Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

On the reversion of the harassment of Lizzyf

@Scalhotrod:I fail to see why my inclusion is undue. I've got two separate sources noting that Lizzy F. was harassed, and it fits into the general theme noted by other sources cited that Gamergate supporters have been harassed too. Please explain. Bosstopher (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is Lizzyf? Not saying this is where to draw the line, but considering the 10s of thousands of people being nasty to each other on Twitter, at some point the article will need to be more systematic about which nastiness to cover and why. Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More on point, WP:DUE is weaksauce for removing something without discussing first. Burden of proof in on the reverter. Rhoark (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Justifying the addition of content is on the person adding the content. See WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone wants to use BRD they have to actually D. If their reason is a verifiable claim is not DUE, they have to say why. Rhoark (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Looking at the picture attached to the article in question - File:BRD1.svg, who is expected to start the discuss, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The person who reverts is responsible for starting discussion, if its not already occurring. (excluding removal of vandalism, BLP, or unsourced claims) Rhoark (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. This discussion is over. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PRESERVE, WP:REMOVAL, WP:BRD-NOT, WP:Stonewalling, WP:REVEXP, and WP:LEGS Rhoark (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WL AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone wants rules, they get rules. If they want to improve the encyclopedia, they get no trouble from me. Rhoark (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind the change removed the sourced details of people wanting to make a con cancel Baldwin's appearances due to his involvement in GG. While this isn't "harassment" as described, it is a negative impact done to someone that is pro-GG by those anti-GG. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So? I agree it provides undue weight to what is at best a sidenote. Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have mentioned that aspect too, sorry. But my reasoning was, as mentioned in edit summary, that it seemed misleading to put the Baldwin petition in a paragraph about harassment,and it didn't seem to fit in anywhere else. Also the harassment Lizzy had faced had popped up in at least two reliable sources that were independent of each other. It seems due weighting to me if you take into account the other sources noting harassment of Gamergate supporters in general.Bosstopher (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure this is the same "lizzy?" Source one writes: "identified only as Lizzy F," while source two writes "'Lizzyf620,' a female Gamergate supporter who asked to be identified only by her Twitter handle" Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any sourcing for it, but I am personally confident that it's the same Lizzy. If I recall correctly, she went by "Lizzy F" is talking, while "@Lizzyf620" was her twitter handle (prior to her deleting her account). AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which perhaps doesn't say a great deal for her notability, as Rhoark brings up above. Although she was (again, personal memory) a prominent voice for a while in the "movement," so... I don't have much opinion on that either way, I suppose, if her harassment is sourced. (Edit Conflict) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If we could edit by editor certainty, I've got a lot of changes to make to this article, and I don't think people would be happy with them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which was precisely the point I was making, and why I emphasised that I was speaking from my own knowledge. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both sources mention the threat of breaking into the house through a comment about window security, it's pretty obvious they're talking about the same lizzyf. Bosstopher (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If "obvious," was universally understood, sure. There are some things that are obvious to me that I'd like to put in the article, but I don't think people would be happy with them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is a fair point, and one I agree with. I suspect someone could probably dig up sources "proving" they were the same person, but as I was trying (perhaps poorly) to say above, I'm not sure this is an especially notable incident that needs to be included either way. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are the things that seem obvious to you that you want to add, so I can have a comparison? Because this is the same level of obvious as assuming that historian Conrad Russel writing about the civil war in one article is the same person as historian C. Russel writing about the civil war in another article. If any of the things you want to add are at this level of obvious, I'd fully support you. On a side note, given the stuff being discussed below i think Strongjam's suggestion would work. Bosstopher (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I should allow you to be the arbiter of "obvious." I think I should get to decide what's obvious. Seems obvious to me. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you have failed to read my question. As the new sole arbiter of what is obvious, you should obviously be able to describe the obvious changes you wish to make to this article. [On a side note would you seriously oppose the assumption that C.Russel who does the same things as Conrad Russel is the same person?] Bosstopher (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the LizF is the LizF and that C.Russel is C.Russel. On this article, however, I think obvious is a problem, which is why I asked if we were sure. If anyone were to step up and object, I'd be right there with them, but I don't have the knowledge background. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Though a strong case of harassment against GG supporters, arguably, Lizzyf620 herself would not want her case to be added to this article. As stated in her "final letter," she seems to be actively trying to fall off the radar of the whole controversy. Though I understand that's not necessarily a strong argument to not add her, maybe this isn't a case that us gamers should go to the mat for. Garrett Albright (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a different complaint from the same person about the harassment they report receiving. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep getting edit conflicts, but I do want to say that identifying by pseudonym doesn't seem very helpful for the reader, and as she's been targeted for abuse not very helpful for her either. Perhaps just "a young woman who supports Gamergate" would be better? — Strongjam (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion on article ordering change

This long-running discussion on a proposal to reorganise the article has been divided into sections, one section per day, in order to make editing and reading easier.

