Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 20

Contents

NPOV tag removed

Wait, why was the NPOV tag removed? HalfHat 08:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the community at large, and not the vocal minority of editors on this talk page who believe the content of the page is biased, came to the conclusion that it was against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to have this article persistently tagged as being "biased". Four separate editors who had never edited this article or its talk page before removed the tag and have been reverted time and time again by users heavily involved in editing the article rather than anyone who as any actual points as to how this article is biased (outside of Masem's arguments that it needs to treat both "sides" of the "debate" equally).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, please tell me why 5 limited editors at WP:ANI decide that a tag should be removed, it should suddenly be a consensus even though 5 other editors decided it should stay. That's absolutely gaming of the consensus policy and as such I've restored it. Tutelary (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And I've removed it. Please contest the closure through the usual means, not through revert-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I strongly support this removal. After over a month without any substantial POV issues being raised it's time to drop the stick.

The RFC is a good example of how far awry the campaign to retain the tag has become. Essentially the RFC is attempting to suggest that we make an exception to our NPOV policy in order to produce an article more sympathetic to something nearly all of the reliable sources see as a misogynistic campaign involving very real harm to named people. I hope it's obvious why this is never going to fly. This is not the encyclopaedia you're looking for. TS 12:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this kind (This is not the encyclopaedia you're looking for.) of comments before on the talk page, not necessarily by TS. The impression I'm getting is that this is a comment aimed at SPAs and possibly implying the other editor is not here to improve the project. Just my two cents. starship.paint ~ regal 12:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what Gamergate looks like to the world beyond 8chan and the POV represented in this Australian Broadcasting Corporation news segment broadcast yesterday, the mainstream POV of reliable published sources, is what Wikipedia articles are based on. Hint: "but ethics" gets precisely one mention, death and rape threats get many. Attempts to argue that our article is "biased" because it largely reflects the mainstream POV must fail. NPOV does not mean no point of view, it means we reflect points of view in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Gamergate sort of became an issue where people wanted to discuss ethics within games journalism, but because of the reaction towards her, it also became an issue about misogyny and the way women are treated in games." Can I just point out that one of your quote in one of your articles is that. HalfHat 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the article has having a NPOV because of the the structure. Yes, there has been harassment and misogyny, yes, this is the majority coverage in reliable sources. But the article doesn't fit the timeline, and the lead does not either. The journalism ethics part came first, then the harassment was a consequence. Yes, I know that the allegations against Quinn were proven false, but that didn't stop people from protesting against what they thought was journalism ethics. I feel that we should present the journalism ethics parts first, both in the lead and the body of the article. If you look at these three reliable sources (BBC, Boston.com and CNN, when they started explaining what is GamerGate, they've all gone into journalism ethics first. We can then discuss the harassment after framing the background of journalism ethics, because the harassment is a consequence to people reacting to a supposed breach in journalism ethics. [[User:Starship.paint|starship].paint ~ regal 13:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the "journalism ethics" part didn't come first, because the alleged "ethics" concerns were foundationally illegitimate and a 10-minute "investigation" to determine that Nathan Grayson never wrote a review of Depression Quest would have revealed that. Moreover, even if there had been an ethical violation, it would have been committed by Nathan Grayson, not Zoe Quinn — yet Grayson was not targeted for anything. It is patently clear that there was never an intent to dispassionately and reasonably discuss journalism ethics — it was an excuse to go after Zoe Quinn with slut-shaming third-grade-level sex jokes, vicious abuse and unfounded personal attacks. Proving this is absolutely trivial — all I have to do is point to the IRC channel name and hashtag that were used. They had nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with cheap chanboard lulz. Sorry, your argument doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that ethics concerns were foundationally illegitimate. But that doesn't mean that the "journalism ethics" part didn't come first! Quinn was bombarded because people thought she slept her way to a review, right? Therefore she was attacked because people thought there was a breach in journalism ethics, even if the people thinking so were wrong. starship.paint ~ regal 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the concerns were never about journalism ethics. If you're going to discuss journalism ethics, you don't do it in an IRC channel called #burgersandfries and spend all day making jokes about "Five Guys." If you're going to discuss journalism ethics, you criticize the journalist who allegedly wrote an unethical article, not his girlfriend. If you're going to discuss journalism ethics, you don't send death threats to that journalist's girlfriend. If you're going to discuss journalism ethics, you spend 10 minutes on Google to make sure you're not falsely accusing someone of something that didn't happen. A movement is not judged by what it says it's about, it's judged by what it actually does, and what Gamergate actually did is a matter of public record at this point.
Moreover, if this is about journalism ethics, where are all the apologies to Zoe Quinn for falsely attacking her? It is patently clear that the attacks on Quinn were false, ill-founded and made in bad faith, and that neither she nor Nathan Grayson committed any violation of journalism ethics. If Gamergate is truly interested in a conversation about ethics, they ought to start by having some ethics of their own by owning up to their colossal, catastrophic misjudgment. No, they simply doubled down on "LW1."
I'm sorry, this is a settled argument as far as the sources are concerned — GamerGate was built upon a foundation of specious allegations about a woman's sex life that led directly to misogynistic harassment and abuse of women in gaming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue much further beyond this post. GamerGate started due to the allegation by Gjoni. The allegation, while false, presented a scenario of a breach in journalism ethics by Grayson, as well as a more general breach in ethics by Quinn. Therefore Gjoni started GamerGate regarding journalism ethics. The reaction to Gjoni were in two directions. The article itself states that Although the accusations of favorable coverage were refuted, the incident led to broader allegations on social media that game developers and the gaming press are too often closely connected and that cultural criticism of video games has led to an increasing focus on social representation and cultural meaning in games by some video games writers. Parallel to this, a campaign of harassment started, targeting Quinn and other female game developers, but this was still a consequence of Gjoni's post. "Five Guys" was a consequence, it was not the beginning. There would be no #burgersandfries without Gjoni's post, which presented a scenario which was indeed about journalism ethics. starship.paint ~ regal 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
if the Gjoni rantfest is the basis of your "but ethics" then you are sooooooo far out there that you need to turn your starship back towards earth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've conducted my arguments in a civil manner, I don't see the need for your "witty" snark if you're not really saying anything useful. starship.paint ~ regal 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The same points are being raised again and again and again regarding this issue, showing to me useful discussion has stopped. I would advise anyone reading this who has become focused on GG to take some time out, go and maybe help to clear some of the backlogs, then come back later as and when there is new material to discuss. I was uninvolved when I closed the discussion, and I did look through the talk page and history before I made my close, which is how I reached my conclusion earlier. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
What are we to do when useful discussion has stopped? Dispute resolutions, RfCs, ANI filings, ArbComm cases have all been tried at this point. Can this really be only settled in ArbComm? starship.paint ~ regal 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The specific issue of the tag abuse had to go to ANI, because editors here were edit-warring to retain it in express contradiction to how it is supposed to be used. Now that we're past that, we can all get back to discussing actual content again. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Unfortunately, nothing. I suspect ArbCom will have to go through this and sort it all out, because community sactions have failed to resolve this all. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, that sucks. Maybe I should take a break from this article, and maybe some extremely-involved editors should as well... starship.paint ~ regal 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Community sanctions were barely given a chance, Mdann52.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you reread the discussion at AN/I, most uninvolved editors (such as myself) believe that the tag should remain until the NPOV issues can be resolved. If editors of this article cannot fix these problems, I suggest that they walk away from the article and let others try to fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is, sometimes things are resolved, but not to everyone's satisfaction. A minority of actual (non-SPA) editors cannot be allowed to stymie the moving on from an issue that most editors no longer feel is an issue. This is reminiscent of Obama article editing circa 2009, when a tiny handful of very loud individuals wanted the parent article to be much, much more critique-based than it is now. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if editors who thought the tag should remain would give specific and actionable reasons. To date most of what I've seen as arguments range from the almost useful, but not specific "tone of the article" to the useless "delete it all." I see no current discussion on any specific POV issues. Unless one exists the tag should be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't even a hint of a consensus. The tag removal should be reverted until the article meets a NPOV by most editors. Loganmac (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
{ping|Loganmac}} A discussion happened on ANI (one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia), and the comments there formed a clear consensus. If you wish to differ, I am sure you are aware of the relevant avenues to appeal this. The consesnsus was secured for me by the same issues being raised again and again; If no new issues are being raised, it is not really a discussion on the issue, more a tape stuck on repeat. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52:, what consensus? Tell me, which editors did you see particularly decide that made you close it as such? I 5 agree, 5 disagree, and a rambling discussion. I see no such consensus. Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Another admin weighed in on the closure as not a matter for ANI. Probably best to just drop the issue of the closure in ANI as getting Mdann52 to revert will still leave the issue closed. You may have a case for WP:WRONGVERSION, or maybe a protected edit request requesting the addition of the tag outlining the reasons it's needed per WP:NPOV. — Strongjam (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus does not require that we wait until the last bitter-ender and the final zealot agrees that they were mistaken. If that were the case, consensus would seldom or never occur. What is clear is that (a) the page reflects the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence; (b) those who believe the article lacks neutrality reflect a vocal WP:FRINGE movement; and (c) that fringe movement is being orchestrated and coordinated off-wiki as part of a political/public relations campaign. Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact.

To those concerned that the article leans against Gamergate, I would argue that the narrative it adopts is actually too sympathetic. At this point, the best sources for the controversy have arrived at a rather difference narrative from the one proposed above:

  1. A faction of gamers, unhappy at trends they perceived in game design, decided to attack specific game designers and scholars in order to punish them, frighten them into silence, induce them to leave the field, or convince their employers to dismiss them.
  2. The ensuing campaign of vituperation included publishing details of the sexual histories and home addresses of prominent women in the industry, as well as email campaigns urging advertisers to withdraw business until the group’s targets were silenced.
  3. This campaign was poorly received by the press.
  4. In order to improve their image, the campaigners invented a claim that the press had behaved unethically, that it was (literally) in bed with their opponents, and therefore should be disregarded. (This argument is repeated many times above.)
  5. This new claim that "it was always about ethics" was exploded because (a) few or no ethical questions were raised, much less proven, and (b) neither the timing nor the tactics adopted were consistent with these ex post facto talking points.

I would suggest that a neutral article might adhere more closely to the narrative above -- and expect that a year or two from now, it will. But for now, GG supporters should take comfort that the article is actually more favorable to their crusade than the sources justify or than their crusade deserved.

Finally, many thanks for the full page protection. Though I would argue, as I have done above, that the article departs from neutrality (though not in the way argued at such great length above), it is neutral enough, good enough, and well enough sourced to stand for the time being. Let things cool down for a few weeks (or, better, a few months) and we can return with fewer single-purpose accounts, less lobbying, and cooler heads. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, let's understand that tropes and characterization of women in games was criticized long before GamerGate. Second, concersn about journalism ethics in game reviews were around long before gamergate. Loosely, the battle was already being waged by gamers and major developers ("gamers") against so-called "Social Justice Warriors." The flashpoint came when a true allegation about Quinn (an Indie game developer that created games along social justice lines) having an undisclosed relationship with a journalist (also perceived as sympathetic to social justice causes) was made public by a third party (who, incidentally is also in the social justice camp and called out hypocrisy, not misogyny). While journalism impropriety was denied and no link between the journalists work and quinn was found, the relationship did exist and has the appearance if impropriety nonetheless. Gaming journals tightened up their policies as a result and other journalistic fields have always had these measures in place (as have other industries). Gamergate was born out of the belief that social justice was encroaching games and there was an active alliance between SJ game developers and journalists. Outspoken women in the community had already been targets of misogynistic campaigns and when Quinn was revealed as being involved with a journalist. "gamergate" started with the outing of Quinns relationship. When she pivoted away from defending the relationship to a position of being victimized, the "NotYourShield" campaign started. There's no question that these women were subjected to horrific outing and abuse by certain elements and gaming journalists have covered that aspect very heavily but it was also occurring before gamergate so that's not what gamergate is about. Gamergate is the point in time where gamers received information about a relationship between SJW and Game journalists. In its course it also uncovered GameJournoPros which also had an appearance of impropriety. This is all well sourced and documented. Gamergate certainly contributed to the harassment of Quinn but Sarkheesian had been harassed for a much longer time and it's rather myopic to tie her dispute with games to GamerGate. In any case, the Vox piece about politics in gamergate is an excellent reference as was the piece by a prominent mainstream game developer in the archives. It is on it's face, a false claim to say that gamergate started with misogyny when misogyny was occurring way before gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is on it's face, a false claim to say that gamergate started with misogyny when misogyny was occurring way before gamergate. This doesn't parse for me. I'm also not sure what this has to do with the content of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Bupkis. Yes, women have been harassed and threatened with rape and violence well before Quinn and Gamergate; in some cases (e.g. Sarkeesian), that has been notable. Yes, anonymous men on the internet have been griping about "social justice" creeping into their gaming culture and about issues in gamer journalism, but neither of those were notable. "Gamergate" came about when Quinn's jilted ex posted a blog tirade, anonymous internet denizens saw that as grand proof of their latter 2 issues, and harassed (and continue to harass) the ever-living bejeezus out of Quinn and anyone who has defended her. These anonymous internet men can scream from morning to midnight that all they ever cared about was ethics, but what reliable sources have overwhelmingly taken note of here is the fact that women were threatened with rape and murder by people waving the "Gamergate" banner. That is what is notable, that is what the focus of this article is. It's great that others wave the Gamergate banner for ethics, but no one actually cares about that except for them. Encyclopedias are not platforms to right great wrongs, they are here to discuss topics factually and neutrally. It is a factually neutral thing to say that the predominant view of Gamergate is that it is about harassment, while mentioning "ethics" as a secondary aspect, i.e. the counter-claim. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
When she pivoted away from defending the relationship to a position of being victimized... This is total garbage victim-blaming, DHeyward. Moreover, the belief that social justice was encroaching games is not an issue of journalism ethics. It's an opinion held by some people who don't like "social justice."
Loosely, the battle was already being waged by gamers and major developers ("gamers") against so-called "Social Justice Warriors." This is hilarious, given the clear and unambiguous stance of a wide range of "major developers" that Gamergate is a toxic cesspool of vicious trolling with a major negative impact on the industry. What "major developer" are you citing as opposed to these "social justice warriors," Brad Wardell? Or "RogueStarGamez" who has been sitting on his Kickstarter game project for two and a half years now with no apparent progress? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Actually, traffic to pretty much all the major gaming sites is up or flat, which is verifiable through Alexa. In fact, Kotaku's traffic has skyrocketed. GamerGate is having effectively no impact on viewership, as would be expected from a "movement" made up of maybe 10,000 people at most. Intel pulled out of Gamasutra, then backpedaled at 10,000 mph and a (non-RS, but viewable) Twitter post by Gamasutra's editor implied that Intel is already planning future advertising with Gamasutra. And that's it, there hasn't been anything else in weeks now. "Keep sending e-mails" doesn't work when everyone knows the score. The "impact" that GamerGate thinks it's having just isn't there, DHeyward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Everybody please cool down. Highly questionable material about living persons will be removed. --TS 22:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And please remember this is WP:NOTFORUM. If you dont have specific change you wish to discuss, please consider NOT posting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate winding down

Focus should be given more to the decline of the pro-Gamergate narrative, as noted here; Has Gamergate Finally Burned Itself Out?. Take note of what they discuss, the matter a judge who jokingly said he she would vote against all male-oriented games at the Independent Games Festival. The judge resigned briefly in the wake of the Gamergate complaints, til the IGF actually examined the merit (or lack thereof) the complaints, and swiftly reinstated him her. The article, as well as many others, notes Sarkeesian's appearance on the Colbert Report, as well as the co-founder of Blizzard Entertainment saying "Over the past couple of months there’s been a small group of people who have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people’s lives miserable and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It’s not right." A high-profile game industry person speaking out on this is rather notable. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But ethics!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I only read the first link because I don't have much time, but the Slate piece is a blog. Also, the judge was of the Independent Games Festival, instead of a real judiciary. starship.paint ~ regal 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no dice. The blog-esque sections of reliable sources are treated no differently, i.e. you don't get to do the "just a blog" dismissal.
Assuming they have the same editorial policies. HalfHat 14:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're referring to Mattie Brice (and I think you are), she's a her, not a him. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Derp, sorry...saw the name, assumed short for Matthew. Fixed. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Winding down is the appropriate phrasing. Gamergate is not "dead" and will never be dead. It means too much to those who are involved in the movement (or consumer revolt, whatever) that they will continue to work on GG issues into the future. It's like a campaign, those who are marginally involved have now moved on already, there isn't really anything "newsworthy" that has happened recently so it's not in the mainstream media and gaming journals are, for sure, tired of discussing the topic. It will never go away completely but, barring any flash fires, activity will lessen in the coming weeks and months. Ideally, this will provide some much needed perspective that will help this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You people do realize that the media churns out yet another "GamerGate is Dead! Pls stop stealing our monies ;-;" every week or so? I'm so pissed off that you actually fall for this that I'm not even going to bother linking to the 20+ stupid "GamerGate is dead" shit. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah one from weeks ago is actually in the references here. I've heard Dyson pulled their advertising recently which doesn't really fit with this, though I've not seen any RS report on it. HalfHat 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
They didn't even report on Mercedes Benz, only when they got back, and only one outlet, and even when Gawker denied they were advertising with them. Loganmac (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources drive our narrative. As the frightening and horrific events that characterised the first two months recede into the past and public attitudes to Gamergate solidify, it's not surprising that some of those reliable sources are now talking about Gamergate being over. It certainly isn't Wikipedia's task to act as a booster for a movement that the vast majority of reliable sources regard as hateful and violent. That's just not what encyclopaedias are for. --TS 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that since the author cannot even do a little fact checking about when a website was created ("Gamergate organizers at 8chan—a site set up for Gamergate after 4chan booted them—" a simple Google search will tell them the site was created in 2013), and is instead parroting the views of those who wish people to believe that 8chan was set up just for those involved in GamerGate, that the actual piece is not reliable. If the author can't take 5 seconds to find out if a site was made before or after what they're writing about, then they aren't worth the read. Also, we are well aware that this line "Gamergaters knew an opportunity when they saw one and put on a great show of being offended by this tweet, which they read, or pretended to read, as literal." in referring to Mattie Brice's comments would have been called sexist, misogynistic, etc. had a man said the same thing about any game with women. It is intellectually bankrupt, and hypocritical, to deny that many feminists, etc., do take those types of things literally when men say them; and then turn around and say that no one should take those kinds of statements literally as long as they come from a woman. The article, itself, is of no value to the page. UncleThursday (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales approaching GG people to suggest to write their version (offsite)

Keeping in mind that Jimmy Wales cannot force any issue on WP outside of WMF office actions, he does have a vision for how WP should be. And he's asked the proGG side to write what they think this article should be like. (His tweet to them). I have very strong doubts we'd be able to us much they will create but it might be interesting if they have sources that we would take as RS that we have otherwise not used. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And in the first hour, they call the harassment of Quinn "alleged" and make a factually false statement about Quinn and Grayson. Pass the popcorn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
inviting people whose edits here had to be oversighted so much that both the talk page and the article page are protected from open editing to make their baseless claims elsewhere off from reddit/8chan seems to me to have been an idea that was not quite thought through. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and it's going about as expected — doubling and tripling down on the accusations about Zoe Quinn's personal relationships, zomg Patreon, and nonsensical MSPaint "infographics." Because it's about ethics in gaming journalism, alright. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to interject, but AFAIK the use of "alleged" in this context would be appropriate - all real and potential misconduct illegal behaviour in this controversy will remain "alleged" until the conclusion of an investigation by the appropriate authority or until an appropriate judicial body has passed judgement upon the veracity of the claims or the guilt of any involved parties. This applied equally and fairly to any people involved in this controversy. To avoid "victim blaming" one could say, "ZQ was the victim of harassment. It is alleged that the perpetrators are aligned with the GG hashtag." Furthermore, "false statement" is harsh IMO. Why don't you (Baranof) say that they make a statement which is inconsistent with a specific RS that you have used.Jgm74 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
tl;dr, "ignore the reliable sources because they're mean to Gamergate." Nope, we're not going to ignore the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That really isn't a good argument, I doubt all the websites had fair trials against the people of GG where it was proven beyond all resonable doubt. HalfHat 09:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No, but Wikipedia is not a court of law and we don't operate on a standard of proven guilt or innocence. Rather, we reflect the perspectives of mainstream reliable sources in proportion with their prevalence in said sources and let the chips fall where they may. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If they do a good job of explaining their POV it could be referenced by RS we could source. HalfHat 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Wikis, by definition, cannot be reliable sources for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no way that raw claims from that wikia or the other GG wiki sites can be used here. A reference we can check as an RS, sure, but not uncited claims. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Which is why we site the RS for the opinions. HalfHat 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikia is a business founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. It has no connection with Wikipedia and sites can have their own policies. He's quite a clever boy sometimes. --TS 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ESRC researcher Amanda Potts on the importance of industry leadership in the opposition to misogyny

Here is a neat little trade news piece about an ESRC report on the importance of industry figures taking the lead in attacking sexism and misogyny. Attitudes in a gaming community were studied in the presence and absence of inclusive video presentations, with predictable results. The report's author, Amanda Potts, relates it to Gamergate as follows:

“What we are seeing with #GamerGate is that the more powerful video producers and professionals are divided in their points of view, and are taking up arguments for both sides of the story. So this leads to divided opinions amongst the different fan communities, who aren’t being given a strong enough message that abuse of women and other groups perceived to be in the gaming minority is wrong.”

This could probably find a place alongside the account of Morhaime's almost solitary stand, amongst comparable industry figures, directly against the violence and hatred indelibly associated with Gamergate. As time passes this section is slowly acquiring more prominence than the minutiae of who said what on 4chan. --TS 13:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate concerns

There is now a page on what is as close to an official GamerGate site as it gets giving an overview of various GamerGate issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't this been heavily criticized by another source in the article?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it: "Released: November 12, 2014" Racuce (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I recall something very similar to this having been found and then heavily criticized by an actual reliable source. Also there is really no way that we are going to include this as a source in the article because I'm fairly certain that the various screen caps of peripheral people's Twitter accounts is a no go for BLP when that Buzzfeed piece was thrown out completely without us even mentioning any of the people mentioned within. Also Gamergate.me is a wiki site or something isn't it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
someone earlier had posted a "manifesto" to show that GG was all about ethics and then a site posted a markup version showing how every demand and claim was essentially anti-actual ethical reporting. (ie "If you dont like a game, you should give it to someone else on staff who does like it for them to review") i think we cover it, or we did at one point-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
its in the Debate over legitimacy section, paragraph starting "Blogger Kelly Maxwell,"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend looking at the source first and then decide if it can be used. I don't know who you classify as peripheral people, but this source is highly focused on the corruption in gaming journalism and the involved parties. GamerGate.me is a site to inform the community, it has a blog,a wiki and now also a press section. Racuce (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If any of this material ever shows up in reliable sources, then it may find its way into the article. What I find most amusing is that, after a few paragraphs insisting that it's all about ethics in gaming journalism, they switch to discussing Metacritic and start accusing developers of submitting "perfect" user reviews for their own game. --TS 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's also interesting to read the accusations of developers gaming reviews in one breath, and 10 words later find an attack on a review site for posting its honest opinion of a game, because according to Gamergate, its honest opinion was wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop this kind of soapboxing here, NorthBySouth. Fut.Perf. 11:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not intended as soapboxing, FPaS, it's intended as an observation about the quality of the source and the potential validity of its content. Lord knows there's been plenty of observations here about mainstream reliable sources being "biased." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed source is appropriate here. I think the problem in this case is that it's a putative primary source. Discussion of its merits will almost inevitably descend into soapboxing. Fortunately our policies mean the merits are largely immaterial here. I am withdrawing my comments on the merits. --TS 12:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a press source point to this to show it exists and acknowledged (it may take a day or two to get out), and perhaps comment (Either way) on it, but agree that we should only be looking for their primary claims to report here (several which I know we can corrobate w/ reliable sources such as Doritosgate), and not get too far in the weeds on their reasoning. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the single worst article on Wikipedia

You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. This is the farthest thing from encyclopedic; it's regurgitated feminist propaganda masquerading as neutral information. It's the calculated exploitation of editors' highly legalistic and rigid interpretation of Wikipedia policy to create a POV article. The initial sentence isn't even free of clear bias; "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture". Misogyny? Of course, no explanation given, no discussion as to the broader context of the controversy, no differentiation between trolls and seriously disconcerted, frustrated gamers. It's just "misogyny". A garbage article. This is why WP:IGNORE is such a crucial principle to follow; so articles like this cannot be maintained, endorsed, and all critics and dissenters sanctioned by admins and various other groups of individuals bent on imposing their intellectually vacuous and intransigent perception of rules onto an open, supposedly unbiased medium such as Wikipedia. JDiala (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

So do you have any suggestions for changing the article that meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, etc.?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There has been litteraly thousands of other versions that was better, however they did not stay long. --Torga (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not an answer to my question.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence (and others) don't conform to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, etc so objecting to it is perfectly reasonable. --DHeyward (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you concerned about feminism? --Frybread (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


For what it's worth, we used to get similar comments on the global warming article talk page. In those days the scapegoat was "government scientist/United Nations propaganda", and here it's "feminists". Leave aside the death threats, that's all "propaganda." Those harmed are "professional victims", not even real people at all.

It's our job as an encyclopaedia to not ignore the facts presented to us by reliable sources. Advice on how we could do that better is always welcome. --TS 12:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Noone said we should "leave aside all death threats" even Wikis by proGG people mention harassment, this is a strawman. And you're comparing it to a conspiracy theory Loganmac (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well to be fair, when I wrote that I was thinking of the alternative version on the Wikia site, which refers to all the harassment and the death threats as "alleged". I hope you're right to say that nobody here is involved in that horrible mess. --TS 15:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Time to revisit and revise

I agree with Jimmy Wales that all reported speech comes under the BLP and must not be misrepresented. But there's another issue here: our analysis is often tainted by recentism. While that's inevitable and part of what makes Wikipedia such a popular source for ongoing events, it does entail a need for continuous curation, so as to revise the emphasis in places where the news cycle concentrated on whatever new shiny object was presented to it. We probably shouldn't give so much to the opinions of individual commentators where they deviate from the thrust of reliable sources.

In the early days, for instance, Erik Kain's well written essays became popular with some of the article editors and so he's been used as a principal source in many parts of the article. That kind of historical accident suggests to me that, while there's nothing wrong with sourcing an individual commentator on facts, sometimes we may want to go back and revisit sections where we reproduce their opinions.

In the end, to take a prominent example, only Breitbart thought there was anything scandalous about journalists communicating with one another by email, and so we discuss the non-story of the GameJournoPro mailing list through the lens of Kain gamely attempting to rationalise a non-existent controversy. Surely many other sources have discussed this in a more measured way, and the fact that the vast majority of sources don't even consider mailing lists controversial at all seems to be lost in our article. Yet that's the important story, if there is one--that no reliable source regards GameJournoPros as the smoking gun Gamergate insist it is. So why does it get a section of its own? How best to summarise a mild fuss over the fact that journalists use email to communicate with one another? That's one example of where I think we could improve our coverage.


The big slew of death threats and wild accusations of impropriety that characterised Gamergate is now largely over, so we now have time to revisit sections like this. It's a normal function of Wikipedia editing. --TS 12:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Kain is given way to much weight considering ever piece we cite from him is WP:NEWSBLOG and not subject to Forbes editorial oversight. — Strongjam (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If that is true then he may not be such a reliable source. --TS 14:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
He's also a salaried paid Forbes writer, and has a good history, so the Video games project considers him a situational source for video game related matters, but I don't think it's a good source for a controversial topic like this. I'm fine with citing him for his opinions, but we need to be careful not to give him undue weight. Might be a matter for the WP:RSN though. — Strongjam (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
He is a Forbes "Contributor" which means while he might be paid by Forbes, he is not in their direct employ (we've looked at this at the VG project long before GG started). Their work is not part of the normal editing process, and while likely checked for any outright problems before posted under Forbes name, it is basically a glorified SPS. Now, Kain's remarks prior to GG have been recieved and recognized by other RSes before, so him, like Paul Tassi, are considered situational sources, such as commentary on a video game. However, in this specific scenario, Kain's weak reliability may not make him a good source unless he has brought a unique opinion to the table. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
With that in mind, there are a couple of places where we should be more clear about what his role at Forbes is. For example In Forbes, Erik Kain described the character, could leave the reader thinking Kain was writing for the magazine. The first sentence in the "Social Criticism" section as well seems to give him too much weight, but that whole paragraph is basically a quote farm and we should probably deal with that first. — Strongjam (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet sites like Boing Boing are given space. Why something tells me Erik Kain is getting rid off of the article because of what he writes and not where he writes Loganmac (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I did point this out before, Boing Boing is an admitted group blog. Ryulong argued for it because 1) many other WIkipedia pages use it 2) the author of the article is the managing editor of Boing Boing. I'd still advocate for its removal anyway. starship.paint ~ regal 14:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider Kain's reliability to be an issue as were not using him as a sole source for any fact (or shouldn't be). I just think we can spend time rearranging the coverage to eliminate the effects of recentism, as I discussed above. Erik Kain's excellent early coverage was very important in the early stages of the article, and he's just the primary example that came to my mind when thinking of this. I certainly don't think we should eliminate references to his work. --TS 14:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Boing Boing thing, the whole Vivian James thing seems overdone to me. I'd rather see a much smaller section on this icon with a few well picked sources, than one that seems destined to blow up because of the rape meme that forms its colour scheme. We've already got lots of material on the Gamergate supporters' seeming imperviousness to bad optics. --TS 14:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried removing it, but NBSB reverted me back. Since I don't want to violate 3RR, I didn't revert the reversion. --DSA510 Pls No H8 17:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Concerning imperviousness, these are gamers. People who grind a level for hours on end to get that final coin, get that esoteric achivement, etc. To put it in their own words, "Gamers don't Die. They Respawn". --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

On the prior arbcom case that was rejected, one non-involved user did suggest this articles suffers from recentism, and also suggested that the best way at the present is to eliminate much of the opinions and stay closer to the facts, only coming back to the opinions once the whole GG thing has settled or died down. This is in that vain - at least when it comes to an opinions that were try to make broad statements during, say, August and September. (This would include Kain's pieces) There are some parts of the history of events that are tied to opinions (And vice versa) that have to be kept but a lot of the opinions presented in the latter half of the article are in the recentism vein. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Masem, what do you think of cutting the second and third paragraph of "Support for The Fine Young Capitalists"? It has a main article, so all this is quite excessive. Or at least cut the second paragraph and condense the third (one-sentence) paragraph. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've been arguing for a culling of that part for a while (there's things on both sides of the issues that can be trimmed out), TFYC has always seemed like a minor point here that we can't really fit well into the narrative but not to remove entirely. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I won't pretend three editors makes consensus, but we do seem to be agreeing on removal of some of the minutiae, particularly commentary. It may be worth exploring that further to see if we can broaden consensus on that. -TS 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We could trim the GameJournoPros paragraph, taking out Erik Kain and James Fudge's back-and-forth. Also probably we don't need to give Zaid Jiliani a whole paragraph in "Political views." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The fate of the GJP section might depend on if that press statement by the Gamergate side is covered in any detail, since that is one of their specific complaints that can be addressed. I'd hold off on that for the moment, though agree without any other sources to highlight it, it's bulky. Agree on the Zaid part. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Grammar error

In the third paragraph under "False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment", the quote from Zoe Quinn's BBC interview doesn't have a closing quotation mark. A quotation mark should be added after the phrase "she had sex with someone."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've also demoted that section to a third-level heading below "history", as that seemed to be implicitly intended; let me know if that was mistaken. Fut.Perf. 10:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that was a mistake. The "history" section is for events that took place before Gamergate was a thing. That header is the beginning of the discussion of the actual events rather than "history" which was previously a "background" section if I recall correctly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I can certainly revert it, but it just looked weird to me. Are "Further harassment and threats" and "Industry response" really meant to be sub-sections to "False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment", rather than to "History"? If that previous bit was called "Background", it would be a bit more transparent. Fut.Perf. 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it used to be Background rather than History at least.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I found another weird error. There's a reference that has "Gamergate is dead" repeated twice for its title. It's from the verge and it's written by Plante.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding the Controversial tag to this talk

I, Tony Sidaway (who opposed the motion) recognise that consensus exists to tag this article as controversial. The effect of adding the tag to the talk page is described at template:controversial/doc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


It just seems odd to me it's not here there's been a lot of arguing on this page. Template:Controversial HalfHat 20:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Support - Adding the tag to the talk seems non-controversial to me. A little concerned about template overload though. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
On reflection and taking into consideration other comments, amending to weak support. I think a better solution might be to move the general sanctions template higher up so that it's more noticeable. Perhaps right below the BLP notice. I do share TRPoD's concerns about the load and save times which can be pretty bad at times. — Strongjam (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Much better than edit-warring over the NPOV tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until supported by policy. This seems to be simply another attempt to attach a badge of shame to the page. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why you'd think that, it's little more than a warning to editors. HalfHat 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Something we can all agree on. (maybe) Tutelary (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This controversy is ongoing and while I disagree with the NPOV tags removal, it's more important to me that readers at least be notified that the editors are not at a consensus on the topic. Digman14 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this seems to be yet another attempt to beat a dead horse. The sanctions notice tells everybody here we've got a severe conduct problem; going back to pretending it's merely a matter of lack of consensus within policy would be misleading. --TS 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Even though NPOV discussions are still ongoing that tag was not producing consensus as the article is too controversial. Maybe when it dies down, the controversy will fade and neutrality will be achievable. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • in theory, why not, but every transclusion increases the load and save time for this already very long and slow page, and so for practical reasons, no, unless some of the other tags are removed/replaced -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The decision to remove it was clearly made with no concensus. We tried to vote on it before. But then someone just said "this is not a vote" and removed it anyways, and those who protested got banned.--Torga (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To clarify. This isn't for the NPOV tag, but for the controversial article tag and applies only to the talk page and hasn't be added or removed in the past to the best of my knowledge. — Strongjam (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If an article is such a hot potato that labeling it controversial is controversial, then we have a controversial article. Also one in need of a rewrite. Skeletos (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Working draft

Since this is probably going to get lost in the thread above... I've set up a working draft at Draft:Gamergate controversy, and invite folks to work on potential improvements that might gain consensus for a protected edit request. My first series of edits have been trims in the vein of that above thread, working to reduce redundancy and tighten the prose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can it be moved to Gamergate controversy/Working draft? It would make it easier for discussion about the draft. Or is full protection cascading? Retartist (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If it's in the article space it gets treated as an article rather than a sub page and that means it gets indexed by search engines and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, as per Ryulong above, unfortunately it has to be stuck in the talkpage space. Would be nice to have a better solution for article working drafts... maybe that's something the WMF could look at for a MediaWiki update *cough*Jimbo*cough*. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a draft space for articles for creation submissions, last I checked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Opposing this because this shouldn't be used as a way to avoid discussion of the topics and a reaching of consensus, and that's exactly what's happening with overly pushy editors to the draft. I like some of the changes and editing, but this is too open to abuse. I made a number of reasonable changes, and someone went in and undid them all. It's a nonsense effort. Abandon. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's how wikis work. Have you tried reverting the changes and discussing why you disagree with them? --TS 15:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Draft:Gamergate controversy so it has its own talk page. Also, Willhesucceed, you can't do what you did either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I know we don't see eye to eye, but thanks for taking the time to set this up, it allows some semblance of continuous editing to occur. I wish the regular article wasn't locked, but this is the next best thing. Any idea on if/how changes will come over from the draft to the actual article? Skeletos (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When a consensus forms.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The best bet is to take it section by section... so make some edits to a section and then open a new subsection here for discussion, like the above discussion on the Mike Morhaime deal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good. I was worried that there would be a lot of reverting by people who didn't participate in the draft. Skeletos (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources, atmosphere of intimidation

Sections that do not have a specific proposed edit or issue to discuss tend to degenerate into general sniping, as this one has. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I haven't read the entirety of this article; it is so long and cumbersome that just glancing at it gives me vertigo. Unless I'm missing something, it deals with the harassment of female gamers and journalists rather the factual accuracy of the claims made by Anita Sarkeesian and other critics — right?

