Page semi-protected

Talk:Gamergate controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why are there no citations in the lead section?
A1: The lead section is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore does not require sources.
Q2: Can I use a particular article as a source?
A2: What sources can be used in Wikipedia is governed by our reliable sources policy, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Q3: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to GamerGate. Can I use it as a source in the article?
A3: All sources used in the article must comply with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Wikipedia's information and b) potentially open up Wikipedia to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people.
Q4: Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?
A4: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, Wall Street Journal, etc). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP).
Q5: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources?
A5: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Wikipedia documents what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Wikipedia's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.


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.