Day 1

Looking over the draft (while we're still at draft, and presuming it will not be moved in soon), I really think there is a need to reorganize the material better but without changing the content. And right now, I'm simply talking about text cut and paste moves, no language change outside of necessary sentence flow.

Currently the article structure is this:

• History
  • Gamergate hashtag
  • Subsequent harassment
• Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and antifeminism
• Debate over ethics allegations
• Gamergate organization
  • Activities
    • The Fine Young Capitalists
    • Operation Disrespectful Nod
    • Operation Baby Seal
    • #NotYourShield
• Industry response

I would propose the following:

• History
  • Background (everything prior to August 2014)
  • Onset (this would be the activities within the first ~couple weeks of GG, encompassing Quinn/Sarkeesian; the only major text addition would be to explain that both ethics calls and harassment came from those using the hashtag)
  • Ongoing harassment (From Sarkeesian's bomb threat, Wu, and anything else ongoing including the swatting)
• Gamergate movement (or "organization" if we're still not comfortable with that).
  • History/makeup/organization (what is presently under "Gamergate hashtag"; this also includes, for example, Singal's observations on the lack of organization)
  • Ethics allegations (less any of the "but ethics" broad criticism like the current first paragraph; specific criticism of the specific ethics claims should stay with this)
  • Other activities (same sections as above, but I think we can look to trimming those down too)
• Criticism of Gamergate
  • Debate over ethics allegations
  • Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and anti-feminism
• Industry response/reactions

I suspect that there will be some with issues with putting the Gamergate movement/organization somewhat higher in the article, and doing some reordering around that, but when it comes to the narrative, it makes it much easier to explain the criticism (the sections I've listed above) once you've explained the makeup of GG and their stated desires. Right now, the way this is ordered, the narrative thought is difficult to follow, and this might be part of having too much focus putting the predominate view before the minority view/information. I am not proposing getting rid of any of the predominate view, but just reorganizing the points so that certain facets of the predominate view make more sense or are easier to explain after you've explained the minor view. (For example, the whole "but ethics!" line that the predominate view uses is difficult to understand until after you explain what the ethics claims are, why the press doesn't think those claims can be acted on, and then the complaints about the use of harassment to threaten/silence others.) Again, to stress, the only language change at the start would simply be wording for information flow; most of what I proposed is just moving the right blocks of paragraphs to the different sections.

For sake of minimal disruption, if there's even a reasonable belief this might work better, I would propose that I make the ordering change in the draft article and then revert myself on that change, only so that I can provide a fixed url that would show the skeleton of this re-ordered list to be clearer (and to avoid creating a draft of a draft of info that borders on BLP). --MASEM (t) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CRITICISM, The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Additionally, a separate section titled "Criticism" implies that criticism should be pigeonholed into that section only, which is similarly not a best practice. I oppose creating a section entitled "Ethics allegations" because it avoids entirely the issue that most of the purported "ethics allegations" are widely viewed as not actually having anything to do with ethics — which is why the section is currently titled "Debate over ethics allegations" to present the fact that almost all external commentators see the allegations as both meritless and not actually involving questions of journalism ethics but rather simply furthering a culture war. I'm not necessarily opposed to some reordering, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We could leave readers with a false impression if they only read a single section. In general Masem's outline could work if we drop the criticism section and incorporate it into the prose of the Gamergate movement section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind CRITICISM is an essay; further even within that, WP:CRITS states "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Here's the problem - there's no "positive" criticism to include. Reading through the rest of CRITICISM shows that separating out the larger criticism against GG as a whole as I suggest does not contradict that essay considering the nature topic at hand.

Additionally, denying a section title like "Ethic allegations" because it doesn't address the predominate view is not a neutral approach. In documenting what we can about the movement, we are not to care if the predominate view says what GG says is bogus when discussing the GG supporters/group. We need to write about the facts of the GG cause without any bias from the predominate viewpoint per FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no positive criticism then uncritically stating their claims is giving them WP:UNDUE weight and could violate WP:FRINGE by making the claims appear to be more notable or accepted then they really are. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind what I said about how the ethics section would be changed: the specific issues raised by the media about some of the ethics claims (eg how unwieldy asking for "objective reviews" is) would be kept with these specific claims as these are best where those aspects are discussed; the broader criticism that "using ethics claims to cover up harassment" factors would be later when criticism of the movement as a whole is presented. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That might work. Specific claims by GG alongside the specific criticism for those claims, with the broader criticism later. Although I think that we could work the "cover up harassment" criticism as part of the Ethics section, perhaps in a wrap-up paragraph. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That goes back to the point of the reordering: the criticism of "but ethics" relies on knowing the ethics claims, knowing the criticism of those claims, and knowing the backlash that the harassment has gotten and how some press see harassment is believed to be considered a tool used by GG to intimidate critics; only then the "but ethics" argument clearly make logical sense. The ordering I present makes those points ll in order before hitting on this core "but ethics" aspect. Trying to put it earlier is part of the reason the current narrative is very clunky. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The current Ethics section starts out with a brief description before the criticism already "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists." I just don't think we need a separate Critiscm of Ethics section, we document their claims (with an eye to WP:FRINGE) and the criticism, and wrap it up with the broader commentary. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Many instances of harassment described in this article never came from GamerGate. Those who made the treats never mentioned or had anything to do with GamerGate. It is a blatant NPOV violation to include them in this article.