As a disclaimer from a gamer, I'm critical of Sarkeesian's work. I initially came out in full support of Tropes vs. Women and I think she raises numerous valid points, but I feel these are grossly undermined by the tactics that she has used in conveying her perspective. To give an example, her coverage of Hitman: Absolution. I'm sure most everyone here is already familiar with Thunderf00t, one of the more prominent supporters of GamerGate on YouTube (Redacted). I'm not going to conduct a character assassination against anyone and I know that Sarkeesian is not the only woman targeted by the GamerGate controversy, but let's face it: she's probably the one who has received the most attention for her views. As for the situation with Zoe Quinn, I've yet to play Depression Quest so my perspective on the matter is somewhat limited. I have struggled with severe clinical depression for a very long time. The notion that someone is trying to give people a better understanding of the condition is very appealing to me (whether it can actually be conveyed is another story). It doesn't really matter though; harassment is always wrong (Redacted).

So now that my biases are out in the open, I'll say what I feel must be said. I've been hesitant to speak out about this particular issue because I have strong and conflicting opinions about it. I'm worried that if I criticize Sarkeesian's misrepresentations (as outlined by Thunderf00t and others), then I'll be shot down by other editors for promoting a fringe view that doesn't have very many reliable sources to back it up. It would also associate me with the misogynist element of the gaming community, and I want no part of that. Conversely, if I say that I support the merits of her activism and consider the harassment levied against women in the gaming community to be vile, then my words could be taken as a ringing endorsement of Sarkeesian's methods and the perennial OR catch-22 (i.e. knowing the facts, yet presenting sources that run counter to them because of their credibility). I can't be the only one who is uncomfortable even posting on this page for that very reason. What's there to be done? Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. Please don't, then. I've removed (per BLP) a large amount of material from your comment that sounds like the same kind of vile nonsense that gets out given as an excuse for the hate campaigns against women in gaming. There is no reason for that to be here, because the hate mongers who spread this nonsense are not reliable sources. If you feel that you cannot comment here please undergo dispute resolution. TS 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe anything I posted in my original comment violated BLP in any way, although I'm sure most others would disagree with me on that point (your removal appears to have the implicit support of all other participants in this discussion), so I won't re-add my original text. I feel my comments were well-substantiated and targeted the crux of her criticisms, rather than making baseless accusations and casting her in an unduly negative light (which is what you've implicitly accused me of doing). I find the equivalence you've drawn between my words and the "vile nonsense"/"hate campaigns against women in gaming" to be absolutely disgusting and a complete mischaracterization of my original post. In all my years of editing this site, I have never felt so offended as I do now. Kurtis (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A large problem here is that the viewpoint towards Quinn/Sarkeesian's views (prior to GG) are not well documented. I know I can read lots of forum threads about how come see that, but we have very little reliable sources about them. We have some that extend from the Depression Quest commentary on Quinn which are already in the article, but that's pretty much the extent that I know I've found. As WP can really only work on what is reported by reliable sources, we really cannot express those views further until they are properly covered. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is not about Sarkeesian and any potential "misrepresentations" some may attribute to her. It is about the gamergate controversy. and "no matter what the victim has done to attract it" WOW! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. There is no justification for harassment, which was my central point. Please do not take my original comment out of context. I'm not trying to suggest that she "had it coming" or anything like that. Kurtis (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just watched part of that video and read some of the comments, and now I'm going to wash my eyes. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the source of harassment isn't known fully. In before le No True Scotsman maymay. And, again, "The harassment obviously came from the all the males of gamergate"[1] Source: Gawker. --DSA510 Pls No H8 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
au contraire, my dear friend. Sarkeesian's threats are explicitly sourced from those claiming affiliation with gamergate. When you run a "movement" that's only identification is the use of a hashtag, you get "credit" for all done under the name of the hashtag, something the next generation of "movements" will probably keep in mind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll see your link and raise you a [1] [2]. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is "propaganda." Sure, makes sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There were two specific threats at USU. The first, the one that inferred the Ecole Polytech shootings, had no explicit GG attachment, though it is assumed by most to be a GG one. The second was specifically from someone claiming to be GG, but it wasn't the same type of threat that the first one had. And no, we as WP editor cannot write this assuming that if someone did it under the hashtag, that everyone supporting the hashtag is responsible - we do have plenty of sources criticizing anyone that wants to actually discuss ethics to either get away from GG and use a new tag, or clearly call out condemnation of harassment in a unified voice so everyone knows its trolls usurping the hashtag. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This might be related to my previous section about reorganizing the article. The topic of this article is not clear, because what the phrasing "gamergate controversy" is one person will be different for another, even if the way the phrase is taken in the way to mean "the ethical issues" is a fringe view, it still is a far different meaning. We really need to have it determined by consensus and reflected in the article what this article is specifically about. If it is about the movement (which would then be heavily weighted necessarily by its criticism) then yes, the issues about Quinn/Sarkeesian before GG started are valid if they can be reliably sourced. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. what specifically do you wish to change in the article and what sources are you basing that recommendation on? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the unclear original post, I had an appointment to attend and was in a bit of a hurry.

My problem is with the overall atmosphere of anything related to Gamergate, Sarkeesian, Quinn, or gender equality. Whether you agree or disagree with one side of the dispute, I don't think anyone would deny that it's a patently toxic editing environment. I feel as if Tony Sidaway's post above is emblematic of exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: being critical of Sarkeesian (or any other activist) in any way, shape, or form is equated to misogyny or a character assassination. Even if you agree with the merits of their position (that women are given unfair representation in the media, particularly in video games), you can still say that you disagree with some aspect of how they are representing their case. Surely there must be some academic sources that delve into detail about a more critical perspective, sans the abject sexism. The same can be said of being fully supportive of Sarkeesian's position, where those who back her are accused of pushing a "feminist agenda" or the like. This sprawling talk page and its archives are so intimidating that no one in their right mind would willingly subject themselves to the pressures of editing this article unless they were willing to pick a fight. I'm trying to get the ball rolling so that we can take a good, hard look at ourselves and realize that these gender wars are a corrosive influence on our ability to act rationally. I don't think dispute resolution has yet achieved a satisfactory editing environment.

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I want to reaffirm that I do not in any way condone the vile harassment campaigns that women within the gaming community have been subjected to. To repeat what I said above, I didn't mean to imply that the victim of harassment had it coming or anything of the sort. That was a mistake on my part. Kurtis (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been established nobody here condones the harassment. --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I had assumed as much. Kurtis (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have a user conduct issue, take it to the board set up for user conduct issues Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement do not whine or cast aspersions here.
If you have a specific article content edit, be clear about what should be changed and supply sources.
If you just want to comment and discuss, go somewhere else, this is NOT a chat forum -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the general sanctions are doing enough. Do you not notice the level of rancour that has taken hold on this talk page and in any other discussion pertaining to Gamergate? There's an open request for arbitration right now, and honestly, I'd like for them to accept a case. If not, then I think we need to seriously consider discussing ways in which to tone down the atmosphere of this page and others. No one wants to edit an article whose talk page is on fire.

I'm actually going to disengage myself from this topic. It's clear that I feel too strongly about it to contribute impartially. Sorry I wasted your time. Here's hoping you can all find a way to collaborate effectively on this subject. Kurtis (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This page is not for whining the the general sanctions arent doing enough when you are making any effort to use them but are just whining about editors here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom, take it easy please. There is no need to browbeat everyone who comes along. Kurtis's comment may be seen as forumposting to some, but there is no denying that this is not a pleasant work environment, and you're not helping. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I suggest that TheRedPenOfDoom take a week or so to cool off. I'm trying to minimalize my snark, at the very least. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My original comment was restored by The Devil's Advocate (with the link to the video redacted).[3] Just thought I should mention that for reasons of disclosure. I'm sorry if I offended anyone; looking back on it now, this post was probably ill-advised. Kurtis (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth I've archived it. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're just a user you should never be cutting away other people's comments, even people higher up the food chain should be cautious with this, the only person that can just cut away a comment is the user that posted it. HalfHat 21:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
All editors are urged to remove content that might violate WP:BLP even if it's a talk page comment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay never was too strong. But BLP applies to almost none of that, cutting all that away to a sentence that looked like it's only purpose was to take a dig was out of order. HalfHat 22:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Kurtis, I think I understand what you're getting at. From my perspective, here is the issue. There is no way to put this delicately, so I'll just say it. Gamergate is demonstrably a fringe POV. While their supporters are very vocal on a few Internet social media forums (most of them entirely anonymous) their actual numbers are small and their claims have garnered no mainstream credibility — to the contrary, in mainstream sources their claims have either been widely refuted or widely dismissed as nothingburgers. The weight of mainstream reliable sources is simply indisputable at this point, and so many Gamergate supporters have retreated into a conspiracy-theory realm where all sources are biased against them, except for those which agree with them. (A self-fulfilling prophecy.)
I am neither a "gamer" nor a "social justice warrior" — I first took interest in this issue when the community was made aware on a noticeboard that Wikipedia pages were being used to spread unfounded claims about living people and, as became obvious, further a campaign of vile harassment against them. Rather than acknowledge the movement's foundation in specious slut-shaming trolling, Gamergate is now attempting to whitewash the past and portray itself as a noble crusade for "journalism ethics," despite the fact that reliable sources all but universally view it as a purveyor of misogynistic harassment and retrograde culture warring. It is difficult to collaborate to build an article when there is insistence on portraying a group not as the overwhelming weight of reliable sources portray it, but as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes. This we simply cannot do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I was initially anti-gamergate, then after digging for stuff myself, I'm very skeptical of the claims. Also I started using adblock again. I'm a skeptic, and there's something massively wrong about all this. In before "the misogyny". On a personal note, if anything, I should be pro-gg, since they don't reduce my condition(s) to some fashion statement on tumblr. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What annoys people like me is the gross-generalisation of everyone in the movement. I know that a lot of harassment has happened but it is annoying when everyone in the movement is labeled (or implied) as a woman-hater when it can be seen that quite a few people on the other side are misandrist and the media ignores that. Retartist (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Your "personal annoyance" is COMPLETELY irrelevant. You need to toss it out the window and start editing from Wikikpedia policies WP:UNDUE and the WP:RS sources. Period. END OF STORY. If you keep tendentiously editing based upon your "personal annoyances" rather than the sources, you will be banned from the subject or the site. The choice is yours - shape up or you WILL get shipped out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It’s not clear that DSA510 's, or anyone's, personal beliefs or inclinations or skepticism or afflictions is pertinent here. We're discussing the improvement of an encyclopedia article, based on reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof's summary, on the other hand, nicely explains the problem: It is difficult to collaborate to build an article when there is insistence on portraying a group not as the overwhelming weight of reliable sources portray it, but as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes. But this is precisely the torque that is being repeatedly applied here. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
At present, the article's introduction starts with a conclusion about the nature of an ongoing event. The article then goes on to search for proof of this conclusion. If this were an academic paper, it would be failed. The intro should really start with the questions and run down a quick discussion of the key elements of the debate. Not the key conclusions of the debate. The key events and people, with info about why the reader should even care. The first sentence opens up and it declares Gamergate is misogynist. Like it's just open and close - we've got this statement about the group's morals before there's even any evidence to support the conclusion. People aren't frustrated with this article for PR reasons exclusively. It's also because the article is very badly written and it's unpleasant to read. YellowSandals (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a "question" here, though. The conclusion is drawn from the reliable sources, and the reliable sources are virtually unanimous in describing the key point of this controversy being misogynistic harassment of women in video gaming. The front page of The New York Times, The Colbert Report, NPR, PBS NewsHour, on and on and on and on... the focus of those sources is the misogynistic harassment, with "journalism ethics" receiving little more than a throwaway mention that Gamergate supporters claim it as a justification. I know Gamergate supporters think all of those reliable sources are biased and conspiring against them and so forth... but Wikipedia does not traffic in such theories. Our articles are weighted with the mainstream POV predominating, and the all-but-unchallenged mainstream view of the key points of the Gamergate controversy is as this article describes. That Gamergate supporters disagree with these mainstream sources' portrayal of the issue is of no consequence. We can, should and do mention the POV of Gamergate supporters, but at it is demonstrably a minority POV, it will not be given the prominence or credence its supporters wish it to have. If at some future point, all of those reliable sources reverse course and embrace Gamergate, then, thanks to the handy editing features, we can edit the article to reflect that change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's weighted with crap writing, unsubstantiated personal opinions several editors here hold, laughing dismissals of all outside perspective, and slanted quote farming. The article is basically just an anti-GG echo with very little real substance in it. Take the final paragraph of the intro even. It doesn't mention misogyny, but it states, in factual manner, that Gamergate is mad because games are closer to art now. This in spite of the fact that discussion about games as art has been going on for maybe a decade or longer, with notable commentary from Roger Ebert, and hardcore fans are not explicitly against the perception of games as art. Why does the article say that? I'm pretty sure it's because the article lacks all sense and perspective, and it has basically no idea what in the heck it's talking about.
The article is stupid because it contains all these convenient explanations and theories on human behavior. As though you could just look at people and say, "Yeah, this is the reason everybody does things". It's one of the biggest earmarks of ideological writing, since an ideology often believes it can classify people by assigning absolute good and evil as motivations. It seems like many editors here just kind of vaguely heard about Gamergate but don't really understand how the conflict came to develop, and they don't want to know. The conflict is "because mah soggy knees", and Wikipedia needs to tell everyone that, oh yes, all THESE people are misogynists. We done figured it out. Jury is in. Everybody do the ridicule. YellowSandals (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
In the sense of the saying "better to light a candle than curse the darkness", I'd like to cordially invite you to join the discussion of specific ways to improve the article within Wikipedia's content policies. Strictly speaking, just saying the article is all wrong because some of the editors are bad people with wrong opinions and no willingness to listen to alternative interpretations is a conduct issue and should be taken to appropriate venues already set up on the wiki. --TS 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Consider writing a factual account of the controversy, the events in it, and how it relates to the reader. As opposed to a useless, lengthy, ideological piece full of purple prose about misogyny. I didn't say anyone's opinions were wrong. I said the writing is ideological, substandard, poorly organized, and all around just kind of deconstructive. YellowSandals (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, if this article wasted less time talking about misogyny and instead just discussed some of the events without embellishment or quote farming, you could probably shorten this to a few sections no longer than a couple paragraphs each. As opposed to five paragraphs about the "false allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment", then another five paragraphs go on to explain not only extra people who were harassed, but people who weren't harassed (because some of the people not harassed are men, which PROVES "muh soggy knees"). Then we have three paragraphs about how the media doesn't like Gamergate. You could easily rename the header to "Online Harassment and Media Response" and probably shorten most of that to five paragraphs that just establish harassment and the response to it.
Then we have eight paragraphs that briefly touch on some things Gamergate complains about, only to extensively rebuke them by quoting as many negative opinions on it as possible. Calling it all "conspiracy theories" and so forth. Reading through that section, I'm really not sure what any of you think Gamergate's motives are except "muh soggy knees". Eight paragraphs to that section, and it's still completely unclear why Gamergate has happened. You could shorten the ethics concerns down to like a paragraph, and we have a few sources discussing where some of Gamergate's anger likely stems from. In the GameJournoPros section we have a full paragraph dedicated to numerous perspectives on the mailing list, virtually none of which are substantial or important to the reader.
That's only half way through the article. Need I go on, or do you think it's most prudent to continue in the fashion the article is going? This ideological tripe is nothing but frustration and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is blog nonsense. It's not informative. YellowSandals (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My sole action on this discussion was to remove yet another dumb off-topic attempt to drag this article talk page, which is about Gamergate, back to a spurious attack on one of Gamergate's chosen victims. The poster provided no actionable problems, but did introduce severely problematic material. This material has been restored. It should be removed again and never restored. It is a gratuitous personal attack and has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia has a policy forbidding personal attacks on living people. --TS 01:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any stop at attacking Milo or Sommers reputations subtly. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"It is a gratuitous personal attack". TS, that is subjective opinion of yours and I disagree with it. It is great that you have such opinions but please don't delete text of others. Please be objective. I'm not sure that the judgemental terminology is helpful. IMO unfortunately this talk page is now a chat forum because the article is crippled, the contributors deadlocked, and new contributors get a frosty reception (eg. Kurtis and TRPoD interaction above).Jgm74 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Techraptor reporting on this article and the talk page

Not a serious editing proposal; material not suitable for Wikipedia. WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not familiar with this periodical myself, but the recent issues with this article have been reported on in the media. http://techraptor.net/content/wikipedia-article-concerning-gamergate-controversy-battles-controversy YellowSandals (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Techraptor is not "the media" and it is certainly not a reliable source. There is no reason to codify Georgina Young's repetition of 8chan and KotakuInAction's ad hominem attacks on me, where they pulled WT:LANG#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong (where Nanshu was being hyperbolic). Georgina Young is also heavily biased in her stance on Gamergate, no matter how many times she told the host of HuffPoLive she was "neutral".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If the editorial staff at that website think sending letters of condolence to three victims of horrific harassment is some kind of indictment, I don't think we can trust their judgement on other matters. As this discussion cannot lead to any improvement of the article content and is likely to become an attractive nuisance, I propose that we archive it. --TS 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not our place to make moral judgements here. HalfHat 23:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a moral judgement, but more properly a matter of poor judgement. We're certainly not supposed to adopt an amoral or moral relativist stance in editing; Wikipedia would be a horrible read if we did so, and the BLP could not exist. My proposal, however, is based on the fact that this section contains no actionable editing proposal. Were certainly never putting this trash into the article. --TS 23:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Nothing actionable here, and I have BLP concerns. BLP applies to our editors and this article isn't exactly kind to Tarc or Ryulong. — Strongjam (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If sources were excluded for showing bias you'd have to cull may of the current references. Many have argued on this page for the inclusion of articles that show bias, why would that be an issue now? Jgm74 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "GamerGate is dead" sources

No reliable sources, no serious content proposal, WP:NOTFORUM

According to "RS", GamerGate has died, what, 20 times? 30? [4] Topsy Graph. The trend is, gg slows down on weekends, then picks right back up. The "GG iz ded XD" stuff from, not surprisingly The Verge (Hi Vox Media!), is easily proven false. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Do you want all articles from Vox removed or is there a particular article you think shouldn't be used? — Strongjam (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's far too soon to have it factually called dead (stories still come), so its opinion pieces on that, and thus we should avoid including them if they are being used to call the controversy over (if they source other things, that's fine). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't remove reliable sources because you disagree with their conclusions.
As per the source you refer to, it does not argue that the movement is dead, rather it argues that its attempt to shield itself with "journalism ethics" is dead. Gamergate is now a stew of tautological arguments, powerless hashtags, and bruised egos. I suspect the banner and the members that rally beneath it will hold together. ... But the movement's agenda, or more clearly, the noble cover meant to conceal the movement's true agenda, is dead. Given the movement's failure to do anything meaningful in several weeks (coupled with the return of Intel to Gamasutra, undoing its one major "victory"), I hardly think pointing at a graph of Twitter activity constitutes "proof" in the manner you describe. Yes, lots of people are still tweeting about Gamergate. But they're not apparently achieving anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a bogus argument given that we're aware of this <redacted> which was posted recently - yes, no RS has yet picked up on it (and I dunno if they will, given their stance) but that is address "what are your ethical concerns, GG supporters?" - and most of those we can corroborate with other sources as being actual concerns (eg Doritosgate, Gerstmann's outster, Metacritic scores, etc.). What you cite is clearly an opinion. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we can't use it. It's an anonymous post on an anonymous site which makes frankly vile attacks and is a fount of unsupported allegations about living people. We are not touching anything there with a ten-foot pole and I am redacting the link per BLP. You should know better, Masem. When and if that site becomes an issue reported on by significant reliable sources, we can address it then. But you and I both know that's not going to happen.
You realize that the movement began with misogynistic attacks on Zoe Quinn, right Masem? You're carrying water for them again — retroactively citing Jeff Gerstmann and Doritosgate as justification for a vile and vicious harassment campaign that never mentioned any such thing until it wanted to cover its tracks is such a bloody obvious move it's kicking you in the face. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec on first point) I know we can't use it, until RS pick up on it (at which point it can be a usable primary source). But the point that "oh GG hasn't done anything to support their ethics claims, what started the whole mess" is refuted by the existance of that. Just because RS doesn't pick up on it doesn't mean it's not happening, and we have to be aware of all these ongoings and not just blind ourselves only to what the RSes are saying - we can only cite and quote RS but we have to be aware if the RS are skewing the situation from what is obviously different from reality. I disagree it is a BLP issue (they make claims that fall outside of BLP, none more harsh than some of the existing claims in the article), but I'm not going to revert that; however, if RSes do start to cite it, its use here will have to become a discussion point. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I eagerly await its in-depth discussion by major mainstream media. Hold your breath at your own risk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You realize that the movement began with misogynistic attacks on Zoe Quinn. That is not factually proven true. We have no good timeline of events at the start; we know Gjoni put out his post, we know others jumped on that to raise ethics issues, and as close to simultaneously, there was the harassment at Quinn. But we have zero factual evidence to connect that the harassment was specifically tied to the "claims" of ethics - no clue if it were the same people, etc. etc.. (And this is ignoring the back-and-forth over the 4chan logs that Quinn claims to have and 4channers have denied because that's heresy evidence for all purposes). Could the ethics issues have been a "oh shit, we need to CYA with this harassment" action? Possibly. Alternatively, some people could have seen the ethics claims at Quinn and jumped at the chance to harass her. There is no clear timeline beyond the two events happening close enough in time to call them simultaneous events. So no, we absolutely not edit like the GG movement started with the attacks on Quinn. The harassment is what brought attention to it (and could be said to be the start of the GG controversy but not the start of the movement), and created the Streisand effect that probably brought more people to the proGG side, and more attention from the press. We have to be very clear on wording here to avoid imply anything that is not a clear fact in this situation. Also, the reason the GG dossier brings up Doritosgate and Gerstmann is part of the long chain of ethical concerns that have lead to consumer dissasification in the industry, so these are legit beefs if one is talking ethcis. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The Gamergate movement demonstrably did begin with the attacks on Quinn. Yes, it is factually proven true, and that doesn't actually matter because literally every reliable source says it, which means we say it. We absolutely will edit this article in that vein. No reliable source has even begun to suggest that those two prior events had anything to do with a "movement" that coalesced around vile harassment of Zoe Quinn (and no, GG's retroactive attempt to link them on a "dossier" is not evidence). BTW, Jeff Gerstmann has repudiated Gamergate in no uncertain terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we please close this? This is a SYNTH objection to a claim that the article doesn't even make. Woodroar (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree (I was going to reply, but realize this is more for the inevitable arbcom case to discuss). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are we in a rush to close discussion of sources and content? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Because, as per Woodroar, we're not going to remove a source based on something it doesn't say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Auerbach

This is now a dispute resolution matter. Let's all step aside while the parties settle it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Auerbach has tweeted about some issues he has with our use of his articles. He has so far only explained one specific concern, but more could be provided. Specifically he criticized Ryulong's material regarding the Salon response to Auerbach's piece on GamerGate moderates. Hanchen's change to another detail was not mentioned, but I think the previous wording is likely to be seen as a better reflection of what he wrote.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what happens when editor drive the narrative away from a clinically neutral stance. The less we try to read between the lines to stack up the case against once side, the less likely will misinterpret the sources. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Masem, please don't turn this thread into yet another extension of an argument over editors' motivations and POVs, because we have plenty of those already. Let's focus on looking at Auerbach's critiques and addressing them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Why am I being called out at all?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Having taken a look at the source material, I agree that the wording prior to Hahnchen's change ([Auerbach] argued that gaming culture is changing, with the ordinary video-game journalist being phased out in favor of video game enthusiasts and amateur Let's Play commentators who use YouTube and Twitch) is probably a better paraphrase, and it avoids the pointed word "accused." If we can get consensus for this change, let's throw up an editprotected request and get that fixed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In September, I tweaked Auerbach's statement in the article, because it had been edited to make it look like he was agreeing with Alexander.[5] I further trimmed bits of the article to make his stance stronger. Saying stuff like "gaming culture is changing" is the same as saying nothing at all. Instead of "attacking", we could use "alienating" which is what he used in his article.[6] - hahnchen 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say this certainly warrants a proper checking. HalfHat 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I always wondered why we bothered with the Auerbach material; much of it is just this guy's opinion (and for what it's worth, we don't have an article about him). Do we need that material? --TS 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the problem is that we include a lot of he-said, she-said which is just pundits imposing their own predefined views on an unfolding situation. Looking back, much of the stuff from Kain, Auerbach and others seems almost surreally misplaced in the midst of all the death threats and all the slimy creatures that were parading themselves before our eyes on a daily basis. There's a place for media analysis, but it's possible to go overboard. --TS 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You're basically advocating for the removal of opinions because they don't conform with your POV. HalfHat 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I think this is just too much inside baseball and the article is very long. Why should Auerbach's opinions be mentioned in the article? --TS 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This could be said for many other of the singular opinions made in this article. We are citing a lot of random people (journalists, yes, but with no skin in the game). It's fine to quote people like Quinn, Wu, etc. who are directly involved, and people like the DiGRA present (name slips mind) who's organization is being affected by this. It's also sometimes necessary to quote key RSes to give a "colorful" description that summarizes a point made by many sources. But there's a lot of other random quotes pulled into this article just to boost signal. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, I agree that there is rather too much chatter in the article. I can see how it happened. In the early stages the mainstream sources hadn't quite made up their minds what was going on and all the defaults kicked in. These voices have subsided in importance now that the true nature and origins of Gamergate have become more widely known. --TS 11:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Auerbach's tweets appear to be without merit, as this article is simply citing Elias Isquith's opinions of Auerbach's Slate piece. Remember the old "venerability, not truth" Wiki-standby. He has no leg to stand on, and argumentum ad Jimboem is just as much of a logical fallacy off-wiki as it is on-wiki. Now if we wish to have a discussion on whether to include any of this in the article at all, that's another matter entirely. At first glance it does seem like we're straying too much into opinion-of-an-opinion-of-an-opinion. If we're looking to slim down the article, this may be the edge to start at. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree, an admin should probably close this section. If there are actually any issues, anyone David or Jimbo included, can post to the talk page. aprock (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably shut it, but I think it was right to post this anyway. It was worth looking into. HalfHat 00:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a BLP issue. When you attribute a statement to a living person, and then that living person objects to your interpretation of that statement, that's a BLP issue. Tutelary (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you think there is a BLP issue, feel free to take it to WP:BLPN. aprock (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Or we could just clarify the statement. Take to a noticeboard when no need / fix the statement itself. I wonder which one... Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A subject disagreeing with an article isn't automatically a BLP issue. It's something to be concerned about, but expressly not dealt with in the same manner as BLP violations. If you disagree and feel this represents an issue covered under BLP, you may consider asking for help at BLPN. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's start by cutting the "In Salon, Elias Isquith..." paragraph: as Tarc put it, an opinion on an opinion on an opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think complete culling is necessary. It's a point-counterpoint situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree. It's rather counterpoint-countercounterpoint. I don't know who wrote that awful paragraph, but "actions in making himself a neutral party" is barely English, and "criticizing him for saying that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible" doesn't look like proper English to me at all. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm down with significantly chopping the Isquith paragraph. We could go down the rabbit hole with point/counterpoint. Perhaps just cut it to Isquith criticized Auerbach's analysis, calling it an appeal to moderation "that negates any group or individual responsibility" for Gamergate's behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "and to better present the concerns of the Gamergate hashtag to the public at large"--I do not see that in the cited article. Unless someone can point me to the original sentence/section from which this comes, I'm going to remove it by executive privilege. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Auerbach criticized the Brandwatch study as being "defective quantitative analysis" aimed at stopping GamerGate" is now removed: the "How to end Gamergate" article doesn't mention Brandwatch at all, and the direct quote "defective quantitative analysis" is not given the appropriate context. Who added that sentence to the article? That person should not be editing sensitive articles on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "WHAT DIDN’T WORK...Defective quantitative analysis." which links to this. That's the Brandwatch mention. Also that's in the full article view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ryulong, I think I'm having a Javascript issue, which is why I didn't "see" that link--no, I see it now: Slate needs to read WP:COLOR; I can't see the difference, only when I hover over it. I still don't like the original sentence: I don't like how the Brandwatch study isn't explicitly mentioned in Auerbach's piece; I don't like that no real critique is offered in his piece, just the naked statement that it is supposedly defective. If someone feels a desperate need to stick that sentence back in, I suppose they have my blessing and all they have to do is ask some admin, which could be me, to stick it back in. Now, I don't know if Auerbach is watching this--hey, Mr. Auerbach, I don't have a Twitter account and it's much easier for us to respond here to specific points than it is to guess what you're pointing at. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        • These are the reasons why I removed it in the first place, dubbing it a throwaway line. Right now, I think you should just remove the Salon paragraph, it's a badly written counter-point to an opinion that isn't even represented. - hahnchen 03:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm about to look at that again; in the meantime I had to put a sick kid to bed. This Twitter stuff, that's fun. I just saw the whole page, this weird alternating sentences conversation, with someone yelling "kike" thrown in. Is that normal? Hey Jimbo, Wikipedia is not as bad as Twitter--I would have blocked that idiot on 6 November, which is the earliest "tweet" I saw from them. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, by now Tutelary is telling me off on my own talk page and Tarc is yelling at Auerbach via Twitter. Great! I tell you what, I am happy I don't have many opinions, and the ones that matter, I prefer to keep to myself. In this thread, I see Tony Sidaway, Hahnchen, and Tarc (I think) agreeing that the Isquith on Auerbach paragraph could/should go, in varying degrees of emphasis. NorthBySouthBaranof offered a sort of compromise, and if you don't mind, I'm going to go with that--I have the feeling that Ryulong would like to have something kept. If anyone disagrees they can protest loudly here, and maybe Mr. Auerbach can tweet a few more tweets so we can see if he thinks this is OK, but NorthbySouth's brief comment has the benefit of a. being close to the source and b. being in digestible English. So I'm going to instate that, somewhat boldly, and we'll see what happens. Let's not have an RfC and a series of edit requests that will take forever to resolve. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. I've also moved it (what is now a sentence); why it was in the "Attacks on Women" wasn't clear to me. IM me if you got a serious problem with it, or call Jimbo (he can send me a carrier pigeon), or leave a note here. Thanks. Ryulong, I hope you're not too pissed at me. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'd go "At Salon" or "For Salon" rather than "In Salon" but that's just me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it worthwhile to summarize what one part of what happened here clearly so that other Wikipedians reading this talk page are better able to understand the situation. David Auerbach, who writes for Slate (magazine), expressed a concern on twitter that "@jimmy_wales 152: "women...should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become" = Isquith does not say I said this, and I didn't." [7]. This refers to the paragraph wisely removed by Drmies after the complaint. It is important that we be really clear - this is a BLP issue. Saying that a writer for a respectable publication was criticized for something as awful as saying that victims of harassment were responsible for that harassment is a serious claim, and it is a claim that was never in the source provided. Meanwhile, Tarc claims that his tweets were "without merit" and further, in Drmies words "Tarc is yelling at Auerbach via twitter." This is a disgrace. I am recommending that Tarc step away from this article permanently, and that if he does not do so voluntarily and continues with this kind of POV warrior behavior that he be topic-banned from this article. There are plenty of good Wikipedians here to look after the article - those who have been engaged in this as a battleground need to leave now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not "yell" ant anyone via Twitter, I responded to someone who is in serious "doth protest too much" mode, that is all. What I do off-wiki is, quite frankly, not your business. @Drmies:, yes, I am in favor of the entire passage being removed if it is this problematic. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, Tarc, I think you did, but I suppose it was nothing out of the ordinary for Twitter, and I don't think it has a bearing on your editing here. Jimbo Wales, I beg to differ; Tarc and I don't always agree, and I didn't agree with those tweeted comments, but I still think he's a net positive here, in the little that I have seen of this article and its talk page. Still, if we could all tone it down that would be helpful--then again, this was a lot worse a few weeks ago.

