were proven false, or say there were "some" false claims, or just mention "claims" in general without judging if they were false or not if you want to include the entirety of such claims. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You have things entirely backward. It's not up to anyone to prove a negative. It's incumbent on the person making the claim to support it with actual evidence. It's not up to anyone to disprove unevidenced allegations. Please read the sources in this article and move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

They're false claims. The word is going to stay. --Jorm (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See above reply to NorthBySouthBaranof. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Billy7 -- the claims are not cited in the lead (we generally call those little numbers "citations" or "footnotes"), but if you continue reading to the relevant portion in the main body of the article, you'll find that claim sourced to the Washington Post and an academic journal. If you have other sources, by all means, point us to them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, footnotes, I knew that one but forgot about it. I found the part you mentioned, and like I said, it's fine to talk about specific false claims, but the part I have issues with makes it sound like all such claims are false, it's just a wording issue. Check my above reply to NorthBySouthBaranof to see what I mean exactly. Billy7 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any victim of Gamergate "manufactured" harassment targeting themselves. Thus, all such claims are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You're not saying anything of value, little gator. I'm going to close this as no-action soon.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comicsgate

Comicsgate has its own article now; it's linked in the see-also link here, but not otherwise mentioned. Its page has some of the same sourcing issues that plagued this article early on, but some of the sources there may be useful here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality, again.

Nothing is going to come of leaving this open except a pile-on for a new user. If they can come up with sources, we can talk then. Otherwie: this isn't a forum.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article seems to be almost entirely concerned with the harassment involved in gamergate, to the exclusion of other views. Lead sentence included.Rody1990 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly every source we can find says that gamergate was about harassment and any other positions were smokescreens for the harassment. Feel free to provide reliable sources that say otherwise, and if you can, we can make changes. Otherwise: there's nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources though, despite you dismissing the claims and its sources to not meet WP:RS, but this is a point that has been made too often already.Rody1990 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then bring us the sources we crave. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bring us a single reliable source. ONE. JUST ONE. No one has before, despite many claims to the contrary. --Jorm (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting history. No edit activity since 2011, then shows up just to chastise us about this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There may come a day when the nattering numpties of YouTube are considered authoritative as to matters both moral and factual. But it is not today, and it will be over my dead pixels. Cheers, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, rude much, though the lack of activity is true. I wouldn't look to my talk page for that, I use that even less than the rare times I contribute to any articlesRody1990 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I fear you'll find that editors have somewhat frayed patience when it comes to this article, especially where overly general critiques are concerned. I would encourage you, however, to make whatever suggestions you think are backed by reliable sources. We're nice in cases like that, I promise. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious

Just closing this immediately. Provide sources or go away.--Jorm (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is extremely tendentious, only telling less than half of the story. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to operate as an encyclopedia, adhering to the facts, instead of siding with the one or the other party in a conflict. I arrived here by chance, while researching something entirely different, and I took it as a chance to get a succinct summary just to refresh my memory, since it's been ages since this was going on. I encourage staff, since editors are banned from this article, to research the topic in its fullest, and re-write the article as an actual encyclopedic piece. In the meantime, I invite everyone who wants to know what GG was actually about to google it up; there are several reddit posts with recaps and even comprehensive retellings. GamerGate did, first and foremost, protest censorship and political agendas inserted in games "translations". By the way, kudos to the editors who allowed an allegedly encyclopedic media to become house of opinionated webzine articles. 190 (Trolls of any race are not welcome) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Times piece 5 years on

Seems weird to say this was 5 years ago, but apparently it was. The New York Times has done a look back.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/15/opinion/what-is-gamergate.html

Could be a useful source.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to add that (been staying away from this article purposely) but saw that NYTimes linked from this appropriate article as well that should be incorporated. The Verge. --Masem (t) 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw it, but was a bit hesitant since it's an opinion piece. It could be worth mentioning, though. It and the Verge ref capture some of the long-term culture war changes that have been discussed in relation to the topic, at least. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It's actually multiple pieces, just published under a large umbrella by the opinion desk. Individual parts of it should be taken at their own merits.--Jorm (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns for Quinn

Quinn uses they/them pronouns, so the article needs to reflect that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the improper pronouns, but I'm not sure if I got them all. More eyes appreciated. Would have posted this earlier, had some trouble with an edit filter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think all are fixed so I removed the tag. starship .paint (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"The blog falsely implied"

This line seems to be incorrect: "The blog falsely implied that Quinn had gotten a favorable review of Depression Quest because of their sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a video-game reviewer for the website Kotaku." The blog post doesn't mention reviews or even coverage. Mracidglee (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see the “EDIT” section under TL;DR towards the very top. There the author essentially agrees that this was a plausible reading of the foregoing version. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that, he does say that a certain timeline could have been inferred. However, the blog says nothing about reviews - probably because none existed. So I don't see how the author in good faith could be construed as implying that. Mracidglee (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We have to rely on the interpretation of secondary sources (and the line you're objecting to has five academic sources, so it's one of the most well-cited lines in the article); your personal opinion on "how the author in good faith could be construed as implying that" can't be used to contradict those. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. Nevertheless, when a clearly readable primary source is available and the secondary sources do not themselves provide references to or quotes of the claimed implication, shouldn't BLP still dictate the removal of this accusation? Also, I count four sources, two of which do not seem to have gone through any sort of academic filter. Should those even be included? Mracidglee (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"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 evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature." That is not the same as saying it's untrue, nor is it an absence of implication (intentional or not). Koncorde (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is very much the same as saying he doesn't know. And the original post didn't mention anything about conflicts of interest. My suggestion for improved language: "A typo in the original blog post led some to incorrectly infer that Quinn had gotten a favorable review of Depression Quest because of their sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a video-game reviewer for the website Kotaku." Mracidglee (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose that. It's not what is found in the reliable sources (to my knowledge), and the typo was with regard to timing--I think this language doesn't accurately capture what happened. Consensus could certainly be against me. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"I have no evidence" suggests that there may be evidence, but he doesn't have it that there was a sexual nature to a conflict of interest. His couching of the phrase as "If" vaguely hand waves refers only to prior to April. This is the dictionary definition of an implication, especially when taken in the context of the wider Zoe Post which references things such as "that means she was having sex with Josh Boggs right before he hired her". Most sources and even the opinion of the wider Gamergate movement was that Gjoni was implying that there was something unethical going on. Koncorde (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the reason for mentioning April is that the last thing Grayson wrote about Quinn was on March 31. Mracidglee (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Except his words say "I have no evidence". Not that there is a lack of it, or that it wasn't, just that he had no evidence. The implication is clear, and indeed it is what the secondary sources picked up on and it ended up being central to a lot of the Gamergate "ethics" mixed with 5 Guys diatribe. Koncorde (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, when a clearly readable primary source is available... No, because WP:NOR is a foundational policy, and reading primary sources in a way that contradicts secondary sources fails NOR. The whole "verifiability, not truth" line. Guettarda (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that WP:NOR does not say "never read primary sources". It says, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only 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.". Just as we can ctl-F on the Declaration of Independence and see that it doesn't mention kumquats, we can ctl-F through The blog post and see that reviews aren't mentioned. Moreover, we can look at the secondary sources to see that no review of Depression Quest by Grayson ever existed, and consequently there was no reason for Gjoni to make that implication.Mracidglee (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool story. Come back with a reliable source that supports your interpretation and maybe something can be done. Until then, this is waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you are extrapolating from a lack of something in the source, which for me, runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. But perhaps more importantly for me, we have an apology there which basically says "hey, the blog could have been read in manner X" and reliable sources that say "the blog said X." For me it's not a close call. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not so much extrapolating from a lack of something in the source as I am pointing out an easily detectable lack of something in the source. I'm not adding anything extra. An apology and correction about a possible misinterpretation to me implies a lack of intent to imply something... and because of BLP, and the fact that the secondary sources are not known to be psychic, the "falsely implied" part should be removed. BLP does apply to Gjoni, correct? Mracidglee (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Gjoni has acknowledged that he intended to imply some kind of corruption: From DailyDot:"Gjoni claimed in one of the blog posts that Quinn had slept with a gaming journalist. According to what Gjoni says is an unedited transcript of the BuzzFeed interview, he originally added the journalist angle to the blog not because he overly cared about that fact, but because he knew gamers would.". They link to the transcript itself. Nblund^talk 01:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that passage: "I dropped in that one of the people she’d cheated on me with was a journalist because of a vague discomfort with my observations of how close journalists were to devs in the scene. I’ve had to deal with ethical issues in journalism before, but games journalism had always struck me as too trivial to bother with, so it wasn’t in any way a primary concern at the time. More importantly, it allowed me another anchor to refocus discussion toward if things got too toxic. I knew it would be important to gamers, even if it wasn’t important to me." This seems much more general than the claim in the sentence we're talking about. BTW, should that raw interview be considered a reliable source? Mracidglee (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not offering it as a source for Wikipedia, I'm offering it as a source for you. There is no other "ethical issue" to speak of. The implication was obvious from the post, which is why virtually everyone (including everyone involved in Gamergate) read it as insinuating corruption. If there were any lingering doubts about whether Gjoni just "accidentally" implied this, we have him admitting in an interview that he understood and intended that reading. He's said this more than once. You're entitled to extend him the unearned benefit of a doubt, but we defer to RSes here. Nblund^talk 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's one of the current RS's: "While Gjoni does not directly accuse Quinn of using sex to advance her career, he implies that her relationships with the man for whom she later worked and a gaming journalist may have been ethically murky. [....] gamers have accused Quinn of trading sexual favors for career advancement from industry professionals and positive reviews from gaming journalists. Despite the lack of evidence for either of these claims—again, Gjoni’s post never makes either allegation, and the gaming journalist he names never reviewed Quinn’s game, Depression Quest—the idea has taken firm hold within the gaming community." Also, here is Grayson on the subject: "That's the funny part: It didn't! people just kinda extrapolated that from, er, nothing [....] that guy is a liar for many other reasons, but not that one. I do not believe he ever said anything about a review." Mracidglee (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he doesn't directly say that, but he implies it. The same author, less than a month later simply says he accused her of "trading sexual favors for career advancement". Subsequent coverage has found that Gjoni played a more active role in fomenting that conspiracy theory than he let on, and his complaints about journalistic ethics are incoherent without that accusation. Nblund^talk 17:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so perhaps the language should instead be "The blog post implied without evidence that Quinn had traded sexual favors for career advancement."? This would resolve the nonexistent review problem. Mracidglee (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources seem to have come down on this claim (or implication, if you like) as "false," and not "no evidence" without a particular truth value. As such, I would disagree with that wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