Day 2

Totally disagree with any suggestion to have a criticism section. I don't feel it would improve the article, its readability, or its neutrality at all to try and separate coverage into "supportive", "neutral", and "critical" and divide it up accordingly; those categories are obviously very important to many people involved in the controversy, but they are not encyclopedic divisions -- coverage is coverage, and should inform our entire article in accordance to its representation in reliable sources rather than being divided up based on our personal feelings about whether it makes the subject "look good" or "look bad". In particular, I find your assertion that the "political views" section should be a subsection of the 'criticism' section to make no sense at all; that should be its own section, with "Gamer identity" and "Misogyny and anti-feminism" as subsections of it, since those are the coverage of the politics behind GamerGate as covered by reliable sources. Likewise, it strikes me as bizarre to want to separate 'ethicla issues' and 'criticism of ethical issues' into separate sections -- we must cover the topic in one place as reported by reliable sources; if the ethics claims are generally dismissed in reliable sources, then the ethics section itself must make this its core thesis. Criticism sections are generally, I think, agreed to be terrible things, and I don't see anything in your arguments above that would change it here -- they generally end up serving only to provide dumping grounds for unrelated criticism (stripped of context, and therefore less useful), or to move any aspects of the article someone deems 'negative' out of the rest of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A "Criticism " section does not always mean negative criticism (you can have positive criticism); however, it doesn't have to be called criticism but it should be focused on analysis and criticism of the broad issues of GG. (Perhaps "Responses" as is done on Westboro, for example). There's a better way to gather the information in the article to put most of the broader analysis in one cohensive section. And let me stress - a criticism section has to be kept with this main article because that is what makes up 75%+ of the notability of GG; this is not an attempt to segegrate this off and then prime it to be moved, because I would be fully against that. (Barring anything major in the next few months, I can't see this article growing any more to necessitate a move).

Things like "gamer identity" and "misogyny and anti-feminism" are not political views, that's part of the problem. I'm rereading that section now, and it just doesn't make a lot of cohensive sense, because it feels like we're crowbarring in some thoughts that are better elsewhere in a logical order. I know where the "gamer identity" text came from (I had that as background material months ago), but it doesn't talk about any political views, for example. Maybe if it was "Analysis of Gamergate", discussing the "culture war and gamer identity", "misogyny and anti-feminism" , "lack of GG organization/structure", etc. that might make it clearer without calling it directly as criticism. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're saying here; the section discusses the forces that shape the political views driving GamerGate, which (according to our sources) are primarily the gamer identity, anti-feminism, and misogyny. Certainly anti-feminism is a political view if anything is; but misogyny and gamer identity (when driven by identity politics) are also political views. Regardless, these are not primarily commentary sections, or analysis sections, or criticism sections; these are sections describing the subject of the article and its views, as objectively and thoroughly as we can (using, ideally, the most reliable sources we can.) That is something that an article on a subject like this badly needs. I do not see any gain for the article by transforming them into "commentary" sections -- remember, we're trying to keep people from using the article as a dumping ground for random commentary, since that was a problem in the past. "Analysis of gamergate" (when it comes from reliable sources) is something we must depend upon for every single section of the article -- it is absolutely not something we could confine to just one section. (As my example, above, of the problems we would encounter trying to separate the section on ethics into 'ethics' and 'debate over ethics' shows.) Ultimately, I see no improvement from your proposed reordering -- I think that the current ordering accurately expresses the history of the movement, then the politics behind it, which are by far the most important subjects here. I would strenuously oppose moving anything in the current politics section lower in the article; it feels to me like you feel that the GamerGate Organization section is more 'objective' or that you can write a section that will accurately depict 'what GamerGate really believes' to be contrasted with people's commentary, but note that the organization and hashtag sections also rely on commentary, since there is no central GamerGate organization. To the extent that there is a broad agreement about what GamerGate wants and what it stands for, it is covered by our current politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not every section needs analysis. In fact, we should start off with what information is not analysis and move up from that into the more secondary modes later. So starting with the current history and the history of harassment - which is all factual, no analysis needed, moving into what GG is and their claims, which is reporting what they say, though including some commentary on specific issues, and then moving into broad analysis of the situation, including why GG came about, the make up of the people, etc. - following the concept of Bloom's taxonomy in the presentation of this topic as it is very non-standard. And remember, I'm not talking about ridding sections, just reordering to make the narrative and logic flow better. And yes, we should be aiming to accurately represent what GG believes without any attempt at judgement in WP's voice - that's the primary impartial nature we need. We know we have tons of criticism against GG to include, but we can't let the volume of that public opinion sway the approach we talk to writing on the details specific from the GG's mouths. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 3