Look, I was happy to take Auerbach's points and apply them here, and even happier to see that we gained consensus quickly on what are simultaneously minor editing issues and major tone issues. I do not think that such matters are automatically BLP issues (as I saw somewhere else), but in this case incorrect (and/or inept) paraphrasing can amount to a BLP problem. If it hadn't been for a. serious editorial concerns about representation of sources and b. BLP issues I would never have edited this through protection. Anyway, all's well that ends well (for now)--let's look at this glass as half-full, shall we. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the quotes aren't worth keeping because they're mostly tangential commentary and the article is already far too long -- journalists commenting on other journalists' specific pieces probably doesn't belong here unless it somehow becomes central to the controversy. But I don't think they were (originally) an entirely inaccurate paraphrase, either. The quote Auerbach is objecting to seems to refer to this line in Isquith's piece, which says, at the end: "The women bombarded with violence and abuse, the men hurling invective at anyone challenging their privilege; spurred by his unexamined need to find common ground, both, Auerbach writes, should share in the blame." The quote from the Wikipedia he's objecting to originally summarized that as: "...criticizing his insistence that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become." The only real issue in that is the words "...for what Gamergate had become", since the article doesn't explicitly state what it's accusing Auerbach of saying they should share the blame for, but I think that Ryulong / Tarc's reading is at least somewhat reasonable given the context (it's how I think I would have read the article, at least), and every other part of the quote is basically just Isquith's conclusion run through a thesaurus. Looking over the logs, the real problem started when Halfhat changed 'criticized his insistence' to 'criticized him for saying' here, which shows the problems with applying WP:SAY carelessly -- while it could technically be read the same way, that small tweak dramatically changed the sentence's meaning, since it changed what had been an accurate paraphrase of Isquith-presenting-his-interpretation-of-Auerbach ('Auerbach's article was insisting this') into something that could be read as a claim that Isquith-said-Auerbach-literally-said-this, which was not the case. I assume Tarc missed the fact that Halfhat had accidentally changed the quote's meaning -- it's easy to skim over something you've read many times before and impose a meaning on it in your head based on what you know it's intended to say from having seen previous versions, without noticing that that's no longer the most obvious reading. Anyway the main upshot of it is to please be more careful when replacing text for things like WP:SAY, because sometimes you'll be introducing different meanings; and please read the current version carefully when someone complains about it, trying to clear your head of how it used to read or what you know it's supposed to be saying. --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now been directly contacted by David Auerbach. I hope you're happy, The Devil's Advocate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear Ryulong, given how you have misrepresented Auerbach with your edit, I think it's perfectly fine for him to "request" that you "please" never write about him again on Wikipedia. I don't know how you saw that as a threat; I would think this whole controversy has enough examples of threats already. Perhaps taking a break from this whole topic would make you happier? starship.paint ~ regal 08:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    A journalist should not ever demand that someone else censor themselves from ever discussing them again or believe that he is being slandered. He is being fed lies and exaggerations by this movement because I would have never been singled out if it was not because TDA singled me out in his posting here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ryulong, I would like you to explain how I "threatened" you, which is a serious charge you have now made on my own talk page and here. I made a polite request (I used "Please" in the title), which I felt was more than reasonable given the circumstances of what had happened. Otherwise, I now politely request that you rescind your serious allegation that I "threatened" you. And, in light of this very discussion, I again politely repeat my request that you avoid citing or writing about me on Wikipedia. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
So after making a BLP edit on him you now falsely accuse him of threatening you? And admins are supposed to be taking disciplinary actions? Loganmac (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make a BLP edit. No one had any issue or comment with the content I had added until it was falsely misconstrued here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph "for the video game news site"

It says she is accused of having a relationship with x person reporter for Kokatu. Now, that can mean that he was a reporter for Kokatu, or that can mean that she had the relationship for Kokatu. It does not say which and there is no citation. I cannot suggest the following edit, because I do not know which one it is. ~ R.T.G 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly confusing, but maybe it would be more clear if we change it to "The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Greyson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku." Kaciemonster (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The main article is under full protection, but meanwhile I've changed the text to Kaciemonster's suggested text at the working draft: Draft:Gamergate controversy. --TS 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict, but I believe the concise terms might be "...a romantic relationship with a Kokatu journalist." Cheers o/ ~ R.T.G 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error

In this correction by Fut.Perf., somehow he finds a duplicate reference and converts it to the <ref name="whatever"/> format in the {{reflist}} list. Can it be removed?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This got archived because no one answered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Done got fixed. --PresN 06:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

New sources 2014-11-15

Here are some new links that have turned up in the past 24 hours on a gamergate Google News search. Some of the content may be useful. I've filtered out student newspapers, etc, as not suitable for Wikipedia

  • Victims of online threats say perpetrators aren't being caught from MPRNews (NPR). 4 minute talk section with transcript. This ties Gamergate-related misogynistic harassment (particularly the specific death threat against Brianna Wu) to wider issue of the harassment of women online.
  • Examining Jim Sterling's Grand Experiment To Create Video Game Journalism Utopia from Forbes contributor Paul Tassi. Discusses Jim Sterling's decision to leave The Escapist and take his flamboyant video-based games journalism to [Patreon]]'s donation-based funding model. Although courted by Gamergate as a natural ally because of his strong support for consumer rights, Jim has been vocally critical of Gamergate and has always been highly critical of the violent threats against Anita Sarkeesian which emerged in 2012 and continue. Here he says: 'While I was a “champion of the people” for supporting fans during the Mass Effect 3 ending saga, in recent months I’m more of an enemy of the state for publicly stating my grievances with GamerGate. That’s something that could directly translate into a steep decline in financial support using the Patreon model. Standing up for your principles could mean you watch your income fluctuate wildly as you potentially lose supporters.'

TBC. Battery issues. --TS 00:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuing.

  • Women’s voices rightly pushing to advance gaming culture in the Seattle Times. I think this is important because it's the first newsprint reference I've seen to Kathy Sierra's seminal “Kool-Aid Point” thesis: “The most vocal trolling and ‘hate’ for a brand kicks in HARD once a critical mass of brand fans/users are thought to have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid.’ ” In short, the problem of women in tech is not that women are in tech, but that people think their ideas are actually important."
  • The Video Game Industry: Good For The Economy, Bad For Women? from WBBM-TV, Chicago's CBS affiliate. Discusses the negative impact on the video game industry if it becomes identified with misogynistic harassment, states that "individuals claiming to represent 'ethics in video game journalism' harass female gamers as well as critics, designers and journalists who challenge women’s secondary status in the industry" and concludes "...the gaming industry has a long way to go before women feel safe and welcome." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Once again, it looks like no one is attempting to distinguish between news and opinion pieces as sources. This is an ongoing problem for this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an article about a social struggle so we're probably going to need many opinion sources. I'm starting an attempt to father and catalogue the growing wealth of sources so we can decide which ones to use. As an example the Jim Sterling saga hasn't really been covered so far, though it's an example of a guy who is a strong advocate for ethics in gaming journalism but strongly rejects Gamergate as a vehicle. The MPR piece relates recent Gamergate harassment to longstanding harassment of women online. These are aspects that will tend to loom larger as the major events recede into the past and Gamergate is placed into historical context. --TS 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We actually should be trying avoid opinion sources, save for those directly involved, as we are still far too close to the event (if not still in it) that "external" opinions are going to be skewed. We should be trying to avoid excessive opinioning - outside of the necessary broad claims that have been made and the reactions to those. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a fine argument; perhaps we are too close to the event for analysis to be relevant, perhaps not. Some of these sources are news reports, not opinion pieces. Some of the opinion pieces also contain useful factual statements that don't exist in other sources we've seen. For instance, the article about Jim Sterling introduces part of the story not previously accessible, and relates directly to the conflict between Gamergate claims about ethics and how that actually plays out in the gaming community. The MPR piece reports factually about severe online harassment. --TS 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Outside of the "opinions" / "reactions" / "interpretations" there is no "controversy". Yes, the interpretations will change over time, but that does not mean that we do not document what they are now. Demanding "purely objective" coverage of a "controversy" is as out of place as demanding a "purely objective" game review . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We have to be careful of documenting the "now" without long-term considerations. Say the far far offchance that it is shown that the harassment only came from a small # of people purposely stirring the pot, and game journalists and GG supporters actually had meaningful discussions one this fact came out (knowing that the harassment was poisoning the well), then nearly half this article is useless. Certainly broader summary of opinions would still be appropriate, but very few of the individual view points that the latter half presents, in as much detail, would be appropriate anymore. And since we can't tell where this will end up, we could be avoiding too much opinion on the "now" and think more on the future of this. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we do not WP:CRYSTAL write an article about what the future might bring. RECENTISM is about focusing on the current events around a subject that has a long history- gamergate does not have a long history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what the Recentism essay says. This article falls right into the targets of where Recentism can occur - a current event that information is still be generated and the possibility of focusing too much attention on one facet. And just as we cannot use a crystal ball to suggest there might be a positive outcome from GG, we cannot do the same in writing this article with any other presumed outcome in mind. This is why it has been suggested in the previous ArbCom discussion to keep as much to the facts as possible and not focus on the opinions at this time. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem on the idea that recentism constrains our thought. In fact my project here is to track thought on this topic over time so we can put it in context. We don't have to react immediately to any one article, but a series of articles saying the same thing over a long period (six months, say) would be worth considering as a trend. This is how we write an encyclopaedia, you know. Patience and attention to detail. --TS 01:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Intel returns to Gamasutra, now with a source

The Mary Sue ain't The New York Times, but it's a (weak) RS, as previously discussed and used on this page, and we ought to update our section on Intel pulling ads with a notation that they began a new campaign on Gamasutra in November 2014. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamasutra confirmed it via a tweet, for what it's worth. Jgm74 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't help noticing that the article's coverage of the Intel incident is rather larger than I expected. It seems larger than is reasonable, to be honest. I'd expect two or three sentences ending "Intel apologised for giving the perception of taking sides, also renewing its commitment to diversity, and later ran other paid advertising campaigns on Gamasutra."
We probably don't need a blow-by-blow commentary of what various chatterboxes had to say about it. The opinions of Johnson, McCormick, Kain etc aren't needed here. This was a straightforward letter-writing campaign that had a temporary effect. Let's try to stop using this article as a gazetteer of pundits. --TS 13:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed — especially given the relatively-short duration, I think we can, in hindsight, view a lot of that as recentism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we should drop everything after ... The New York Times believed it was in response to this campaign, specifically on the aforementioned article by Alexander. And add a sentence saying that in November 2014 Intel started a new paid campaign on Gamasutra citing The Mary Sue link above. The last paragraph I think can just be cut. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a renewed campaign, a bit of f12ing would show that. --DSA510 Pls No H8 15:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A look at the article would say it is a paid campaign. Not sure how looking at the HTML source would prove otherwise, or how we could work that into the article without violating WP:OR. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the specific term, but its not a campaign on GS, per se, but on AdSense. I'm not sure how to word this, but they aren't specifically going for GS, if you can understand what I'm trying to say. --DSA510 Pls No H8 16:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The article and the primary source, Gamasutra's twitter, say it's paid campaign. I'm not getting any Intel ad's when I view the site (getting targeted AdSense ads for AWS). It's possible there is a paid ad campaign and users are also seeing targeted advertisements through AdSense. — Strongjam (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Especially since Google added an option to deliver direct campaigns through AdSense back in January. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to be playing guessing games with HTML code. Intel is back on Gamasutra. I've updated the draft and took the opportunity to trim the quote farm while I was at it. Someone else would have to fix the orphaned references, as my little tablet interface isn't up to it. Go and see what you think. --TS 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I took a crack at fixing the references. There's still an error about 'bbc_coundrey' but I must be blind because I can't see it in the source. Found it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the size of the thing, most of which is redundant quotations of multiple pundits. We're spending lots of space promoting the opinions of these professional chatterboxes when a brief summary of events would do. I'd say we overplay the opinionators because we're struggling to explain the vehemence of the response to a few articles critical of the consumer aspect of gamer culture and the violence and misogyny that regularly attend its manifestations.

We need to cover the following: conspiracy mongering about the timing and provenance of "Gamers are Over" and related articles; widespread ignorance of their actual content and the terrifying and violent context in which they appeared and about which they were written; criticism of the articles as "turning against" gamers; the letter writing campaign; responses by advertisers; responses in the advertising industry and business press.

If I've missed anything, please comment. When we've got a structure I think we'll be ready to tame that quote farm further. --TS 17:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph reporting on this now, so a better source. But agree we can cut down that section a bit, perhaps work both "advertizing target" campaigns together. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That source also mentions the debate about AdSense as well and gets clarification from Intel. So that looks like a settled issue now. — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to post this! Masem, I'm open to suggestions (out just go ahead and edit as I did). In not sure my proposed framework is feasible, as a lot of the Gamergate rationale is too far under the radar to get reported. News reporters understand the news cycle and don't take accusations of collusion seriously where it clearly doesn't exist. This, alongside GameJournoPros, forms a lot of Gamergate's internal credo or creation myth, but it probably isn't as widely reported as the latter. I'm still working on good, strong sources for this, because without understanding this conspiracy theory about a press that attacked gamers out of the blue it's rather difficult to work out quite why Gamergate activism took the form that it did. -TS 17:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be along the lines (this is a very broad stroke, there can be a few quotes injected and the like,) of "GG supporters were critical of articles that spoke of the "death of the gamer identity" such as Leigh Alexander's piece from Gamasutra. They were also taken back by comments made by Sam Biddle of the Gawker networks that called for bullying of nerds in light of the harassment. In response, the GG supporters organized separate email campaigns to target advertizers that were promoted on these sites to express their concerns as part of a "consumer revolt". "Operation Disrespectful Nod" was aimed at sites like Gamasutra that discussed the end of the gamer identity. Some advertizers did pull their ads, leading some journalists to claim their there getting involved in a larger situation without understanding the full extent. In one case, Intel did pull their ads from Gamasutra but later reinstated them, stating that they had not planned on taking a position in the larger controversy. In "Operation Baby Seal", GG supporters turned to Google and Amazon's ad services which Gawker Media cites had used to point out violations on various Gawker sites against these service's AUP/TOS. The tactic of targetting the ad providers than the advertizers themselves was considered "a whole other scale" and has the potential, if successful, to financially harm Gawker." Much of the quotes given in that otherwise are excessive or just too much detail. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That reads okay to me and I love its brevity. Be bold! One thing I'd suggest adding is a brief reference to the Advertising Age report, which is more than just a chatterbox piece. --TS 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It'll have to be a off-page draft (The article's fully locked down and while I can edit it as admin, that would be a major "involved" conflict.) --MASEM (t) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Based on Masem's bit, but for clarity, just want to focus on the Intel issue now rather than try and get everything in one go. I agree with the overall thrust of tightening this section a lot, though.
Gamergate supporters were critical of articles that spoke of the "death of the gamer identity" such as Leigh Alexander's piece in Gamasutra. In response, supporters organized "Operation Disrespectful Nod," an e-mail campaign to advertisers demanding that they drop several involved publications. After receiving complaints from Gamergate supporters, Intel withdrew an ad campaign from Gamasutra in October. Intel's decision was widely criticized as an endorsement of the movement, leading to a corporate statement which apologized for appearing to take sides in the controversy. In mid-November, Intel began advertising on Gamasutra again, and said the site's readership was an important market for the company. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems generally fine. I'd like to see if we can cut the Gawker/Op Baby Seal section similarly to a para so that these two (both about targetting advertizing) can be treated in the same section. The DiGRA stuff is a different aspect and does need a separate section. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
We should make it clear that Gamasutra's target audience is game developers, not gamers. This should have been clear from the wording of Leigh Alexander's widely misread "'Gamers' are over" article. --TS 22:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
While the intent is clear from the article and the fact Gamasutra is a site for devs + publishers and less for gamers, I do believe we can also source the fact the specific article was geared towards the devs/pubs. I just can't locate which source(s) were clear on that point. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Be bold with the working draft at Draft:Gamergate controversy. The sooner we get a trimmed account in there the sooner we can tweak it. Sometimes too much discussion makes us forget that the aim is to edit the article. --TS 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of working on a draft with very little visibility, I recommend just pushing for unprotection so the article can be edited in the open. Not happy with the drive by full-protection when we already have sanctions in place. - hahnchen 03:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
As soon as there is anything that has widespread support an edit request will get it "visible". (and really, "drive by full protection" ??) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed edits to this article do not enjoy widespread support. The only thing full protection has ever done in this article is to stop improvement. Would rather admins started actually blocking people instead of punishing everyone, readers included. - hahnchen 03:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: I am confused as to why you think that if there is no ability to gain wide consensus via working on a draft article that there will be any chance of gaining consensus on the live article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
From experience. This article has been fully protected twice before, each time resulting in a halt of article development. - hahnchen 00:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to stay in the past and wait till it is unlocked, instead of working to gain consensus now in drafts off-air, that is your decision. But you will not be able to make a very convincing argument "Take the protection off because we cannot come to consensus."; a "We have found a way to work together to get consensus" is a much more convincing platform to offer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the argument is "Take the protection off because protection only harms the article." But it's not convincing because administrators don't want to engage, a reduction in their workload is more important than this article's improvement. - hahnchen 20:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
i think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that "protection" is harming the article. "editwarring " and "POV pushing" are harming the article. Consensus in editing will improve the article and on the draft it appears to be doing so. If you are not willing to participate in consensus editing to improve the article, i fear your days editing the article at all are numbered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

the telegraph has covered it now [8] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got that one noted above, we're using that to trim down the section based on Intel's updated statement since it was a return to the status quo after all said and done. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
"A Spokesman for Intel" Nobody gets named, no sources are provided. :/ --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing your belief that Intel, Gamasutra and The Telegraph are lying about Intel's advertising decisions. Please take conspiracy theorizing elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sargon's anti-feminism

The pseudonymous YouTube broadcaster Sargon of Akkad is discussed in the context of the role of anti-feminism in Gamergate. Routinely he is referred to as anti-feminist because that's what he does, it's his thing. His videos have titles like "Feminism is a mental illness", " The Feminist Inquisition ", and "The feminist ideological conquest of DiGRA". They're almost all about the damage Sargon thinks is done by feminism.

This isn't controversial so it should be okay to refer to these self-published videos (no, a link isn't necessary for a reference, naming and dating the video is fine for the purposes of an encyclopaedia). I think this is a correct interpretation of WP:SELFPUB. My reference has been removed from the draft, though. Do we have any particular reason for not referring to this fellow's views in the context of a section of an article expressly about the role of people with such views? Here we're discussing a specific ideological position which Sargon makes a particular point of representing, and that's why we include him in the article. --TS 10:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; this is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in any meaningful fashion. Sargon of Akkad is, self-professedly and self-evidently, opposed to feminism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we link it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's impossible because YouTube links are blacklisted. References are enough. --TS 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Other articles have YouTube links as references, so there's no obvious reasons why these direct links should be discriminated against as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
YouTube videos are rarely a reliable source, unless they're something like an official video from a well-respected news source. Everything else has either limited use as a self-published source or is unusable as a copyright violation. Woodroar (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, neither of which is a problem for this specific video in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right. This is fine. For some reason I thought you were asking or commenting on the more general question of using YouTube videos as references. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This seems fine, he has been referred to others, and as long as you're referring to his opinions, just don't make it an attack. Calling him more along the lines of "antifeminist vlogger" would be enough probably, it doesn't deserve much detail. HalfHat 14:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, it's original research. The last video you said does not clearly communicate antifeminism, while the first two appear to be him raging about some rather absurd proposals made by apparent feminists. One was a proposal in New Zealand to require defendants in rape cases to prove consent to avoid conviction i.e. prove their innocence, while another was a proposal to have the men's rights movement declared a terrorist organization following the Isla Vista killings. Your insistence on using those to prove a point about his beliefs is straightforward original research.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
agreeing with The Devil's Advocate, saying he is anti feminist is original research until a RS is found which states that Avono (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Does the fact that he sells t-shirts with the words "this is what an anti-feminist looks like" make it reasonable to call him anti feminist? It seems obvious that he is anti-feminist, but at the same time I question the sanity of citing a novelty t-shirt as a source. Bosstopher (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In view of Avono's and The Devil's Advocate's objections, I conclude that the primary sources are not enough, and will edit the article working draft text to refer to the Inside Higher Ed source's formulation of “gaming, anti-feminism, history and fiction”. We work with what we've got. --TS 21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done that now. Please take a look and see if this is unfair. The discussion there concerns people who have been highly critical of feminism in the past now moving on to the claim· that feminism is using academic research of gaming as a cover for a conspiracy to take over and radically change the gaming industry. If the most controversial part the article it's whether or not the people making this massive conspiracy theory are anti feminists, I think we're close to reaching consensus. Further, I think this article probably needs more Sargon. It doesn't make much sense to introduce him and then not really talk about his ideas. --TS 21:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That one source section is already too long. I wouldn't reference Sargon at all. I'd take the first sentence, a quote from Consalvo, and then move it into the prose at "Role of misogyny and antifeminism". - hahnchen 23:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this probably belongs more in the End of Gamer identity section, but even the draft version is a bit too slanted. A good statement regarding it would be "GamerGate supporters criticized the Digital Games Research Association due to several pieces on the fate of the gamer identity referencing the group's research, suggesting the organization has been 'co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers'. Dr. Mia Consalvo, president of DiGRA, said that the effort to discredit its members' research demonstrates 'hostility to feminism' and a failure to understand academic research in humanities. She argued that 'what they’re trying to do is say if you’re a feminist, your work is automatically discredited. You are discredited. You are not an academic.'" The heading should remove the loaded term "antifeminism" as well.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it really shouldn't. If your ideology is that "feminists have taken something over, therefore it's bad," then your ideology is, by definition, anti-feminist. It is not "loaded" to accurately describe an ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's your rather simplistic interpretation of what the source says about their beliefs and should not be presented as fact, especially when the connotation of the statement can be "opposes the rights of women" since I am pretty sure that does not accurately describe everyone criticizing DiGRA or even Sargon of Akkad.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
NBSB - your statement is only true if you are an ideologue which appears to be what you are arguing for. If a person's view is any "-ism" is bad for a collective group, that doesn't make them anti-anything except "anti -ism." To quote Ferris Bueller -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. Probably shouldn't edit the article if you're an ideologue. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that you shouldn't edit the article if you don't think Sargon of Akkad promotes anti-feminism, because that would indicate a significant failure to understand the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What sources would that be? Personally I don't even think he's notable enough for mention let alone labeling him. His name is "Sargon of Akkad" and you seriously think he needs space in the encyclopedia because YouTube? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? A myopic view that everything is political and ideological is why this article is a mess. It would be a much better article to write as observers of the ideologues than to become them. --DHeyward (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The main point of the Higher Ed article seems to be the conspiracy theory mindset. If we condense the specific DIGRA/Sargon incident covered in that article and include the other places where this has come up, we dont have to deal specifically with whether or not someone who thinks feminism is a mental illness is anti-feminist (hint, if you have any question about the right answer, you probably need to go back to school). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think he literally believes it is a mental illness or even that he was being all too serious in that statement. He was raging about some petition asking for the men's rights movement to be declared a terrorist group and was basically just going after the people who proposed that nonsensical action. From what I can tell, Inside Higher Ed is the only reliable source delving into this subject at the moment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I thinkTheRedPenOfDoom is probably right. This is an academic source going WTF in bright red letters. More Sargon would be fun but it probably wouldn't make the article that much better. --TS 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we have all the Sargon we need, and then some. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Playing DA here. Perhaps the feminism Sargon appears to be so opposed to, is the more, shall I say, fearmongering one? "All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum". I certainly would not be supportive of such a group, even if it does earn me the unfortunate label of "anti-feminist". --DSA510 Pls No H8 5:44 pm, Today (UTC−8)

What I meant was, what defines an "antifeminist". --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't get to decide that. That was the outcome of the discussion. I removed your inflammatory comments because they added nothing except heat. The issue is decided; Sargon's speech alone cannot be conclusively be used to support the description " anti-feminist". There would always be a narrow tunnel of doubt. We move on. --TS 03:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
that seems awfully similar to character assassination. Remember WP:BLP applies to both sides, whether the narrative likes it or not. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blizzard entertainment stance on Gamergate

Mike Morhaime full quote at BlizzCon is "Over the past couple of months, there has been a small group of people doing awful things,"They're tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It's not right.", therefore the claims that he especially denounced GamerGate are false and therefore be changed to mention that.(per Wikipedia:Synthesis) Avono (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: It was Geoff Keighley who asked at the Direct Tv stage if Gamergate was responsible,he did not return any clear answer Avono (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
He never specifically mentioned Gamergate so you would need a source that interprets it that way and we would note that as the opinion of that author. Assuming he is talking about Gamergate here is WP:OR. Muscat Hoe (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
for reference the specific request is to change "co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced GamerGate at BlizzCon 2014" to "co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced the ongoing harassment at BlizzCon 2014" Avono (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