EC That's just a more vague way of referencing the same allegation.The simple answer to the issue you've raised here is "this is what the sources say" and leave it at that. In fairness, if I actually believed that the RSes had it wrong, I might be open to sort of hedging a bit. But they didn't. The nonexistent review "problem" is only a problem if you operate under the implausible assumption that Gjoni was attempting to give an honest account of his relationship. His "typo" remained uncorrected for over a week while the allegations spread, he was an active participant in advancing the misconception, and he acknowledged that he was aware of how it would be read by gamers even when he was writing it. Nblund^talk 20:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason it's a problem is that you would have to believe that Gjoni implied the existence of a easily provably nonexistent review in his original post, even after reading the post and finding nothing about a review. The typo was regarding when Quinn and Grayson had (perhaps) first had sex; since no review existed before or after that, it shouldn't matter. WRT RS's accepting that it is possible to prove a negative, perhaps this could be accommodated by phrasing it thus: "The blog post implied that Quinn had traded sexual favors for career advancement, but it has been decided that this is categorically false." Mracidglee (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, the existence of the apology makes this a total non-starter for me; the author himself admits that an inference could have been drawn. Whether it was intentional or not is for the reliable sources, in my book. So I would keep the current wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If we look at the listed sources which actually underwent peer review, we see that they do not have the missing review problem. The Race and Gender article says, "Gjoni insinuated that Quinn had received favorable press coverage", and the Crime, Justice, and Crime, Justice, and Social Media says "The clear inference of Gjoni's article was that Quinn's success as a developer was due to sexual favors." And again, the apology also doesn't mention a review. So if you are basing what the text should look like on Gjoni's apology and the reliable sources, then the word "review" should not be in there. Mracidglee (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with changing the word "review" for "press coverage", but the remainder of the sentence is consistent with those sources. Nblund^talk 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mracidglee, my apologies for reverting your change, and I understand why you made it. But the fact remains that if, as I believe, there was belief in a non-existent review, then the wording is appropriate, at least potentially. As ever, if consensus is against me, I won't complain--but I think this is one where you need to get something approaching consensus before making the change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

My reading is that the non-existent "review" and Grayson's March 31 story kind of got conflated in people's minds. "Favorable coverage" is broad enough to capture both. Looking it over, I think the "favorable press coverage" wording might obscure the more important part of the implication, which was that Quinn traded sex for favorable coverage from Grayson himself. I would suggest "The blog falsely implied that Quinn had slept with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the website Kotaku, in exchange for favorable coverage of their game Depression Quest" Nblund^talk 20:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I like this. It's explicit and doesn't try to diminish or hide the truth while still being accurate to the sources.--Jorm (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! I would self-revert, but I don't think that wording captures the quid pro quo aspect. Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Added to the entry. (and fixed my pronoun slip-up) Nblund^talk 21:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A section of how GG predicated/mirrored the rise of the alt/far-right

I feel that this would be a non-controversial element to add (in that it reflects RSes) relate to how alt-right/far-right & Trump-based politics were all mirroring the approach and events of GG. (I've been touching other articles and reminded me this keeps coming up within the sourcing I find). Sources in this include:

The Guardian (already in article)
Salon
NYtimes (multiple opinions, linked above)
Kill All Normies (more on general 4chan culture into alt-right, but still GG sits in that, used often over at alt-right)

I'm sure there are others, but feel that given that alt-right calls out GG as the point of emergence of the alt-right movement, that there should be a bit broader section here (likely under "Social, cultural, and political impact"). --Masem (t) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Woof. I think that's definitely a reach if only because it's approaching synthy levels extrapolating and conflating the Quinn related controversy with things like KotakuInAction, 8chan, Pol etc which while a reaction to such a thing and may have some.overlap are definitely not fundamentally the same thing.

If this article was about Gamergate the group, or named individuals, or referenced the specifics involved then maaaybe at a stretch some mention might be warranted, but I would be very wary of making this all mesh together like some uber-conspiracy. Koncorde (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely something sources have commented on; I suggested adding it before, but there's more sources available now. The question is how much focus to give it, though my intuition is that it's only going to become more important to the topic as time passes (with the potential to eventually become the most important aspect - if it isn't already, which is a possibility if we just look at recent coverage.) By my reading, the key point in a lot of these sources is that it was the tactics that were used to make Gamergate blow up that became what would now be described as the alt-right toolkit (partially because many of the same figures were involved.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That's how I read these too. (there's some aspects around figures like Milo and Bannon allegedly bringing those tactics to larger politics, but I don't think it should go that deep). It is the tactics of how GG was seen to have manipulated the discussions that are being mirrored by the alt/far right today that is the point of these articles. It might only need 2-3 sentences. --Masem (t) 15:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, I would be wary about the lengths we go to. 1. if it is included it must be included in the authors voice. It is their opinion that there is a link of trend, or that "the smaller but equally American community of video game players was torn apart as the same bitter white guys (and their sad suck-up female supporters) lost their minds because some women had opinions about video games" (which overlooks the root of the issue as the schism in the Atheist / Skeptic community following the Atheism+ debacle, and the sudden success of Sarkeesian in the aftermath as a reaction against those skeptics who oppose feminism). That right wing / libertarian trolls like Milo were involved is somewhat secondary as they were not Gamergate, but instead they were hangers-on riding its coat tails who came to define a lot of Gamergate (and are the holdovers to the alt-right). 2. We should be clear about the individuals involved who are common between the two, and why their tactics are common. Again, this refers to the obvious Milo / Breitbart relationship. Accusations should be clearly meted out rather than generalised.

However I can't help but feel we really have news articles discussing two different phenomena that could just as easily be summed up by pointing at any number of "culture war" events, and as much as they are on about the same underlying concept how they arrive at the conclusion differs (For instance Salon effectively tells us the Alt-Right sucks as did Gamergate, ergo they're the same. The other says the media is ill equipped to tackle misinformation, ergo the relative success of both and how they are inoculated to the truth). It would be very easy to synth those articles together and we shouldn't. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are there to write something on this. I think the best way would be to add a new subsection in "Social, cultural, and political impact". Once such a subsection has been created, I would encourage editors to work constructively to improve it.