I disagree with your implicit assertion that we should give critics who claim to be speaking from within some "GamerGate organization" any particular precedent over those who do not when it comes to analyzing and characterizing what is behind the controversy. For one thing, GamerGate is structureless, and therefore such critics' opinions can never be more than their own personal opinions (which must be weighted according to their prominence and usefulness as a reliable source); for another, in situations where these viewpoints conflict, our duty is to focus on things in proportion to their representation in reliable sources -- not to portray "what these random commentators, who arbitrarily claim to be part of some hypothetical GamerGate organization, say their movement is really about." Beyond that, you are still making a false distinction between "criticism against GG, and what the analysis of these supposed critics says it believes" as opposed to "what GG actually believes, according to Real True GamerGators". This is not a meaningful distinction(note that you have to source your statement on what GG actually believes to somewhere, which is, inevitably, analysis.)

As an aside, I note that you have repeatedly said that you want GamerGate covered the way the Westboro Baptist Church is. If you go there and read its Church views section, you'll see it is sourced almost entirely to pieces that are clearly critical of the church; we do not simply rely on the first-hand accounts of the church's own beliefs, but on analysis and interpretation from reliable sources. We must describe GG's beliefs, goals, and politics in the same way, according to what reliable sources have said about them, without regard for what side you (or they) feel they are on; this is what the current politics section does. And in fact it is particularly important here, because unlike the church there is no central GamerGate mouthpiece, meaning that there are almost no concrete and reliable primary sources; but regardless, even if that were not the case, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources and their analysis when discussing eg. what GamerGate is actually all about. In this light, virtually all reliable coverage of GamerGate has said that it is about a culture war centered around people moved by gamer identity politics, gender-politics, and anti-feminism, who have either -- depending on your point of view -- used discussion about ethics in journalism (as it relates to the vast ideological conspiracy that many within GamerGate allege) in order to advance these goals; or who has discovered a vast unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents on those axes. This is, therefore, what we must lead with in describing it, and it is what the current politics section says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've argued before to avoid SPS sources for proGG statements - most of what we can say about the GG's claims about ethics, etc. are from sources that are critical of GG. We should rely on these sources to put the GG statements in context, but we also should not forget to include what the original statements are. Those people are one side of the controversy and we should be earnestly trying to document it within our RS policy in as neutral and non-judgemental a manner as possible, as is done on Westboro. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 4

But nobody is saying "the Westboro Baptist church isn't really about opposing gays." If there were people who claimed to be members of the Westboro Church and who argued that it was really about (say) ethics in games journalism, yet the vast majority of reliable sources dismissed that as tangential to its purpose and said that it was about opposition to gays, we would focus on its opposition to gays in its 'political views' section, and make that the focus of the article; this is especially true, of course, if that was what it was notable for. (In fact, the Westboro Church does have many views other than its view on homosexuality. The article notes them, but puts them very far down the article and gives them little attention, because they are not what it is notable for and not what most commentators say is the main driving force behind it.) Additionally, it's important not to fall into the trap of saying that "these people are a side in the controversy" as if that means we need to give them particular weight; our job is not to present all sides equally, but to present them in proportion to their representation among reliable sources. I would actually go so far as to say that they are not a side in the controversy as reflected by reliable sources; as far as I can tell, we don't have any reliable sources -- among those that describe them in any depth, or which give them any credit at all -- that describes the ethics issues as something distinct from the culture-war issues. (That is, there are some sources that argue that GamerGate is part of a legitimate culture war opposing a vast unethical conspiracy by feminists and other ideological opponents in order to control the media; but this is, indeed, already covered by the current political views section, though we cover it in a neutral fashion and therefore without giving undue credence to it. I think it's reasonable to describe it as a fairly WP:FRINGE theory, after all.) At this point I think that there is broad agreement among our sources -- on all 'sides' -- about what exactly GamerGate's ethical issues are about, what they mean, what perspective they come from and how they relate to the larger culture war. They disagree only on whether those accusations are accurate or whether the individual claims amount to proof of this broad conspiracy. Obviously it makes no sense to cut out the arguments that it does amount to proof of a broad conspiracy and try to present them separately, since, again, the media conspiracy allegations are a WP:FRINGE theory, which therefore must be given less prominence than the prevailing view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "equal" coverage, this is talking about impartial and neutral coverage, and writing an encyclopedia article that can be understood. If I was a reader with no idea about GG but wanted to be informed to learn what the GG movement is, this article does a poor job in its present state because its focused too much on making sure the predominate POV (that GG is bad) is shown, and does not present the GG side with what sources we have in any form of coherent, non-prejudgemental organization. Everything we can factually state about GG, including elements that could be seen as negative aspects like their unorganized, anon nature or their ethics claims, as well as their activities that can be documented, like the various operations to ad agencies, should be kept in one single section; after which we can then include the broad criticism of the group that builds on all those facets. (All this after we've run through the most visible facts of the harassment that has occurred). Keep in mind - in the topic of a Gamergate controversy , the GG movement is not a FRINGE view. If we were talking about gaming journalism, heck yes what GG claims is extremely fringe and likely would not be include, but to the core of this article which is about what has happened because of the actions of this movement, their views are not trivial. They're difficult to document, for certain, and very difficult to find anyone that agrees with them, but we still need to use whatever means to present the GG side as a legitimate part of the controversy as the key party of interest. This article has that information already, but in such a disorganized manner as to create the non-partial approach. Reorganizing in the manner I spoke of, without adding or removing any sourced content and only adjusting sentence for flow, goes a long way to present the GG side in a more encyclopedic and less judgemential light. That's the whole point when you come to Westboro, or Scientology, or any other group/person that has a broad negative public opinion out there; we don't base the article on the negative public opinion but around the group itself in as much a factual manner as possible and then include the criticism. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you came here to find out what the gamergate movement was, you came to the wrong place asking the wrong question. this is the article about the controversy created by the vile vile harassment under the gamergate hashtag and the underlying antifeminist/anti-woman culture war in the gaming world that the vile vile harassment brought into the view of mainstream culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Obviously, we are not going to have an article that separates the harassment facets from the movement (the notability are far too tied together to even consider that), and there is legitimately a question of coming to WP to learn about the movement and trying to understand their motives as to learn about how harassment became an issue. This is the right page on WP to discuss the movement and we are not doing a good job of that due to the current organization. And no, we're not here to talk about the "vile vile harassment" but just the "harassment". WP is amoral in that regards. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