The media has made the attribution to GG, so we do need to be careful. The current text is Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced GamerGate at BlizzCon 2014, saying that "a small group of people have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people's lives miserable, and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It's not right." He called on attendees to oppose hate and harassment and to "be kind and respect one another., I would suggest Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced the ongoing harassment at BlizzCon 2014, saying that "a small group of people have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people's lives miserable, and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It's not right." He called on attendees to oppose hate and harassment and to "be kind and respect one another. (change in bold) This does not name GG, keeps the implication in the sources (even if obvious), but still reflects properly on the quote. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The sources cited all say it was in reference to Gamergate. Morhaime himself confirmed he was speaking about Gamergate. As a final note, the DirecTV stage with Mike Morhaime as a guest confirms he was speaking out against GamerGate during the introductions of the opening ceremony. The group is mentioned by name. [9]. WP:SYN is not involved. — Strongjam (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
the specific faction was not named. --DSA510 Pls No H8 17:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
to be specific, he might be talking about it as a whole, harassment from both sides, as Gawker valiantly proclaims to be false, since 20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny". wheras the media "RS" says that there is only harrasment coming from the pro-gamergate side. --DSA510 Pls No H8 17:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Postaddendumaddendum: The validity of that article is being disputed in the comments section. Someone get a copy of the actual event rather than some 3'd party's biased version. --DSA510 Pls No H8 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Comments on an article aren't RS. Also, even if we remove that source there's still MCV saying Mike Morhaime dedicated a part of his Blizzcon 2014 opening ceremony speech to slam GamerGaters and urge people to redouble their efforts in trying to promote a friendlier, more welcoming gaming environment.. — Strongjam (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
however that is Ben Parfitt's interpretation, no where in that source is it claimed that Morhaime mentioned GamerGate Avono (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No, this request should be denied, as Morhaime was indeed speaking directly about Gamergaters. If we need to add the additional specificity from the joystiq link above, then that is fine. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Prove that Morhaime was speaking directly about Gamergate (and I mean, use HIS words, not what others INTERPRET). Omegastar (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
We follow WP:RS here. Us proving anything would be WP:OR. — Strongjam (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This is either a case of incorrect information (from joystiq), or an attempt at smearing (yet again). Wouldn't the actual conference/convention/powwow be a better source? --DSA510 Pls No H8 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thus the joystiq claim cannot be used unless a secondary source is found that Independently states the same thing.Avono (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Then we can at least agree that Morhaime has only "denounced the ongoing harassment" and not anything specific. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That is the aim of this request, to only state what was said by Morhaime without third party interpretations.Avono (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Consider this is in the section about the "Industry response" which is after the section outlining the established harassment towards Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu, and the reports of harassment the other way. In context of his actual speech, and not the clarification afterwards, it makes sense to point out the "ongoing harassment" (per my suggestion above), which in no way weakens the importance of his statement at that venue. Even if he knew and stated later he was speaking to the harassment attributed to GG, saying "the ongoing harassment" is just as true a statement. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose Masem suggestion to be used until the information from joystiq can be backed up Avono (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's very clear that he was referring to GamerGate, as per the sources covering the event. Oppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Does it matter if he was speaking to harassment under the GG banner, or harassment that has been going on in general? --MASEM (t) 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually it does, for reasons that should be intensely obvious at this point. Stop trying to create a two-sided issue where the reliable sources are all-but-unanimously on one side. This wasn't on the front page of The New York Times for no reason. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a major difference if he was condemning the harassment, in general (which most everyone, including GG supporters, would likely agree with), and if he was condemning specifically the Gamergate movement, which add yet more weight to the article. The latter is a much more charged statement that we cannot say in a WP voice, and so we have to verify if this is truly what he said in the sources. If he actually said "GG" during the speech, I would not have an issue at all; it might add more imbalance but its impossible to get away from since we'd have it sourced as such. But the analysis below is clear that we're resting the validity of the statement (that he was talking about on the non-verbal nod to a question asked by Kingsley. That is a huge WP:SNYTH problem considering the change in POV of the statement and the balance of the article. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The cite sources have made the connection:
  • BlizzCon’s opening ceremony started with a bang this morning, as Blizzard Entertainment president Mike Morhaime spent the first part of his speech denouncing GamerGate [10]
  • Mike Morhaime dedicated a part of his Blizzcon 2014 opening ceremony speech to slam GamerGaters [11]
  • Mike Morhaime as a guest confirms he was speaking out against GamerGate during the introductions of the opening ceremony. The group is mentioned by name. [12]
No WP:SYNTH is involved. — Strongjam (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is, if we are saying it in WP's voice; if we say that the speech was believed to be about Gamergaters by some sources, that would be fine but clunnky. But we cannot say he was talking about it when we can clearly tell from the direct primary sources that the only thing that connected his speech directly to the "condemning of Gamergaters" (and not to the harassment resulting from the situation) was a nod in reply to a question, and the question not being specific as to which part of his speech. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"if we say that the speech was believed to be about Gamergaters by some sources, that would be fine but clunnky." We don't know that though. The sources don't say they believe he meant Gamergaters based on the speech. They could have gotten clarification from Blizzard. In the end we have to trust WP:RS and not do our own research. — Strongjam (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Why can we just cite the speech in general and then in the next sentence state that it "was believed to be about Gamergaters by some sources?" --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
We could, and that would at least avoid the OR, but then that also begs adding one more bit of weighted coverage to the article. There's zero issues with saying what he actually said in his speech (which, "last few months" make it clear its surrounding GG events, no SYNTH there) in a section called "Industry response" that follows from the harassment aspects. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just about lost interest in the health of this article. From top to bottom it's a wash. However, I did want to point out that Blizzard's PR team constructed a pretty careful statement that condemned harassment without specifically implicating anyone. In fact, most figures that have come out of this with clean hands have been places that aren't attacking anyone, like Escapist Magazine who allowed discussion to continue on forums while they made certain nothing got out of hand. Twisting what a rep for Blizzard said about a movement - especially an ideologically heated controversy with people in it who don't care about other humans - is not only damaging to the reputation of that rep, but also to Blizzard itself. Any editor here looking to victimize people or groups they disagree with should take some serious reflection on their own morals. I know this advice falls on deaf ears. But do consider: Blizzard constructed their very neutral statement for a reason, and Wikipedia should not be going out of their way to twist that neutrality into a statement of support for one side or another of some vitriolic, misanthropic, attack-oriented ideology. YellowSandals (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering Gawker is a reliable source now, it seems the standards of Wikipedia are falling greatly. Thank god gawker doesn't talk about KDE/Ubuntu/FOSS (hopefully). --DSA510 Pls No H8 18:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what this has to do with this request. None of the sources for this statement are owned by Gawker Media. — Strongjam (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I am giving an example of the standards of wikipedia in recent light. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There has only been one group engaging in harassment and tarnishing the reputation of gaming over the past couple of months. Reliable sources are perfectly capable of checking with Blizzard to make sure Mike Morhaime meant what it sounded like, and conversely he could easily put out a press release explaining that he really meant the Jehovah's Witnesses or whatever. This is why we use reliable sources. --TS 18:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A case could be made that game journalists are a small group and that they have been tarnishing gamers and gaming for the past month.Thronedrei (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Why, that's... Actually a pretty valid possibility, seeing how Plante recently supported bullying. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not true. We have sources (one from Salon/Aurdbach) that says that the GG moderate are fishing out trolling using the GG hashtag to stir the pot, and there's the harassment by unknowns towards proGG supporters. So it's not proper to say the harassment is only coming from GG supporters; at best we can say it is primarily coming from those using the GG banner/hashtag. Now, whether Morhaime was aware of that or not, we can't be sure, but we can be certain he was talking about harassment in general (per his exact quote), and that's still fine to leave it at that for the "Industry response" section (Even the ESA's statement didn't mention GG by name but referred to harassment). --MASEM (t) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering the definition of "Reliable Source" has been reduced to muckraking web tabloids run by supporters of bullying, Gawker Media, I'm not so sure the "Reliable Sources" should get the free reign they once had, I.E. everything should be verified thoroughly. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Come off it, Masem. The vast majority of reliable sources discuss the threats as coming from Gamergate supporters essentially exclusively. We're aware of Auerbach's POV at this point and his viewpoint is interesting, but it is not the predominant one in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I still fail to see how gawker is reliable for anything. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You're wilfully ignoring information I've provided in the past. You can look through the archives for sources on harassment of Gamergate supporters. Here's the newest one, which I've linked to before, which is still not in the article, I'll note.
Oh, here's an SJW endorsing the gas chamber for Gamergate supporters, among other lunacy. Social justice is great! Willhesucceed (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Willhesucceed: can you please stay focused on reliable sources and article content? Thanks-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am. It's allowable for his opinion, and Digitimes is perfectly reliable. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Get out of the brambles of the debate for a second. There are two groups slandering gaming right now and they're both extremist elements. There are the people trying to publicize the sexual fetishes of Gamergate supporters in the hopes that it will smear them. There are people sending threats, syringes, or whatever to Gamergate supporters. Then we've got people sending threats and airing out the sexual history of the Social Justice set on the other end. The Social Justice has declared all "gamers" dead, and they call gaming misogynistic. Meanwhile, other people are sending death threats, presumably in support of "gamers". All the while we've these political figures stepping in, and they have nothing to do with gaming. Now you tell me - who's tarnishing gaming? The people saying it's dead? The people harassing others for gaming? The people saying that gamers are misogynistic?
You see how Blizzards statement can go any direction. They condemned the harassment. It's a careful PR statement, and you are supposed to be able to interpret it either way. Nobody supports the harassment. Nobody in their right minds anyway. That's what Blizzard came out against. If they wanted to condemn Gamergate directly, that's what they would have done, but apparently they don't want to bait additional controversy, and Wikipedia should not be doing it for them. Do not spend so much energy attacking people that you bring misery and harassment to people who want to focus on the specific problems and not on a group with people they've never met or spoken to. YellowSandals (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yellow Sandals puts it the best. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Shorter YellowSandels: “Both sides have always been at war with EastAsia.” I’ve seen no credible evidence that Sarkesian, Quinn, Wu, or their supporters have threatened to murder or rape anyone, only that some interested parties claim to have received anonymous parcels. There is no question at all that Quinn was smeared, Sarkisian threatened with murder, and Wu threatened with both murder, rape, and assault; a police investigation into the latter is ongoing. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, knock it off. This very Wikipedia article has been a party to the harassment and you know it. It has struggled with numerous BLP violations, including but not limited to criticizing whether or not it's appropriate for certain forum moderators to like BDSM. The article begins with a derogatory conclusion about people, and then spends its duration trying to prove the conclusion. Innocence is not granted by the virtue of rhetoric when the actions speak for themselves. This much is apparent, and something consistently reiterated by several editors here who are on the war path. Many editors are here to attack and hurt people, and they are as wrong as anyone who has set out to attack and hurt people in this controversy. YellowSandals (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Is the post by YellowSandals immediately above fully consistent with the General Sanctions in place on this topic? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
we have Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement to discuss editor conduct and sanctions, which is probably where both YS's and MB's comments belong.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, MB instigated it. --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have a user conduct issue, take it to the appropriate boards - DO NOT USE THIS PAGE TO WHINE OR CAST ASPERSIONS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You're really being quite nasty over very little, chill out man there's no need for that. HalfHat 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Quote what Morhaime actually said, and then note that it was interpreted as targeting Gamergate by Geoff Keighley et al. We've already gotten in trouble for mangling sources above, let's not do it again. - hahnchen 19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not "mangling sources" to note, as several sources do, that Morhaime confirmed it with a non-verbal, but obvious, gesture in that interview. If Blizzard puts out a statement saying they weren't talking about Gamergate, we can fix it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Waiting for someone to complain is a poor way of writing an article, it's pretty much what I said not to do. I don't doubt that he was talking about Gamergate, but there are plenty of sources (such as the gamergate-maligned Kotaku & Polygon) who note that Morhaime did not mention Gamergate explicitly. So it is an interpretation, even if widely held. - hahnchen 20:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Apples and oranges, Hahnchen. The issue re: Auerbach was a misinterpretation of a source in paraphrase. Here, we cite multiple reliable sources reaching a conclusion based on their observations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I've said quote Morhaime, and then explicitly cite those conclusions. Do you have a problem with that? - hahnchen 22:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That's original research. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't think you understand what "original research" is. It is not "original research" to cite reliable sources which synthesize a conclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Are Gawker links still being called "Reliable"? --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RSN is a better place for that question. Also noted earlier Gawker is not involved in this issue section, I see no Gawker sites being cited for this claim. — Strongjam (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gawker is shorthand for Kotaku since Kotaku is a part of the Gawker network. Anyways, couldn't we just quote the section that is relevant instead of putting it on one side or the other? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I go on, I’d like to take a moment to talk about something serious. Over the past couple of months, there’s been a small group of people who have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people’s lives miserable and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It’s not right. Blizzcon is a great example of how positive and uplifting gaming can be. Let’s carry the good vibes from this weekend out into the world all year round. There is another person on the other end of a chat screen, they are our friends, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters. Let’s take a stand to reject hate and harassment, and let’s redouble our efforts to be kind and respectful to one another and let’s remind the world what the gaming community is really all about.

— CEO of Blizzard, Mike Morhaime
Why is this still being discussed? Morhaime made a statement condemning Gamergaters, later confirmed that it was the Gamergaters he was condemning, and this s who all reliable sources describe the matter. This is not even a point of contention. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Because RS isn't so R. Skepticism is not a sin. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Didn't he clarify that he was indeed talking about Gamergate and all of this is just complaining that his original statement did not explicitly refer to Gamergate and therefore his clarification should not be used to corroborate his original statement out of some major form of pedantry?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there's some controversy about whether he confirmed or not. The Joystiq report says he did, some internet commentators say that he didn't. Until we have a WP:RS that says otherwise I see no reason to call the Joystiq report inaccurate. — Strongjam (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
UNTIL there is either confirmation buy MULTIPLE sources (reliable as in the general definition, not Gawker) that, yes, he said that, I don't think it should be used. Similar should go to all the citations on the page. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"11:52AM As a final note, the DirecTV stage with Mike Morhaime as a guest confirms he was speaking out against GamerGate during the introductions of the opening ceremony. The group is mentioned by name.' is the end of the story. Tarc (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's well sourced. All of these are WP:RS and non-Gawker as requested:
  • BlizzCon’s opening ceremony started with a bang this morning, as Blizzard Entertainment president Mike Morhaime spent the first part of his speech denouncing GamerGate [13]
  • Mike Morhaime dedicated a part of his Blizzcon 2014 opening ceremony speech to slam GamerGaters [14]
  • Mike Morhaime as a guest confirms he was speaking out against GamerGate during the introductions of the opening ceremony. The group is mentioned by name. [15]
Strongjam (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just seen the clips. He doesn't stop or correct Keighley (because I think he's correct), but he doesn't confirm it either. Even the sources that Gamergate hates (Kotaku & Polygon) do not explicitly say (as Wikipedia currently does) that Morhaime denounced Gamergate. - hahnchen 22:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you would have seen the, how shall we put it, respectful nod and smile from Morhaime at Keighley's statement. Non-verbal communication is a thing, and we helpfully have a number of reliable sources making the connection so that it is not WP:SYNTH in any way, shape or form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
People nod in everyday conversation. We have a number of reliable sources that state Morhaime did not address Gamergate by name, so any connection is an interpretation. Nothing wrong with stating that. - hahnchen 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, since I have not seen the video cited, here is a recording of it at the least. At ten seconds in, we can first see the panel with Morhaime at Keighley. At twenty, Keighley is almost done with the intro to the panel as Morhaime is grinning/smiling. At twenty-nine seconds in, Keighley uses the word "Gamergate" in his speech. By thirty-three seconds in, Morhaime facial expression becomes closer to neutral, though not a Blank expression. At thirty-five, Morhaime is nodding as Keighley has mentioned Morhaime being "one of the first execs in the Gaming Industry to address that head on. At thirty-eight, the camera shot changes from a distance shot to Morhaime head-on. The discussion continues on to a different subject and at fifty-one second, Morhaime first speaks. Is that enough to make or break a connection? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
First one is assuming that he was talking about one side or the other. Second one has the same fallacy. Joystiq's one is still unconfirmed. Again, there is no proof he was talking about one side in particular, but rather condemning all harassment, from both sides... or whatever number of sides there is now. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The only notable harassment...harassment characterized as misogynists, to boot...has come by gamergaters against women in the gaming culture, as evidenced by the reliable sources in the article. The smattering of blowback is I believe documented in the article as well (would have to review), but it is isolated and minor...again, as evidenced by reliable sources. As the Blizzard speech has been characterized and interpreted by reliable sources as targeting Gamergaters specifically, that is what this article should follow. At any rate, this is certainly not something that would ever been changed/edited through full protection by an admin, sao it is best to let this edit request drop, as it simply isn't going to happen. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's only because your No True Scotsman BS. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
So the fact that he called out a small element of the gaming community, and then praised the gaming community as a whole, you're going to cherry pick that and say he call out out gamers? Really? Come one. It stands the opening sentence on it's head. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
He didn't "call out gamers," he called out GamerGate, which is by any measure, a tiny minority of the gaming community as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
20K+ doesn't seem small. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Hayward, I specifically said "Gamergaters", not "gamers" in a general sense. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"Those that did the notable harassment" are not all "Gamergaters" (specifically, those that support Gamergate as an ethics bit), it is only by people using the #gamergate tag, which there is RS-sourcable evidence that are trolls out there that are subverting things. This is not to say "no" Gamergater is innocent of being involved in the harassment, but that not all harassers are Gamergaters. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You specifically said "Gamergaters" while Morhaime did not. Can't we just say that he said to "reject hate and harassment" and state that publications took the statement as him calling out Gamergate? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the harassment is from a small group using the #gamergate tag out of a larger #gamergate group. #gamergate itself is a small groupr of gamers. Our article is not so finely tuned to identify the difference and the ignorance of that is the articles opening sentence where misogyny, harassment and gamers are all blended under a single, evil umbrella. If the article was accurate, it would be very clear exactly who this quote is directed at and it is not the Blizzard execs belief that "misogyny and harassment in video game culture" is widely held or believed. --DHeyward (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
But le ebin No True Scotsman maymay, which seems to not apply to anti-gamergate, despite someone like myself being able to make 5 twitter accounts and then dox pro-gg under the anti-gg banner, says that everyone who is pro-gamergate is a misogynist. Or something. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
And how does this relate to article content? Or are you just WP:FORUM? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If the quote is significant enough to include, we should reflect its tone and content as accurately as possible. "Denounced harassment" is a better characterization than "denounced Gamergate", so why worry if we can find sources to support the latter?--Trystan (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well said. We get more accuracy by including the original comment here. starship.paint ~ regal 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources all say the Gamergate thugs are the target. Why is this supposed to be controversial? If nearly every press outlet got the facts wrong, couldn't he just tell them all off with a single press release? No, obviously in the middle of Gamergate he was obviously referring to Gamergate (and not some add yet unnoticed episode of intimidation involving gaming Quakers). So yeah, no wriggle room. Drop the stick and step away from the corpse. --TS 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway:Was that directed at me? Because that was my second contribution to this talk page, and the first on this topic. I wouldn't contest that he was referring to Gamergate, only that "condemning harassment" is more reflective of the statement that he chose to make.--Trystan (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have set |answered=yes in the edit request. There is obviously not consensus here for this edit, so using an edit protected request template was premature, and even if people here agreed to do so we are obviously not going to make an edit that contradicts what all the reliable sources say about this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Then, why can't we just state what he said with a citation? Masem has suggested that we could make a new section called "Industry response" in response to one of my earlier suggestion. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The RS here are all gaming outlets for the most part (I can't find a mainstream source), so they are going to have more bias here because for the most part, no RS gaming source has any reason to give GG the time of day (understandably, since GG is attacking their integrity). Take sources that are less biased by their nature like CNet Venture Beat or the Verge and they all clearly establish he's talking about GamerGate, but not accusing Gamergaters. This is a core thing for us as neutral WP editors to recognize when there is a natural bias in the press that we can verify. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
From Masem's Verge link above: Blizzard CEO says harassment is tarnishing gaming's reputation ... Morhaime didn't condemn Gamergate or its members, but he's clearly talking about problems that have been going on since the movement gained steam over two months ago. Reliable source, hmm? starship.paint ~ regal 01:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Was he or was he not spoken to later and did he or did he not say he was explicitly talking about Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
He was spoken to later and he did not explicitly state that he was talking about Gamergate. If you are refering to the Keighley issue, I have already asked my question above. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I still have to say this. Drop the stick. --TS 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Just quote Morhaime, say his words were largely interpreted as referring to Gamergate. This is what most sources say anyway. I don't see how this is even contentious. - hahnchen 02:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We're just saying the same things over and over. We need to get back to the idea above of article pruning mentioned above, the idea of replacing existing and possibly weak gamer industry sources with stronger ones, as long as the underlying point isn't altered. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would write "Some assume he was referring to GamerGate, though it is not known whether it is GamerGate as a whole, or one side or the other." That way, everybody wins/loses. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be incorrect; as reliable sources have characterized it as referring to Gamergaters, our article will reflect that. My last statement on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There are alternative ways to render it, but I will take my point below. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

At BlizzCon 2014, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder Mike Morhaime said that "a small group of people have been doing really awful things. They have been making some people's lives miserable, and they are tarnishing our reputation as gamers. It's not right." He called on attendees to oppose hate and harassment and to "be kind and respect one another". His statements have been largely interpreted in the media as referring to GamerGate. starship.paint ~ regal 04:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) tagging people advocating for change... Hahnchen, NorthBySouthBaranof, Muscat Hoe, Avono, Masem, Super Goku V, DungeonSiegeAddict510, Trystan ... sorry if I missed you

Looks good to me, although I'd tweak the last line to add some attribution, "His statements have been widely interpreted in the media as referring to GamerGate." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That's even better, yes. starship.paint ~ regal 04:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair, but keep it that way. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The notification system forgot to message me it seems. In any case, I would agree that this is better. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be comfortable with that as-well Avono (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"A referral", I believe, is the translation of a legal case to a different court. The word we want if "a reference to GamerGate" MarkBernstein (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Referring would be better which is what was suggested in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we could (and should) stop using the phrase "in the media", as if it were some entity with an opinion. Here and in many other statements related to the topic of this article we can just say, for instance, "widely interpreted". Remember that, in an article like this at its current status, all of our facts come directly from media reports, so referring to the media as a third party is tiresome and unnecessary. We shouldn't make the media the topic of the entire article like this. --TS 12:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The whole point of this is that the movement itself won't acknowledge that he was talking about them when everyone else is going "yep, he means Gamergate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagree with TS. The (gaming) media is an involved party in this situation, therefore it's important to mention them. In fact, all four of the sources we cite for the BlizzCon stuff have to do with gaming or at worst, computer technology. In addition, I believe that other reliable sources like papers will turn up in the future. "At least one paper written about Gamergate is already undergoing the peer review process... And Ryulong... you can't speak for everyone. starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Alter the last line to simply "His statements have been widely interpreted in the media as referring to GamerGate". Tarc (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I meant to chop off "in the media" per TS's suggestion above, but was distracted. We already know we're talking about the media. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit your original wording was rather confusing!
I think starship is getting a bit too deeply into an "us versus them" situation. If we didn't think we could trust the press we wouldn't write the article because we'd have no reliable sources. My comment is applicable throughout the article, not just here. We should stop talking about our sources as if they were active entities involved in some dispute, except where this is the case. And if they are involved, we should not really be using them as a source except for recording their opinion. In this case, though, we've got near unanimous interpretation by sources known to check their facts.
Furious attempts are being made, by actual involved parties, to spin this away from Morhaime's actual target and pretend he was talking about, I don't know, maybe the Trilateral Commission or something. We oughtn't to stand for that kind of nonsense. We report according to the reliable sources, and those sources are clear that he was talking about Gamergate. --TS 14:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not opposed to this, but I think we can do without all the quoting. The article is already a WP:QUOTEFARM and has length issues. I'd suggest something like this instead.
  • At BlizzCon 2014, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced recent harassment from a small group. He called on attendees to oppose hate and harassment and to "be kind and respect one another". His statements have been widely interpreted as referring to GamerGate.Strongjam (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Suits me. --TS 14:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would change the last bit to "referring to fallout from GamerGate." --DHeyward (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I oppose that, as per the reliable sources. "But this year, in the first few minutes of his time on stage, Morhaime wanted to address GamerGate..." "Blizzard Entertainment president Mike Morhaime spent the first part of his speech denouncing GamerGate" "Mike Morhaime dedicated a part of his Blizzcon 2014 opening ceremony speech to slam GamerGaters" "Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime addressed GamerGate" etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I haven't seen any RS say it was about the fallout, just that either it was about Gamergate or assumed to be about Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Per reliable sources, the relationship to gamergate is pure SYNTH. [16]. "He didn't identify it as the Gamergate saga and everything that has happened around it, but come on: we all know what he was talking about, right?". Gamergate should not identified as what he denounced since he didn't denounce it. He denounced harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
SYNTH prohibits only original research by synthesis — that is, conclusions not reached by reliable sources. SYNTH is expressly permitted when it is the conclusion of multiple reliable sources, as it is here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Then we can use that quote from kotaku to highlight that he didn't identify Gamergate and that the "wide interpretation" is pure speculation by the media. Or we can carve out what is much more widely accepted is that he condemned harassment that escalated during gamergate. There are many reliable sources that that quote him without tying it to gamergate and it's not like he couldn't have said "gamergate" if he meant "gamergate." Nor do I think he was saying harassment before gamergate was okay. It's myopic and self-serving to tie it so closely to gamergate when it's readily apparent that he didn't do anything of the sort. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, he defends the gaming community "Let's redouble our efforts to be kind and respectful to one another. And let's remind the world what the gaming community is really all about.". That separates the gaming community from the harassers much more than the WP article does. --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed change only states that it was interpreted to be about Gamergate, which is exactly what the sources state, so I don't see the WP:SYNTH problem. Not sure why you're concerned about painting with a broad brush, the proposed change says harassment from a small group. — Strongjam (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, fair point. At BlizzCon 2014, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder Mike Morhaime denounced recent harassment issues in the industry, blaming "a small group of people [who] have been doing really awful things" and "tarnishing our reputation" as gamers. He called on attendees to treat each other with kindness and demonstrate to the world that the community rejects harassment. His statements have been widely interpreted as referring to GamerGate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. I've added to the draft page with small tweak. I dropped issues in the industry. Seemed unnecessary to me. Also, style question, should we be more consistent on how we capitalize GamerGate? Article title is Gamergate, but we usually spell it GamerGate. — Strongjam (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea why some people spell it camel case. Most "gates" are spelled following Watergate as an example (yes, I know about the Watergate Hotel). Sometimes the second G is capitalised. It's redundant and we can safely ignore this as a typographical quirk. --TS 21:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia becoming part of the controversy?

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss proposed edits to the article. This section contains both serious allegations and serious misunderstandings of the workings of Wikipedia. As is said below, editors on either side of the debate are allowed to do whatever they want off Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2014 (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.

On reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mj5ds/im_ryulong/ this very Wikipedia is being discussed as well as other issues surrounding GG. I have warned about this before, writing a GG article while GG is still happening makes the wikipedia article actually apart of the controversy itself -- I.E wikipedia is taking part in creating what it is writing about and thus it can be argued that wikipedia as per wikipedia should not be allowed to edit an article about itself? So for future reference, should stuff like this be included in the article?--Thronedrei (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia had the chance to be neutral and nuke the article. Now it's too late. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
They can still nuke it. At the very least it would no longer provide yet another platform for propaganda.--Thronedrei (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure this article is being widely discussed on any number of pro- and anti-GG forums. Are any of them reliable sources? No? Then no, we won't include them in the article. We don't tend to navel-gaze in articlespace. If there is significant reliable-source coverage at some point, then that's another matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So if editors collude with say a journalist (not so in this case) and there is proof, then this should not be mentioned? See bias ect ect ect I know it isn't sources per say, but this is disingenuous. Since the reliable sources never provide any actual evidence, in theory wikipedia staff could feed a journalists "info" who in turn could write an articles which would then be accepted as "reliable source" and be included in the very article said theoretical editor was editing. I'm not saying this happened in this case; but that is why I was asking if stuff like this should be relevant to the actual article. At the very least if an editor shows they are inserting themselves into the actual subject the article is written about, then they no longer qualify as an editor since people and organizations (per wikipedia rule) are not allowed to edit articles about themselves.--Thronedrei (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what you mean by "collude" here. Wikipedia is explicitly a cooperative project where editors are encouraged to talk with each other and work together to improve articles. Offering what are basically speculative conspiracy theories about Wikipedia editors is not what this talk page is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
oh so wait I can talk to pro-gg? Yay! Now I get to cut out my middleman spy. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Something like that yes. Allowing himself to be "interviewed" by an anti-gg, he is compromising his integrity as a mod for this article. By the by, articles should not be written by people taking part in the actual controversy. So no, people actually involved and using the hashtag Gamergate should not edit this article either -- they should be allowed to post suggestions here on the talkpage though and provide links and info. The problem with mods though is that they can actually over ride and have more sway over articles than a normal contributor on the talkpage.Thronedrei (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why i don't make many edits, i mostly post here. Also what your talking about is cytogenisis. Retartist (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm allowed to do whatever I want off of Wikipedia, Thronedrei.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to say that this seem to be a weak proposal to improve the article, so please note NOTAFORUM. To start with, NorthBySouthBaranof has the correct argument; it should not be unless we have a reliable source. However, I would like to note that the reason we have this article is that this article passed the Guidelines for Notability. In addition, I would like to note that we do have a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, so Wikipedia editors do edit Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2014 (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.

Using this talk page for discussing edits to the working draft

Wasn't the whole purpose of the draft space page to allow discussion on the proposed draft be there rather than clutter up this one?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything to be gained from bifurcating content discussions across two talk pages. The intention of creating a draft is simply to permit content to be developed while the article is fully protected. --TS 11:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well the original reason I had moved it into the draft space was because someone complained that a subpage of this page could not have a subsequent talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made the draft talk page into a redirect to this talk page. I think that's best because it means editors can click the talk/discuss link on the draft and they join this discussion. While I'm not completely opposed to having two distinct talk pages, I am concerned that doing so would limit the exposure of draft issues. We're more likely to arrive at consensus on the draft if it has wider exposure rather than being hothoused to a smaller group. --TS 15:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
support the single site for content discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Editors on this page cannot just decide to "nuke this entire article". The required process is outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you wish, you may follow the steps there, but discussion here on that issue is pointless. Gamaliel (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2014 (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.

While the draft is being written, THIS article still exists. I.E this article is creating a false narrative and contributes to creating the news on the net. So while the draft is still being written, this currently existing article can not be ignored and left unattended. Or are you saying that people should not be allowed to object to this article being used as a propaganda piece?--Thronedrei (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX. Do you have policy-based suggestions for improving the article with reliable sources, or are you just going to ramble on about propaganda? Barring administrator intervention, no one is editing this article until November 22. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I do. First of all, nuke this entire article until Gamergate is actually over. Secondly, when using reliable sources, unles sthe source provide actual evidence... just include the articles source as "name of journalist working for ect make the claim that ect ect ect".Thronedrei (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, those aren't policy-based suggestions. There's no policy which says we get rid of articles about controversial issues and there's no policy which requires "actual evidence" (whatever that might mean). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2014 (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.

Tooooooo long

Whoever tagged this, "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably", was absolutely right. I offer a barnstar for the first editor who in a non-vandalistic way manages to cut this article down to 80k. [Psst: I understand you want to stick everything in here, but the result is that no one can read it.] Drmies (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take up this challenge --Guerillero | My Talk 04:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies:The current size is 61K would a size of 50ish K be good? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Guerillero--wait, 61K? I see 127,386 bytes. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
127,386 bytes includes wiki markup, comments, etc... The recommendations in WP:SIZERULE are for the size of the prose, sans-markup. According to User:Dr_pda/prosesize the prose size, text-only, is 61 kB (9723 words). Article is basically on the edge of what is recommended. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, forget what I said about numbers: the article is way too long and too detailed. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
One of the things that is beefing up the size are lengthy quotes from various sources, which, rough estimate, take about 33% of the prose length here. I've tagged the article with {{quotefarm}} to indicate this but this is probably just a matter of review each of the longer quotes and culling down to core statements from each. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Simply cutting down redundant attack quotes would make this article much shorter and easier to follow.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are way too many quotes. The reason there are so many quotes is that every attempt to write a paraphrased summation of the mainstream POV based on those sources was summarily rejected as "introducing bias." If we could work toward expressing the mainstream POV in Wikipedia's voice, we could get rid of a lot of quotes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No question this article is outrageously overlong. Surely its importance does not outrank that of, for example, NASA, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, personal computer or Fast Fourier transform. — Objectivesea (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the length of this article is insane. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed article by Totlmstr

I made a separate page for testing based on Drmies's recent edit (the one on whether Let's Players were mentioned), and I trimmed the article using Notepad++. It cuts the article down from the above 61 kB (9723 words) to 44 kB (6944 words). Note that I barely added anything on there and most of the work was deletions. You can check the abbreviated edit comment on there as an insight. I removed some of the references, and these were commented out at the bottom of the article. Totlmstr (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow. That's a huge difference. I tell you what, lots of people or not going to like it, but I do. (But I am not as familiar with the material as some others.) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is a huge difference and the focus on this article is much better. There were at least three paragraphs dedicated to one source and multiple quotes in the same line that were too extraneous (a double quote by Anita in one sentence and three quotes by Kain in a row in three sentences; both were knocked by one each) and articles that focused on a blip in the controversy (An entire paragraph dedicated to a blogger and is not mentioned anywhere else in the article? How relevant is that?). Totlmstr (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel like this is a fair place to start working, but there's several removals that I think unnecessarily weaken the narrative, particularly in terms of addressing the movement's claims re: journalism ethics and DiGRA. Also, the "Attacks on women" section should not be smaller than "The Fine Young Capitalists" section, given the relative weight of the two issues in mainstream reliable sources (lots and lots of attention to the movement's attacks on women, not really any at all on TFYC). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I'm allowing the mods to just go ahead and edit this page as they need. My original edit was the base requirement I would like to see on the page proper. Also, I do not see how size comparisons are important here. Shouldn't it be the content? Totlmstr (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
We weight content based on its relative prevalence in reliable sources. That is, stuff that's discussed a lot in reliable sources should get more space than stuff that isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
By following that at the general level, DiGRA has only mentioned GamerGate as a blurb on their website as far as I can tell with my simplistic Google searching. I can't find anything else that has a better leaning than TFYC, which organization was deeply involved with Zoe Quinn, at the center of a controversy for at least a solid month, amd part of the 4chan debacles involving Vivian James and several other things that are/should be in the TFYC article proper. I believe that until DiGRA releases their full length articles directly about GamerGate (they must have released something of note about the topic directly), their section really should be that short in the article in my opinion. Totlmstr (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
My objection re: DiGRA there is that you dramatically shortened DiGRA's response while leaving the attack entirely intact.
As for TFYC, they are, as per the reliable sources, more or less a minor footnote in this issue. While perhaps deserving more space than Anil Dash's incident, they don't deserve much more. They certainly don't deserve more space than the discussion section on "Attacks on women," for which Gamergate is far more notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
My point still stands. By all means, if you want to add something in, do so in the page I created. Totlmstr (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Totlmstr is just another zombie account. No edits for months and then right into Gamergate as if he's a neutral party. The fact that his draft of the article is removing more content critical of Gamergate and leaving in the stuff supportive of it is proof as such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I explicity mention I am a lurker on Wikipedia and I follow my interests on my page. I normally don't go on Talk pages and I don't contribute that often to Wikipedia due to most of the pages I am on already have enough edits or sections. Additionally, I am more active off-site than on here, so "zombie account" may as well be half-correct. You are free to not listen if you so desire. Totlmstr (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You're here from KotakuInAction though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you even sometimes assume good faith? This article needs trimming and everybody knows it, but when someone tries to do it, people from either side shoot them down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talkcontribs) 08:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You removed the entire Anil Dash paragraph when there were multiple sources discussing it and using it as an example of how trolling and right wingers were exploiting the Gamergate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Anil Dash (I do not know enough about the person) was, at the really basic level, threatened by an anonymous poster on her blog that she posted on a random day. It is not even known if it was even related to GamerGate at all, so I thought it would be best to hold on putting it up there than impulsively adding it in. It was explained in the earlier paragraphs that anyone could make threats of any kind and anyone can use the hashtag at will, but, so far, nothing of merit or confirmation as far as I know of has come out of it. And it was, like I said, a very small blip in the entire controversy; it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article as of my edit. Totlmstr (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to say the Anil Dash thing was a flash in the pan that we can trim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Anil Dash is a man who got harassed by that "lawyer" we're not allowed to talk about due to vague BLP violations who made himself to be a "leader" of Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree on Totlmster's trimmed version, which primarily aimed at the quotes, and that helps a lot. I do agree that we should be focusing on a broader narrative and not get into weedy details like Anil Dash's aspect. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Totlmstr's just another Redditor from KIA trying to pull the wool over our eyes. His edits almost exclusively remove content critical of Gamergate while leaving lengthy sections that prove it right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure how my posting history off-site is relevant on Wikipedia. Totlmstr (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It shows that you are not a neutral party here. And your proposed cuts show that as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
True, I am not a neutral party at all. However, I am judging the article based on the content and context of the article itself, not on the premise of whether or not this fits with me. I also wanted to take this challenge because the article is really way too long and needs to be compressed somehow. It is, however, a strange coincidence that the majority of the lengthy quotes (especially the paragraphs that I have deleted) were from that same side and had what would be redundancy in the paragraphs themselves. For example, the MetalEater paragraph in "Legitimacy over Ethics Concerns" section says, at the lowest level, the same thing as the paragraph right above it, and that has two articles referenced. Another example is the Grant remark in "Nature and Organization" is more concise and direct than the quote and remark combination before it. In both cases, these references can be moved to another location so that way the article doesn't talk about a single subject for too long (which you can edit in the page I linked, and I'm letting you do so without any interference from me as of that recent edit). Does Wikipedia really need multiple lengthy quotes back to back just to explain one point when an even better reference can do it that easily? Shouldn't some of these quotes be compressed so that way they fit the narrative? Totlmstr (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Finding redundancies is one thing. And as stated multiple times on this page (and in its archives) the quotes have been used because there have been a large contingent of users who have argued that the paraphrasing of these sources has not been adequate as it presents the information within that they have generally disagreed with as being written in Wikipedia's voice rather than the voice of the writer. While it may be useful to cut out some of these (and the Anil Dash paragraph/sentence) it just seemed odd at first glance. TFYC should be given less prevalence on the page if we are cutting out some of this other content (and I am still convinced we should merge the separate article to this one).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I made this its own subsection, by the way. starship.paint ~ regal 06:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly created a subpage working draft, at Talk:GamerGate controversy/Working draft. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Culling substandard sources

This is a controversial article which deals with very specific WP:BLP topics, but is plagued with substandard sourcing. There is really no need to have 153 sources detailing the minutia of the controversy. I suggest removing all the sources labeled as op-eds, and all of the gaming press sources. That would leave mainstream outlets like the BBC, public radio, PBS, The New Yorker, Slate, The New York Times, The Independent, The Boston Globe, Le Monde, Salon, CNN, Mother Jones, The Guardian, Wired, Time, LA Times etc, so long as the sources were not to their editorial page. This would mean removing sources like Venture Beat, Ars Technica, IGN, Polygon, The Daily Dot, Kotaku, PC Magazine, The Verge, Gamespot, Gameindustry.biz, Re/code, Eurogamer, etc...