Given that the topic is controversial, it is probably best if editors wait until some kind of consensus is reached on this topic in the body of the article, before adding a brief summary of that consensus to the lead.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The GG/alt-right connection is the topic of at least one academic work published so far:

Condis, Megan (2018). "From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right". Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture. University of Iowa Press. ISBN 978-1-60-938565-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
See also Vox ("Gamergate foreshadowed the alt-right’s rise — and created an unsettling template for the movement to expand") and CNET ("Soon, the mob's attention turned to a world much wider than video games ... By the time the 2016 presidential election moved into its final phrase, pitting Clinton against Donald Trump, these mobs' favorite tactics were well-established"). Definitely worth a mention, I think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality???

Bias blah blah blah. Nothing actionable, as usual. --Jorm (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Around 2014, I was a close follower of the GG movement, and I remember being incredibly disappointed with the way it was covered in the mainstream media, and that includes Wikipedia. I haven't thought about it much since, but I was recently linked to this article, only to be horrified to find that it is just as biased as ever. The first sentence alone is problematic:

"The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate."

Harassment campaign? Really? I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to use inflammatory language like this. While it is true that many opposing Gamergate would refer to it as a "harassment campaign," absolutely no one within the movement itself, or even someone from the outside as a supporter/follower, would use this terminology, and it definitely should NOT be used in an encyclopedic article, because it smacks of bias. It's the same reason the article on Donald Trump doesn't begin "Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, neo-Nazi who lied and cheated his way into the office of President of the United States." Because while there are certainly a minority of people who feel that way, these words do not represent the facts. He would not describe himself that way. His base/supporters would not describe him that way. The same principle should apply here. Use language that is not incendiary and that everyone can agree on. If I could rewrite this article's opening sentence, I'd probably put it something like this.

"The Gamergate controversy was an online backlash to a perceived lack of ethics in video game journalism. While proponents of the movement argue that it arose solely out of moral concern, opponents have referred to it as a harassment campaign."

Bingo. So the opening sentence is two sentences now, but at least it presents both sides of the argument, and does not present either side as though it is the objective, unvarnished truth. Anyone who reads the above should be able to agree with it, because it merely presents the facts: how people on one side have described the movement, and how people on the other side have. It's not nearly as horribly one-sided as the current opening sentence.

I could go through this entire article and point out all the ways in which it is disgustingly biased, but I really don't have the time or patience to do so. I just hope that at least one administrator (because as it stands, they are the only ones who can edit this article) will read this and heed my advice, because I think a massive rewrite of this article as a whole is needed. I have always upheld WP:NPOV as a pillar of Wikipedia, and a large part of what makes it so great, and it does seem like this policy is applied most of the time. It's just a disappointment that for a small minority of articles, especially those concerning controversial topics, such as this one, the discussion seems to have been dominated entirely by one side, and the page itself fully protected so that the other side has little platform to voice their grievances. I want to see this article improved. Come on, Wikipedia. I know you're better than this.

Alex Devens (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is that you were a supporter of said harassment campaign and are sad that we're calling it what it was. Unfortunately for you, the cited reliable sources here are controlling, and your personal opinion that all of those sources are wrong is utterly irrelevant. If you have reliable sources about Gamergate that aren't covered here, you're welcome to present them. Otherwise, there really isn't anything to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

investigations records released

Just adding a new section since the above section seems to have a hostile tone in it, but the article has been updated to include the records of the investigation have been released, which may or may not affect the tone in which this article should be written, or if it should be rewritten to be more neutral or include the evidence found within the investigation reports that were just released today. Also might need to add that tag to the page that it involves something current since the investigation records were just released and will likely be researched over the weekend with many people checking in to this page to see if it is neutral and/or factual on the law enforcement section. shadzar-talk 05:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Enough. This is not a forum to air grievances, and years of discussion have led to the conclusion that Gamergate was a harassment campaign. WP:NPOV is clear. If you wish to submit specific additions or changes to the article, start a new section with your proposed change & sources to back it up. Per WP:FORUM I'm closing this. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Like all deeply polarizing issues, Gamer Gate has given rise to widely different narratives. The article as it is gives undue weight to one of these narratives (the "it is a case of Online Harassment" angle) and barely touches upon the other points of view, relegating them to an "Ethics in journalism complaints" section where they are hardly given a fair hearing. The article needs to be re-written entirely in a manner which clearly emphasizes the difference in narratives and gives them equal weight. The reputation of Wikipedia as a politically neutral organization dedicated to knowledge is at stake.

For the moment there is just no consensus on what exactly happened during Gamer Gate and it will probably take many decades before a consensus may be reached. In other words, it will be the job of future historians reviewing the early XXIst century culture wars. In the meantime, the only honest thing to do is to acknowledge the lack of consensus and give the different narratives equal weight. Fi11222 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are different narratives, but neutrality isn't formed by giving equal weight to each side. That creates a different imbalance, where minority perspectives are given undue weight - the cliched example is that it isn't neutral to give as much emphasis to flat earthers as we do to the (vast) majority who know that the Earth is round(ish). Similarly, while those within GamerGate have a particular perspective on what it is about, those outside formed a very different view, and that became the majority viewpoint. Thus in the article we need to emphasise the majority view as expressed in reliable sources, and cover the alternative only to the extent that it is represented in similarly reliable sources. - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to make a clarifying addition to what Bilby wrote - the "majority view" means the majority view in reliable sources. CIreland (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that this is a majority view. How do you measure majority in such a case? Besides, the idea that there are any "reliable" sources in this situation is not reasonable. All sources, including major press outlets have a vested interest in this kind of controversy, in particular because the honesty of journalists has been called into question during the controversy itself. Academics for their part, at least those who have taken an interest in this dispute, act no better than activists and cannot therefore be considered to be neutral (see e.g. the paper by Megan Condis referenced just above this section). As a result, this is one of the rare cases in which there are just no sources which can be considered reliable or impartial. We are in the heat of a dispute, the outcome of which is just not decided yet. Acting as if one side of the argument has prevailed and represents the "majority" is just a partisan position and unworthy of Wikipedia.

As you have probably noticed, there is a culture war going on, the intensity of which has risen significantly over the past years. Any article that assumes that any of the issues pertaining to the culture war has been resolved conclusively is just dragging Wikipedia into the fray and making it a party to the said culture War. That is NOT what Wikipedia aims to be. Fi11222 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

We go by the sources - thus the majority view is that expressed in the majority of the reliable sources. You can argue that all of the media and the academics are opposed to GamerGate, and are therefore biased, but ultimately they are all we have to go on. Wikipedia can only reflect what others say. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Before you do that, you have to demonstrate that the sources that you use are reliable in that particular instance. Sources can be reliable for a great variety of things but not for certain topics; in particular those in which they have a vested interest. That is why judges recuse themselves from cases which they have a relation to. There is a passage in WP:reliable sources which says that if no reliable sources can be found for a certain topic then Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. I believe that, in the case of Gamer Gate, this is pretty much the situation. So there are only two choices: 1) You consider Gamer Gate as an undecided cultural/social controversy and you treat all sources as partisan, reporting all the different narrative on an equal footing 2) You delete the article. Otherwise, you are just turning Wikipedia into a thinly veiled soap box for some activist propaganda or other. This does a lot of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. I think there is a serious case to be made for recommending this article for deletion. Fi11222 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Or choice 3, we take note that very similar arguments to yours are well-represented throughout the archives of this talk page and have failed to gain consensus support, watch the same thing happen this time around, and make no major changes to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The situation here is completely biased. The article is protected in such a way that very few people are able to express their opinion. Unprotect it and see what happens. The very fact that this article needs to be "protected" is a clear sign that no consensus exists. Fi11222 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bit late to the party aren't you? It's protected because of disruptive editing. Not by those adding fair or balanced comment, or requesting even better sourcing or citations, but by people complaining about not letting Thunderfoot videos be allowed as sources or twitter feeds of quote mined content, selectively edited videos, or flame wars on reddit being considered reliable citations for extreme claims. I personally have no issue with discussing Gamergates supposed claims to ethics etc as part of a movement, but under no circumstances can the sequence of events not stress that the significant majority of the efforts on their parts was the harassment of Quinn, and prolonging harassment of Sarkeesian. If there are any reliable sources you can identify, anywhere, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fi11222: You're right - reliable sources operate within their own set of biases, and no source is truly unbiased. And when only one side of the argument dominates the reporting by respectable journalistic outfits and by academia, Wikipedia's articles are going to reflect that bias. Check out Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's a problem, but the alternative of deleting even more of the coverage of huge swaths of the world, which would only exacerbate the bias. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