per all the sources , as it relates to the subject of this article - gamergate the so called movement is a NOTHING that accomplished NOTHING other than perhaps attempt to act as a transparent cover for vile vile harassment against women. and aside from the vile vile harassment is a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists who dont know what either "ethics" or "objective" actually means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Popular opinion/criticism, but not fact. We have facts about the movement we can discuss, and which are necessary to discuss, to understand why criticism is as harsh as it is. We should be earnestly trying to use what we can take from the reliable sources to document clearly what factual information there is about the GG movement to explain the people and their stated goals that are at the centerpoint of this controversy, to be encyclopedicly complete, and should not be ignoring the GG movement because of the claimed "vile vile harassment" they've done. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion whatever "facts not opinions" we may have from reliable sources about the "so called movement" are in fact almost entirely devoid of any relevance to the subject of this article, the controversy. WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What the GG movement is is absolutely key to this topic and in absolutely no way a coatrack argument. Refusal to cover what the GG movement claims to be (the group that is responsible, directly or not, for the controversy) in a non-judgemental manner, even with as limited an amount of sourcing from reliable sources as we have to do that from, is a direct violation of NPOV, because you are refusing to cover a major facet of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT for any article you can provide that has any measure of focus on the "so called movement" i can produce a dozen that have only a passing mention or directly comment on its actual meaninglessness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But the key thing is - there are many highly reliable sources that cover GG as a movement, with most then within a paragraph going on to criticize that for the rest of the article. That means that what GG is is important to their criticism and we should of course cover what GG is and their motives and goals so that the criticism of GG makes sense. You can't introduce "But ethics!" criticism without describing the ethics claims. We don't need dedicated articles that are solely proGG to provide this information, there are plenty of very critical articles against GG that do provide sufficient details for us to explain the GG side of the equation briefly, which we already effectively do, but just with poor narrative or logical progression that can be improved by simply reordering what we have without changing the balance of the article/sources. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said the sources for this are in the article sourcing what we know about the movement, such as the words by Singal, articles like [1], and [2], albeit briefly because there's not that much they can figure out but they try to at least. They talk about what the GG movement is from the view the GG movement, and then move on to analysis and criticism. So yes, there are sources. There are also sources that completely ignoring what GG wants to write one-sided approaches, but we don't follow tone, we are looking to summarize the whole story, so ignoring what we can source that we know about GG is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 5

No discussion on day 5. --TS 04:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 6

