Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

DePape and GG from WaPo

Right wing politician making connections to left and DePape. Debunking with GG.

The turning point appears to have been in 2014 with GamerGate, which The Post described as “the vicious campaign of online abuse against female video game developers and critics, a precursor to the rise of coordinated right-wing or bias-fueled troll attacks.”

Legacy section? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

From SFist: “How did I get into all this,” DePape said in one online forum inn a quote obtained by the Times. “Gamer Gate it was gamer gate.” He referred to Gamergate as a “consumer led revolt against communism,” and equated women in gaming with “wokism.” https://sfist.com/2022/11/21/prosecutors-finding-alleged-pelosi-attacker-depape-was-a-big-gamergate-guy/ - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pushback?

This article seems to be entirely written, edited, and maintained to assume a certain stance and has little to no pushback against it, especially from reputable sources such as Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/?sh=2331ed574cd5

There is some serious problems with this article that needs to be addressed, which seems to be completely ignored within the talk page.Belregard (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Forbes.com hosts a large self-publishing platform. Writers tagged 'Forbes Contributors' or 'Senior Forbes Contributors' are not actually writing for Forbes proper. See WP:FORBESCON. We cannot use medium blogs either. You seem to be asking for a WP:FALSEBALANCE - Wikipedia reflects the attitude of the best available sources, it does not contain unreliable 'pushback'. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GamerGate was never a consumer movement, and perpetuating the "Brianna Wu stole people's money" nonsense is not going to work. The people who have been editing this article are well versed in the facts, and are not likely to be persuaded by talking points straight out of r/kotakuinaction. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. You claim to not allow blogs, yet one of the primary sources on this page is a blogpost, namely Here:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance

And also here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/12/31/janay-rice-anita-sarkeesian-and-jackie-three-women-who-made-us-get-mad-in-2014/

I should argue, that if these blogposts are certainly viable, then surely mine are too?

"and perpetuating the "Brianna Wu stole people's money" nonsense is not going to work"

Really? Because looking at her receipts, her fund-raising money that she took seems awfully suspicious looking, almost like a slushfund:

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633669/

Are we really going to mince words here and pretend you are a neutral arbiter? I can see quite easily through the way you talk and you have zero impartiality in your demeanor.Belregard (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". MrOllie was pointing out that unless the author of the blog is an expert in this field, they would also not qualify. If you want to debate the cites you pulled out, we can do that, but the ones you suggested do not appear to satisfy WP:RS.

Your opinions on her finances are definitely not reliable sources though, so that's not going to fly. Not a great look to claim I'm not a neutral arbiter while clearly showing your own bias.

Oh and for the record, Wikipedia editors do not need to be impartial themselves. We need to strive to find the best reliable sources for an article & report them in an unbiased manner, but I am not required to pretend I am persuaded by GamerGate's claims to be "concerned about ethics in gaming journalism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the editor or the one running the article, so there is no bias on my part, especially not when asking for more fair and balanced discussion on a subject controlled entirely by ideologues.

"MrOllie was pointing out that unless the author of the blog is an expert in this field, they would also not qualify. " - And neither of the people who wrote the Washington Post article or the Guardian article are experts in said field as Jon Stone is referred to as a "Poet" on his Guardian page, and Joann Weiner is an expert in "Economics", so again, I ask, why are they allowed and mine are not? In fact, the article I directly linked to by the Guardian was patently false, as various writers at several gaming websites had been donating through Patreon to said game developers, which Patreon realized lead to conflicts of interest and was the spurring moment that they changed their donation disclosure policy to be mandatory. If you are willing to acknowledge those sources are unjust, and remove them and their references within the article, then perhaps my opinion may change.Belregard (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that the Washington Post and the Guardian exercise editorial control over those posts (WP:NEWSBLOG), so they are more akin to something published on the regular opinion page than a self-published blog: Usable with proper attribution, as this article already does. Forbes's self publishing wing and Medium.com have zero editorial control. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia dictates that The Guardian blogpost articles are determined on a case-by-case basis and seeing as Jon Stone has zero qualifications or expertise to be talking on the subject matter, at the very least I should see it as perfectly viable to remove his article, as a source.Belregard (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Stone's interests in video games and 'ludokinetic' literature strikes me as an apt background. Some of his qualifications may be seen here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

a subject controlled entirely by ideologues

This betrays your there is no bias on my part statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