When systemic bias is being recognized, as you seem to be doing, isn't it a better idea to simply rewrite the article in a neutral manner and just list the different narratives? Fi11222 (talk)

The article needs to be re-written entirely in a manner which clearly emphasizes the difference in narratives and gives them equal weight is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE, as is your suggestion that we should consider all of academia (!) unreliable and treat all culture-war disputes as being between equally-supported sides. There is, in fact, a general consensus on what happened among high-quality reliable sources; there are facts that are reasonably well-established, and analysis that comes from people with extensive expertise and reputation in the field. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The way the article is written at the moment is an abuse of WP:FALSEBALANCE. If it is called "false" balance it is because there are times when real balance is actually needed. In the current culture war (especially post 2016), it is clear the all of Academia and most of the press have become partisan entities in the said war. They are on one side of it and as such loose their credentials as "high quality" or "reputable" sources. If Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge this state of fact, it simply means that it too has become a partisan entity and risks becoming a casualty in the culture war. That would be regrettable. Fi11222 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the excitement has died down is a good reason to re-open this subject in a more balanced and calmer manner. Gamer Gate is in the process of becoming history and the best history is done when passions no longer get in the way. I disagree that the most important facts were the "harrassment" events. And most Gamer Gate insiders disagree too. They would say that the essential story was a dissatisfaction with gaming industry journalism and that the harassment of Quinn and others was caused by a small minority of disgruntled gamers which were unconnected with the main group of people who were questioning the way gaming journalism worked and the relation it had with game studios. I do not know who is right. But if you claim that "in no circumstance" you are prepared to accept that the harassment aspect was not as essential as it is portrayed in the current article, you are just displaying bias. How can you demonstrate that "the significant majority of the efforts on their part" was the harassment? How do you measure that? Of course, the press latched on to that aspect because it is sensational. A headline like "Two poor female game-developpers harassed online" will obviously get more clicks than "A group of nobody gamers have an obscure fight with game journalists". And then who would not expect a whole truckload of so called "academics" to jump on such a band-wagon? But what does that prove? There is absolutely no reason to believe that coverage by such "sources" would be unbiased. So what really happened? Was the harassment central to Gamer Gate or was it a certainly reprehensible but peripheral aspect of it? I do not know. To be fair, nobody knows and there are widely differing accounts. Many of those seem to be in good faith. The current article is giving a bad name to Wikipedia. It gives credence to claims that it has become a partisan propaganda outlet. This is a serious problem. Like every Wikipedia user, I have repeatedly been asked to donate. My first impulse was always to do it. But because of article like this, I never did. Fi11222 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It's cool that you and Alfalfa and the rest of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club claim it was about journalism, but it's fairly clear that this was complete bullshit. No one - literally no one - believes the "ethics in game journalism" line, so you can stop with that. Garmergate was about harassment - that's what nearly every source says. Until and unless you can find other sources, this is it. Sorry you were suckered. --Jorm (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is not a partisan statement? Just by itself this gem justifies that the article be rewritten enirely. Fi11222 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am absolutely, 100%, entirely partisan and biased towards facts and reliable sources and absolutely against assholes and harrassement and misogyny. You got me!--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Asshole" is an insult. Saying that you are "against harrassment and misogyny" is a partisan statemnt in this context because it paints the Gamer Gate people as being for "harrassment and misoginy" which they obviously deny. I am against harassment and misogyny too but it is not the point. One narrative about Gamer Gate absolutely wants to make it about "harassment and misogyny" while others claim it was about something else entirely. Why would one side be automatically right? Fi11222 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that my previous post was removed and I reinstated it. How rude is this? This is a talk section. Why should I not be allowed to reply to the previous post? Are you trying to prove that Wikipedia has indeed become a totalitarian propaganda outlet where dissent is censored? You are doing a convincing job of it with this kind of thing. Fi11222 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Unlike other web sites you might be used to, Wikipedia's talk pages are not unrestricted discussion forums. Talk page posts that veer away from improving the article and into soapboxing about the issue in general may be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My post contains only material that is about the article and it discusses what to do with it. If you disagree with it, fine. If you suppress it, you are just confirming that all is not right here. Fi11222 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages should be used for proposing actionable changes to the article - ie posting a potential reliable source, and posting wording supported by that reliable source. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have seen many instances in which talk pages were used to propose entire rewrites of pages or even their deletion. This is certainly not an unheard of proposition. Fi11222 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrator note @Fi11222: your participation on this article talk page has become increasingly tendentious. There is a limit to the circularity that is going to be permitted here. El_C 18:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A reply to the Admin threat that was just added to this talk section: Look at what just happened here. I am a single individual expressing a dissenting opinion. I did not bring a posse of like minded friends to support me. I am just expressing my personal opinion in good faith. This is what the talk pages are for, aren't they? Now what did happen in response to my initial post? A group of people, obviously coordinated, came in a short span of time to oppose my point of view and create the impression that their is a consensus in their favor. Several of them were rude and one of them summarily cancelled one of my posts. These are intimidation tactics. Not people discussing in good faith. A debate cannot be settled in such a short span of time. People who summon their friends to support them are simply trying to stifle debate. There is no honest attempt at exchanging views here. Just a will to silence dissent. This is the definition of tendentious. Fi11222 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

One more threat has been sent to my personal page. What kind of behavior is this? It really smells of totalitarian impulses Fi11222 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that this latest threat was sent to me by the author of the most tendentious, disrespectful and obviously partisan post above: "It's cool that you and Alfalfa and the rest of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club claim ..." Shameful disrespect and obvious bias all rolled into one disgusting phrase. Is that what Wikipedia has become? Fi11222 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I just received one more threat on my personal page. This time, I am being asked to "assume good faith". And what about my good faith? Why am I accused of "disruptive" editing and of being "tendentious"? All my posts above have been in good faith and in a measured tone. I never dismissed anyone nor used rude language. I have replied to the arguments offered with reasonable arguments of my own. I do hold a dissenting opinion on this article. Is that "disruptive" or "tendentious" in itself? Fi11222 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely as nothere. In a deleted post he stated that this was an experiment, that we were in a Cold War, and what looks very much like a death threat. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Way to prove everyone here right. "We're not about harassment but I will fucking kill you if you don't do what I say."--Jorm (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More nuanced than that. It's been rv/deleted but it was more or less if I see any of you in person someone will due. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw it. It was specific enough that I wonder if law enforcement shouldn't be involved. Some of us are pretty open about ourselves.--Jorm (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I messaged Wikipedia's Emergency contact team yesterday, as soon as I saw that. I think we can let them handle it from there, as they have more information than we do about the user's location & potential other accounts. Right now, WP:DENY is more relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Article ownership

I encourage all editors to be mindful of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR with respect to this article.-Splinemath (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Because? Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"The controversy has been described" weasel words?

The initial sentence of the last paragraph of the lead is weasel worded, and should be tagged as such until cleaned up. Oathed (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested improvement? Any particular reason you consider it weaselly? Koncorde (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Better-sourced lede?

The opening paragraphs of the article are unsourced. The remainder of the article looks like it's well-sourced and concise, but the opening paragraphs seem like it's a lot of original research and can be summarized better. The Comicsgate article's lede is a good example of what the opening of this article should be like. Sk5893 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, the lede does not have citations inside. The lede summarizes the article; the citations are down there.--Jorm (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Even less neutral than the last time I looked upon this article.

No actionable changes requested, no reliable sources provided. WP:NOTFORUM. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know the article is anti-gamergate, but honestly, it goes past not being neutral, and into actively calling out people who agreed with GG as being conspiracy theorists and racist bigots in its lede. Even if you find the POV perfectly fine, some of it seems uncalled for.Rody1990 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Using her vs they

This might sound mundane, but should we use "they/them/their" or "her" in this section?