Again, your statement that those sources are one-sided and that they are completely ignoring what GG wants to write is, ultimately, nothing more than your personal opinion. We have plenty of sources that indicate that, yes, there are voices even within GamerGate (or at least, saying that they are within GamerGate) that are loudly and aggressively declaring that the purpose of the movement is to harass specific women, or to advance a gender-politics agenda, or to push hard on one side in a culture war, or countless other things; we rely on sources to parse through these and produce an accurate summary based on their reliability, not based on subjective opinions about what the "real" GamerGate is. Even if you don't realize it, you are basically suggesting that we categorize and weight sources according to your personal POV over which are accurate -- when one source says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about ethics" you agree with them; when someone says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about driving LW1, LW2, and L@3 to suicide" or "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about crushing Feminism and Social Justice Warriors" or when a source says "I speak for GamerGate, and it's all about fighting the liberal agenda of the media and pushing back against the conspiracy of feminist gender-politics", you're dismissing that solely because you disagree with the conclusions they're drawing. All of those sources, after all, claim to be saying that they are reporting what GG is from the view of the GG movement -- you're treating "what GG is really all about" or even "what GG says GG is really all about" as if it is straightforward and obvious; but given the amount of arguing on this talk page and elsewhere, I don't think it's that obvious. And to the extent that there's a broad agreement, I think it's what our politics section generally describes -- that is, GamerGate is basically about a culture war in which some people are convinced that there is a broad gender-politics conspiracy which is being advanced by sinister, unethical media collusion and which must be confronted and destroyed. The sources disagree a bit on what the driving force is behind this belief (whether it's gamer identity politics, gender politics, misogyny, or whether people are flocking to it because the conspiracy is real and gamers can see that), but the overarching reasons behind the conflict seem like they're largely something every reputable agrees on, regardless of "side"; it would be non-neutral of us to bury that because you personally feel that you've looked at the issue and identified what the Real True View From Within GamerGate is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have no sources that say that from within the same group of people that are asking about ethics within the GG movement, that they also engaged in harassment or directly support harassment as a tool of their agenda. Yes, some have said, paraphrasing, "Yes, harassment is bad, but X deserved what they got", and we have clear press statements that call out that opinion, but that's also not a signficiant opinion of the ethics side of the GG part. This goes to the point below - there is no affirmed connection between any person of the GG movement that supports ethics, and those that engaged in harassment. The likelihood that there is a connection is very high, but we can't presume that. It is important to establish that because of how unorganized, anonymous, and diffuse the GG movement is, it is difficult to define exact bounds, and thus it is readily easy to think of both sides as part of the same group, but we also are clear that there's at least two different subgroups (these we can source) - the "GG Moderate", those that are actively trying to stop the harassment and police that, and people who are don't even care about the GG goals but are using the GG name to harass people. There may be other groups, but these are two we can document with existing sources. But this is all more points to explain what the GG movement is as objectively as possible before getting into full-blown criticsm of the group. Whatever the makeup of the group, they're responsible in a direct or indirect manner for every statement made on this page, so it is the movement that needs to have some focus before getting into the analysis and criticism of all these actions. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The issue isn't whether the GamerGate controversy is defined by harassment; that isn't our decision, that's something that is defined by coverage in the mainstream media, which has overwhelmingly made harassment the crux of its reporting. We should, of course, be careful not to inadvertently say "every single person who retweeted GamerGate has committed harassment" or anything like that in the article voice, but we still have to respect the focus of reliable sources, so that aspect isn't really one we can grapple with. (In fact, I don't feel the changes you proposed would affect that aspect much at all.) The issue is the coverage on what the GamerGate controversy is about in terms of politics and goals; this is the focus of the politics section (which you are arguing must be moved to the bottom of the article and generally made less prominent.) Nobody is saying that every single person who ever retweeted #GamerGate is guilty of sending death threats; but the vast majority of our sources say that GamerGate is fundamentally about gamer identity, culture warfare over gender-politics (driven by, as many of our sources term it, misogyny), and opposition to what many people involved in the controversy see as their ideological enemies. This, therefore, must be core to how we describe the conflict. There are very few sources that agree with your implicit assertion that this aspect is divided into two distinct organizations -- some of the people driven by these passions engage in harassment, and some do not, but most sources in our article seem to agree that those particular passions are the driving force behind the controversy. And this is, currently, what our article says; we report on the most noteworthy things that have happened in relation to GamerGate and on what, according to the most reliable sources, the debate is about, what people who are getting angry are angry about, and so on. Your personal opinion that the entire movement splits cleanly into two identifiable groups (and that we must defer to the group that you have identified as the "main" group and give what you say are their views prominent a voice before we move on to what the reliable sources say) is not one that I feel is backed up by the sources we have in the article; most of the in-depth analysis of GamerGate is at this point in broad agreement about the crux of the controversy, and it is not about "ethics" -- it is about people driven by cultural warfare to oppose their ideological opponents, who they believe have used unethical methods to advance their agenda. This is something the current article covers accurately. I feel that your proposed changes would reduce the prominence of this view (which is, again, in the overwhelming majority) in favor of an extremely WP:FRINGE description of the ongoing controversy and a characterization of GamerGate that very very few sources agree reflects reality. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with how GG is reported in mainstream media, and while I'll frequently point back to things like Westboro Baptist Church, and other groups/people that have a near-universal negative public perception. Yes, it is popular opinion of the press that they think GG is an harassment campaign and that's fair that that is their, but we cannot treat that as fact without any clear established evidence of that, in light that GG does not say they are an harassment campaign. We cannot misrepresent what GG claims to be despite what the popular opinion is. There's not much objective we can say about GG (per WEIGHT/UNDUE), and there's a lot of criticism that we have to include to accurately represent how the popular opinion is about GG, but we have to start without prejudging GG as something they say they are not. We don't treat suspects of crimes who claim they are innocent even if the rest of the world assumes they are guilty, until there is a legal decision that counters that point. Same here - there is no clear evidence of a legal or scientific nature to show that GG is really about harassment. We're going to include the strong doubt this is the case, obviously, but we can't start there, which is what the current organization of the article does. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that people don't disagree about what the Westboro Baptist Church is and what it thinks; everyone agrees that they are opposed to gays, that this is the most noteworthy thing about them, and that the people who we see standing at funerals shouting insults to gays represent the church as a whole, so when we cite critical analysis of what their views are in our description of them, it's clear what it should say. In this case, though, while (as I said) I think there is now fairly broad agreement about what GamerGate is really about, there are a few people (like, I gather, you) who disagree with this broad consensus -- you are saying "these people, who the media quotes, who the coverage focuses on, who the news pieces describe; these are not the real GamerGate. I, Masem, know what the real GamerGate is, and we are being unfair to it." But you need to recognize that this is just your opinion. We have to determine what GamerGate is -- who speaks for it, which opinions it holds, what its goals and methods are -- by looking at reliable sources, not based on your personal feelings. And those sources have generally described it in terms of cultural warfare, fights over gender-politics and gamer-identity-poltitics, and -- yes -- the harassment that has come out of these things. These are the defining aspects of the controversy and the key people involved in it. Describing this as the core of the GamerGate controversy and the driving force behind it is not a misrepresentation; it is an unbiased, accurate coverage of the topic as reported in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Obviously you disagree -- you feel that those sources are wrong, that they're misrepresenting it, and so on -- but that is ultimately just your opinion; it's not backed by the sources we have at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, Westboro themselves do not agree with what is said about them. And yes, we actually can objectively state what GG's intents and motives are. We have those sources already. We have that text already, even - but it's spread out across the article and placed in contradictory sentences that prejudge them. We can write a heck of alot better without changing the balance of material and sources. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 7