The question of the RfC: Shall we limit the sourcing of this article to mainstream secondary sources, removing all niche game journalism sources, niche tech journalism sources, opinion/editorials columns, and personal blogs?

We just don't need to use niche publications to create an article for this topic. aprock (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

discussion

  • There's a case to be made for some of the sources you've suggested dropping, but it might be a valuable exercise to cull the sourcing in general. There are all ready too many footnotes to marginal or situationally useful references. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There will be a few "substandard" sources I think we need to keep, such as Tolito's Kotaku rebuttal to the initial Quinn charge. But I do think that a few step of seeing what claims made by substandard sources can be moved to a good RS should be done first, and then see what the next step (eg how many statements only sourcable to substandard ones are left). --MASEM (t) 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sources like that are reasonable to keep if they are referred to in the mainstream press. Thus if his rebuttal is discussed, in say the Wall Street Journal, the primary source can be included. aprock (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. But I think that determination should come after we do, wherever possible, replacement of weak RS to strong RS that support the same fact (eg what should be non-issue as that's just general improvement) What's left will then have to take a more cautious approach. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the request is too broad. as a purely cultural event, opinions/analysis/commentary are necessary to understand the controversy's place and impact in culture. removing the items that place it in context is inimical to a good article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No one is suggesting removing analysis and commentary of the event. In fact, per WP:PSTS we rely on secondary sources to perform topic synthesis. However, per WP:RSOPINION, opinion pieces are generally not reliable sources for much beyond what the author thinks. If a mainstream source indicates that the editorial is of particular interest, then including it might be reasonable. Including it simply because it exists, is contrary to WP:DUE. aprock (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you reading a different proposal than I am? Shall we limit the sourcing of this article to mainstream secondary sources, removing all ... opinion/editorials columns, and personal blogs? yes, there is not only the suggestion but actual statement we remove from consideration some of the prime locations to derive high quality , in-depth opinion/commentary/analysis to be left with soundbites culled from "news" articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that your definition of "high quality" is considerably different that that of the mainstream. Which "high quality" source would this proposal affect? aprock (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"high quality" relative to the sources available for an issue that is 3 months old. When the academic reviews come in, then the editorials are likely to be the second tier of quality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Eliminating tech sources for an article about a technocultural controversy seems arbitrary or WP:POINTY. In some cases, though perhaps not in all, the technical press will offer expertise or detail not available to more general sources. Often, requests for source purges of this nature are really seeking to eliminate sourcing for critical sections of an article, which can then be removed, or preparing for a fresh visit to AfD. Neither is likely to be effective here. Moreover, if all this pruning will be done while the article remains capped with an NPOV template, we’ll continually be wrangling over whether each change is a further attempt to deskew the article. I do not see this as a productive path forward. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "pointy". If the tech sources are high quality mainstream sources they are probably reasonable. Which tech sources do you think are particularly high quality mainstream sources? aprock (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good broad principle and an absolutely terrible hard and fast rule. Oppose. Artw (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems incredibly overbroad to me to suggest that we can't use well-known tech/gaming journalism sources, which are those which have covered this matter most extensively. The Verge and Polygon in particular are run by noted journalists with a pretty significant history of quality work. Also, if we remove all of the sources you suggest, we will be left with far fewer "pro-GamerGate" voices — no Erik Kain, no APGNation, no MetalEater, no CinemaBlend, no Cathy Young, no Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. The ramifications of the fact that the only pro-GamerGate sources are of such marginal quality is an exercise left for the reader. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Which of the tech/gaming sources are particularly "well-known"? aprock (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said, The Verge for one. As per its Alexa rank (426), it receives more traffic than Slate (611), Wired (623), Salon (1,088) or Mother Jones (3,700), just to name a few of those you named. Its staff consists of well-known tech journalists including Nilay Patel and its reporting is widely cited and commented upon beyond its site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not at all clear that Alexa traffic is a good barometer of mainstream. The Verge is just barely three years old. I personally don't have any issue with the site, and know nothing about it's editorial practices. Is there any reporting there that is crucial to the article, and which can't be sourced to other mainstream sources? If so, it may be reasonable to use it, but it's probably not a big loss if it's not used. I could be wrong though. aprock (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, then what is a good barometer of mainstream other than just arguing by assertion that tech sites can't be mainstream? And why would Wired be mainstream and The Verge not? More people read The Verge than read Wired, at least based upon available traffic stats. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question, but again I don't think website traffic is the way to answer it. There may be some insight at mainstream media if you're curious to investigate further. aprock (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not up to me to answer it — you're the one making the claim that Wired is "mainstream" and The Verge is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I don't really care one way or another about The Verge. If it is generally considered a high quality mainstream source, then it should be included.aprock (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's all I needed to hear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit too sweeping to be practical, but it's hard to say sight unseen. Could a version be worked on as a subpage here, to see what the article would look like if such sources were pruned? Tarc (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: as nominator. The quality of sources in the article is extremely low. Erring on the side of higher quality sources is a much better course to tack. aprock (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's a cultural issue surrounding games, I'm pretty sure game and tech sites are relevant --Frybread (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Kotaku is unbiased.[1] Source 1: Kotaku. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and if you're going to whine that Gawker is a bastion of gold journalism, [dead link]. Just a few months after the "Fappening", they do a hard 180, and use (semi)nude pics for traffic. Don't bother reporting it, I have a local copy. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until nominator describes a meaningful process for defining which sources are "mainstream" that amounts to more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest that WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:DUE be our guides. aprock (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you agree that The Verge is a perfectly-acceptable reliable source for this article and not "substandard" in any way? I don't object to looking at replacing The Daily Dot, CinemaBlend, etc. where possible, but The Verge is a pretty vital source which has extensively covered this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree or disagree with respect to The Verge. It's up to the community to determine that this is a high quality mainstream source. It's not my call. Personally, I have no real experience with it, and have no clue how often it is used by other media. aprock (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a bad idea. Mainstream sources are being incredibly lazy with regard to this topic. It would further exacerbate the problems the article's having. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, to some extent - I don't think it should be strictly limited to "mainstream only" as some of the industry-specific sources may give insight into the greater "chilling effects" on the industry. "Mainstream" will also ultimately be an arbitrary criteria. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment of substandard v standard - is it ultimately saying that if something is mentioned in a smaller source instead of mainstream sources, it is less reliable? I guess I tend to agree with that. But - if something is mentioned in mainstream and lesser-known both, and both are cited here, I definitely agree that the lesser-known can be culled, especially in a long article like this one (as Masem says below). And if there are details used in this article that are only cited in one (or maybe two) niche sources but not in the major press coverage, those should probably be reconsidered for inclusion. Either way I will be watching this with interest, as a related article I've been keeping an eye on uses almost exclusively what aprock describes here as "substandard sources," but that is a much more industry-specific article, while comparatively this issue has broken out into a higher level of media awareness so there are more sources to choose from. Hustlecat do it! 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as rather arbitrary. The technical press is not automatically of low quality, and in many cases it's the best source. I'm not completely opposed to suggestions that redundant sources should be trimmed. And where we do this, we should always take care to select the best source for the context. --TS 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Support This has gotten a lot of mainstream coverage, we don't need biased journals. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Summoned here by bot. I agree that only the highest quality sources should be used for text that presents a genuine BLP issue. However I would not agree with a blanket prohibition on industry publications. Coretheapple (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's time to upgrade sources and cull non-notable/unreliable ones. No need to recognise and quote every single article when a single reliable mainstream source does the job better. Patriarch (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Partial step: Replace low quality with high quality sources supporting same point

This is basically what I describe above, but to repeat, and highlight , I do suggest that a partial step that should not be as much of an issue is to replace any weak RS that is not tied to a quote or specific opinion with an high quality RS that can source the same point, if one does exist. If there doesn't exist a strong RS replacement, leave it for the time being. After we do that, we should be able to make a better judgement of what the quality of sourcing looks like if we need a further step. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What are these weaker sources that you suggest be replaced?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The same list given above. But again, to be clear, this is only if a better quality RS can source the exact same point; there's definitely points where the writing in the finer details would require a specific source to be used and that couldn't be changed out. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems like an easier first pass to take. aprock (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. No objection here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Specifically: IGN, The Daily Dot, PC Magazine, Gamespot and Gameindustry.biz can go. Ars Technica and Kotaku should stay. The former because they are generally reliable (and widely relied upon in tech articles) and the latter because it is unavoidable. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I would add TechCrunch and CinemaBlend to the list of those we can look to replace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reliability must always be evaluated on a case-by-case matter. As someone who works in IT, I can say that the mainstream can sometimes be a poor source about technical topics, as it may be written by journalists who don't understand the topics they are writing about. Sources who specialize in a topic can often provide better coverage since it is what they specialize in. If we eliminate the technical press from technology-related articles, what's next? Should we stop citing astronomy sources in articles about astronomy? This is a bad idea. Each source must be judge individually, not by sweeping assertions. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware that there were any technical aspects of this controversy. As best I can tell, you are arguing to use primary sources above secondary sources. Given the degree of misuse that primary sources can cause, it's pretty clear that secondary sources should be used for the greatest part. To the extent that using primary sources makes sense, that should be determined by the secondary sources. aprock (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There may not be technical aspects to the controversy, but the gaming industry and community can be abstruse to those not part of it. The topic's not going to be served by handing it over exclusively to mainstream sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense given the suggestion. If we have a point sourced to , say, ArsTech, and the same point can be sourced to NYTimes, we should use the better quality source. On the other hand, if ArsTech goes into some detail on a technical point we have, and the NYtimes touches but glosses over the details, we should keep the ArsTech in this first partial step. The only suggestions I'm saying is when the 1-to-1 replacement is obvious. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of insidehighered as a source

I'm splitting this up because I could see this getting quite long and these discussion are largely unrelated. HalfHat 12:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please also note the reliable source for the DiGRA CT also states The Gamergate controversy was sparked this August after a video game developer was accused by an ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for positive media coverage. Since then, the movement’s twists and turns have been as convoluted as the plot of a Japanese role-playing game.[17]. It then goes on to describe the rest of GG controversy with its various aspects. It's much more balanced and accurate than the article we have. Please review that source as a template. --DHeyward (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is well within the mainstream — brief mentions of the fact that GamerGate claims to be interested in journalism ethics, extensive mention of the fact that its actions have had nothing to do with journalism ethics.
While the movement may at times appear scattered, supporters have occasionally been able to focus their attention to devastating results. Some of Gamergate’s critics, including media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developer Brianna Wu, were forced into hiding this fall after being bombarded with threats of violence and sexual assault, or seeing personal information about themselves or family members published online. Yup, it describes it pretty well, that's for sure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And I think the WP article is lacking the balance of the Higher Ed piece. It's focused on DiGRA but it's account of how GG got to DiGRA is much more balanced and NPOV. One camp within the movement has blasted video game journalists for being too close to the industry they cover, demanding that news outlets reform their ethical guidelines. But another camp has used that crusade as an excuse to harass video game critics -- particularly women (some of whom are academics) -- who have questioned whether games accurately represent and include groups other than stereotypical white males. is a very accurate description that is much more balanced. --DHeyward (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Our article has plenty of "but ethics" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If you can't discuss without invective, then don't. Your reply that "but ethics" is balance is lacking both NPOV and a dispassionate approach to the article. If the article was even remotely NPOV and dispassionate, it would be short and not filled with garbage sideshows. The Higher Ed source should be nearly replicated for the opening line of what started gamergate and what it splintered into. The detail DiGRA stuff in source can be culled to a reasonable paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
But his point is valid. Our current article covers the arguments about ethics to the extent that it's reflected in reliable sources (probably if anything it is given a bit too much attention, since, as you noted, the article is overly-long; and since going by most sources it isn't really what's notable about this topic.) A bit part of the problem with the article's length comes from the fact that it's trying to be an obsessively detailed play-by-play of every blow and counterblow in an ongoing internet argument; it should instead focus on the aspects that have attracted the most attention from reliable sources. Arguments that this is about ethics rate relatively low on that, and therefore don't deserve as much coverage as (say) discussions of cultural and social warfare, or about the nature of harassment in the internet age. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the ship has long sailed on our article ever (wrongly) treating "but ethics" and "but harassment" as equal points of view. They aren't, as borne out by reliable sources. The ethics claim deserves coverage, but not prominent or substantial coverage. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A point to consider on the DiGRA stuff is that as an primarily academic angle, its coverage is going to be different than the coverage from journalism ethics that are much more mainstream. Arguable, its also a very different tactic that isn't related to the ethics because it is directly accusing those on DiGRA trying to promote a specific view; it's related to the "culture war" aspect that GG is, but it is far from "ethics", which is why it is a much more interesting tactic (for better or worse). The stuff about targetting Gamasutra and Gawker - that's rather straightforward, but not this. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, that's a red herring. GamerGater "but ethics" stuff has always been a dumb witchhunt with no connection to actual ethics. Artw (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense to ignore the fact there are RS-sourced ethics claims and specific responses/criticism to those claims (including dismissive ones). There of course is the "but ethics!" facet that ties to the harassment angle, that's clear and obvious, but there has been enough consideration of the self-stated ethics claims that we have those documented already, and we cannot bury them as if they were never documented in good RSes, even if the same RSs that documented rebutted them. This piece on the DiGRA side is a facet that I know, by reading through the proGG stuff, reflects this "concern" the proGG side that their favorite industry is being pushed in a direction, which is reflective of the culture war aspect, and it ties to the ethics in that they are pointing out that the journalists are being complicit in helping this agenda be pushed if they aren't disclosing connections/avoiding topics they are close to (this is their view, paraphrased, not mine); however, sourcing wise, there is very little yet to be said (nor do I suggest we need or can say), as much of that requires deep reading of GG statements, which most of the press has waved off already one the harassment stuff escalated. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the highly speculative notions expressed by Sargon, in which he depicts feminism as a kind of fifth column within academia trying to enact change in gaming, is there anything else to this ethics concern? I think the draft covers Sargon's concerns, for what they're worth, quite well. Is there anything else to it? I only know what reliable sources say, for the most part, though I also follow Jenni Goodchild (pixiejenni) on Twitter. Is there perhaps a document on her website that might illustrate these concerns? I'm aware of her attempt to catalogue and record Gamergate concerns, and she focuses particularly on DiGRA, though of course she is clearly an outspoken critic of Gamergate. --TS 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The draft text in terms of the "amount" of discussion of Sargon's point, is fine. I'm just suggesting that ther emay be more on this facet that I know exists in the proGG viewpoint but difficult to source reliably at all, but if we can source it reliably (most likely as commentary from others pointing out issues with the line of thought) we should not bury that information. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page, as far as coverage is concerned. Since I wrote the previous comment I've been scanning Jenni's survey website to see if I could find concerns about academia that hadn't been covered in reliable sources. No luck there. We cannot cover concerns that aren't even being expressed. --TS 20:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead link in 130 of draft

" and "Gamergate", news release on DiGRA website, November 5, 2014" Here's the link given http://www.digra.org/digra-and-gamergate/DiGRA HalfHat 18:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Should be this. TS has already fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I'd forgotten to check the link in the reference. --TS 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sony boss on Gamergate

Forthright condemnation of violence and harassment, but rather vague on Gamergate.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-17-sonys-layden-harassment-completely-unacceptable

--TS 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect for the "Industry response" section. added to draft. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Better then what I was going to suggest. I did tweak a bit. He's not Sony CEO, but SCEA CEO. Not sure if that's too pedantic though. Feel free to revert if you think it is. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
People mention the three usual people time and time again, but nobody acknowledges the threats Christina Hoff Sommers got on twitter. Perhaps finally, someone acknowledges both sides. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any such acknowledgement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A bit vague, I have no objection to using it, but caution is needed. HalfHat 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What about '"SCEA chief Shawn Layden said he didn't think there is one answer to what Gamergate means, before condemning bullying and harassment in general."', could probably do with a bit of tweaking still — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talkcontribs) 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently in the draft article it's Sony Computer Entertainment of America CEO Shawn Layden stated that the harassment surrounding Gamergate was "completely unacceptable", but noted that there isn't "one statement or one position on it, or one answer to whatever this very broadly-defined #GamerGate really means". On review, I think we should probably drop the 'surrounding Gamergate' bit. I think it's implied, but not explicitly said. — Strongjam (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Second source for his comments. This one includes an edited transcript of the interview with Venture Beat. — Strongjam (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

DiGRA conspiracy (Draft)

Arguuing that DiGRA is full of "feminists" not "academics" is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. You have to say what the conspiracy theory is, it just looks like it's being used as a lazy way to discredit the claim. One source is cited, it mentions conspiracy theory once, and it is just using it in a derogatory fashion, which is fine for a piece like that, but not for Wikipedia. HalfHat 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if messsy, I was checking stuff as I wrote this, I'll be happy to clarify any parts. HalfHat 11:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome to your own opinions, not your own facts. The reliable source explicitly calls it a "conspiracy theory" and you may not simply offhandedly dismiss that fact because you don't like its implications or because you disagree with that characterization. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia editors' opinions are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If the only source on (let make a GG "Operation Sweeper") called "Operation Sweeper" a "pile of shit" we wouldn't say "Operation Sweeper is a pile of shit". No it's being used as an insult, when it was referred to as a conspiracy theory once, with no clarification as to what that alleged conspiracy is, it's being used as an insult, that's not what we do. HalfHat 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again, your personal opinion of how it's used is interesting, but not relevant. The reliable source's perspective that it is a conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is indisputably relevant. That you do not like the implications of that is apparent. I'm sorry the reliable sources don't describe Gamergate the way you want them to. That's not Wikipedia's fault. You can blame it on some giant secret cabal conspiracy of all the media, or you can consider that, from the outside looking in, claiming that DiGRA is "controlled by feminists" does appear to be a wildly-absurd conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually make an argument. This is just "no I'm right". HalfHat 11:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of who's right — it's a matter of the fact that your personal opinion doesn't change what the reliable source says. The reliable source says it's a conspiracy theory. Your disagreement with that fact doesn't constitute reasonable grounds to omit the statement, given that it's based on nothing more than a (clearly-biased) personal opinion that it's "lazy" and "derogatory." We don't omit reliably-sourced "derogatory" material just because a member of the aggrieved group disagrees with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Where does WP:RS say we should take everything literally? We don't insult things in Wikipedia's voice, it's an insult. HalfHat 11:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We describe many, many things as conspiracy theories, when reliable sources so describe them. See Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. etc. etc. That you believe it is an insult is of no consequence. You fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia if you believe that a group is entitled to reject or discount the findings of mainstream reliable sources when that group disagrees with its characterization by reliable sources. Points of view within articles are weighted based on their prevalence in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference is these things are claims people made of people conspiring together i.e. a conspiracy theory, this is not the case here. And again it was only called a conspiracy theory once, in the entire article, the draft calls it a conspiracy theory more often. HalfHat 11:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Umm, yeah. Claiming that "feminists have taken over DiGRA to push their agenda" is, yes, a conspiracy theory claim, as per literally the dictionary: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". That's literally what they're arguing, so "not the case here" doesn't seem well-founded. Seems to be entirely the case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
But that is not what's said. Where does it say the accusation is of a feminist plot to push their agenda? HalfHat 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Right in the article, that's where. “I’d like to show you how the Digital Games Research Association became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers,” Sargon says in the video. “This is probably the unseen driving force that ultimately triggered the Gamergate phenomenon.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how you think the Sargon quote implies conspiracy, he's simply says DiGRA probably caused GG. The first one still doesn't imply collosion or some plot, it's again not a Conspiracy theory, it also appears to be just some random nobody. HalfHat 12:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I think. What I think doesn't matter. It's what the source thinks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It was you who quoted quotes not me, I was showing those quoted quoted don't help your case. You haven't shown the source holds that opinion, at all. HalfHat 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
First of all I'm not sure why you seem to think calling a conspiracy theory automatically counts as a smear and makes it wrong. See Operation Ajax for an example of a conspiracy theory that was actually true, so I dont get why you care so much about the usage of that word. Secondly, Sargon is arguing that DiGRA is an "unseen driving force" the implication is very much one of a secretive conspiracy. His story is one in which feminists remove academics from DiGRA hijacking it unnoticed to carry out evil. How is this not a conspiracy theory? Bosstopher (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't automatically, that's just how it's being used here. HalfHat 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You're reading things into the quote that aren't there. He never actually says there was any plot or collusion to co-opt DiGRA, only that it had been. HalfHat 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What matters is not how you personally read his statements, but how reliable sources do. And the reliable sources we have now agree that what he's describing is a conspiracy theory; going into it yourself and saying "well, but as an editor I personally don't think that this is a conspiracy theory because X, Y, and Z" is original research. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Where does he do that? And that's not what I'm doing, I'm pointing out people are reading things into it that aren't there. HalfHat 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem using the source's opinion it is a "conspiracy theory" within the section, but as the section title, at least until we have more sources, this is about their movement against DiGRA, and it not impartial to title that section "Feminism as a conspiracy theory" as it is now. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If a reliable source dismisses the claims then we should not categorize it as an opinion of that source but simply the fact that the claim has been dismissed. We cannot keep demoting the statements made in reliable sources just because they become involved in Gamergate due to the fact the movement picks new targets every time someone writes something critical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A single RS, which is not enough to classify the DiGRA stuff. And this is not about demoting their stance - the content calling it a conspiracy theory from the standpoint of the DiGRA president is right in line with the sourcing, but we couldn't immediately be picking a side that the DiGRA's stance is the "right" one in terms of naming the header. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. The "conspiracy theory" phrase is not "from the standpoint of DiGRA's president," it is stated in the voice of the reliable news source. The journalist is describing it as a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The reality is that the term "conspiracy theory" has inherently negative connotations and is being used exactly once. Many partisan writers or partisan outlets refer to things as "conspiracy theories" that are actually mainstream views other outlets take as accurate or plausible. In this case we only have one source using this term in exactly one instance. For context here is the preceding paragraph:

At DiGRA’s annual conference this August, Shaw and Consalvo participated in a roundtable session on “identity and diversity in game culture.” Notes from the roundtable were discovered online, showing how participants discussed the impact of feminist game studies on the video game industry, and whether academics could influence developers. Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development.

A link to the notes is provided and you can see them here. Let me lay out some of the comments:

How has feminist game studies influenced developers and games? Where’s the impact outside of academia?

Great conversations here, but those conversations do not occur outside of a group like this. What can we do to bridge this? What about when being published on Kotaku is a bad thing, rather than a positive signal boosting thing?

How can academics bridge the gap to the industry audience to help them do different work? How can we disrupt the capitalist norms that facilitate this?

Academia needs to push for more radical positions within the industry to help make things better.

Staying helps us change things more. Gamasutra will shut down negative conversation at least in part because they’ve had their awareness raised by academics.

The way the system values peer review is bullshit, as the money accrues in the hands of private corporations. How can we do the work and have it benefit us?

Figure out what you have an how to best use it. How can you exploit the system and use it to your best advantage? Determine the rules and the rules you want and try to bring them together.

DiGRA is not "you." It is "us." I've been trying to make change for a long time, and I've discovered that you have to do it yourself, but you don't have to do it by yourself. When we were 10 people in a room being like "Fuck the IGF" – we made it happen. Now we're a thing, and people can rebel against it.

Is it any surprise that people reading these kinds of comments come to the conclusion that "members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development"? How is it even a conspiracy theory to say that when they discuss how to influence the industry and say how they have already influenced the industry?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion and original research does not change the reliably-sourced description of the claims as a conspiracy theory. Our articles are not based on an editor's novel interpretation of primary sources, as you apparently wish it to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
They're not based the single opinion of one person quoted in an article. Wikipedia cannot call the GG side a "conspiracy theory" in the WP voice. It's fine as a statement within that section that one person considers their side in regards to DiGRA a conspiracy theory, but those words have no place in a section header. This is not original research, this is straight up NPOV. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again, Masem, you are just straight-up wrong about the source and seem keen to demonstrate that you have not actually read it. The cited source is not an opinion column, it is a reported news story from a reliable, neutral news source. The statement is not a quote from a party involved in the dispute - rather, the reporter describes the claims about DiGRA as a conspiracy theory. That you disagree with this perspective is noted. The fact that you disagree does not negate the reliably-sourced description. You are hell-bent on ignoring reliable sources because you don't like the conclusions they draw. Once again, I'm sorry that reliable sources view GamerGate's claims as ridiculous nonsense. That does not permit you to reject that reality and substitute your own. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an opinion piece, not a factual piece. 90% of the material on the GG article are opinion pieces, expressing opinion based on the limited amount of facts we have. This doesn't make them unreliable when they are reporting facts (eg there was harassment, etc.), but that means that we have to know where the line between fact and opinion is drawn, and one writer's claim that it is an conspiracy theory cannot set it up as fact that we can state in WP's voice. A lot of this requires looking at context, and not taking one statement out of context. I suspect the writer got the idea of "conspiracy" theory speaking to Consalvo, given where it falls. Note that there's a "bare" sentence here As a result, the research produced by DiGRA board members has become “sloppy and unprofessional and absolutely overrun by people who have an ideological agenda that they simply cannot leave out of their research.” which by the same logic you are using to state "conspiracy theory" as fact, means that this sentence should be fact. Neither of those are the case; the bulk here from this article are useful opinion statements surrounding the DiGRA push. We have to be clear that that is an opinion statement.I'm not saying to ignore RSes, but to make sure we are fully clear that anything that is not clear fact that it is put in the proper "voice" and not WP's. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a news report in the news section of the website. In the body of the section we actually quote Sargon from the article outlining his highly speculative notion that there is some kind of feminist fifth column being used to force change in gaming. --TS 21:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of the sources we have already in the that are expressing opinions are also "news" columns; mind you, this is from the VG and tech sources and less from the mainstream sources. We have to be aware that the journalist side across the board is, even unintentionally, going to take a defensive stance towards GG because GG is attacking them. In this particular article, as I've pointed out above, it doesn't make a good line where it is quoting opinion and where it is making a factual statement, and if one reads it, standing back away from the controversy, the article is framed around an interview that the author did with Consalvo, and then by pulling details from the Sargon videos, but that's it.
And to stress this point again - just because they are opinion pieces does not make them unusable as North claims I am stating. Only that what the claim has to be put in a voice that is not Wikipedia's voice. It is the author's claim that it is a conspiracy theory. That's fine, but that doesn't make it a fact it is a conspiracy theory, especially if this is the only person that has said that. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And to be clear: the section text is fine, save for the header by calling it a "conspiracy theory" based on one author. The section is about the DiGRA push, nothing else. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is what the reliable source describes it as. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, not when it is only one source (just like has been asked for most of the claims that have been made from the GG side, like it being a movement, etc.). That's FRINGE/NPOV/IMPARTIAL failures to use that as a section title. The fact the source stated it, sure, that's fine in the prose, I'm not questioning that. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
[18] there are no lack of sources to use. we already use several of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Which is fine if we actually spent time talking about the larger conspiracy theory (beyond DiGRA) and claims made by the GG side and turning to the strong criticism and rebuttal of those points made by those sources. However, right now, that section is about the DiGRA stuff and DiGRA stuff only, and calling it a "conspiracy theory" on the DiGRA aspect from one source as the title is a problem. This is what I sorta aluded to in the section below; the larger situation we could call it that, but it is not appropriate to use that term for only one subfactor of this. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A fundamental problem with you POV-pushers is you seem to forget that "verifiability, not truth" was nuked from the policy page for a reason. Just because some journalist says something inflammatory does not mean you are abiding by NPOV by repeating their phrasing as fact. The article has over 1,400 words talking about this matter and you are using two of them to try and discredit the position it is discussing without any regard for the actual facts under discussion. We aren't supposed to be in the business of writing hit pieces on Wikipedia. Creep on over to IrrationalWiki or GeekFeminismWiki if you want to spew this bile.-The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure who are are addressing as" POV pushers", however, WP:UNDUE is still clearly a part of the policy. WP:GEVAL is still clearly a part of policy, WP:BALASPS is still clearly a part of policy and dealing with Fringe viewpoints Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience is still clearly a part of the policy. and WP:OR is still clearly a part of policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
None of those policies apply in this case, except in the sense that we're giving undue weight to a single article by including so much material about DiGRA in the first place, never mind presenting this one author's inflammatory statements about other people's reasonable interpretation of evidence as though it were fact.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure they apply. You are advocating that we dump what the reliable source says and instead WP:OR do our own investigation and place that / complaints from gamergaters at the same level of coverage as the reliable source. WP:BALASPS WP:GEVAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage we're only arguing over the section heading. I think we could do better than "Feminism as a conspiracy theory", which isn't particularly coherent. As the section is about attacks on DiGRA and associated gaming researchers and the principal source is about these attacks, I suggest we call the section "Gaming researchers under attack". The current content shows clearly what accusations are being made, and we don't have to use words that some editors cannot agree to. --TS 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and renamed the section. --TS 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, like any good POV-pusher, your "concession" is just as inflammatory as the original POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain what the problem is here? The section about attacks on researchers. The name surely reflects this accurately. --TS 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with something neutral and accurate like "Opposition to DiGRA" anyway? HalfHat 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He Said/She Said: The proposed language currently on the draft page makes it unclear just what Inside Higher Education was investigating; the language of the draft as it stands right now suggests that a prestigious journal independently investigated DiGRA and found it had been taken over by feminists. That, were it to enter article space, would soon leave Wikipedia a target of ridicule.