Quinn documented the harassment received and spoke openly to the media about it, which led to an even greater intensity of abuse against them, including the posting of their home address online.12 They ultimately fled their house out of fear for their safety.4 13

The sources use "her". But User:ValarianB argues that "It is quite obvious who "their" meant, as Quinn's pronouns of preference are, I believe, they/them" Should we add a note on the article that points that out? Using "their" without that context sounds nonsensical and is confusing. Pancho507 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We already discussed this a zillion times and we will continue to use their preferred pronouns.--Jorm (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it does read awkwardly and a note or rephrasing it entirely might help. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any way to rephrase it that would make it less awkward to folks, and a note would just be drawing even more attention to it. Singular "they" is perfectly acceptable, even if some folks may not be used to it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of ways, the obvious being reducing the dependency on singular "they" where it being used with more than one possible subject in a sentence. The idea that the media had its home address posted to the internet while amusing is going to be distracting to any reader. Basic rephrasing could be as below:

"Quinn documented the harassment received and spoke openly to the media about it. This led to an even greater intensity of abuse, including the posting of Quinns home address online. The threats were taken seriously enough that Quinn ultimately fled the house for their own safety."

Simples. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, all you're doing is cutting down on the instances of "they/their." That doesn't solve the issue if the problem is with the use of "they/their" in the first place, which was the original concern. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Did I not say rephrasing it entirely? And I am not sure the issue was ever with the use of they, but the way the paragraph was put together by whoever just did a superficial find and replace without re-composing it for clarity. Koncorde (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Using "their" without that context sounds nonsensical and is confusing. Pancho507 (talk) 12:06 pm, Today (UTC−4)

That was the original concern. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to editing for clarity and sentence flow, but the "concern" expressed in the initial post of this section does not match the original action of the editor, which was an act of misgendering the article subject. ValarianB (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't read the edit history, and gave benefit of the doubt that the issue was one of clarity due to poor writing and not an issue with their/they as a construct. Koncorde (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

one-sided coverage, and how to fix it

Some time ago, I came to this article proposing changes. I had dug up a handful of sources of varying reliability, which I'll cite again for reference: [1] [2] [3] [4][5] [6] My first thought was to split the article along pro and anti viewpoints, which seemed like an intuitive way to describe a controversy which never quite settled down. after all, based on that small selection, and other references out there, it's evident that there's an opposing minority view, and other facets to cover besides harrassment. even hostile sources agree that ethics complaints and progressive politics had something to do with it, even if it brushes those claims aside. However, WP is in fact built off Reliable Sources, and the RS are overwhelmingly against Gamergate. partly this has to do with the fact that it was an insurgent movement against media outlets, so naturally there would be a conflict of interest. still, we have to follow the established structure, not create our own, and I realized another approach is needed.

Currently, this article is overwhelmingly focused on the harassment narrative, presumably because the RS are as well. other aspects are only addressed briefly, and then only to be refuted. there's much more to cover here: the conflict of hobbyists vs political ideologues, ethics concerns, 'gamers are dead' articles which escalated matters, #NotYourShield, GameJournoPros, and so on. How can we expand coverage, while still reflecting the RS?

My current idea is to work within the current article rather than overhauling it. there can be a new section, maybe called 'Gamergate perspectives' for documenting GG ideology, in a way that the insurgents themselves would likely agree with. But here's a key point: instead of documenting an alternative version of what GG *is* (which was my original thought), rather, we can document what GG *claims to be*. that should provide much broader RS support, because as I said, the numerous RS tend to agree on the claims made by the GG side, even while vociferously disagreeing with them. In addition to a new section, we could rename the current 'ethics in journalism complaints' section. it briefly states the GG position in a single paragraph, with all the rest of the content arguing against. a better title might be 'responses to Gamegate claims' or similar, and it could go after the 'GG views' section I'm proposing.

I know this is very contentious, and many people find it hard to be impartial about this stuff. However, I'd like to emphasize that this is an encyclopedia, and the purpose is to be informative, not to denounce the evils of Gamergate. in fact, the current article seems like a blatant violation of WP:RGW. Hopefully, expanding coverage can fix this problem, which many others have commented on.

I just thought I'd float my ideas before making any big changes. feedback is welcome. Xcalibur (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is NPOV and RS. Reliable sources do detail Gamergate arguments, but in the context of dismissing them for a variety of reasons. Sources also tend to describe those arguments as disingenuous or made in bad faith. We can't present pro-Gamergate views as compelling and sincere when reliable sources don't. And it's not like there are only a handful of gaming sites covering Gamergate, either. There are hundreds or thousands of articles from all sorts of respected publications. Any kind of a "both sides" layout would be UNDUE without a significant number of reliable sources that do take pro-Gamergate arguments seriously.

To break down your sources:

Forbes contributor articles from non-Forbes-employees are considered self-published.
The Observer and RealClearPolitics pieces are editorial/opinion columns.
Game Objective and Gaming Reinvented are editorial/opionion columnns on unreliable sites. (Gaming Reinvented isn't even credited.)
ABC appears to be a reliable source. It does give a "pro-GamerGate account" but then dismisses it.

If you look through the Talk page history, you'll find that this comes up regularly. Finding sources and then fairly representing and balancing them is always the issue. I don't think any editor is opposed to a reorganization, but those sources have to come first. Woodroar (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The article by Glasgow sums up the issue you have with representing Gamergate through reliable sources;

As I said early on, however, you are not very wrong. There is a highly organized, highly contentious alt-right faction of Gamergate supporters. If you are on the receiving end of their ire, as I have been, it can be daunting. Likewise, there are trolls who find extreme joy in exploiting the Gamergate controversy for their stunted version of “the lulz”. It can be a lot to wade through. It doesn’t help that Wikipedia’s listing for Gamergate is a political minefield, taken over by zealots. If your experience is with the alt-right faction or with the trolls, then you have an unfortunately skewed view of the larger picture, and I can empathize.

He paints Gamergate, via his polling, as a benevolent movement, filled with liberals who love women but dislike.... What "third wave feminism"? Cool. So how do they differentiate that from, like, normal dislike of feminism? And why do they dislike 3rd Wave Feminism exactly?

But, to make it worse, he then talks about the alt-right, Milo, and their well organised exploitation of the movement who are seemingly absent from his data (unless these lulzy trolls are all liberals that votes for Obama). There is a fundamental problem here; factually we can see through many more reliable sources outlining the origin of the movement is with those accused of exploiting it.

The end result is Glasgow presents a sanitised view of the movement. He doesn't even acknowledge the origins, and has a limited data set which we know has excluded a very particular set of individuals (or they lied, which he denies). His data denies the existence of alt-right, and conservative provocateurs... But his narrative description persistently refers to them and yet he downplays them as trolls - but they are too part of the movement. It is the equivalent to the current protests against police brutality. Glasgow is saying "look, there's just a few bad apples trolling the shit out of everyone, plus the entire movement hates 3rd Wave Feminists although we have no way of really ensuring our message only targets them" and then presenting lots of positive data about how everyone are such fine people.

In summary; Gamergate by Glasgow's description is one of a group of individuals who hate feminism, with a hardcore group of alt-right and trolls making things hard for people. I am not sure our article is that far off the mark if that is his best attempt at rehabilitating Gamergates perception. Koncorde (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I agree that a divided article is not feasible at present.

The issue is NPOV and RS. Reliable sources do detail Gamergate arguments, but in the context of dismissing them for a variety of reasons. Sources also tend to describe those arguments as disingenuous or made in bad faith. We can't present pro-Gamergate views as compelling and sincere when reliable sources don't.

Correct, but what we can do is describe what those disingenuous, bad-faith arguments are, while not necessarily endorsing them as true. It's notable that the positions dismissed by RS tend to be very consistent, with progressive politics and ethics always being referenced. This article gives great coverage to the harassment aspect, but that's about 90% of the content here. For those who want to understand the claims of the other side, or their version of events (however wrong or disingenuous this might be), it's not very informative, and that's what needs correction. WP:UNDUE is a concern, which is why I'd limit this content to a section, rather than an overhaul. Xcalibur (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate. Look, there are clearly sources that discuss pro-Gamergate positions, because we summarize them in the first paragraph of the "Ethics in journalism complaints" section. But creating another section dedicated to those positions would validate them, something reliable sources don't do. And that validity would be reinforced by pairing the "pro" section with an "anti" section, as if it's up to readers to decide. NPOV even warns about suggesting equal validity of minority positions at WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Beyond that, we put so much emphasis on the harassment aspect because that's what reliable sources do. Gamergate is described as a harassment campaign first and foremost in the vast majority of sources. And far more sources talk about the harassment than they do the positions of Gamergaters.