When the Westboro Baptist church disagrees with what the experts say about them (for instance, in the characterization of them as hyper-calvinist), we go by what the experts say; if someone claiming to speak for the Westboro Baptist Church were to start denying that they were anti-gay, we would still describe them as anti-gay in the lead and devote the bulk of the politics section to their anti-gay sentiments, because our political views section is largely sourced to reliable experts on the topic and not directly to the church itself. Similarly, we can only objectively state what the intents and motives behind the GamerGate controversy are by looking at how they are covered by reliable sources. If the reliable sources state that (for instance) GamerGate is about gender-war politics, harassment, misogyny, gamer identity warfare, and conspiracy theories, we must report these aspects in proportion to the attention such sources have given them; objectivity means reporting what reliable sources say, in proportion to the prominence of the relevant views, without judgment on our part. It is clear that you personally disagree with the conclusion that the majority of reliable sources have come to, and therefore feel that that conclusion is not objective; but it still is what it is. In order to make the locus of controversy completely clear (because I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying): When you say "I just want the article to say what GamerGate really says it is about", I believe that you are looking a small fringe view of what GamerGate says it is about; I am not saying merely that that characterization is a minority view, I am saying that your opinion that GamerGate describes itself that way (to the extent that the controversy can be said to have any concrete character) is not accurate and is not reflected in the sources. The sources in the political views section say that the GamerGate controversy, going by the words of self-described supporters, is focused on fighting a culture war against their gender-politics opponents, which is what our article accurately reflects. I will add one additional thing which might explain your continued confusion when it comes to the focus on harassment: Different sources in the article mean different things when they say 'harassment'. Many of them clearly lump all of the accusations against Quinn et. all under harassment, from the perspective that maliciously repeating untrue accusations is a form of harassment, and therefore describe anyone repeating these accusations as guilty of harassment. In that regard it makes sense for those sources to say that GamerGate is primarily about harassment; and when that perspective is the one reflected in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, we must reflect it here as well, even if it is something that some people who think of themselves as members of GamerGate would object to. Even if you feel that this is unfair or that it does not accurately characterize their viewpoint, we must still go with what those reliable sources say; our responsibility is to ensure that we report things according to their focus in reliable sources, and to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE descriptions of the controversy, no matter how much more accurate you may feel those descriptions are. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the issue: who are the "experts" making the determination that Westboro is anti-gay, or for anything that is a subjective measure? Usually there is no one that can do this, becuase is near impossible to be an expert in such fields. (Take movie reviews - we will default to explain people like Roger Ebert's POV on a movie because we know he's got a clear handle on films, but his opinion remains opinion, and always in his voice.) There's no issue saying, clearly, "The press think GG is misogynistic", because that is a clear demonstrable fact - 100s of articles express that opinion. But that doesn't mean "GG is misogynistic" is a fact, for the very reason that there is no effective way to prove that. And because this is not fact, and because we're talking about a group central to the issue at hand, we cannot say what they say is wrong (nor right). We have side A, we have side B. We cannot make a judgement which side is right. Side A - the GGers, aren't going to be able to have a lot of objective material here, and side B's voice is going to be a predominate part of this article, but we cannot let the condemnation of the press set our tone in any way. Our responsibility is to stay neutral to what RSes say as we are simply trying to document the event, not try to convince a reader of a conclusion one way or another. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Our job, as an encyclopedia, is not to divide everything into two "sides" and then try to give each side equal weight; our job is to try and ignore (and stay above) the conflict as much as possible while trying to find the most reputable sources on the topic that we can, so we can rely on their coverage and perspectives in proportion to how prominent each aspect is. I strongly disagree with your assertion, in fact, that there are two clearly-distinct, definable 'sides' here -- many, many different reliable sources have weighed in with different perspectives, and we must parse the most reliable coverage of the controversy from those and then produce an accurate, impartial summary of it based on what that says. If you end up feeling that the overall coverage of the topic in reliable sources is biased (and that seems to be what you're saying here when you define "the press" as a side?), that's, unfortunately, not something we can correct as an encyclopedia -- we do not suddenly start disregarding WP:RS simply because some people claim that the press is biased. Our responsibility is to stay neutral by reflecting what each reliable source says in proportion to its prominence; if coverage of the topic among reliable sources is a deafening chorus saying that this is a culture war being waged over gender politics and against so-called social justice warriors, then our article must likewise reflect that deafening chorus, and it would absolutely be a violation of NPOV to say "but here's what some random people say it's really all about." Trying to balance coverage away by taking a WP:FRINGE viewpoint on the controversy and giving it greater weight than it deserves is, in fact, taking an unacceptable stance in support of that viewpoint; it is our job to uncritically report on what the press says, not to define the press as a "side" and then try to argue against it by scavenging for whatever fringe viewpoints in opposition we can find. I assume, based on what you're saying above, that you feel that the press should not be reported uncritically in this case (that it is biased, or that it has clearly taken a side?) But that is not how we write Wikipedia articles; if you want to challenge reliability of the press, this is unfortunately not the place to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with any possible bias of the press, only that they are expressing their opinion, not fact. As such, while their voice is predominate and will be the majority of the text we have in the article, as it is now, we cannot slip and take the same tone they have taken to condemn GG, as this is not necessary the "right" or "wrong" position, just the predominate one. We cannot prejudge anything, and if the press has, we have to strip that away in presenting any objective fact, and then be clear when we are expressing their opinion. "GG is considered misogynistic by the mainstream media" is completely acceptable here and I am in no way arguing against removing any of the opinions currently cited to the press to condemn GG, only that we make sure that we keep everything else outside that as objective as possible to be a neutral, impartial work.