But more fundamentally, we are according roughly equal weight here to two disputants. One is a fellow named "Sargon of Akkad" who posts pseudonymous videos on YouTube; we know little else about him. The other is Dr. Mia Consalvo, the Canada Research Chair In Game Studies & Design at Concordia University. We know quite a lot about Mia Consalvo, who teaches courses in "COMS 398H – Cheating, Games and the Ethics of Play Media" and "SPEC 620G – Digital Games: Theory and Research", has delivered research papers most recently at 2nd Annual Symposium on Digital Ethics in Chicago and at the Association of Internet Researchers in Salford, and who has written one book and twenty six published articles about game theory. Yet, one faction here would add a section on the allegation of Sargon of Akkad, and (being impartial) balance that accusation with a quotation from Mia Consalvo. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the wording had not occurred to me, I'm horrified to say. We need to fix that.
The piece _ought_ to make it quite clear that this is crazy conspiracy stuff, and I thought it did. Could you suggest a rewrite? --TS 23:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the opposite of what it should do, a fringe opinion? Yes. But Wikipedia should never make out anything to be crazy because Wikipedia has no opinions. HalfHat 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not an issue of balance here; the content of that section seems fine, just the title. To get the viewpoint of Consalvo to explain why being targetted by GG seems silly (from their view), the author at least did try to find out why GG have this and went to Sargon's videos to try to write out how DiGRA is in GG's sights, which thus needs to be stated. The author (and we) post what Sargon's issue is, and then we have two quote from Consalvo which basically call out the logic as inane and a huge stretch of the imagination. Given no other sources have picked up on this point yet, that's a fair balance in the section of why DiGRA is targetted and why DiGRA members are expressing disbelief in that. --MASEM (t)
With respect, MASEM, I believe it is a matter of balance. We’re presenting a charge leveled by a YouTube video by an anonymous individual whose qualifications are unknown, and balancing this with a refutation from a distinguished scholar who leads the organization which has been attacked. Giving this an entire section is wrong. At most, this deserves a one-sentence mention: "Some GamerGate supporters crafted self-published claims and conspiracy theories that Game Studies had been overrun by feminists [73][74]." To give more credence to such stuff -- much less to insinuate that Inside High Education launched an investigation into the question (!) -- is to lend the project’s weight to the tassels at the end of the WP:FRINGE. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Read the linked article - this is not one semi-anonymous person charging one respected person. The whole of GG have started a new tangent from their ad-removal campaigns to target anyone in the DiGRA organization that is "pro-feminist" and try to affect their reputations by saying they aren't academics. That's the bigger store here. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
if true, the current draft does not credibly reflect this interpretation. I assume, then, you agree with me that it must be discarded and replaced? 03:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the section is following the source. It says GGs are targetting the group, it explains why by using one of the few established viewpoints from the GG side (Sargon's piece), and then it gives a full out rebuttal of the "WTF" nature from the president of the association being attacked. It could use a few more sources/voices, but it is accurately talking about the DiGRA piece. It's not a "he said she said" thing as it is written. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that there's any indication that "the whole of GG" buys into this. Even if true, that wouldn't necessarily make their allegations any more credible or interesting; this isn't a popularity contest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe not the whole, but this doesn't appear to be an isolated effort; if you explore their pages, the DiGRA angle is one of their broadcasted "how to get involved" steps, like the advertising angle, etc. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From the archives (the talk page discussion at the time veered quickly off onto other subjects, so I'm not sure if it's useful.) The International Communication Association member newsletter talked about this. It might be useful as a source, but I'm not sure if it's WP:RS. If it was one of their journals I wouldn't question it, but this is from their newsletter. — Strongjam (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Their response (warning their members that they could become involved) is good to include. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

TV and GAME_JAM

Adam Baldwin, an actor credited with originating Gamergate, made an influential tweet to two videos, the second of which makes claims about Matti Lesham and the apparent failure of GAME_JAM. I was unable to access an article about the jam, but this is the event that Quinn was cited, and her game mentioned, in a piece by someone who (I think) she was accused of subsequently having a relationship with. But I find other writings about it like this editorial, mentioning TV reality show aspects to the production, including the statement that the suggested contract wording "also gave them provisions to make things up about the developers for the sake of drama, which, understandably, did not go over well with the people involved." This editorial seems to agree with something Quinn said (I think) in saying that Lesham, acting as middleman for the TV producers (???), "attempted to get a rise out of Zoe Quinn by asking blatantly sexist questions about her and other women’s involvement in game development."

Now it seems to me that whatever happened that day at GAME_JAM is therefore right dead center at the heart of this 'controversy', apparently kicking off everything that followed, and needs to be explained in a lot more detail than I know about it. What is not so clear to me is whether the entire Gamergate Controversy is a continuation of this reality show, with the same manufactured controversies being continued. Has a 'reality show' in fact become real? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Added note: Lesham on IMDB, including 23 news articles from 2010-2014. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When I read through the Game_Jam stuff when it was news before, I don't get the impression that GG is a continuation of it; it was a show produced to be a "reality" show which is designed to provoke the participants so as to get good entertainment value. It is tied to GG for certain in the matter that GG'ers have pointed out that Grayson wrote his own take on the GAME_JAM, including a brief highlight of Quinn's DQ at the time, and while all that was before the reported date of their "closer" relationship (April-ish 2014), GGers claim this is "favorable coverage" that Quinn sought by becoming friends (platonic or otherwise) with Grayson. (This is why we keep having IPs/etc. claim that we can't call the accusations "false" because this one still exists). --MASEM (t) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If it were "dead center" there would be more reliable sources covering it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Npov?

In my opinion, the article seems slightly biased against the movement. What the movement is about is pretty subjective, and straight up saying it's about sexism doesn't sound neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegeerunner (talkcontribs) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

At least in Wikipedia policy, neutral doesn't mean impartial. There is a very strong dichotomy between how Gamergate supporters tend to see themselves and how the outside world sees them. Our article is based mostly on the latter as derived from reliable sources. --TS 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*cough cough* WP:IMPARTIAL. *cough cough* Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Or to expand, there are several facets of neutrality to consider. Weight/balance is one that we clearly have to recognize is never going to be metbetter than we have now, due to the limited number of sources speaking in any sort of nonnegative voice for GG, and that's why its fair to call the GG side FRINGE. But as can be seen under WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality, there's many others, like structure, impartiality/tone, wording, and sourcing issues, that all have to be considered that we can still improve on to better present the material in a neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) (ETA to reflect that we are following policy wrt weight aspects and the sourcing #s) --MASEM (t) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, Masem preaching to the all divine choir. You're a cool guy, and I appreciate all that you've done and continue to do. If you were the final editor to decide definitely what would happen for the GamerGate ArbCom case, sanctions, topic bans, and just in general what happens, I'd be content and sated. Regarding neutrality, yes I've seen the horrible heated and somehow convoluted discussions of neutrality and acknowledge it. I'm not the person to convince, you know who needs to be convinced in that aspect. The tone and partiality is blatantly shown and asserted and even overt as if it's proud of being there. If trying to fix it didn't result in massive edit warring and vitriol, I'd have fixed it a long time ago. Tutelary (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but "the world" and so-called "reliable sources" encompasses the media which which is accused lack of ethics and corruption. Plus where are those allegations on Grayson reviewing Depression Quest? --Artman40 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Nathan Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest. Any allegation that he did so is provably, and proven, false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
He may not have reviewed Depression Quest, but he has written about it, and used images from it to illustrate the article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerDaniel (talkcontribs) 12:51, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)‎
the allegations were not "but he mentioned it" they were that "he gave positive reviews". and a journalist doesnt pick the images that accompany their copy. now stop your BLP allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he wrote five words about it in a blogpost, three months before the relationship began. Congratulations, your "smoking gun" is a broken water pistol. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my understanding of the English language isn't as good as I thought it was! I meant that we don't treat all opinions equally. --TS 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) The perspective of gamergate is largely one-sided, as reliable sources have taken the view that it is primarily about harassment, so our article reflects that. An encyclopedia is not a venue in which to right great wrongs. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the """" RS"""" supposedly condemns the harassment, I don't see anything about the hate and vitrol, not to mention WP:BLP violations *cough*sommers is a far right MRA XD*cough*cough*Milo is just a parasitic opportunist :^)*cough*. If there was no narrative to push, why are the """"" RS"""" silent about the harassment, on both sides? The fact that almost all that is acknowledged is the harassment towards the 3-5 people everyone are tired of hearing about. Also, CBC, should not under any circumstances be used as an RS, slandering David Pakman as a supposed perpetrator of harassment, despite Pakman being neutral/anti-gg. Fair word of warning about CBC as a source. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Now that I remember, the view that Sommers is an MRA making a cashgrab/holding onto relevance is one our friends over at the fine establishment of Encyclopedia Dramatica push. I would say it safe to consider ED views serious violations of BLP. Article won't be linked for obvious reasons. Bing it or something. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
actually, pretty much every reliable source that discusses Sommers' involvement notes that she is a Chrissy-come-lately to any interest in games. [19] [20] [21] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
While Sommers had no previous experience with games, before her first (very informative and nicely done) video, let's look at it like this. The battleground of feminism has moved into the digital world, and here is something which is a hot topic for feminism. It would be a logical choice for a feminist to tackle a new thing. The only truth, is that sommers didn't say much about gaming before this. However, anything beyond that is speculation/opinion/slander, and therefore unfit for inclusion. The salon article is a hitpiece, simple as that, non-notable, seeing as Milo is back, and clearly slander. Its absurd that criticism of a group makes one against it. I have been very critical of gamergate myself, but that doesn't mean I'm against it. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also nice WP:BLP violation there. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What, specifically, is the BLP violation? I see a turn of phrase, not a violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It implies she is a rabid opportunist. If one side gets to decide the wording, and images used to describe them, is it too much to ask MINLOVE to allow nonslaneerous description of the other side? --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
its not my implication, its the one supported by 4 reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Seriously, click the link. It's not a BLP violation to call someone a noob. I have no idea who MINLOVE is, but if they are causing a problem, please bring it up to WP:GS/GG. WP:REFACTORing is a serious thing and should only be done in extreme circumstances. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
See Nineteen Eighty-Four. --DSA510 Pls No H8 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, do you mean Miniluv? I ask since I was also under the assumption of the reference being toward a user. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say content wise it's a pretty fair representation, the wording is often quite questionable though, and the article in general isn't very well structured. HalfHat 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

An example of non-impartial writing

This change [22] by North is an example of what persists in the present article of non-impartial writing. There is no reason to move the statement of the DiGRA stuff being a conspiracy theory before the theory is explained out (per FRINGE), save to pre-judge the subsequent discussion of that theory, which WP should not be doing. After one side is presented, we can throw all the possible criticism and claims against it we can find, eg keeping the conspiracy theory fact, but putting it that early purposely makes the subsequent discussion of the GG side in question. WP cannot be a judge of this stuff. (If this was a longer section that needs an introductory paragraph that in good writing would provide how the section would be laid out, eg, like our lede, then yes, it would be fine to call it out earlier and then going into more detail later. But a 2 paragraph section does not need an intro like that). --MASEM (t) 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To expand further, the ordering of opinions is a key issue with the impartial nature of this article. The bulk of the content/sourcing is fine, but the article is written to immediately say "Here's the GG side, but no one in the press believes it", so that any discussion of the GG is already tainted by the opinions of others. We'll absolutely get to those opinions in the article, but to put those that high up in the discussion (and not part of a summary like the lede) is basically WP telling the reader "This stance isn't valid", which is a judgement call on WP's part. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty arises when you have a paragraph saying "Sargon says there are Communists in the state department" and only mention in the following paragraph that "no significant authorities believe this, and Sargon has presented no credible evidence." I continue to doubt that Sargon’s conspiracy theory merits more than the briefest of mentions. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying Sargon has presented no credible evidence that there are feminists in DiGRA? Are you aware the president of DiGRA is literally a member of a group called the Fembot Collective?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There are doubtless feminists, vegetarians, Democrats, and Francophones in DiGRA. As far as I know, professors in Canada are free to join the Fembot Collective, the Maple Leafs Fan Club, or the Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique. Feminists might study computer games, just as Marxists, economists, and Baptists might. But what has this to do with the Gamergate controversy? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The mere fact that someone is a feminist is not evidence, much less proof, of the vast feminist conspiracy that Sargon believes exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sargon's views are being used by the IHE author to explain why DiGRA is being dragged into the mess, based on the author's evalution that Sargon is speaking in a representative manner of the rest of GG that has targeted DiGRA. Without that explanation, there's no logic, and even if the logic is "conspiracy theory" it needs to be presented to complete the narrative. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Masem, we are not going to mention what is demonstrably a fringe conspiracy theory without immediately mentioning the fact that the only reliable source to cover it considers it to be a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
THAT would be an example of GROSS POV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We print the few details in an impartial manner in a neutral manner as if the theory has weight, and then present the counter-fringe view. It is a non-impartial to use the changed order in the statement because it tells a reader that WP believes the theory is a "conspiracy theory" because we've identified the opinion of another prior to exploring it. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We present theories as they are presented in mainstream reliable sources. If mainstream reliable sources present them as conspiracy theories, then yes, we present them as conspiracy theories. If the proponents of those theories don't like that, that's just too bad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
FRINGE says "...minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it". Since clearly one side is not going to take to calling their view a conspiracy theory, it should not be presented as within discussion of their view, but certainly in criticism of that view. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No, you're not understanding. We don't present things as "he said, she said," we present viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The most prominent and significant viewpoint published by reliable sources is that Sargon's claims amount to a conspiracy theory, and that must be the predominant viewpoint in our article. The minority viewpoint (that it's true) must be presented, but with significantly less prominence than the majority viewpoint. The minority viewpoint does not get to override the majority and prevent us from accurately describing how reliable sources view something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
But UNDUE says nothing about order, which is what I pointed out. You are 100% wrong about how we present FRINGE topics - every single one I can find presents the fringe view, and then criticism of that view. Point/counterpoint. That's how you make the most neutral article. My version before your change still has the same weight of sources and balance per UNDUE, including the "conspiracy theory" point. But by changing the order so that calling out the GG side as a "conspiracy theory" after one has gone over the basics of the minority retains UNDUE and meets FRINGE and NPOV's impartialness requirement of describing the minority side in a neutral manner. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. For example, our article on 9/11 conspiracy theories is literally called "9/11 conspiracy theories". We also have Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, etc. All of those articles mention "conspiracy theory" in the very first line. So really, we should rename the section to "DiGRA conspiracy theory" and put it in the very first line. That's the established precedent for articles about things that reliable sources label as conspiracy theories.
It's not "calling out" something, it's describing it as reliable sources do. Which is what Wikipedia is about. Once again, it's apparent that you don't like the way reliable sources treat the viewpoint. That's not of any consequence to us. If you want an encyclopedia that presents Gamergate viewpoints as Gamergate believes they are, there are other wikis for you to do that on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
In terms of title of a complete article, there's no question that you have to go with the larger opinion, and there's no way to remove "controversy" from this one (whether it is "Gamergate controversy" or "Controversy over the Gamergate movement", that's a different question); similarly, in the lead, we are going to give a broad summary overview, and that absolutely cannot avoid harassment and condemnation of the group since that's a huge chunk of sources. But when we get to the body, just like those articles, they present the theories devoid of criticism, and then present the criticism later, or in terms of specific theories, at the end of the section in the body of that. Remember, conspiracies aren't factually wrong, they are just very very very very unlikely to be true; still, per FRINGE, we do not attempt to attach a notion of "wrongness" to these in how we write our articles, and so stating "here's a theory but be aware one side calls it a conspiracy theory" is preloading the reader's judgement in favor of the anti-GG side; after explaining the theory, then its all fair game to shoot the theory down. That's what FRINGE and IMPARTIAL caution about doing. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a single source -- Inside Higher Ed -- which mentions in passing the conspiracy theories of someone named Sargon of Akkad, who declined to be interviewed for that piece. That this appears to be the only mention of this argument in a reliable source should no surprise us; if you listen to the video (as I have done), it is a numbingly tedious exposition in which Sargon classifies professors as either Academics or Feminists, asserting without argument that Feminist research is slipshod. The video lacks evidence or argument. There’s no controversy here and no need to provide balance: we have one isolated voice who creates YouTube videos espousing an extremely fringe position, who was once cited as a conspiracy theorist in a lengthy article on the possible implications of GamerGate for Higher Education. There’s literally nothing here; it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here, and so much time, trying to "balance" the account of something which doesn’t come close meriting serious consideration. It’s hard for me to understand how good-faith editors could promote coverage of such stuff. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the IHE article. The author has 1) properly identified there is a large scale effort within GG ranks to target DiGRA researches for claimed "feminist agendas" (if anything, this point is huge and a different track from anything else), 2) has identified that Sargon's statements though his vlog (which, you note, we are not sourcing directly in any way or form) are highly representative of the thought process that those using this approach within GG has used to determine why DiGRA should be scrutinized, and 3) the author feels this is of conspiracy theory levels. The singular viewpoint is not taken by the author as a single view, but a highly representative view - in much the same way the article uses the DiGRA president's view to represent's DiGRA's take on this. It's not "he said, she said" as you claim, but appropriate representation of both aspects of this. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I have read the IHE article: I said so. Of whom do you consider this view "highly representative"? How would you know? We do know Sargon espouses it, whoever he is, and that some people on shady message boards endorse it -- but that can be said of all sorts of WP:FRINGE views. No other reporter seems to have mentioned this large and highly representative strand of thought. I'm not sure how we would know what a large scale effort within GG ranks would be; would that be anything like Operation 5 Horsemen, the GG attack on Wikipedia? I continue to think that, if we must mention this at all, it should be a sentence of the form, “Inside Higher Education reported on a conspiracy theory common among GamerGate supporters that held that DiGRA was a radical feminist front organization bent on world domination [78]”. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You know, I've always criticized pro-gamergate as being too judgemental of their opposition, calling them thin-skinned and what have you. I read about the operation or whatever that little blip was, IT LITERALLY WAS JUST CALLING FOR DIFF COLLECTION. Nowhere did I see motions to dox (as I just got from a anti-gg person who can't spell), or to mflood, or SPA flood, or to DDoS Wikipedia (literal attack of Wikipedia). Also, your proposed revision insinuates that Sargon is a crazy buffoon spouting nonsensical claims of NWO's and what have you. It simply seems he, like many others are simply critical of the new, radical feminism. So, that sentence would be in violation of WP:BLP. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
your personal feelings and accusations against those you disagree with are indeed well noted. however, they play no part in creating an encyclopedia and should be kept to yourself here. (there are 8chan boards where you can vent all you want if you feel the need to do so in public. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The author of the IHE piece makes the "claim of authority" of Sargon speaking for the GGs. And if you have followed the GG sites themselves, its very easy to see how this is a level of their side that this article presently doesn't cover; Sargon's statement, while not verifyable by RSes directly, can be easily verified reading the primary sources even if they are "shady" message boards. (And I note that covering it is a negative blemish against GG; I'm not disagreeing their ideas of DiGRA and feminists are way out there, but this is one of the few rather visible things that they have a general issue with their belief feminists are pushing them out of gaming from all areas gaming touches). --MASEM (t) 01:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Until GG decides to organize in a fashion where they are able to identify their own "voice of authority" and thereby also take responsibility, they will be at the whim of reliable sources identifying who speaks for them. We follow the lead established by the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mark that "it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here". Repeating the comment I made above which was pretty much just ignored, "That one source section is already too long. I wouldn't reference Sargon at all. I'd take the first sentence, a quote from Consalvo, and then move it into the prose at 'Role of misogyny and antifeminism'". - hahnchen 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the most appropriate place, as I said before, is actually the End of Gamer identity section, because that is what the source identifies as the motivation for the criticism. Of course, it also needs to be phrased accurately, which is not the case at present. The "conspiracy theory" according to Inside Higher Ed is "that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development." It may not seem like much of a conspiracy theory given that the cited notes show members explicitly discussed methods they could use to influence developers and the overall industry, but that does seem to be what passes for a conspiracy theory in the eyes of the author and is what we should be stating in the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the way this is going, Hahnchen. Thank you. --TS 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Some editors are dying to change the title of the article to "GamerGate conspiracy theory" Loganmac (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any such suggestions. The main bulk of the article is going to have to be the harassment and misogyny, and the underlying ideology that enables that, while filled with highly speculative thinking and short on relation to fact, is relatively secondary. --TS 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

“Impartial” POV Pushing

From The Daily Beast: Rage against Gamergate's hate machine

The problem with these high-level overviews of the topic—these broad summaries of hordes of angry video game consumers trying to take down what they see as a “corrupt conspiracy” of feminist, progressive voices in gaming—is that any summary of the topic that leaves out the details is going to give #GamerGate too much credit.Because each and every one of the details is ridiculous and insane. It’s a pattern that we’ve all seen before. The Tea Party comparison seems apt. The feeling of existential despair I have right now is similar to how I felt back when I realized American politics was, for the near future, going to be about debating birth certificates and death panels with deranged 18th-century period cosplayers.

Yet this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do: state each claim in detail, and only then mention that the claim is unsupported by the sources, unsupported by evidence, or simply crazy. (The DiGRA "conspiracy" truly is crazy: DiGRA’s most ambitious aspiration, I believe, is to host a modest little conference and to publish a modest collection of Proceedings.) Just look at the time and energy this is consuming while the page is protected!

I submit for your consideration that it might be a very good thing for Wikipedia if it were announced that this page would remain fully protected for an additional six weeks or -- better -- six months. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this comment and its inflammatory remarks of there being an essential 'cabal' of editors as well as people who shouldn't really be editors but really are 'toxic' an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. When you deliberately see other editors of the other POV as 'one small cadre of editors, aided by off wiki organization' and assert that they're just wasting time while the page is protected, you're in essential attacking anybody who dissents from the status quo of the article. This, in effect, doesn't lead towards good Encylopedia making. I guarantee you if some other side attempted this they'd be topic banned on the spot. I urge to hat this thing for your own sake. Tutelary (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Impartialness is not about balance/weight. It about tone and organization. The article in its present shape has absolutely the right balance of viewpoints with the sources give, but not presented in an impartial manner. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that at its core, the biggest problem that the article has at the moment is that it goes into too much detail on the blow-by-blow about things that are ultimately not very relevant. The Gamergate controversy is fast-moving and could produce nearly limitless quotes and subtopics, but we should generally concern ourselves with overarching coverage of the controversy as a whole and not get so deeply into "some random person on YouTube made an allegation of XYZ, which journalists X, Y, and Z responded to with comments X, Y, Z, which in turn got comments from..." That's not an encyclopedia article. My feeling is that the DiGRA thing as a whole probably doesn't warrant more than a sentence or two. The most important thing to improve the article at the moment (given its overwhelming length and unreadable mass of back-and-forth quotes) is to trim away most of the more peripheral controversies like those. If those controversies do eventually go anywhere, they'll probably be able to support their own articles anyway rather than being mashed into a disjointed list of topics and quotes the way we're putting them now. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the RECENTISM problem I've pointed out before - we wrote a lot as this was breaking, but now that there's a lull and/or "the end of GG" (we can't tell but it feels like its going that way), we should be reviewing sources, and taking out primarily opinion pieces of people with no skin in the game that were written at the time of the events, as those are more reactionary quotes. And that also includes excessive details on some facets like the TFYC situation. The longer term view is what we should be writing for, and this type of work will help not only to address that but also the NPOV issues. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on it. The pro-gg side/group/??? Has seemingly found 2 things. Gawker's source of revenue, and possible TOS violation of said sources. News at 11. Until the hashtag usage drops 90%+, it shouldn't be considered "dead", even though the hashtag usage is to aliveness, as alexa rankings are to website access rates. Which is to say, a rough, but accurate measurement. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Um....reliable sources for this? WP:SOAPBOX? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate "exists" insofar as reliable sources cover it; once that dries up the story's pretty much over, regardless of how many twitterers tweet things with the #gamergate hashtag. There are still people out there that believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii in 1961, but do a news search and you'll find there's very very little discussion of them anymore. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this, but I will point out that in reading the various GG areas, they still seem to be finding things to poke at, but just nothing that is newsworthy (for whatever good it is - the amount/details of harassment has seems to drastically subsided compared to a month ago, but that's probably why it's also fallen out of mainstream coverage). But yeah, if we go a month without any significant GG story developments, I'd be hard pressed to call it anything but "done". --MASEM (t) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing to expand on the consumer/culture war asepct

GG Consumerism as a culture war from Reason by an associate editor there. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were calling for more mainstream "higher quality" sources? Artw (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Artw has a point. Specifically, it should not surprise us that a Libertarian think tank whose raison d'être is "free markets" publishes a piece by an associate editor that concludes that Gamergate indicates the need for free markets. I see lots of opinion here but little if any news; it might be news if a right-wing free-market outlet failed to find a culture-war aspect to the controversy. MarkBernstein (talk)
Actually Masem has a point. This article contains multiple opinion sources. Why are libertarian sources not included in this article anyway? Is it due to paid editing like it happened before? --Artman40 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
First, the article is neutral - it neither glorifies or condemns the GG side, but instead begs the question "why" this is happening, at least in terms of the ethics questions. Second, Reason as a magazine is similar to Slate or Salon, in that 1) they are not video game/tech publications and 2) they are writing from a social analysis standpoint, which is definitely where we should be putting forth the broader questions of why GG occurred like it did, without blaming or sympathizing. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Its certainly better than Gawker Media sources. And of course, I must agree with Masem's points. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Slate and Salon are run by media companies, while Reason is funded and run by a non-profit political think-tank. --Frybread (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This could go for just about any source, people have their own views that they generally view everything in the context of. Also bias per se isn't enough to dismiss a source. HalfHat 09:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
While an interesting read, a think tank publication is not quite on-par with actual media sources. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Reason is not a "think tank publication," but an actual media source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Reason Foundation Artw (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Which, FWIW, does not bar it from being WP:RS or used in Wikipedia, but we were talking about using only mainstream, non-specialist sources on this page and it would go against that. Artw (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I would consider this, like Slate or Salon, a mainstream source - it has nothing to do with technology or video games on a regular basis, and has all the usual facets of RSes we'd expect (editorial board, an established history, etc.) It's not a broad distribution mainstream source like NYTimes or WAPost, but that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a specialist publication for the kind of right wing politics espoused by Baldwin et al. I also note that it's an opinion peice, something you've been against also. Artw (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Reason is not a right wing publication. It takes liberal positions on social issues. —Torchiest talkedits 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I never said opinion pieces were not usable. Just that we have to recognize they are opinion pieces and can't be used for what WP says it ins own voice. Further, I've pointed out that we should be looking to put more weight on sources that are removed both in topic (non-tech/vg) and time ( months after the initial events) that avoid the RECENTISM problem. All the initial responses by the VG industry within the first few weeks by people that were not directly involved are the ones that we should be reducing how much we use them, given that their overall response - that GG should be condemned for harassment - are now well summarized by more recent sources. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


In principle, this argument might be used to justify removing coverage of female developers who were threatened with dismissal, assault, rape, and murder (because they are involved in the video game industry) and replacing it with the more measured commentary of right-wing male pundits who are more distant from the issue and can see both sides. Their greater perspective naturally gives them a more measured and nuanced view than those hysterical girls who made such an unholy fuss and who were directly involved. Of course, that’s not what anyone editing this page would propose, but we should be cautious both to avoid the injustice and also to avoid the appearance of injustice -- especially as some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light. (See, for example, the edit war over replacing "rape" with "sodomy" in the proposed draft, now escalated by the proponents of not mentioning the word "rape" to a request for sanctions[[23]].) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty (an excess even) describing the harassment, but nearly all of them have the same general stance - the harassment and threats should be condemned, which are still readily summarized by current mainstream sources. (And of course, the opinions of the three women at the center of it should still get their own weight). And there are sources that are very critical of GG in the mainstream side that also acknowledge this is a culture war, which this Reason article would help build on. So no , there's zero issue here in the direction you are speaking of. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cernovich's involvement

WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion of a topic; if there are, at some point, reliable sources for this discussion, it can be restarted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems Mike Cernovich, impromptu lawyer of pro-gg, wants to take on the IDGA for libel and/or slander. Has any RS picked up on this? And no, tabloids/blogs don't count as RS. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a connection between Gamergate and the issue(s) between Cernovich and IDGA? If not, then it is just an issue between the two sides. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
For one, Cernovich almost got SWATted by an anti-gger (No true Scotsman works both ways. Second, IGDA, is under scrutiny by pro-gg I hear. --DSA510 Pls No H8 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Update, by this point the IGDA is throwing the chairman of its Puerto Rican branch under the bus. No 2nd party sources yet. Check Cernovich's twitter, Milo's twitter, and Roberto Rosario's twitter for background before Gawker is inevitably sourced again. --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Background [24]. --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ummm,,,,I see no sources here, reliable or otherwise. What are you trying to say?MarkBernstein (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

He's trying to find out if anyone else has found reliable sources on this issue. This appears to be a valid question and a valid situation to address if we can. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, this appears to be a WP:SOAPBOX for DSA510 to talk about something he explicitly admits has no sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I see him saying there's no second party source on this Puerto Rican issue, but not on the chief topic. It appears he's being proactive in trying to find non-poor sources, which should be commended. Of course, if no sources can be found, it shouldn't be included, but that doesn't preclude discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The twitter stream only shows that one fellow on the internet is upset and threatening to sue someone. There's no reason to believe that he is capable or willing to file such a suit, and less reason to believe that the suit will succeed -- especially if it is filed against IDGA, which merely links to the database. Meanwhile, Cernovich’s allies have been sending Randi Harper, the developer of the blacklist, pictures of her dead sister: absolutely charming, right? But sure -- it's a valid situation to address, because maybe something will happen and maybe if something happens a WP:RS will mention it, and then you can edit war indefinitely for a pro-spin? No sources, no news. MarkBernstein (talk)

Categories

I'm sure there's a good reason that the categories are deliberately broken, but I don't know what it is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

fixed, happened during the merging of the draft article Avono (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment

Highly disruptive reopening of a settled topic with strong BLP implications.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I seriously cannot believe we are starting this topic again. We can't slap the False into the title because the allegations that the a friendship existed were true. We have to define that the allegations that favourable coverage were given were false; That however cannot be done in a single heading. Avono (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something in the sources, isn't the accurate description of the claim "unfounded?" After all, the allegations have not been proven true or false, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the claims, while based on weak evidence, has some foundation. But the claims have certainly be "refuted" by and large - the claims were made but the press has considered what the involved parties have said to be truthful so the claims were refuted. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Walk me through this as if I'm completely new to this topic (it may just be able to nip this for good). What is the foundation, and what refuted it beyond the press simply declaring the "involved parties" as "truthful?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The foundation of the claim is: based on Gjoni's post, that Quinn and Grayson had started a more closer relationship. Quinn is a game dev with a game about to come out at that time, and Grayson an editor for the video game site Kotaku. The supposition that GG has used from that foundation is that Quinn was using the relationship to garner positive press for her game. (Note that Gjoni himself did not suggest any of this, and later went on record to affirm he didn't imply this at all).
The refution comes from a post made by Tolito, the lead ed at Kotaku, stating that the relationship between Quinn and Grayson (Which exists) has not impacted any of Grayson's editing since - there has been no review by Grayson or any member of Kotaku about DQ (this is provable), and while Grayson wrote about DQ earlier in a post about Game Jam, the timing was before the start of their relationship. As such, Tolito has refuted such claims, which Quinn and Grayson have said similar in their own comments. The press has readily agreed that the accusation is simply untrue based on these statements and lack of a DQ review. The GG side still point to the Game Jam article, which was written about 3 months prior to the relationship start date, as that there was still positive press at a point where Grayson and Quinn were friends within the industry, and that this still points to ethical concerns that Grayson gave Quinn's game a more favorable light in that Game Jam article. But at that point, we start going down a rabbit trail to even talk about it more from RSes. As such, the primary charge - Quinn was using the relationship with Grayson to get positive press - is by and far refuted by pretty much everyone else in the world. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Zoe Quinn is a free adult woman; she may befriend whom she pleases -- even a writer. So no "allegation" can be made on this account. The "allegation" is that she traded sexual favors for favorable reviews; this allegation has been comprehensively shown to be untrue. "False" accords with (a) the sources, (b) the facts, and (c) the longstanding usage on this page and its consensus.
Also note that the unqualified allegation that Quinn traded, is alleged to have traded, or arguably traded sexual favors for favorable reviews would, if it appeared in the article, be a major BLP violation and as such is not, by my understanding, subject to the 3RR rule.
Please note that this edit war began (as I predicted yesterday) within 5 minutes of the end of page protection. Restoration of FULL PROTECTION is very much in the interest of the project -- not least because this page is and will continue to be the subject of interest and scrutiny. Admins please take note. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact the accusation has been the major point of discussion of sources - and that all key parties have clearly stated that these are not true - means that from a BLP standpoint, it is acceptable to include the high-level nature of the allegations, as long as it is 100% clear that they have been refuted by the specific parties and by the press at large. This has been determined waaaaay in the past. Now there are other claims that have come against Quinn based on Gjoni's post, but which the press have generally ignored, but we are absolutely not including those per BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So, to be clear, the evidence that they're false comes from personal accounts, right? That's why "unfounded" appears to be a better word to use. That way, we're not letting the voice of Wikipedia take a side in what amounts to he-said-she-said, unless there's some clear evidence that I'm not seeing here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The biggest piece of evidence is the lack of positive coverage; there is no DQ review from Grayson (or Kotaku for that matter). What some GGers have focused on is Grayson's Game Jam article that highlights DQ as one of several games there, which arguably may be positive press, but it also was written before the date that Quinn/Grayson's relationship has been claimed to have been started; some GGers still consider this a problem in terms of positive press. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So there isn't anything proving or disproving the allegations, thus they're unfounded. Am I reading this right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That there is a relationship is true - none of the involved parties deny this (Tolito even affirmed it in his post). But using that relationship for press, there is no visible evidence for that, in addition to what all three have said on the matter (Tolio, Quinn, and Grayson). There are some GGers that doubt those statements, but that's not our place to second guess what RSes have all assumed to be true statements. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That there is or was a relationship is true, but cannot be an allegation. The only thing that can possibly be alleged is that sexual favors were exchanged for favorable reviews. This was alleged, and it was shown to be untrue. Dredging this up again and again could conceivably be actionable and is certainly a violation of WP:BLP. Nor need we make a point that the RS have all assumed these to be true statements: since no favorable reviews were in fact written, then the favorable reviews that do not exist could not possibly have been written in exchange for sexual favors. Why do the same WP editors keep finding the need to rehash the sexual history of this particular woman, who committed no wrongdoing, here? Stop it. MASEM : please consider revdel-ing this section, and someone -- anyone -- please hat it without delay. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: got it. I think, given what is known, that "unfounded" is what we should be using. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think false is fine. And I think it's a good thing we have six months now to discuss this and other pressing topics without risk of using wikipedia to make allegations about a game developer’s personal life. Now, it'd be dandy if the proponents of "Allegations" or "Unproven Allegations" would apologize to their victim, but that's not going to happen, is it? But I think it not unreasonable to ask that we enjoy a respite from rehashing this unrelenting torrent of vituperation against women in computing. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
With no firm evidence that the claims are false, regardless of our own feelings or beliefs on the matter, we need to go with what's available, thus "unfounded" seems fair: it put the onus on the accusers and assigns no fault to the target. "Unproven" implies evidence exists that hasn't been presented for the purposes of writing a neutral, factual article. Furthermore, please stop with the bad faith accusations here. It's a lot of heat and no light. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The allegation that Quinn had a relationship was something that Gjoni's original post brought up (and to go into any more of that post, would be BLP for sure); the subsequent allegation that grew out of that from the GG side is that she not only had that relationship but was using it for positive press. Now at that point, there was no affirmation that Quinn/Grayson had a relationship, but once Tolito posted, as Kotaku's lead editor, about the situation, he affirmed that yes, there was an relationship, but nothing else about the allegation was true. As such "false" is technically wrong, because one facet of the allegation was confirmed as true; I'm fine with "unproven" to signal that no reliable source considers the allegation to be true otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've restored full protection. An immediate edit war upon the end of page protection regarding a significant aspect of the controversy clearly indicates the need. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you,Gamaliel. As you were doing this, I was posting at AN/I asking someone -- anyone -- to do exactly that. You're a prince. [25]

The hatting of this thread really comes across as strange. If we're not able to discuss a key section of the article, how are we supposed to improve/fix/settle the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

per the above, I was willingly to compromise with the "Unfounded" change, having regrettingly done the "Unproven" edit one because I thought it represented it better. I was about to post this to end the discussion when I instead found out that Gamaliel RedPenOfDoom hatted it instead. Avono (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
RedPenOfDoom hatted it. Arguably we've been through the details of what the allegations are so many times in the past but that's been something that new ediors might not recognize if they don't read the archives. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The hatting (partially) protects serious BLP violations. If it were necessary to discuss false allegations concerning a named individual's sex life -- which you apparently felts was desirable -- that discussion is now settled. The allegations were false and unfounded; that's what the sources say, and that's what Wikipedia says. Some people apparently felt it was important to argue that the false and unfounded allegations might be better described as "unproven" or that we should rehash the sexual allegations again, in more detail, to see if something exculpatory for Gamergate might come up. It didn't. I'd take it as a kindness if, having read this, talk would tick his question and my answer together up under the hat.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I will not do so, no. I don't know why you continue to assume motives about your fellow editors, but the fact remains that the allegations, true or false or unfounded or unproven or disproven, remain part and parcel of the topic as far as I can tell, and are as such because of the sources that discuss them. No one involved in this talk section appears to want to slander anyone, but rather wants to solve the problem so we can all move on. Comments like this only serve to fan the flames. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an overreaction. If we were only including an allegation with no claims to back it up or no sourcing to show it was refuted, that would definitely be a BLP allegation. But we have many many RSes that all explain how this situation started from the allegations of using the relationship for positive reviews, the refutation of those by said parties, and the numerous sources that all believe their word it was refuted. That's completely acceptable to include (and as necessary, discuss) in building and improving the article. Again, I note that there are several other claims made by Gjoni that we will not include because no one else has talked about them or provided evidence about them, and that would be a clear BLP issue. But when an accusation is the focal point of an event, it has to be discussed. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have unhatted, Red Pen of Doom should absolutely not be hatting any discussion. It also violates WP:BLPTALK. Tutelary (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a valid argument that TPROD should not have hatted the discussion under WP:BLPTALK. There is no valid argument that it requires unhatting. According to BLPTALK, false allegations should be removed, deleted, redacted, or suppressed. It does not say that hatted discussions should be exposed. User:Tutelary: You are experienced enough that you should know that BLPTALK does not say that hatted comments should be exposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have issue and concern that if these claims related to the article are not resolved, they will stay in a state which will happen to also be a BLP violation. Hatting (and especially by a seriously involved editor) has no purpose on this specific discussion. For an example of hatting done right, Dungeon's assertion of Mike Cernovich should be hatted, as he presented no sources and the like. Hatting an active discussion relating to content which there are sources is not a productive use of time and delays the editing process. Tutelary (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So gamergate IS about prurient interests in women's sex lives? I thought it was about ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. You, User: TheRedPenOfDoom, never really believed that it was about ethics, did you? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it about misogyny in gaming then? Explain why I was doxxed. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Or you could just not make meme claims on the talk page which is about improving the article, Red. Tutelary (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
edit warring to reopen well settled and well sourced content to beg WP:FORUM BLP allegations that are not related to the topic of the article is not improving the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously not resolved if you're having to edit war to hat it. The article was edit warred to the exact issue. Discussion ensued. I see nothing out of process here other than the disruptive hatting. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
that editors keep saying we dont believe we should follow all of the reliable sources, doenst mean that it is not "settled" it just means that some people are disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
And no editors in this discussion are saying we shouldn't follow the reliable sources, so this accusation also appears unfounded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The reliable sources call the accusations false. That's a settled issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The reliable sources call the accusations false, yes. No one is disputing that. The question is how we, as a project, should refer to them in Wikipedia's voice given the evidence of the claim. Thus the option to use "unfounded," as it is a neutral term that encompasses the claims of all sides as well as weighs the evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
We look at the sides of the evidence that have been presented by the reliable sources. Their side of the evidence: That the allegations ARE false. Period. And yes there ARE editors who are not only passively disputing it like you, but actively disputing it .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no "other side" here worthy of discussion, per WP:FRINGE. We cannot mention disproven allegations about a living person without clearly describing them as disproven. It is not "neutral" to present something which is false as possibly true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand, and part of the discussion above was to solve this. The reliable sources have declared them untrue, yes. We should say that with proper attribution. In Wikipedia's voice, however, we cannot simply assert a claim in either direction lacking evidence to do so. This is not a fringe position that the claims are unfounded, as reliable sources also state that. Given the nature of the claims and the evidence, there does not seem to be any other word that responsibly defines the situation described. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You are just kidding arent you? Otherwise you are clearly demonstrating that you are either not WP:COMPETENT or are simply here to troll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks. I have been an editor here for years, I understand very well how this works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No. The reliable sources call them false, because, as the reliable sources discuss, the evidence demonstrates that they are false. There is not and never has been a review of Depression Quest by Nathan Grayson. No such review exists in this or any other universe. This is uncontroverted fact, and fundamentally disproves the allegation. Any claims that the allegations are true is a fringe theory unworthy of mention in this article. When it comes to allegations of wrongdoing about living people, it is a fundamental BLP issue that we describe false allegations as false, and we will do so in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now we're getting somewhere, and this comes back to the original question above. How does the lack of the review disprove the claim? That's the part I'm missing, based solely off the sources provided and the article. I'm trying to figure out how to solve this issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The claim is that the relationship led to positive reviews and coverage by Nathan Grayson. No such reviews exist, and Nathan Grayson did not write anything at all about Zoe Quinn after the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Got it. Based on what you're saying here, I have a better grasp on it. The language in the article as it currently stands appears good, then, and we might want to be more explicit about it being about one specific allegation, as the current wording suggests multiple allegations beyond the single review. Thank you for your patience. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing the bidding again, as requested.. The page is unprotected this morning, after an overnight spasm of WP:FORUM speculation by DSA. Immediately after it's unprotected, we are asked to inquire into Zoe Quinn’s sex life, which has already been exhaustively discussed here. Is there something unethical? No. (again) Is there some source somewhere what says something might be unethical? (no) Can't we find anything bad to say? (no) Can we just say "allegations were made?" (no) Can we substitute "unfounded allegations" for "false allegations"? (maybe) Should this be on the talk page? (no) But OMG WP:BLPTALK !!!!! Can't hat! We must have more discussion of Zoe Quinn's sex life, as prominently as possible, because ... why exactly?! Oh -- and what other GG victims have sex lives we can discuss? (Hint: DSA tried to start that last night.) But its all fine, 'cause DSA says he got doxxed just like Ruylong, and WP:BLPTALK, and we mustn't misquote the nice admin about no static image can readily depict rape, because (oh yeah) it's really important that we spend a few thousand words to distinguish whether to call it a "rape meme" or a "rape joke" or "sodomy" because sodomy is totally like rape and it's all icky (as the respected admin reminded us repeatedly) but what are you going to do? Let me walk right up to the edge of WP:CIVIL, because the very edge is the only place we can decently stand: The behavior of pro-GG wikipedians on this page over the past 36 hours has been disheartening, appalling, and a disgrace to what was once a noble project. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Now this comment is the definition of WP:FORUM and a rant in itself. Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No: it's a measured summary of the discussion, specifically requested by Thargor Orlando. But it you consider it WP:FORUM, I believe you know the way to discretionary sanctions. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I consider the slander against my name by anti-gg pov-pushers saying that I am not neutral and such is sanctionable. But then again i don't support censorship, or lower myself to the level of anti-gg terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Arb break

The issue overall is that when we mention "allegations", we have two allegations that we can talk to (under the scope of BLP and what good RSes give us):

  • That Quinn and Grayson had a relationship (from Gjoni's post)
  • That, in that relationship, Quinn was using it to get positive reviews (from GG's side)

The former was proven true by Kotaku, Quinn and Grayson, in a public manner. The latter has clear lack of evidence (no review of DQ on Kotaku, and Grayson hasn't mentioned her game in anything he's written since the relationship started) to be presumed false by all sources that matter.

So the issue, saying "false allegations" is not accurate because one was at least true. On the other hand if we are limiting it to the single accusation of positive press, then "false" is correct, as we currently have in the body This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors in the gaming community that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of Quinn's game, Depression Quest. But in the section title, "false assuations" is not correct, and while we could say "false accusation", there are several others accusations made (that we will not repeat) that GGers have also focused on, and while these have not had anywhere close to the same visibility of the main one, they have generally been considered unfounded or tangent to the matter at hand, but they do exist. Thus a word that is near to "false" but less "absolute" would be the better wording choice for the section title, such as "Unproven allegations...". --MASEM (t) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Am I right in understanding that the Depression Quest review claim is false based on the evidence, but that there are other allegations that are believed to be false, but can only accurately be called unfounded or unproven? That might be the root of the issue of this section right here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There are other issues the proGG side has said that involve Quinn and journalism corruption that are above and beyond the relationship with Grayson which I am not going to go into any detail about for BLP reasons, just that those allegations have been made. I don't believe these allegations have merit but they do exist. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If such allegations are not discussed in reliable sources, they don't exist for our purposes. You should know this already, Masem, and I'm sure you do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That was my concern as well, and some research I've been doing this afternoon sees them as barely discussed in unreliable ones as well. I think my issues with this section are mollified with the current language in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The article prose on the allegations itself is fine, I don't have issues with it either. It's just the section title and how things are reflected in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, Masem. The fact that someone's in a relationship is not an "allegation." There is no wrongdoing inherent to a personal relationship. As per the dictionary definition, an allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
Therefore, "alleging" that Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson had a relationship is meaningless and a non-issue. What is or could be a meaningful issue and allegation is if that relationship resulted in unethical conduct by Nathan Grayson. That is the allegation. That allegation has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Two adults having a relationship is not an "allegation" that anyone cares about or that has any bearing on this article. The Puritan sex police are => Thataway-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Gjoni's post certainly made it it an allegation - he didn't have clear evidence of the relationship at the time. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The existence of the relationship is not a meaningful public issue and no reliable sources have commented upon it. The only allegation which has been treated by reliable sources as a matter of public concern is the potential for a conflict of interest affecting journalistic coverage. The mere existence of a relationship between two people can have no bearing on the GamerGate controversy — unless you are admitting that GamerGate is ultimately founded upon the desire to slut-shame a woman. And if you are doing so, then I submit that the controversy about what to put in the lede of this article is over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


That Quinn and Grayson had a relationship is not an allegation. All sources agree. It is simply a fact.Moreover, an allegation implies wrongdoing, and there is no wrongdoing here. On its own, this has no relationship to this topic or to Zoe Quinn's biography, and mentioning it would be XP:UNDUE and a major BLP violation.
That Quinn exchanged sexual favors for favorable editorial coverage is an allegation. Unfortunately for MASEM's point of view, this allegation is false. We can assert its falsehood in two ways. (a) The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources agree it is false. (b) It could only be true if, in fact, sexual favors were exchanged for editorial coverage. As Grayson wrote no editorial coverage, the allegation is necessarily false. Again and again: MASEM and his (fortunately shrinking -- DSA is about to be topic banned for last night's escapade) band of merry editors try to insinuate that Zoe Quinn's sex life deserves discussion here and that the language of the article should find some way to insinuate that something unethical occurred because.....why exactly? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The relationship existed. The allegation that it led to favorable reviews is unfounded. That the relationship lead to ethics changes is true. Professional news organizations have association policies and disclosure policies and post-Quinn/Grayson policy changes have occurred. In fact, those changes were assailed since they only came out after a female developer's relationship was exposed. That doesn't change the fact that the changes happened. Make no mistake: it was Grayson that was ethically challenged by not disclosing his relationship and the fact that he didn't review Quinn's game is a very narrow view of ethics. Grayson's boss had employees that reviewed Quinn and is why he made a statement. Quinn is not a journalist so any allegation against her is unfounded. --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Grayson did not write anything about Quinn or Depression Quest after beginning the relationship. Therefore, there was nothing for him to disclose, as he assiduously refrained from covering anything which might have led to the potential for a conflict of interest. No journalism ethics code anywhere requires that journalists wear scarlet letters informing the public of whom they have had intimate relations with. Kotaku never reviewed Depression Quest so no, Grayson's boss didn't have "employees that reviewed Quinn." You seem to be thoroughly misinformed as to the actual facts of the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense[26][27]. Get's kind of awkward in the staff meetings when one author is discussing the work of a secret S/O of another writer. It's why ALL relationships with their topics are to be disclosed. It's why news organizations have disclosure policies (even if only internal). That Grayson's boss was surprised and had to investigate and then run damage control was enough to change policy. Think of Olbermann and Scarborough giving campaign donations. the problem wasn't the donation, it was the lack of disclosure. I work in an industry where disclosure to management is required (and isn't publicized, though may be forwarded to regulatory body). It doesn't matter whether a conflict happened, rather it's the perception of a conflict and a lack of oversight. Not disclosing a real or potential conflict can lead to termination. --DHeyward (talk)

False allegations against Grayson and subsequent harassment

Highly disruptive reopening of a settled topic with strong BLP implications.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are we (again, still) discussing Zoe Quinn’s sex life? Zoe Quinn did nothing that was either (a) wrong or (b) any of our business. This will not, apparently, lead the sex-squad tag team from asserting that there's some sort of unproven sexual allegation that we need to explore in exhaustive depth. Proposal: since all sources agree that Zoe Quinn was blameless, let's rewrite the section without her. Journalist Grayson was alleged to have had a relationship with a game developer whose work he would review. The allegation would still have to be clearly stated to have been false, but we could leave Zoe Quinn out of the matter entirely since she did nothing wrong.

Of course we will do no such thing, because ethics! (And we're terrorists now, forsooth, according to DSA’s swan song on this page.) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice cherrypicking. I'm talking about the people on anti-gg who found my personal info and doxxed me. Unless you're admitting to doxxing me? --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I also like to turn people's words against them. Someone on twitter called gg a group of terrorists, I call people who dox me terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No we can't. Because then the reason that Quinn got harassed makes no logical sense in the article. Her name is necessary to mention - by no fault of her own - as central to all this. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


How about Journalist Grayson was alleged to have had a relationship with a game developer whose work he would review. This allegation, upon investigation, proved to be untrue, but nonetheless led to the persistent harassment, death and rape threats against game developer Zoe Quinn, author of Depression Quest? At very least, this sequence reduces the temptation to insinuate that some wrongdoing might have occurred and further reduces the likelihood that any insinuations that find their way into the article, even briefly, will redound against Quinn. We've already done more than enough of that. But of course (sad...so sad) the very sorry GG contingent will find some reason that this, too is simply impossible and that instead we'll have to talk more about whether allegations about Quinn's sex life are alleged or unfounded or unproven. Again: shameful. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the hat war

No more hat-warring, bring it to an admin or noticeboard instead. It would be silly to get sanctioned for warring over a talk page hat. Dreadstar 21:26, 23 November 2014 (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.

Enough: @startship.paint, we're at or past the 3RR threshold. Please stop this silly protest against hatting BLP violations which ought, in point of fact, to be revdel'd. If the sanctions are to have any real effect, little edit wars like this need to be sanctioned. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I did one revert. I am simply trying to stop this silly battleground mentality. From my point of view every one of Avono, Masem and Thargor were discussing in good faith. Instead the hatting treats their discussion as highly disruptive and presents that as a fact. Mark, you attacked "pro-GG editors", which you labelled a "disgrace" in the hatted discussion, and you even attacked Masem on your blog. Legitimate discussion should not be censored, I don't recall anyone seriously arguing that the specific allegations against Quinn's sex life are true, so where indeed are the BLP violations? They've only said that the relationship (not the review) was true, which has been affirmed by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ regal 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to note that it appear that both comments appear incorrect and that there is an issue with the current hatted discussion anyways. The two discussions are hatted at 16:16 and at 16:18 by Tony Sidaway. Afterwards, Starship.paint makes two separate edits to both of the topics that were hatted; one is at 18:30 and the other is at 18:31. According to WP:3RR, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." This is a series of consecutive edits that can be claimed to undo the edits made by Tony Sidaway, so that is the first revert by Starship.paint. Tony would revert those edits at 18:58, which afterward Starship.paint reverts at 19:57 for their second revert. Tarc makes the final revert at 20:15 and that should be that.
Originally, I was going to ask how this benefitted the article, but there is something I noticed thanks to MarkBernstein making this topic. After Tony hatted the discussion, Mark made two edits to the discussion; one is at 16:22 and the second is at 16:28 with the edit summary reading, "tucking own edit into the hat -- simultaneous edits." Considering the hat states to not modify the discussion, would you be will to explain what you meant in the edit summary or would you remove those edits from the hatted discussion? That aside, I would recommend to Starship.paint please not edit a discussion that has been hatted and for MarkBernstein to report a possible violation to the proper avenue. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Super Goku V: - Firstly, WP:3RR refers to one editor reverting thrice in one day, not multiple editors producing a series of three reverts. Secondly, my first edit for 18:30 and 18:31 did not undo TS' hatting and no text was removed, so I don't think it constitutes as a revert. starship.paint ~ regal 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
simple enough. I added a comment to the bottom of the unrated section, edit conflicting with the final hat. A quirk of the versioning system resolved the conflict, leaving my final word unhatted. I would have been fine with that, but of course the intent was to hat everything, not everything but me. So I modestly declined to have the last word. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein Huh, I thought that it was the full edit due to what it shows in the revision, but I can agree that the system did have issues with the edit due to the timestamp issue. Thank you for the response. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint Well, it is an issue that does have some flexibility. I took the meaning of "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part (...)" as the issue for the first considering that you undid what was written and replaced the beginning with what you had written. As I have said, it does have some flexibility, but it could possibility be taken as a disruptive edit. Also, I was claiming that your edit at 18:30 and at 18:31 were two edits that were made consecutively and thus only a single revert instead of two separate reverts. But, I will thank you for the reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (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.

That 4chan image

Since I'm not seeing where this was discussed before and to actually establish some consensus, in considered the referenced DBZ image that the GG logo's colors are said to evoke, the question is how that image is described. Both from the sources and knowing the image in question, the image can be described, at best, depicting sodomy (one static image cannot readily imply rape) but when the image was used on 4chan, it was typically associated with their so-called "rape jokes" - in that 4chan applied the "rape" concept to the image. The FastCo Branding article does establish that it is a "rape joke" image, so we can't say it depicts "rape", but can say it is a image often associated with "rape jokes" on 4chan, per FastCo. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


-MASEM writes: “ one static image cannot readily imply rape”.
I rather suspect that few art historians and fewer semioticians would agree with MASEM.
Yes, that was a bad choice of argument for Masem, for multiple reasons: (1) the image in question is an animation, not static; (2) static images of the Rape of the Sabine Women have been a mainstay of classical art for centuries; (3) this sort of expression of personal opinion about what is or is not possible, in the face of what the reliable sources actually say, is the sort of thing we should be trying to avoid here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In the context of threats of personal harm, I’d not advise anyone to rest too much weight on the distinction between "rape" and "rape joke". I know that I just critiqued MASEM above (in fact edit-conflicting with this), but seriously: this is not what you want to say, not even on a talk page, not even in the heat of an argument. Please rethink this quickly. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a necessary distinction, however, when it comes to the typical 4-chan mindset, and why we should be clear. Communities like that are aware of the cruelty of the physical action, but their online culture of anonymonity and separate from any victims, as described by many social reports on GG and the Internet in general, give them little idea of the consequences and repercussions of the use of "rape jokes" and the like particularly to those the target of those jokes. They don't see that being an issue (at least, until moderation steps in as was for the given 4chan image with the given color scheme). As such, in terms of talking about the 4chan community, there is a difference, and we have to be careful with the wording to avoid implicating something that is not true on a otherwise delicate manner. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It really wasn't that I could find after the fact, or it was not discussed with any conclusiveness, so that kinda takes the hot air out of the flawed GG sanction filing last night. I'd be fine with "rape joke" as the descriptor. I'm also rather nauseated that we even have to discuss this in this level of detail. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Trying to stave off another edit war, and since I can't find earlier consensus, might as well set it now and get it done over with quickly. I don't like talking about this either but necessary to avoid problems here. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Emphatic Oppose: First, the Fast Company article uses "rape" in the headline, repeatedly in the body, and elsewhere. Second, "joke" is a silly fig leaf: "Oh, my client made no threat -- the horse head in his bed was simply a practical joke" Third, we are apparently being invited to speculate whether in the mindset of 4chan sodomy is not as bad as rape or is "not that big a deal" and we have to respect what the people making rape threats 4chan commenters really meant. This is well beyond the pale. Please think again. (Meanwhile, should this go to AN/I immediately? Discretionary sanctions? WP:EMERGENCY? The project would be cast in a most unfortunate light if this discussion became common knowledge.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First, there was an edit war over it; something has to be discussed; it's an icky discussion but one that is needed if we are going to talk about that in the article (WP is not censored). Second, it is not a "fig leaf", it a very large difference between a "rape joke" that comes from the locker room attitude of 4chan, and the actual vile physical action which I doubt the average 4channer would actually support. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the FastCo article doesn't use "rape" in the headline at all, and only uses "rape joke" or "rape meme", but even describes the actual image in another manner. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My mistake: rape is in Boing Boing’s headline, the other reference. I'm glad you think the average 4chan reader does not support committing a first-class felony. And it's not an icky discussion at all. What’s icky here is excusing threatening female game developers with rape (besides murder) because either (a) not everyone on 4chan thinks that three women who happen to work in the games industry ought to be raped, and (b) they might have intended to threaten anal rather than vaginal rape, which they (or you?) think is less bad for some reason? Or you have reason to think that they think it’s less bad? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Well this is where we'd probably differ, but I think we're winding up in the same place anyways. The average, level-headed person obviously finds the idea of rape abhorrent, but IMO they also find the idea of joking about such a serious thing equally abhorrent. Trivializing and desensitizing others to the act via joking is just as damaging, so if Gamergaters want to hang their argument on "we aren't being serious, we're just having fun", I say "go right ahead". Tarc (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. Is there consensus to change this to ... linked the character's green and purple color scheme to an old 4chan rape joke.? This is how it's most commonly referred to in both sources (or 'rape meme', but in this context I'd consider them pretty much synonyms.) — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd quote "rape joke" but other than that is fine. Let the reader determine how appropriate a "rape joke" is instead of putting it in WP's voice, to keep us neutral. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No. "Old" implies it's just an old joke, so no big deal. "Joke" is doubtful: I see no evidence that there's a joke here. Is there a story with a funny punchline? Is this something said to cause amusement? Who is amused, precisely? It’s allusion to an image of anal rape, presented in the context of threats against specific named women, and we should (and must) say so without excuse or prevarication. And someone -- preferably Masen -- should revdel the claim that "static images cannot readily imply rape " before we end up being called (a) a laughingstock and (b) rape enablers.
I was thinking of "old" as in "long standing", not as a diminutive. We can leave it off, but we should convey to the reader somehow that this wasn't something new and unfamiliar to 4chan users. The sources use both "joke" and "meme". I agree it's not much of a 'joke', maybe "meme" would be better? We definitely don't need the scare quotes or any "locker room culture" talk. — Strongjam (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MASEM: in the interest of keeping WP’s voice neutral, you want to be sure that the reader determines how appropriate a "rape joke" might be in the context of threats of physical harm leveled against women for pursuing their professional vocation. Could you provide an example where readers would think rape jokes to be appropriate in this context? (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?) MarkBernstein (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly your thoughts on this aren't very relevant, second of course people found it funny, it's shock humour. HalfHat 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we should let the reader come to a conclusion that is not stated in the sources but implicit by a reasonable moral system. That is we can say, factually:
  • There was an image (since banned) used on 4chan as part of a "rape joke" locker room attitude that has a unique color scheme.
  • Even once the image was banned, other images of the same color scheme were used on 4chan in the same "locker room" joking attitude.
  • Images used by GG - their logo and Vivian specifically - use a similar color scheme.
We can then say, per Fast Co's commentary that they (and others) believe this is not concidence, while GGs have denied any connection.
But we cannot make the implicit connection from GG using images that suggest the rape joke to the issues of harassment and rape threats to say that there's a problem with this because even as an opinion that is not stated in the sources; it's well implied, but not stated. The reader will have to come to that conclusion themselves, and I would expect most will, regardless. But we have to stay non-sympathetic as editors on WP, and present things as neutrally and impartially as possible. Also, I consider your last sentence approaching a personal attack; I am in no way trying to morally justify how 4chan thinks, only that they do think in a different way that we should not present wrongly. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of whether a static image can imply rape, we have MASEM on the one hand, and on the other hand we have Goya, Picasso, Bernini, Rubens, and a whole lot more. I think it's quite clear that Fast Company and Boing Boing drew the conclusion that the color scheme was chosen to allude to a rape meme. I also note that above you adopt the excuse that it's merely a "locker room" joking attitude -- after all, threatening rape in a locker room is just boyish behavior? I can't believe what I'm seeing -- and I can’t believe I’m alone here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely not trying to defend them, I am trying to say that in WP's neutral voice, there is a difference between a "rape joke" and the actual act, and we cannot imply the latter if the sources only talk about the former. We need to stay amoral regardless of any personal feelings on the matter. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We go with what the sources say. Artw (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this misunderstanding is partially my fault, as I mentioned and allured to a discussion which was not large as I remembered, and certainly not as concrete as I remember. For that I am regretful. Though, More discussion is warranted I suppose. Rather than all the not forum and heated arguments, let's argue strictly based on the sources. The 'sodomy' compromise was what I believe was endured to stop the edit warring and endured until it was reverted by another editor just recently. Sodomy and rape are synonyms and if not, very closely related and is appropriate. It was a euphemism, additionally. So, the sources say: Fastcodedesign.com (ignoring any issues of reliablity), say 'rape meme' in the author's tone, but quotes the 'rape joke' portion of it. It also further mentions 'meme' further down in the article. They also use rape joke as someone's quote, so it appears they're using it interchangably. Boing Boing is less ambiguous, they use 'rape joke' in the title and in the article. So in essence, rape joke appears in both sources and if we're going to be going with not a compromise but solely from the source, it would be the dominant figure. Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My goodness: I find I agree here with Tutelary Will wonders never cease. However, sodomy and rape are not synonyms nor are they "very closely related", nor is "sodomy" a suitable euphemism for "rape", nor should Wikipedia adopt euphemisms to cover up criminal threats. The terms of this discussion are extremely ill-advised, but we now have a consensus: the sources say "rape" and "rape joke" and there we are. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to do such on Wikipedia, especially with regards to BLP; and to stop edit wars. It just makes it all the more common. And no, you're deliberately leaving off the 'joke' portion of it. They didn't mention purely the word, 'rape' but with the qualifier based on it. If you're trying to deliberately omit that qualifier, I am opposed to such as that would be synthesis of the source and leaves behind the important background information. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with "rape joke" as in these sources, but I (and I think quite a few readers) would appreciate a hint about how this is "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline." I guess I'm missing something. No doubt I'm being dense; be a pal and let me in on the joke, OK? I mean, if the source called it a "rape trout," we'd presumably be scratching our heads. (Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with MASEM in thinking Wikipedia should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As the FastCo article explains, it is a in-joke in that, in the past, someone would post that image regularly, forcing it to the readers despite them not wanting it (hence the name). It is not so much "a joke about rape" (which yeah, would be hard to stomach), but a "forced" meme, which they came to call a "rape joke". We don't have to make any attempt to justify this even close to be a reasonable thing, only that it does exist and best described by that. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, MASEM. Walk me through this: I guess I'm very slow today. A group at 4chan is discussing a campaign to dissuade female game developers from pursuing their vocation by various means, such as beating them up at conferences. We're sending them rape and murder threats on Twitter, coordinated through this board at 4chan. And we’re sending each other an image that depicts a purple cartoon character raping a green cartoon character, which we send to various people "despite them not wanting it." I'm still not seeing a joke here. Of course, for some reason you don’t think any static image can depict rape, so I'm not sure you and I have a lot of common ground when it comes to visual humor.
Let’s literally follow the sources. Rather than a "rape image" or a "rape joke", how about "an image of rape which 4chan users regarded as a joke"? That seems to follow precisely what you describe; the sources agree that the colors allude to a specific image, the sources (and common sense) that the image described non-consensual sexual penetration, and (as you point out) the sources make it clear that at 4chan, GamerGaters considered it a joke. This precisely follows our sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The image and the harassment are separated by about 4-6 years of time (the image was banned on the site some time ago). So you're creating a statement about connection that doesn't exist. The connection from the image, to the green and purple colors which sorta became memetic on 4chan, to the Vivian/GG logo is postulated; the creators in the Fast Co article are stating it started from the green/purple of 4chan, and not the allusion to the first image, even if that's where the green/purple came from (there's oral history-type stuff that gets lost that people might forget such origins). There are clear possible theories presented that the designers of those images knew exactly what they were doing when they created the logos, but we cannot verify that at all. And no, the sources are clear is it s a "rape joke/meme", (in quotes) when used in the past. I doubt that today they would considering using that image in light of the harassment issues. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am so lucky I have someone on the inside to consult about *chan and the IRC. To start MB's... useful contributions are full of factual inaccuracies, appeals to emotion, and other such stuff. For one, Poole has formally censored any talk of GamerHate, save for a containment thread on the /pol/ board, which everyone takes seriously. Secondly, I can't imagine what 20k+ group of diverse peoples who are fed up with the status quo GamerHate sockpuppets, have to gain from harassing 3 women for 3+ months. Am I defending the scumbags who have harassed the women? Absolutely not. I simply find it beyond logic that 20K+ white, cishet male sockpuppet SPA vandals like me (neither cis, heterosexual, white, SPA, or vandal, and im NEUTRAL to GG, fyi), would have something to gain from such a trivial exercise in self-humiliation. Anyways, sure someone on the internet said so and so = rape, but it is up to Wikipedia to present the APPROPRIATE INFO. I'm sure the "green+purple=rape" can be justified; the same way /pol/ justifies the Holocaust. And, suppose that the green+purple colourscheme was based on piccolo. There are many avenues one can take to explain that. Perhaps the /a/ anime board wanted to hijack, in essence a character in a professional game. Or, make an inside joke about DBZ and GG. Perhaps a subtle way for /a/ to insult /v/'s taste in anime? Maybe some other board did something, since as I'm told, board infighting is common. AND, even if it is a reference (somehow) to Daily Dose, context matters. Perhaps it was the forced nature, perhaps (this is a huge stretch), since the pro-gg side were already nazis/rapists/KKK/ebola, they wanted to throw a curveball to the media knowing they grasp at nonexistent straws, in the hopes they'd make fools of themselves (suddenly its sounding very plausible). Unless you hunt down all 20K+ sockpuppets of GamerHate, and force them to submit to polygraph tests, and interrogate them about the meaning of the colors, is there really any way to make the claim said by the "RS"? Sure, both sides have made some hilariously fringe claims, but this one takes the cake, and eats it too. Unless you resort to far-right pseudoscience, I find no logical way to make such a definitive, and final claim. More attempts to charge an already charged article. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

if we're going to open things up to WP:OR them we're going to open things up to EVERYONES OR, and trust me when I say it's not going to come out looking any better. Artw (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The articles sourced should somewhat be held to Wikipedia's own standards. This is a fringe point being made. It takes up valuable server space and adds nothing of value to the article. It should be removed completely. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You are not actually suggesting that we should apply WP:OR to content within our sources and dismiss any source that makes an analysis because the source has made analysis and interpretation? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
/glances upwards at ridiculous conversation.
I think the whole conserving server space ship has sailed, I'm afraid. Artw (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
it was a joke. --DSA510 Pls No H8 07:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Website