He has an MA in Creative Writing, not Journalism, Psychology, Mass Media, or even Political Science. His "qualifications" are lacking and have no backing. I also don't think you know what he means by "ludokinetic narrative" since it has nothing to do with social events such as Gamergate. "This betrays your there is no bias on my part statement." - Mmm, I'm sure you think so.Belregard (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I will note his PhD was in "poem-game interplay." One need not have a PhD in gamergate in order to be a reliable commentator on gamergate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I should note that it is assumed everyone here is talking in "good faith", so your willful ignorance of my blatant statement that he has zero education in any of the fields which would lend him credence is a sign of bad faith arguing. Cheers.Belregard (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So his PhD doesn't count toward his education? Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked, having a PhD in poetry is not a PhD in Journalism, Political Science, Communication, Psychology, Mass Media, or any field in which talking about the psyche of various individuals and the reporting on social phenomenon would be required. So no, it doesn't.Belregard (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. I would disagree, but if consensus agrees with you, then so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

According to his researchgate profile, the PhD is in Game studies / creative writing. And he's published both in book and peer-reviewed article form on games. He's an expert - but this is a complete sideshow, because the 'expert' stuff really only applies to self-published blogs, and we're not citing his selfpub blog but a post on a major newsblog. Though given his credentials we probably should cite his selfpublished stuff as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The PhD is in game studies / Creative Writing" - It's actually in poem-game interplay. It is still irrelevant to the discussion, as Gamergate has nothing to do with either game design or poetry. "And he's published both in book and peer-reviewed article form on games" - His books are "No, Robot, No!", "Battalion", and "Bad Kid Catullus", none of which pertain to the topic at hand. "Battalion" is a book about bats, "No, Robot, No!" is about robots and cyborgs in art and cinema, and "Bad Kid Catullus" is about an ancient Roman poet. As far as "peer reviewed articles", they were also all about poetry and game design. None of this points to him being a reputable source to be referencing from a blogpost section on an other-wise accepted source.Belregard (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to all involved, I don't think this is worth pursuing. Belregard, if you can achieve consensus for your view, then feel free to remove that source. Otherwise, I think we're at an impasse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason this article has neither been featured, or listed as a "good article". I think by cleaning up some of the less reputable sources, it could change that, and we could start by removing that source.Belregard (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's generally not acceptable to change posts that have so many replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so it's not lost the original comment on this thread contain comment from Geth N7 published on Medium, buy it was removed by Bilby. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Belregard that the Guardian article written by Jon Stone should not be included. It is an opinion piece with little to no news or evidence presented on the matter, it’s just Stone giving his personal opinion on the event. Also, that article was written right as Gamergate was a happening hot topic issue, going on and on about why he doesn’t personally like it, ending with “That’s the real reason why they want to spin this as an apolitical consumer movement, rather than a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment. And there is no neutral stance to take on that – we are either with them or against them.”

Also, like it has been pointed out, he is in no way an “expert” on this issue. Simply stating that he has a PhD is a ridiculous justification to call him an expert. The article doesn’t even make any real verifiable claims either. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Digital Herodotus, following an editor you are in a conflict with to an unrelated page to oppose them is a really, really bad idea. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, my argument is that he has PhD involving video games -- not just any PhD. Obviously Belregard (and apparently you) disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid well the issue with that is that all sides from the gamergate issue are obviously involved in the video game world in some sort of way, from simply players to reviewers to game makers. I don’t see why this particular guy should be seen as an “expert” on the issue just based on that. Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not say he is an "expert" on gamergate, but as it was occurring, no one was. By my lights, he was expert enough in the realm of video games that his writing is notable and reliable for the article. Others' mileage may vary! Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying he was an expert on Gamergate, we are saying he does not have the suitable credentials to be a primary source, directly quoted on the topic, seeing as he knew none of the individuals, none of his education is dealing the actual social/psychological/journalistic aspects involved in covering such a topic, nor does he have the integral work experience dealing with this aspect of the culture at large. What you are essentially equivocating is that because he has a PhD, and because it is somehow involved with video games (when it actually isn't, a degree in the medium of video games would be more akin to Game Studies, Computational Media, or even just Computer Science). Belregard (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it very clear you disagree with my conclusion. That's fine; when you have a consensus, make any changes you like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I would, but the article is locked. I do not have the required extended confirmed user access level. Belregard (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You also obviously don't have consensus backing. MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is being used to support "Jon Stone, in The Guardian, called it a "swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" and compared it to the men's rights movement.", for which it is a completely acceptable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The contentious labels in the article are all supported by reliable published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The contentious labels in the article are all supported by reliable published sources" - Not the one I have a problem with, which is why I am discussing it here. "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article." - I think the way it is written, and the person it is written by, says that it is equivalent to a blogpost and should be discarded...Of course, on top of the fact that it is in The Guardian's blogposts section. Belregard (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:RSP does not say that it should be discarded. It links to WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:RSOPINION, which both say to 'attribute the opinions in the text to the author'. And that is what is done in this Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. The Guardian's Blogposts section has a "No Consensus" warning, which states "The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." - And that is precisely what we are doing here. Belregard (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered. The opinion is attributed as it should be. At any rate, the consensus of this discussion is clear - the citation should be retained. MrOllie (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's being used to support a quoted statement not a contentious label in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Citation of Jon Stone's The Guardian blogposts article