You can contrast our coverage of Gamergate with our article on Moon landing conspiracy theories. There have been thousands of books and magazines and documentaries and websites (and so on) devoted only to presenting and debunking those claims. If there were a wealth of similar sources covering Gamergate, perhaps we could dig deeper into those positions. But even then, we would have to carefully present those positions as being thoroughly debunked, as we do conspiracy theories. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

a fairly recent controversy is not equivalent to debunked conspiracy theories. on one hand, there's a historical fact that is widely confirmed, vs. individuals who rely on supposition and logical fallacies. on the other, there's a political/social conflict, with each side claiming the other is morally repugnant, and the sources are often directly involved. then there's the decentralized nature of Gamergate, which allows different people with different motives to fall under its banner; this may also explain a lack of RS representing them. and as I said, while many RS reject the positions of Gamergate, they do so consistently, i.e. it's always the same points being rejected. Here are a few references I chose at random, currently used, which support this: [7] [8] [9] while harassment dominates, you'll also see references to the alleged sex scandal, collusion/corruption, and the influence of SJW/progressive politics. even when refuted, it's always those topics coming up.

We can cover their ideology without validating it. the pro/anti split was my first idea, until I realized that such a structure doesn't represent RS properly. instead, we can discuss Gamergate ideology in its own section, with plenty of warning that their ideas and version of events are widely rejected. this would build off of what's already there, as you said there's that first paragraph, and a few other references to GG ideology, but they're brief and not fleshed out, with barely any discussion on some of the relevant topics I mentioned earlier. We can make this article more informative by having a section for their wrong, disingenuous arguments, since their wrong ideas are in fact prominent and frequently mentioned by RS. I don't mean to downplay harassment by any means, but there are more aspects to this topic. Xcalibur (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment does not have an ideology to cover, it is just harassment. I do not see the use of justification in delving into the philosophy behind Gamergate support. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As reliable sources extensively discuss, there was no "sex scandal" and there was no "collusion/corruption." I'm not sure what else you expect our article to say about false, debunked nonsense targeting a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly this. Xcalibur, these sources really don't support any reorganization. Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age is a play-by-play of early Gamergate, including details of harassment and threats. Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture includes statements like Under the banner of demanding greater transparency and encourating ethical games journalism... and People rallied around the hashtag, insisting that #Gamergate was a consumer campaign to raise awareness about ethics in games journalism. However, #Gamergate effectively became a harassment campaign... and people publicly demonstrating affinity for the perspective of #Gamergate...rarely discussed the underlying ethical issues of games journalism.... The CJR subhead calls Gamerage a largely anonymous movement that has no clear aims, leaders, or organization. They clearly don't see Gamergate positions as sincere or coherent, and the harassment can't be separated from other claims. That's the problem with any leaderless, anonymous movement: everyone is defined by what individuals say and do. If Gamergate used Twitterbots to spam chocolate chip cookie recipes, it would be a movement about debunked ethics concerns and harassment and cookies.

Also, it's not like the professional journalists at reliable sources haven't done their research. Even early on, Ars Technical reported that Gamergate is/was a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism and #notyourshield didn't begin as a broad movement but was a campaign manufactured and orchestrated by 4chan users via sockpuppet Twitter accounts. Newsweek's analysis of Gamergate Tweets showed that GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women. That's the message of Gamergate, according to Gamergaters. If we're going to say otherwise, then you need to find the sources that actually say otherwise. Woodroar (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But I'm not here to support Gamergate claims, or present them as true. I only want to document what those claims are -- what sort of argument or cover story was put forth by the online insurgents? they may be completely baseless, but they're still significant, because they consistently come up in the RS. The quotes you brought up dismiss points about an alleged sex scandal, ethics, and politics, emphasizing harassment as the main narrative. But the arguments/canards dismissed are recognizably the same ones that are always referenced in relation to Gamergate. Even if they're total fabrications, they're still relevant to understanding the topic, given their sheer influence. To draw an analogy, the whole concept of race was invented in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's not based on biological or historical reality, yet as a fiction it's had massive influence on modern human relations, which makes it relevant and worth discussing. Likewise, I'd like to discuss the claims most relevant to Gamergate in a new section, regardless of their merit or lack thereof. Xcalibur (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're asking. There is no there, there. There is no depth to be found in verifiably-false claims about living people. "Trolls on the Internet said XYZ about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. XYZ was false and never happened." What more do you think we should be saying about it, and based upon what reliable sources? We are not here to propagate lies or to give credence to debunked nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite simply, and forcefully: We are not going to provide a platform to whitewash Gamergate and its harassment. We are absolutely, in no way, going to "both sides" this discussion because there are no sides. There are harassers and there are targets of the harassment. We will not be providing any further shrift.--Jorm (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the harassment shouldn't be whitewashed, but using this article as a platform to fight back against the hordes of Gamergate is a case of WP:RGW and not much better. the purpose here is to be informative, and at present, there's a paucity of information on the harassers, their motives, ideas, and version of events. I plan to cook up a section and BOLDly add it; once you see where I'm going with this, discussion can continue. As an aside, I knew what I was getting into here, I realize this particular subject is like waltzing across a minefield. However, encyclopedias should be informative, and I think it's precisely the hot-button, controversial issues which are most in need of disciplined, dispassionate treatment. In any case, while there's strong disagreement here, I appreciate your responses nonetheless. Xcalibur (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, think drafting the section you want and either adding it or asking for comment is a commendable idea. Just be prepared for pushback, and knowing that you need to carry the burden of persuasion--a high bar on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am with Dumuzid. I will add that I think you will struggle to find reliable sources, and then to avoid sweeping generalisations and WP:SYNTH by treating the alleged grievances as being valid in the face of criticism from the RS themselves. Numerous people have appeared over the years, and we have asked each and every time for reliable sourcing. And each time we are pointed at a Thunderfoot rant, or some Twitter feeds. If you can find something better, crack on. Koncorde (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Identity politics

Pinging @Zero Serenity:: Hey, I noticed you reverted my inclusion of the GamerGate movement in the Identity Politics category, could you please explain why you feel like the category does not apply? Looking at the definition on the Identity politics article, it seems very cut and dry: "A political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor form exclusive socio-political alliances, moving away from broad-based, coalitional politics to support and follow political movements that share a particular identifying quality with them. Its aim is to support and centre the concerns, agendas, and projects of particular groups, in accord with specific social and political changes" cave (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, at least for now. To support that category, the article would have to specifically mention identity politics at some point—not necessarily an entire section, but at least a sentence or two—which would also means we'd need multiple sources about both Gamergate and identity politics. So we'd really need sources > summary in article > category, not the other way around. Woodroar (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes sense, I suppose. I'm sure I've read stuff before about GamerGate and its overlap with white male identity politics, I'll go round up a few RS later when I have some more time and propose a broader change. cave (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Woodroar: What do you think of adding something like this to the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the article?

"The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. A link has also been drawn between Gamergate and a broader movement of young men "with more staying power than may seem evident, and one that, for all its attacks on left-wing identity politics, is particularly focused on supplanting traditional conservatism with a white identity politics of the right".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]" --cave (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Where the alt-right wants to take America — with or without Trump". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
^ "The alt-right, and how the paranoia of white identity politics fuelled Trump's rise". NewStatesman. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
^ David O. Dowling; Christopher Goetz; Daniel Lathrop (25 July 2019). "One Year of #GamerGate: The Shared Twitter Link as Emblem of Masculinist Gamer Identity". doi:10.1177/1555412019864857. Retrieved 18 July 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "The Scared White People Who Love Donald Trump". Vice.
^ "5 Things to Know About the 'Alt-Right'". NBC News. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
^ "Now white people are trying to ruin "Star Wars": Racist reaction to new trailer is part Gamergate, part Donald Trump". Salon. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

The lead section above the Contents is simply a summary of the body of the article. For us to add content there, we'd need a relatively significant section in the body itself, too. And for that, we'd need a lot of sources. I don't think we're there yet. Breaking down what you found:

Washington Post is from their book review section, which means that it's summarizing those books instead of giving the Post's own analysis of Gamergate and identity politics. Beyond that, the mentions of Gamergate and identity policies are from two separate books and the Post isn't connecting them beyond its summary of the overlap between those books' themes.
New Statesman is also a dual book review and has many of the same issues.
I'm not able to access the Dowling/Goetz/Lathrop source.
Vice name-drops Gamergate as something people are upset about, but falls short of directly stating that it's connected to identity politics.
NBC News name-drops Gamergate as something Milo Yiannopoulos was involved in (plus harassment) but also falls short of making the connection between Gamergate and identity politics.
Salon says that "white male victimology" was behind Gamergate but that's it.