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

We should add gamergate.me in the article as it is a aggregate website on GamerGate. - abhilashkrishn talk 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a chance, no. It's no different from 8chan, just a forum for interested parties to comment in. Until/unless reliable sources identify a particular website as "Gamergate Headquarters", we're not going to provide incoming linkage to these people. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There is no reason under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE to include it, and plenty of reasons under WP:ELNO to exclude it (particularly the open wiki that they host.) — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Just having an open wiki is not an issue under ELNO as long as the rest of the content is managed/edited. But there's other reasons too under ELNO... --MASEM (t) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Until it is clearly identified as the website, and even then, the fact that it might fail ELNO due to possible BLP violations (but we'd have to check at that time). --MASEM (t) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Incoming FTC Guidelines

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

Apparently FTC is preparing an update to its guidelines and it is being associated to GamerGate. Is this information relevant to the article, if it gets verified by a trusted outlet or journalist? Eldritcher (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Please replicate this edit from the draft in the mainspace article, in enforcement of WP:NFCC. There is no evidence this image (File:Christina Hoff Sommers.jpg) is actually free. Up for deletion at commons. CIreland (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support removal. I've checked the commons image, and the licensing appears faulty. I would think that Sommers would be open to providing a free image for us to use but until then we need to remove the present one as it will likely be deleted off commons. (Normally a bot would remove deleted Commons images but I think full prot, it won't work on that). --MASEM (t) 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone try to contact her? HalfHat 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 November 2014 (wikilink to Social Justice Warrior)

The phrase "Social Justice Warrior" is used a few times in the article. Would someone mind wikilinking to the article on the phrase? Juno (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the term has both negative connotations, and is a neogalism, I would think we shouldn't have a separate article on it; as I see it is at AFD, I'd wait to see the result that if the article stays, then a link is fine, but if it's deleted or merged, it is unneeded. --MASEM (t) 07:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly feminazi does have an article, though it may have just not been nominated for deletion yet. HalfHat 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been around since the 1990s so has passed the NEO aspect. The article also gives a balanced view on the word's origins and its criticism to give it context and avoid being a POV article. I'm not saying it's perfect but its got more legs to stand on than the "SJW" article presently. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, as Masem stated, the term has been bouncing around for some time. However, to clarify, "SJW" is utilized by the Gamer Gate people on Twitter due to character restrictions. It might not hurt to include a kind of (for lack of a better word) dictionary of frequently used abbreviations like "SJW." Even if that is just a side note somewhere on the page.Kitsunedawn (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan

This belongs with WP:ARBCOM, possibly WP:AN and/or whatever outside authorities you deem necessary; but not here. Dreadstar 04:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yep: I've seen the thread at 8chan dedicated to (a) gaming Arbcom to dominate this page and, secondarily, to (b) threatening me. Examining whether police are needed immediately. At least two frequent contributors to this page are openly conspiring there. Arbcom, admins, and others have already been notified, but I think it's only fair to warn editors of this page that they may be next. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Please don't throw out two frequent contributors to this page are openly conspiring there - without presenting evidence. And after you've presented solid evidence, why don't you go ahead and name them. starship.paint ~ regal 04:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. https://8chan.co/gg/res/589702.html They use their Wikipedia names -- or abbreviation of them. I'm done here, though the police or the FBI might be my next stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I've poked around 8chan myself, and see no thread, so unless I'm looking in the wrong location (which is entirely possible); until such evidence is validated and proven, it's best to keep this kind of thing under wraps.Kitsunedawn (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Update to my previous post: Seems like MarkBernstein did provide a link and names at this page. However, is there 100% proof that those at 8chan claiming to be editors are the real deal? starship.paint ~ regal 04:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for Christ's Sake,. starship. Will my corpse be enough to satisfy you? My wife’s? At long fucking last, have you no shred of decency? MarkBernstein (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor article

[28] Generally more a focus on the doxxing nature of GG. There might be more to add from this but a couple things that this can add to sourcing: 1) it details the part of the Streisand effect - censorship of GG at 4chan - which could use more sourcing; 2) Mentions Jenn Frank's leaving VG journalism after supporting Quinn 3) It mentions the circulation of questionable photos of Quinn which was also part of her harassment. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For something like this which I think would be uncontroversial, and not that easy to request for, I'd maybe just wait until it's unprotected again. HalfHat 09:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfounded allegations?

round and round the BLP merry go round

This is awkwardly phrased as allegations by definition are not based on facts or evidence, making the wording redundant. The RS's are mixed on usage between forms of accuse and allege but I would recommend False accusations if we're going to have a term in the section header as it appears to be a much more common phrasing. Muscat Hoe (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Muscat Hoe: I think we're in a bit of a sticky situation here. The most serious accusation, to quote the article, the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of Quinn's game is false. But this other accusation in the article ... among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson ... saw a response of Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship. So IMO it would be "mostly false accusations", but the section heading is already long enough. Not sure what to do here. starship.paint ~ regal 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As previously discussed in the above hatted discussions, Starship, accusations or allegations about relationships between two consenting adults are non-sequiturs, immaterial and not a subject of reliably-sourced interest. There is no public interest or controversy in the existence of a romantic relationship between two people, and as the definition of "accusation" and "allegation" requires something illegal or wrong, it factually cannot be applied to Quinn and Grayson's relationship. The public interest and controversy in this matter is solely in regards to the potential for a conflict of interest in Grayson's coverage, which has been thoroughly disproven. Thus, "false allegations" or "false accusations" is correct.
As soon as the article is unprotected, the header will be moved back to "false allegations" as was the longstanding consensus prior to Tellfair and Avono's edit-warring it out resulting in protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In reviewing the high quality sources, most call to Gjoni's post as a set of accusations/allegations, including the relationship one. eg [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], for example, so we should be staying with that wording. Since the Quinn/Grayson relationship has been affirmed (and as North stated, there's nothing wrong with what two consenting adults do, that's not our place to judge), one Gjoni's accusations is "true". As I've mentioned before, the wording in the body, calling the specific allegation that is clearly agreed to be disproven by all press across the board as "false" is just fine, that's accurate as it's identifying the singular accusation; it's just the section title, as a summary statement, that gets us in trouble if we're talking wording precision here.
That said, maybe the best solution is to change the section title to focus on the core aspect of the section, the series of harassment attacks, and not get so caught up in the naming out the allegations in the section title, leaving the body as is. Maybe "Harassment attacks towards female video game developers"? "Online harassment of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian"? Keeping the section title focused on the harassment aspects would resolve much of the issue here. --MASEM (t) 07:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. We're going to make crystal clear that the substantive allegations against Quinn and Grayson — the only ones which matter in terms of the controversy — are false. As The Telegraph notes, It was alleged that an affair with Nathan Grayson, a journalist at the website Kotaku, had led to favourable critical treatment of her game. It was later established that Grayson had only written about Quinn once, before they started a relationship, and had never reviewed Depression Quest. This did nothing to faze Quinn’s detractors, who took it as evidence of a conspiracy. Users from the messageboards Reddit – a sprawling series of communities – and 4chan – largely the trolls in the internet’s basement – hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews. That is, substantively, what occurred. "False accusations against Quinn and Grayson" is an accurate and neutral description of this fact. My God, Masem, you're really, really, really trying desperately hard to make this look better for Gamergate, aren't you? It's bleedingly obvious at this point. Please stop trying to water down the fact that Gamergate was founded by a herd of trolls smearing Quinn and Grayson with false accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again - there's a difference between "false accusations", which is presumably going to be the restored section header, and "false accusations that matter", which won't become the header. Good that you bring up the Telegraph source -> it states both the allegation of an affair and that also that there was a relationship between Quinn and Grayson -> so much for it not being worth mention in reliable sources? starship.paint ~ regal 08:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It mentions it in precisely three words then studiously ignores it and any of its ramifications, because the mere existence of the relationship is entirely immaterial to the allegations of misconduct, which are the only allegations that reliable sources have seen fit to discuss in any sort of detail.
The "sticky situation" you aptly refer to, Starship, is the fact that dragging the "allegation" that someone had a relationship with someone else into Gamergate makes crystal-clear that the "movement's" roots have absolutely nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with slut-shaming Zoe Quinn. How about this: We'll say "False allegations of misconduct by Quinn and Grayson" and we'll include in the lede that Gamergate was founded by Reddit and 4chan trolls from "the internet's basement" who desired to slut-shame Zoe Quinn. Sound like a good compromise? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why digress and bring up ethics now, when the ethics accusation is quite settled? Also, which sources explicitly state that Gamergate was founded by... you propose? There's not much more for me to argue about the overall accusations. You're leaving out that the Telegraph printed out the allegation that Quinn and Grayson had an affair. The mention is obviously not good enough for you, but it is enough for me. starship.paint ~ regal 08:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why digress? Because you seem hell-bent on dragging the "Five Guys" bullshit back in. Slut-shaming Zoe Quinn is ethics in gaming journalism, amirite? Sorry Starship, but it's bleeding obvious where this comes from. You want to have it both ways, and that's not going to fly. If Gamergate is ostensibly concerned about "ethics," the only allegations which matter to it (and, by extension, us) are the false allegations of a conflict of interest affecting articles. On the other hand, if you're going to say that "not all the allegations were false" because Gjoni wanted to spill his relationship drama on the Internet, then we're going to make crystal clear that Gamergate was essentially founded to slut-shame Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is paranoia, North. This discussion is about the section header, not the body of the section. I know very little about whatever this "Five Guys" thing is, okay? You are the one who has brought it up here. I'm only talking about the thing mentioned in the reliable sources - Quinn and Grayson had a relationship - that's already in the article and needs no change! starship.paint ~ regal 09:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you agree that the header will note that the allegations against Quinn and Grayson are false, as has been the longstanding consensus in this article, because the only meaningful allegations which reliable sources connect to Gamergate (as opposed to Gjoni) have been proven false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I agree with is that "False accusations" does not equate to "false accusations which are meaningful", and that framing every accusation as false would be misleading. starship.paint ~ regal 11:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We frame Gamergate's accusations as false because they are false, and that's pretty much the end of it. "Zoe Quinn had an intimate relationship with Nathan Grayson" is a statement, not an accusation. Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong. Given that Quinn's personal relationships are a matter of her personal choice, there is nothing either "illegal" or "wrong" in that choice; her jilted boyfriend's rants notwithstanding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The article writes... allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. That could be construed as wrong to some people. Was this proven to be false? starship.paint ~ regal 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

New Businessweek Article

[34] Focuses more on Sarkeesian (so this can filter into her article and the Tropes vs Women one) but there might be a few details around Sarkeesian's harassment to be included. Note that this also includes EA's statement on the harassment (they agree with ESA's statement about), but notes even this late in the event that few other major publishers have commented on the matter (I believe a few other sources have noted the lack of voice from the AAA pubs on the entire situation). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added some details for the threats to the draft, and dropped that "Sarkeesian reported ..." bit, we don't have to weasel word it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to the change, but I don't think it qualifies as weasel words. Aren't they when you say someone thinks/says something without saying who (or similar). Again I'm not arguing with the change. HalfHat 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah you're probably right, it's attributed so not really weasel words. Just seems odd to attributed it to the victim, almost an expression of doubt I guess? Especially when we consider the "false flag" claims we cover in the next section — Strongjam (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the important thing here is what is nicer to read. As long as you don't say something like "claimed" it should be okay, but I see where you are coming from with the context of falseflag claims. HalfHat 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories in the United States"

When was adding this category discussed? The only mention of it being labeled a conspiracy theory is not even about the movement itself, it's a single mention by Leigh Alexander, someone involved in the controversy saying some of it is based "on bizarre conspiracy theories", yet another attempt at controlling the narrative, albeit this one a sneaky one. This should be removed until a consensus is reached Loganmac (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No, the core of GG is described as a conspiracy theory throughout the article's sources (and other reliable sources). I'll put some of the examples at the end to make this more readable, but basically, I think that it's uncontroversial -- obviously most GG sources allege a conspiracy (accusations of collision and conspiracy are at the core of what they feel are ethical breaches, after all); it's just that they dislike having that framed as 'conspiracy theory' as opposed to, I guess, 'conspiracy fact'. But either way, just a quick look over the article's sources show that most of the ones we're relying on for a general overview describe GG as being based around conspiracy theories (this is just from a random grab of some of them -- I'm not going to read every single one of the 40+ sources, but these are all clearly from reliable publications.) If anything, I think that these make it clear that we should cover the conspiracy-theory nature of the controversy in more detail rather than just via categorization:
    • The Verge's article describes "The conspiracy theory at the core of Gamergate..."
    • The quoted response from DiGRA likewise describes it as a conspiracy theory.
    • The Guardian article says: "And ultimately, those members of the gaming community who distrust the games press, have a really wonderful option: make the alternative. Instead of constructing strange conspiracy theories and flooding games sites with vitriolic comments, withdraw entirely."
    • The Daily Beast article says: "On one side are calls for reason and equality; on the other are the conspiracy theorists who fund a “documentary” intended to “shed light on the truth: that the SJWs have been the ones using manipulation and intimidation to push their agenda forward and that the mainstream media has accepted their story uncritically.”
    • The New York Magazine article: "...I was inundated with angry tweets from the movement’s indignant supporters. You don’t get it, they insisted. This is about ethics in journalism. They often pointed me to long, pretty involved conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things, that various gaming websites were colluding to attack the “gamer” identity they held so dear, or that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage."
    • The Week describes GG as existing in a "hermetically sealed bubble of conspiracy nonsense".
There's many more (even the Forbes article, which IIRC we're not using at the moment, makes repeated references to the movement being based around conspiracy theories, describing the earliest video as one that "...speculates on a feminist/social justice illuminati that are taking over gaming, and accused Quinn’s parent company, Silverstring Media, of being a part of that conspiracy.") Gamergate's accusations are described as conspiracy theories throughout most of the reliable sources that make up the basis of the current article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hatting off-topic commentary about others and WP:SOAP, both of which violate WP:GS/GG, keep it up and there will be sanctions. Dreadstar 08:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Again, we have the spectacle of (a) an angry, outraged claim that Gamergate is wronged! This must not stand! This comes from Loganmac, who was most recently seen on his own talk page colluding with topic-banned DungeonSiege5whatever. This is followed by Aquillion patiently, exhaustively, definitively, cataloging the many, many sources that compell the categorization. Next, the three remaining un-topic-banned editors and their admin will arrive to say, "but there is doubt! there might not be unanimity! Perhaps we cannot (alas! so sad!) say "conspiracy theory" -- we might say "possible conspiracy theory" or "alleged conspiracy theory as reported in misguided but reliable sources". And we will spend another five thousand words debating the point, wind up again with two or three treks to AN/I and a trip to discretionary sanctions with WikiTrout for all. In the end, as Aquillion usefully captures, New York Magazine describes today at Wikipedia precisely: conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things ... that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage. Enough. This has got to stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I request that you cease this battleground and inflammatory behaviour. The disparity between Aquillion's and your response is telling, Aquillion looked at the sources, while Mark targeted editors who haven't even commented yet! starship.paint ~ regal 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Mark please calm down, it seems you are attacking people who have not participated in discussion yet. Retartist (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
We aren't pals, Retartist: it's Dr. Bernstein to you, thank you, or Mark Bernstein if you're a member of the Society of Friends. Thanks. See following comment which applies equally to you.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"I did not hit her! It’s not true! It’s bullshit! I did not! Oh, hi Mark." What? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ °) Retartist (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The pattern has been unrelenting for days on end. It's really interesting that starship shows up a few minutes after another user, one who makes the same arguments in the same tone, is topic-banned, and complains just after asserting in the section above that he made one revert (I recall two) and that it's perfectly reasonable to change "False sexual allegations" to "Sexual allegations" because they probably did have sex! For crying out loud: do you folks have no decency? This pattern of edits has been unrelenting for days -- one BLP violation followed by an insinuation followed by a slow, slow retreat, fighting every inch of the way. Yes, I'm angry. (No reason to think starship's a sock: we all know they've been coordinating offsite and banned DS apparently defied the topic ban when issued to coordinate their offsite rendezvous). MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Dr. @MarkBernstein:, please stop with these insinuations about me. You recall me making two reverts... go and check! You claim that I argued that it's perfectly reasonable to change "False sexual allegations" to "Sexual allegations" - well I did not do that, I was only protesting the labeling of "highly disruptive" to well-meaning editors - I judged that from reading the talk page discussion which seemed reasonable. And just because they've been coordinating offsite, so I'm one of them? A meatpuppet? Nope, I am not. I am not even a gamer. I've made good contributions to Wikipedia... the paranoia leaves me extremely insulted. starship.paint ~ regal 08:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be quite angry at this subject, I don't know why. How is me commenting on an user talk "colluding", you know these are serious claims right? That guy was topic-banned for NOTFORUM which is to say least, minor and banning for 90 days is fairly questionable, and I didn't know he was topic-banned when talking to him. In any case, those sources don't label the movement itself as a conpiracy theory, they just state SOME of their claims are, catogorizing the article as a conpiracy theoriy makes the whole controversy sound like a conspiracy theory when there are well documented concerns on the article itself like GameJournosPro and the sites in question acknowledging this, hence multiple policy changes and disclosures. In any case my concern is when was it discussed, when did an editor get approval to add this, it seems like a sneaky attempt at making this more one sided. Loganmac (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, just a suggestion, if you're getting angry just take some time out. Have a break. Go for a walk. Come back when you're a bit more settled. We all get frustrated from time to time but life is too short to get angry editing an article. Jgm74 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If that many sources use variations on "conspiracy theory" wording that category should probably stay. I think there's less of a case to be made for the "Social Justice" category though. This article is ridiculously out of place in that category page, and that category seems really bizarre for this article. Hustlecat do it! 05:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the relation is the "anti social justice" motivations and actions as described by as many sources. is "anti social justice" a cat? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The US bit is totally wrong. There's been quite a bit of coverage from British sources, and a reasonable number of nonenglish articles. HalfHat 16:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Category:Conspiracy_theories_in_the_united_states and replace with Category:Conspiracy_theories based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic. HalfHat 16:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Oppose as Category:Conspiracy theories based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic doesn't exist, whereas Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States does. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant Remove "Category:Conspiracy_theories_in_the_united_states" and replace with "Category:Conspiracy_theories" based on the large coverage from nonUS sources and lack of commentry from them saying it's a US topic. HalfHat 20:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I read it the same way as Technical 13. Halfhat, your proposal seems reasonable and has my support. starship.paint ~ regal 09:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • support changing to broader "conspiracy theories" cat - i have never met a conspiracy theory that found an international boarder something it didnt want to hop and they nearly all end up with "international bankers" or "CIA and KGB". In this case we have the international scholar organization DIGRA based in Sweden and BMW based in Germany. Sarkeesian is a Canadian American and Quinn live(s)(d) in Canada. Yiannopoulos is British. There seems little that makes this limited to "United States". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree I'm not convinced the category is necessary, but if we are going to have it then the online nature of the movement precludes it from being strictly limited to the United States. Muscat Hoe (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Am reopening this request, my initial requestion was misunderstood (which I accept the blame for), of the 3 replies since clarification all have agreed with the change, and they include users that generally don't. If this was premature sorry, I'm still new to this.. HalfHat 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I'm sorry, I misread it. So, you want it to be in Category:Conspiracy theories instead of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States. My apologies. In the future, it is usually best to link to the category you want to change to avoid confusion. You can do this by either prefixing the category name with a colon (:) like [[:Category:Conspiracy theories]] or you can use the {{Cl}} template like {{Cl|Conspiracy theories}}. Anyways, I have no objection to this change. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the Lede

In regards to this change. I remember this was discussed earlier, and I believe the consensus was that the citations weren't needed. Generally per WP:CITELEAD the lede would have redundant citations from the body, but on controversial statements may need citations (on a case-by-case basis.) Are there any particular claims here that need citations? I don't think all of them do, but there may be a few. — Strongjam (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

there is not a fucking thing about GG or the article that is not "controversial" - source every damn statement and bypass stupid pointless arguments about sourcing and leave the discussions to be about actually meaningful things like content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
sigh you're probably right. There are lots of statements that shouldn't be controversial, but we get constant discussions about them. If we cited every source that says it's concerns misogyny and sexism it would be a very long list (didn't you write a list for that in the talk page yesterday?) — Strongjam (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For reference previous discussions on this topic Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 12#Last paragraph in the lead. General consensus at the time seems to be only cite direct quotes. Of course consensus can change. I'm not adverse to some citations, but I don't think we necessarily need to pile it on. — Strongjam (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD guidelines, the Gamergate controversy article should have the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view and the lead should be sourced as The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. And as far as I know there isn't any editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Since the topic is controversial, the lead should be extremely well sourced with reliable sourced. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC) — Added on behalf of @Zakkarum: by Strongjam (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not need citations in the lead, certainly not to satisfiy the urges of every Tom, Dick, and Naysayer that wanders by. We had to hash this out years ago at Barack Obama, when the article was under siege by birthers; at one point the article had a citation right on the "born in Honolulu" line of paragraph 1, til saner heads prevailed. We don't need lead citations for this article either, as long as what is said in the lead IS cited and supported in the body. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are to be managed by a consensus of editors and whether the conduct is controversial or not to garner whether to put one or not. Specifically, the regards about misoginy and the guise of harassment should be sourced, the Zoe Quinn remarks, mostly women remarks and the threats to the 'gamer' identity. Otherwise, rest can stay without citations. Tutelary (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the lede present w/o cite works (give or take), nearly all the claims are to a degree reasonably found by reviewing the appropriately named sections. It would be more a problem if we did not have a reasonable organization at the current time so that a claim made in the lede could not be easily figured out. "cn" tags in the lede should not be used to challenge the points made in that given the current state of the article (though wording improvement for impartiality will help but that's a different discussion). --MASEM (t) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Replace current main article with draft and discussion about the draft

I'm just wanting to see what people think of this, as well as a discussion as to how successful the draft has been at making improvements, and preventing damage. I also find this format to be more useful as it tends to stop an argument between a few obscuring the input of the other contributors. HalfHat 11:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

  • Support I think more work needs to be done on trimming the article and dealing with the quote farming, but we shouldn't wait until it's perfect. — Strongjam (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

General Discussion about draft overall

Protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Nothing to see here, move along.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the second paragraph of this article, it ambiguously mentions a person named Quinn. I would put a [who?] after the first mention of this "Quinn." Robbie0630 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It says "Zoe Quinn" in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph. What are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I am so sorry for not seeing that. Robbie0630 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent IGDA "scandal"

GamerGate block list bad for business as game devs, journalists and fried chicken linked to online harassment

DigiTimes reported on the recent scandal that IGDA endorsed "A Twitter tool to block some of the worst offenders in the recent wave of harassment", which "has been criticized for its crude algorithm" and "generates a high number of false positives".

They also report on the fears of the developers:

'However, the most significant impact is being felt in the games development community itself. Several developers have already come forward to express their concerns that being incorrectly branded for actions they have not committed could have long lasting, if not career ending, consequences. And these fears could have merit. Even before IGDA lent its support to the block list, some developers had floated the idea that the list could be used to perform "background checks" on future job applicants. Also back in October, Ernest W Adams, the founder of IGDA notably tweeted, "If you're an indie developer and you are supporting #GamerGate, watch what you say. Your future business is at stake."'

Furthermore, they mention the "Give Voice to the Voiceless" campaign (probably less interesting?). Racuce (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Add this to the article. --Artman40 (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A tool that never worked and nobody used and was covered only by a niche press. Given the extreme length of the article already, what is less important that would be removed to make room for this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems wrong to claim that nobody used it when it was adopted by ones like the IGDA and the Raspberry Pi Foundation. I do agree that there is hardly space for this to be included, considering its lack of importance. Eldritcher (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It has significant importance, no matter if anti-GamerGate sites and Wikipedia users covered it or not. --Artman40 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I support including it if it gets more attention from the industry that it affects, or more significant details (f.ex. people being denied employment as a result of it) appear. Eldritcher (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's definitely a detail that without add'l coverage, really would be difficult to include. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If anything, I'd include a mention of "The Voice to the Voiceless" campaign under "Diversity and the debate over #NotYourShield" as a response from the users taking part. Eldritcher (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The article is already too long and includes too much back-and-forth over relatively minor claims-and-counterclaims. The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't to cover every single event that happened related to the subject; rather, we're supposed to provide a broad overview. I would generally say that (given the level of sourcing used for the rest of the article, and the massive amount of stuff we already have from major sources) if something hasn't received significant coverage in a major mainstream media publication, it probably isn't worth inclusion. Otherwise, we'll end up with a disjointed list of everything that's recently been getting upvoted in Reddit or wherever, which isn't likely to produce a readable article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And failing to provide good accurate overview, relying on news sites which cite each other and where facts don't match on what the primary sources have to say. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141126VL200.html?chid=8&mod=3&q=GAMERGATE Also, this is not an insignificant site. --Artman40 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Digitimes is actually a fairly controversial source. See this and this. I'd love to find something from this year about their standards, but the fact that there isn't anything might be telling, too. It's not the worst source to be suggested for this article, sure, but in a page that is already choked to the gills with quotes and sources for every bit of minutia, this seems unnecessary. Parabolist (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This is merely a repetition of the standard GamerGate mantra, "All of the media is biased except for the sources that agree with us." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is very arguable whether many outlets involved in the controversy, such as Gawker, can be called unbiased. Eldritcher (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you'll be glad to know that we don't cite Gawker or Kotaku as sources in this article except where they are directly quoted or specifically relevant to a particular claim involving those sites. Instead, we cite sources such as The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, New Statesman, National Public Radio, Columbia Journalism Review, etc. If your claim is that all of those sources are biased too, then you're simply at odds with how this project works. We base our article content on the predominant viewpoints expressed in mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform to put forward a message that you believe is being ignored by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am glad, but my response was just to your generalization. I brought up an example of an arguably biased media source to point out that all negative media isn't indeed free of bias. I am not making a claim that most of them are biased. It is positive whenever sources like the ones you listed are used, instead of ones like Boing Boing and Buzzfeed that are currently present on the article. Eldritcher (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking over the piece I would say that it seems difficult to say where this could fit into the article. Although this seems to have arisen as a result of the Gamergate controversy, it is only tangentially related to it. If it belongs anywhere I would be sticking it into an open letter to every company in the world explaining that this is why you really need to do your homework before implementing something, beyond that it does not seem to improve the article, or provide clarity as to what the Gamergate controversy is.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The BuzzFeed citation is present to provide an example of one of the "End of the Gamer Identity" opinion columns which has been criticized by Gamergate supporters, so that readers can view that side of the argument, much as we provide links to Erik Kain's criticism of those columns on Forbes.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Our goal, as an encyclopedia, is not 'accuracy' in the sense that you mean. It isn't to universally repeat what every single potential primary source says. It is, rather, to give an accurate overview of what the most reputable sources say on a subject; of course this means covering a variety of points of view, but we can only say what the reputable sources do. Otherwise, every editor with an axe to grind could come into a controversial article, flood it with whatever cherry-picked sources they've dug up that say what they want it to say, and justify the fact that they are giving eg. a random blog post weight equal to the New York Times by saying that they believe the blog post tells the truth and the Times doesn't. We can cite relatively minor publications when it's to establish their views, but even then, with something as noisy as this I would usually want to establish that their views are relevant or representative by citing a reliable source first (since there's a huge number of people commenting, and the article has sort of suffered from people throwing in every single commentator in order to fire point-counterpoints at each other by proxy.) And in this case, it seems to me that digitimes is neither a reliable source nor one whose views on the topic are particularly noteworthy, so it shouldn't be used in the article -- especially given that your only real argument for including them seems to be "they're telling the truth and the current sources aren't", which, taken from the other direction, amounts to saying "we should rely on them because I agree with them." Obviously that would make them seem reputable to you, but we have to rely on their prominence and history, neither of which point to them being a good source for this subject when compared to the level of sourcing we're using elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Newsweek reporting on the list primarily from the IGDA side but including the issues of targeting others (like the IGDA Puetro Rica president). --MASEM (t) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to reduce confusion I changed the persistent typo from "IDGA" to the proper acronym, "IGDA". (International Game Developers Association)ReynTime (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)