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.

---

Does Jon Stone's article from The Guardian meet the recommended criteria for citation on this Wikipedia Article? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance Belregard (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. WP:RSP recommends that Guardian blogs be treated as WP:NEWSBLOGS and/or WP:RSOPINION - which means we use them with attribution. That's what the article does. In addition. Jon Stone has relevant credentials (Ph.D in Game Studies/Creative Writing), has published elsewhere on games, and is quoted by other reliable sources on this subject (Washington Post, The Week). This specific article was even cited in a book from a reputable academic publisher. - MrOllie (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per MrOllie and general consensus in discussion above; also worth considering whether Sangdeboeuf's recent edit moots this RFC. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Requested comments are generally meant to be from "outside input". Neither you, nor MrOllie, are "outside input". Belregard (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's pretty common to deal with things this way, and you are welcome to vote as opener, but as you wish. Dumuzid (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) RfCs are a way to centralize discussion, not a way to get around existing discussions. All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No in that case. The WP:RSP states that Guardian Blogs have no consensus and can be disputed. The figure in question, Jon Stone, does not have the credentials to be backed up. Nor does his being cited in a book from some publisher validate him (when said book also included twitter posts). He has a masters in Creative Writing and thus lacks expertise required for the topic, and there is no news or evidence presented in his piece. Quotes such as this: "[Gamergate] readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms" adds nothing to the article but ad hominem (Which, I might add, is not even cited properly as citation 122 leads directly to a Ryan Cooper article). In a secondary quote, "Jon Stone, writing in The Guardian, called it a "swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" - This constitutes more of a blurb seems both irrelevant and generalizing. These two quotes together make up the summation of content added to the article from Jon Stone and seem wholly unnecessary and inadequate.