So we maybe have one academic source, but we'd need at least several. (Gamergate tends to get mentioned all over the place, and we long ago decided to cut out content that's only supported by one or two sources. See WP:DUE for our policy on balancing articles proportionally around sources.) And those sources need to directly and unambiguously connect Gamergate with identity politics. I'm not sure I've ever read a source that did, but at the same time I think the connection is reasonable enough that they're probably out there. Woodroar (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Also sourcing one sentence to one source for the lede is very much putting a lot of weight behind that opinion, plus I question the validity of any source writing about Gamergate after 2016 then trying to retcon both the link to the Alt-Right and white identity politics. 1. there will be almost no contemporaneous source to support a largely anonymous source being "white" or "male" (it was inferred that they were misogynistic quite often, and certainly many were male, but most sources try not to gender those responsible. 2. There is a big difference between Gamergate and the Alt Right; there is however an overlap in some key individuals who sought to exploit it - which muddies the water. Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

First sentences?

"The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate."

This sentence is completely useless. It doesn't explain what gamergate is and I feel it presumes the reader already has an idea of the topic. It immediately said where it stemmed from but doesn't explain what it is. Shouldn't the first thing be an explanation of what the article is about?

Can it be rewritten to something like:

Gamergate controversy is a blanket term used to describe an online harassment campaign in the gaming community, conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture.

I'm not good at writing but as a reader I had to read multiple filler sentences just to get to the jist of what the article is supposed to be talking about in the first place.

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would support this revision. I especially think citing it as a "blanket term" is useful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Its not bad, though I would adjust that last sentence to say it was essentially pro-sexism and anti-progressivism, since the way it reads now seems to conflate the two a bit. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A +1 from me Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I edited it, and made sure to include the word gamers since otherwise it's unclear who's conducting the harassment, the developers, journalists, or consumers themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gamers is incorrect, or at least misleading. A significant amount of the harassment came from completely unrelated people like Yiannopolis and a lot of the attacks and harassment was of other gamers who were defending the same progressive ideas. Koncorde (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, on the same line of thought, it wasn't just the "gaming community", the Hugo's being an obvious example, but also the root cause of the harassment was still a jilted boyfriend attacking his ex. There's no functional need for it to be about gaming, or gamers, or video games - because per the sources, it's very much about attacking progressivism, feminism and inclusivity in a broad range of medium whether or not the charges actually stick. Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde's thoughts here and tried to add a couple words to address them while changing as little as possible. Thus I have the controversy "beginning" in the gaming community, and perpetrated by gamers "and others." I'll be the first to say they're not the best, but I thought a marginal improvement. Feel free to undo/change/improve. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to return the age old issue of the intro and why it reads so poorly

So I have covered this before multiple times but here we go again:

. The main issue is that we fail to treat "Gamergate controversy" as a "controversy about Gamergate" as movement / entity where we can then define gamergate as both as "conspiracy theory about alleged ethical issues in the games media"[10][11] and "a pseudonymous harassment campaign targeting x, y, z while claiming their interests were solely in ethics in journalism".
. The Gamergate hashtag, and the controversy of its use, was intrinsically linked to the whole "5 Guys" "Quinnspiracy" attack line, and was not fundamentally started by, or propagated by gamers - and we'll never be able to prove it anywaaaay because anon trolls is anon trolls. It was started by Adam Baldwin who has pretty much nothing to do with gaming from what I can see in commenting on an Internet Aristocrat video (plus Mundane Matt and others). This was picked up synchronously with the whole "gamers are dead" journalism line and conflated into the broader journalistic claims of "muh ethics". A few named figureheads in the gaming community aside, a lot of the names associated with the events have little to do with gaming.
. There is no reliable source that is saying this is gamers attacking only gamers, or the gaming community solely eating itself. In fact many go to great lengths to emphasise this is a culture war of Right / Libertarian vs Left / Progressive, and a continuation of the Anita Sarkeesian attacks still swirling the toilet bowl from the year or so earlier, and ultimately tying up with the Alt-Right pop culture warriors (Yiannopolis) far right agitators (Vox Day etc) into a wider spectrum of harassment against a broad spectrum of targets to do with progressive values as a means of self promotion in several cases.

Without defining what Gamergate was (because we have plenty of sources giving it shape) or claimed (we have plenty of sources saying what it claimed to be), it remains hard to write a lede about the harassment that follows a logical flow. It's like trying to knit fog. Koncorde (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Gamergate Controversy is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks who got lulz from online cruelty, egged on by third-rate celebrities, embraced by the deplorables, and amplified by bots and state actor campaigns."--Jorm (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Except it isn't JUST a harassment campaign - it is a conspiracy theory that led to a campaign of harassment, it is a continuation of harassment of some people as another appendage to a wider alt-right growth, and others as anti-progressives, and it is a whole host of extant self promoting trolls.

We've danced around actually calling this shit out so often when the RS do it so thoroughly because, apparently, people still don't want to deal with the content of the harassment rather than the structure and background. Koncorde (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be concerned about bloating the lead too much; it's already very long. A lot of these additions don't feel like they made it parse better. We already mention that the controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, for instance, as well as the fact that it targeted several women in the video game industry; I don't see how stuff like beginning in the gaming community, then becoming a larger cultural phenomenon improves it. Trying to cram everything into a single sentence is only going to make things worse. I also don't particularly like "Gamergate controversy is a blanket term used to describe..." That's a meandering sentence that wastes half its text before getting to anything meaningful. Calling "Gamergate controversy" a blanket term in particular is unhelpful because that term isn't significant; it is Gamergate that is used as the blanket term, a vital distinction that was lost in the edit. Also, I think jamming together the history and summary paragraphs, tempting though it is, made the lead harder to parse. I would just mildly reword the first sentence and, more importantly, merge the first two sentences, producing The Gamergate controversy concerned an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it. This covers the most important points as the topic is reflected in sources and the article today (many other secondary points are of course covered further down the article), and provides a broad overview of what this is all about. The only other thing I would consider tweaking is to make "that centered on issues of..." something more specific like "that was driven by...", which would make it more clear how those aspects relate to the topic while also simplifying the sentence structure a bit; but that would be a bit more of a sweeping statement (though I think it does reflect the sources and article), so I'd want to see what other people think first. --Aquillion (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Would agree with all of the above. The original lede was stable, even if not perfect. The only way to functionally improve it is per my comments above - treat it as a thing that there was a controversy about, rather than just a controversial hashtag. Koncorde (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits are a distinct improvement. I believe this gets clearer the more we remove all the weasel terms that crept in to appease various users rather than actually reflect sources. Artw (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also welcome a move away from the ledes focus on the twitter tag and on to 4chan and 8chan, the main gathering spots of the movement. Might clear things up a bit. Artw (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No mention or link to WP's (alleged) screw up

I just read the 4th chapter of Wikipedia @ 20 and it tells how 5 good faith editors were banned after policing extremist content in what was called the gamergate controversy. Wanting to know more I read the article but there was not a single mention. I'm used to WP holding it's hand up when something goes wrong so I'm puzzled here. Shouldn't that stuff be included here? And I suppose and hope it's discussed somewhere on WP but where? --Dutchy45 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean there was a whole load of sanctions of various people for various things, so not sure who exactly they are saying were banned for being "good faith editors". In any case, a lot of disruption can be done by people in good faith - so that isn't a defence.

If it gives more info let us know. Koncorde (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You can search AN and ANI for lots of Gamergate discussion but the main case is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Steven Bannon content

So there has been a little good faith back-and-forth about including a sentence regarding Steve Bannon, Breitbart News, and Milo Yiannopoulos. I personally don't mind the content, but don't think it is currently well integrated into the article. I'd be curious to know what other people think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I have no objections to including something if there are multiple sources. But the sentence name drops Bannon and Breitbart in a clunky and meandering way without actually saying anything about Gamergate. Like I understand that it's trying to set up who Yiannopoulos is, but readers don't need to know who hired him and how that person came to run a network. I feel mentioning them would work better in the second paragraph of the "Social, cultural, and political impact" section, where we say Some figures and tactics associated with Gamergate went on to become components of the alt-right but don't come out and say who. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A big issue I have with it, along with concerns above, is that it frames Bannon as taking over in 2012 and appointing Milo as head of tech. But Milo was only appointed in 2014, didn't become head of tech at Breitbart until 2015, and he had plenty of notoriety from before that for his general behaviour. Milo's first articles for Breitbart show no obvious link with tech but plenty of anti-feminist / anti- progressive values. In other words, he was already a known shit-stirrer before Bannon, continued being one under Bannon for a long time before he became anything related to Tech, and the Tech element was designsd to prolong the outreach. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

TBH arround where teh role of Breitbart and Milo gets introduced seems right to me, but happy to see edits/mentions of Bannon being moved. I feel it would be a little odd not to mention him since so many sources do - you're unlikely to see an account of gamergate these days that doesn't include ties to his efforts to raise a troll army. Artw (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Influence on QAnon and modern grievance politics.

