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.

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.

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 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)


  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.

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)

Shutdown of KotakuInAction subreddit and its return


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