  Belregard (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Ryan Cooper article is directly quoting Stone. Both these quotes are supported by independent sources, and WP:USEBYOTHERS is a key measure of reliability itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for correcting me with that source. It's even more evidence it should be removed since that quote is taken directly from his Tumblr, not his actual quote from the article. https://jonstonechannel2.tumblr.com/post/99246356388/why-bother-with-gamergate Belregard (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're right -- that quote was incorrectly cited. I have corrected it to "The Week" from "The Guardian." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  But did you remove the quote itself? WP:UGC states that "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. -- Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, ODMP, Reddit, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, and Wikipedia (self referencing)." - If you are going to quote from Ryan Cooper's article, it should be a quote from Ryan Cooper, not a source from a user generated website. Belregard (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Week is not a "largely user-generated" site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, but the quote from Jon Stone in that article is taken from his Tumblr, which is user generated content, and unacceptable. If you want to keep that link and quote Ryan Cooper, that is fine, but using him as a middle-man to quote from a UGC site is not. Belregard (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:UGC is a subsection of WP:RS/SPS, which reads Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That is exactly the case here. Also, reliable sources are allowed to quote whoever they want, and then we can cite that. Using a 'middle-man to quote from' is not only allowed it is encouraged. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but the self-published contents of Jon Stone, as we have made abundantly clear, is not an expert. While his contributions on The Guardian have been deemed fit to stay because it fits within the recommended criteria for Newsblogs and has been cited academically, it has not been stated through consensus that he is an expert on the subject matter. Belregard (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding his expertise, but it doesn't matter here -- as both MrOllie and HandThatFeedsYou have said, the quote is from a reliable source. That means it is reliable. It doesn't matter that it originates elsewhere. By being included in The Week, it becomes part of that source. With all due respect, this argument is a non-starter. Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  As Mr. Ollie said, that's a basic misunderstanding of WP:RS. We are not citing the Tumblr post, we are citing The Week which chose to quote his Tumblr post as part of their article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  You may be thinking of third opinion. RfCs, while they encourage outside opinion, do not prevent involved individuals from commenting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This RfC is vaguely worded to the point of uselessness. Reliability of a given source depends on the context in which it is used. The source may reliable for some statements but not for others, or may just need attribution in certain cases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes: I'm in most cases opposed to the use of opinion sources in articles, though I often find myself in the minority in that view and I try not to force it. This one is properly attributed, so WP:RSOPINION is met appropriately. The issue is: for a topic about which hundreds of opinion pieces have been published, how can we neutrally decide which to feature? This one at least has some claim to weight, as it's cited in the academically published book Online Harassment (currently citation 60 in the article) on pages 188 and 190. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

.Yes as I stated in the preceding discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. I do not think the proposal was made in good faith judging by the proposer's previous discussion on this article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes: I agree that this RfC is improperly asked. Of course this article can be cited in some circumstances and not in others. The question is overbroad and not likely asked in good faith. TheSavageNorwegian 17:47, 24 January 2023 (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.

Removal of RFC tag

@Belregard:, I noticed you just removed the RFC tag, but then continued arguing. You need to either allow the process to run to completion, or you need to accept that consensus is against you. When you embark on dispute resolution, the idea is to settle the dispute one way or the other. I am returning the RFC tag for the time being. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"or you need to accept that consensus is against you" - I already did that, if you cared to actually read my post. "While his contributions on The Guardian have been deemed fit to stay because it fits within the recommended criteria for Newsblogs and has been cited academically" - My arguing about the other quote is not in relation to The Guardian article. Glad I could clear your misunderstanding up. Belregard (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

With regard to your edit comment any attempts to reinstate it will be undone, that would be a bad idea, as it would constitute edit warring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, while the edit summary strikes me as a little needlessly strident, it is my understanding that an editor may indeed withdraw their own RFC if they wish--though I will certainly defer to the wiser among us! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, they may. Just wanted to remind them that edit-warring to take it back out would be a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, they may. But withdrawing an RFC and then continuing to argue about Jon Stone is the kind of thing that would probably be actionable under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it's a bit of a toss-up. Yes, they should not have been arguing a separate issue inside the RfC about a different issue. But the argument was in the comment where they agreed to withdraw the RfC, so it's probably not worth pursuing any action over. The RfC is closed, they can open a new section if there's something else they want to debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you deem it as actionable, then file a formal request. Seeing as the topic is closed and consensus was achieved, I have nothing further to add, so I don't know what good it will do you. Belregard (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms article at Mother Jones

I already posted this over at talk:Kiwi Farms, but there is an interesting tangent on that forum's relationship to Gamergate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