While editing stuff related to QAnon I came across this source:

While QAnon's obsession with sex trafficking narratives acted as an accelerant for this scandal, the key to understanding the Cuties fracas is another online movement altogether. In 2014, the internet clash that became known as Gamergate created a stir in the gaming world. Like a proto-QAnon, it was ideologically incoherent and loosely organized, seeping across chan boards, forums, and social platforms. Like Q, it was impossible to tell exactly how many people actually believed what they were saying and how many were trolling. According to its adherents, Gamergate was about “ethics in gaming journalism.” The movement’s primary actions, though, were coordinated campaigns of harassment, most frequently toward women who came into its orbit, and then calls for advertiser boycotts. It honed a playbook for contemporary grievance politics. For example, Intel pulled advertisements on a video game website following a flood of angry complaints online from Gamergaters who dubbed the boycott “Operation Disrespectful Nod,” an incident echoed recently when Microsoft pulled an advertisement featuring the artist Marina Abramovic after Q supporters accused her of Satanism. (Microsoft never confirmed that it removed the ad specifically because of these accusations.)

See also this. Another source from CJR making a similar connection:

Fact-free: Molloy said that journalists covering Q “need to understand that they’re not dealing with people who can be swayed by facts.” She added, “There’s a real tendency in the media to ignore problems that originate on the internet until they become too much to handle. Gamergate was a great example of this. QAnon is another.” When toxic online movements are allowed to exist unchecked, she said, “they build to a point of being near-unstoppable. If news organizations want to handle these movements better in the future, it would serve them well to invest more time and energy monitoring and reporting on the underbelly of the internet, working with misinformation experts, and most importantly, understanding that in interviews, many of these movements will not be upfront about their actual goals.”

The connection seems worth covering; more generally, the article doesn't say much about Gamergate's influence on later alt-right and conspiracy-theory movements, which is the main way it is covered today. I feel like we could trim a lot of the back-and-forth over individual arguments from back in 2014 (which rarely get much attention now) and add a lot more about this idea of it as a "trial run" or prototype for modern internet misinformation-based movements. Other recent articles worth using include this, this, this, etc. Academic papers discussing its status as a "playbook" for the Alt-Right or connecting it to similar movements include this, this, this, and this, among others (I limited myself to papers from this year and just grabbed the first few.) One other commonality between them is that there's now a unanimous agreement among the sources that most of the outrage was manufactured and that most of the people who used the Gamergate label didn't believe or want the things they said they wanted and believed. The alt-right connection currently only gets one brief mention in the article, whereas it is overwhelmingly a primary focus of coverage, to the point where it should probably, eventually, be a major section and a be mentioned in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So, is it a movement then? Because I would love to deal with the article like grown adults if we can stop ignoring the idea that Gamergate was a thing, even if it is described as "a harassment and misinformation campaign masquerading as a movement ostensibly concerned with ethics in games journalism". Koncorde (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say; it was something I noticed in the academic sources I listed above. They describe it as follows in their first sentences:

Gamergate (or #Gamergate) is hashtag activist movement that started in August 2014.
the #GamerGate (#GG) online harassment campaign that was particularly active in 2014–2015
the online harassment campaign known as GamerGate
Before discussing the Gamergate movement...

The news sources say (quotes are from the first time they define it):

the unlikely, unpleasant, and far-reaching watershed movement that was Gamergate
Gamergate, the 2014 online abuse campaign targeting women and journalists in the gaming industry
Coordinated online harassment and disinformation campaigns are bolstered by algorithms that elevate "content that’s hot, that’s hate-filled, that makes people angry and gets lots of reactions,” according to Daniels. An early example of such a campaign was Gamergate, in which...
the internet clash that became known as Gamergate
the confusing 2014–15 events now known as Gamergate—an internet culture war sparked when...

So it is fairly evenly split (and our current definition of it as a "controversy" isn't entirely unreasonable, since several define it as a clash or culture war.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a breakdown of our sources 5 years ago showing that significant majority said movement or used movement, you did something similar back then on a smaller scale and again it used the term movement in most examples. And I am not referring to changing the name of the article, or removing the focus from what the "campaign" did, I am merely referring to the fact we pretend that the harassment happens without any core group ideology, and like to suggest it was almost a spontaneous culture war. But here we are years later with sources again saying that not only was there a core group (or multiple groups with temporarily aligning goals) but that some unquantifiable numbers have moved onto fair more heinous things, and helped shape other movements (or the movement itself demonstrated how to do the thing). Koncorde (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I always thought gamergate was part of a "four-part" series in the growth of what eventually accumulated into QAnon/the alt-right: The fertile soil of sites such as 4chan and ED, followed by GG, then Trump's nomination/victory, and finally QAnon, the "zenith" of insanity. Exploring the causality of these events and how they are interlinked seems within scope of all the topics at hand in some manner. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I collected some academic and media sources on GG's connection to later right-wing movements at User:Sangdeboeuf/gg before QAnon came along. I think expanding our coverage of this aspect is definitely warranted, and that a lot of the quote-heavy back-and-forth from 2014 should be reduced in favor of more retrospective, scholarly analysis per WP: Recentism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

[1] "The Creator of a GamerGate Subreddit Deserves No Credit for Deleting It". Waypoint. 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

[2] Lees, Matt (2016-12-01). "What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right'". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

[3] "Domestic violence task force calls GamerGate a 'hate group' at congressional briefing". Polygon. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

[4] Allaway, Jennifer. "#Gamergate Trolls Aren't Ethics Crusaders; They're a Hate Group". Jezebel. Retrieved 2018-07-14.

[arskathy-5] Sam Machkovich (March 25, 2015). ""That life is over": Zoe Quinn looks beyond GamerGate". Ars Technica.

[newstatesman-6] Helen Lewis (15 October 2014). "The battle against internet trolls shows that a compelling story will always beat cold, hard facts". New Statesman.

[theverge-7] T.C. Sottek (Oct 8, 2014). "Stop supporting Gamergate". The Verge.

[theguardian-8] Jess Zimmermann (9 October 2014). "The truth about trolls and the men they worship". The Guardian.

[WaPoAltRight-9] "Where the alt-right wants to take America — with or without Trump". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

[NewStatesman-10] "The alt-right, and how the paranoia of white identity politics fuelled Trump's rise". NewStatesman. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

[OneYear-11] David O. Dowling; Christopher Goetz; Daniel Lathrop (25 July 2019). "One Year of #GamerGate: The Shared Twitter Link as Emblem of Masculinist Gamer Identity". doi:10.1177/1555412019864857. Retrieved 18 July 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[vice-12] "The Scared White People Who Love Donald Trump". Vice.

[nbc-13] "5 Things to Know About the 'Alt-Right'". NBC News. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

[salon-14] "Now white people are trying to ruin "Star Wars": Racist reaction to new trailer is part Gamergate, part Donald Trump". Salon. Retrieved 18 July 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Gjoni, Depression Quest and BLP, again

Title this article: Gamergate

Shutdown of KotakuInAction subreddit and its return

Make the article more accurate and unbiased

This article should be labelled NPOV

RE: Accusation of making "false claims"

Mercedes Carrera

Possibly-useful CJR piece.

Accusation of making "false claims"

Comicsgate

See also link to Kathy Sierra

Disputed neutrality, again.

Tendentious

New York Times piece 5 years on

Pronouns for Quinn

"The blog falsely implied"

A section of how GG predicated/mirrored the rise of the alt/far-right

Neutrality???

investigations records released

Neutrality?

Article ownership

"The controversy has been described" weasel words?

Better-sourced lede?

Even less neutral than the last time I looked upon this article.

Using her vs they

one-sided coverage, and how to fix it

Identity politics

First sentences?

Just to return the age old issue of the intro and why it reads so poorly

No mention or link to WP's (alleged) screw up

Steven Bannon content

Influence on QAnon and modern grievance politics.