another one of those threads Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I last posted. It's as one-sided as ever, but that's in accordance with the policies here, so there's no way to fix it without overhauling policy. I notice many others have made that complaint, because they expect an encyclopedia article to present both sides of a controversy in a spirit of fairness, and WP not only fails to do this, but refuses to do so by design. So, instead of shouting at a brick wall, I thought I'd take a different approach. First, I'd like to rename the "Purpose and Goals" section to something like, "Responses to Gamergate Views" as a more accurate representation of the content there. The first paragraph offers a fairly accurate, if brief, summary of the views of Gamergate, then the whole rest of it argues against these points and denounces them in several more paragraphs. This doesn't really cover the "purpose and goals" of Gamergate in a way its proponents would agree with, it's more of a refutation which briefly states what it's arguing against. Thus, the title should reflect this. Second, I think there's a possible compromise: not by splitting the article into pro and anti sections, which is not allowed. Rather, we could cover *the claims of Gamergate*, that is, the arguments put forth by its supporters, without endorsing any of this in the encyclopedic voice. This would expand coverage, and provide an outlet for those who feel there is a lack of representation in this article. In the earlier discussion, I posted a few sources after a brief search, which are: [1] [2] [3] [4] Admittedly, these sources vary in reliability, and the archived link is blog-like, but this is at least a starting point. Again, I don't want to claim that GG's points are true, rather, I want to document their claims. I think that would be a far more viable approach, one which would not have the same difficulties in sourcing. We'd want to cover the alleged sex scandal, and particularly the "gamers are dead" articles which escalated this whole situation by 1. antagonizing fans, and 2. convincing GGers that there was backdoor collusion in the industry, since many different sources ran the same sort of rant article around the same time. We could present all this as a false narrative, just as long as their claims and version of events are documented accurately. At the very least, this could be a path forward for other editors to follow, instead of circular debates. Questions/comments welcome. Xcalibur (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC) So, instead of shouting at a brick wall I mean, you spent an entire paragraph doing that, but okay. First, I'd like to rename the "Purpose and Goals" section to something like, "Responses to Gamergate Views" as a more accurate representation of the content there. I'm amenable to renaming this section, but we already have a Responses section further down the page. I'd suggest "Characteristics" as a more general title that covers the material we present: the typical actions & motives of Gamergate supporters, plus the sources that rebut GG arguments. Second, I think there's a possible compromise This suggestion seems like a non-starter, as we're already discussing the claims & motives of GG in the "Purposes & Goals" section. If you want to expand that section, we can discuss that, but I don't see the need for a new one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC) I mean, you spent an entire paragraph doing that, but okay. No, it was a brief introduction covering the ongoing dispute at this article, which I'd like to resolve. I'm amenable to renaming this section, but we already have a Responses section further down the page. I'd suggest "Characteristics" as a more general title that covers the material we present: the typical actions & motives of Gamergate supporters, plus the sources that rebut GG arguments. Yes, there's a "gaming industry response", but this is distinct. Maybe I could tweak the wording? This suggestion seems like a non-starter, as we're already discussing the claims & motives of GG in the "Purposes & Goals" section. If you want to expand that section, we can discuss that, but I don't see the need for a new one. The point is that the "purposes and goals" section isn't actually about their claims & motives, it's about briefly covering them in a single paragraph in order to spend the entire rest of the section arguing against them. That's not an informative way of documenting what the movement claimed to be. This article doesn't document the GG version of reality, which is useful for understanding the movement; eg I don't see much about the "gamers are dead" articles, or GameJournoPros mailing list, both of which are important points in GG's timeline. Instead of trying to overhaul the section, it's better to leave it as is (a refutation that briefly states what it's arguing against), and create a new section for GG's claims, no matter how fictional they might be. My abc source documents pro & anti, since almost the entire WP article is anti, I'll quote the pro- summary: The gaming media - including mainstream and niche outlets, and bloggers - no longer represents the interests of gamers. Many games journalists have become too close to the developers, especially the indie developers, that they write about. This chumminess has compromised their objectivity and led to them giving biased coverage of their games. Furthermore, the games media has been infiltrated by activists who have an ideological agenda to disenfranchise gamers from their beloved hobby, and who want to change gaming irrevocably to align it with the values of feminism and the radical left. These values are not those held by most gamers, and this political intrusion is unwelcome in gaming circles. When these issues of corruption and activism were brought to light, instead of acknowledging them and dealing with them sensibly, the gaming media rallied around its own and denied or covered up any wrongdoing. The gaming media also lashed out at its core constituents and overtly attacked gamers by attempting to undermine the very notion of "gamer." And amongst all this, opponents to GamerGate were hurling around accusations that anyone who cared about corruption in games journalism was an angry neckbearded misogynist. GamerGate is not misogynist, but it is against anyone using confected victimhood to gain an unfair advantage, whether that individual is a women or anyone else. While some extremists have used the GamerGate banner to issue attacks, including death threats, against the perceived opposition, including some women developers or activists, these extremists don't truly represent GamerGate. I think the GG crowd would largely endorse this, and it (with additional points) could be the basis of a new section. The key point is that I'm not saying this is true, or that it's an alternate possibility, it's documenting GG's side of the story. You can denounce it as false, I just think it should be covered to be informative and avoid the whole issue of WP:RGW, which infects this article. Xcalibur (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC) That's not an informative way of documenting what the movement claimed to be. What the movement claimed to be is already summed up though, we don't need to go into more depth because... there's no more depth to it. They claimed that journalists were giving favorable reviews to certain game devs/companies, and that was bunk. I feel your proposal puts way too much undue weight on Gamergate's side of things. I especially take umbrage with the quoted these extremists don't truly represent GamerGate line. GG was entirely the extremist side. Anyone innocently swept up in it was a minority who got duped. I think the GG crowd would largely endorse this Frankly, we don't need their endorsement, any more than the September 11th attacks article needs the endorsement of the conspiracy theorists who think the government did it with invisible missiles & holograms. The fringe positions do not need to agree with the article, we just need to represent the facts as presented in reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC) What the movement claimed to be is already summed up though, we don't need to go into more depth because... there's no more depth to it. There's definitely more: aside from alleged biased/favoritist reviews, there was the gamers are dead articles, the sex scandal, gamejournopros mailing list, disrespectful nodding aka contacting advertisers, and the opposition to leftist/progressive activism. As it is, some of it is barely covered. UNDUE I don't think it would qualify as UNDUE to have a single section describing their version of events, not when the whole rest of the article is staunchly against this. A key difference is that it would be presented as fiction, unlike the rest of the article, which is presented as factual. I especially take umbrage with the quoted ... GG was entirely the extremist side. They themselves don't claim to be extremists, and they distance themselves from the worst behavior committed, often claiming that it's a false flag. This is about their claims, not what's true. The fringe positions do not need to agree with the article, we just need to represent the facts as presented in reliable sources. Yet we do have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and Modern flat Earth beliefs. Naturally, these are presented as wrong and false, but absurd claims can still be notable in their own right. Likewise, the claims, narrative, and version of events presented by GG is relevant to this topic, no matter how absurd and false it may be. If you'd like, we can title the section "misinformation and pernicious lies of gamergate" or similar, and we can put an intro & conclusion warning the reader that this information is full of falsehood, just as long as it's presented coherently. Instead of trying to give two sides, or an alternate version, we'd be explicitly denouncing it as false, and simply documenting falsehoods. Most of the article would factually describe GG in terms of most RS, then there could be a section documenting the fictions/falsehoods from the other side. I think this could be the solution to the circular debates here. Xcalibur (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Some of it is barely covered because the reliable sources barely cover it. Per WP:DUE, that's how it should be. You're arguing for WP:FALSEBALANCE here - we don't have to (and should not) portray both sides of the argument - we report only what the best reliable sources report. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC) It's not both sides, it's explicitly documenting the GG side of things as false. I haven't conducted a proper review, but I expect that the RS should give far more coverage to lies & misinformation of Gamergate, as opposed to sources treating their side as a viable alternative. Xcalibur (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, the GG side was false, which is what virtually all reliable sources say. From its inception, Gamergate was a coordinated harassment campaign. It was planned on 4chan, 8chan, IRC, KIA, etc.—right out in the open. Journalists aren't stupid, they were able to see it happening like anyone else. As soon as sources started covering the harassment, the astroturfed deception and PR ops began: "ethics in games journalism", The Fine Young Capitalists, #NotYourShield, etc. Also planned right out in the open. And when sources covered the misogyny, the almost exclusive focus on Zoë Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, guess what happened? The switch to calling them "Literally Who" was planned in public, too. You can't make this stuff up. You're asking us to represent Gamergate's side as if it were ever made in good faith. That's like suggesting we represent a Ponzi schemer's side as legitimate investment advice despite the mountains of reliable sources that say otherwise. We can't and we won't do that. Woodroar (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC) This is about their claims, not what's true. And this is precisely why it's UNDUE. Per WP:FRINGE we don't give equal representation to a fringe minority, and the folks who think GamerGate was an innocent movement are absolutely the fringe. We don't give GG's viewpoints equal time, because it just promotes the idea they had any validity to start with. As Woodroar points out, we have the article built the way it is so that people are clear about the facts: GG was never about "ethics in gaming journalism." As far as I can tell, all your suggested points are actually covered in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)