Further, calling the GG movement's view "fringe" really is not appropriate here. If we were talking an article where the topic is gaming journalism, yes their opinion on what they want from gaming journalism is clearly fringe. But GG is the central reason why this article even exists - not necessary by the actions they specifically started but still required their spark to do that. What their side has expressed is important to present to make the media's take on their actions understandable. They are not a fringe view here if they are the central point this all extended from. They don't have a lot of RS to back up their point but they have enough that we can reorganize what we already have to provide a more cohesive picture of their side of this issue, and thus make the criticism the press throws down in spades much clearer to understand. Look at any disliked organization. Look at any page on a major criminal or crime with identified targets. Even if these people are convicted of a crime, we still neutrally and impartially present their side of the issue - not necessary in equal time, but without any prejudging of whether their motives were right or wrong. We need to do the same here, even if the bulk of GG are anon people, they are still people at the end of the day and not any evidence they have engaged in any illegal activity to factually call them out on that. Again to stress: the reorg I have presented would require no removal or addition of sources from what we already have, nor removal of any text, only the addition and wordsmithing of text to smooth presentation. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand your point of view. You think the central reason for this article is something called Gamergate comprising a group of people. This isn't true, though. The article exists because of a series of vehemently misogynistic attacks on women in gaming. We would not be writing this article if it weren't for those attacks, which for want of a better word make this article notable. Some people want to call themselves Gamergate? We write about those guys, too, though it's very difficult because there is little organisation. But the Gamergate controversy is what it is, and we're here to write the best possible article about that. --TS 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, though, I think we need something concrete to look at. Please make a skeleton of your proposed outline in your userspace and fill it in with a list of sources and general themes (or content from our existing draft if it fits) and then we'll be able to see more clearly what you mean. I'm a but wary about article forks, which can lead to divisive behaviour, which is why I don't think you should create it in the draft namespace. But personally I wouldn't object to your placing your demo into the draft article's history and then mass reverting it, which I think you suggested earlier. --TS 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the continued problem with the article. Did it get notability because of some attacks? Sure. But now we have an article, so we need to cover what the entire topic is about, not just one aspect of it. The article probably needs a rename and a restructure to start, and perhaps now that ArbCom has done some work here we can start doing the work of repairing the article so it meets our content standards. At no point should this comment be construed as saying the article shouldn't cover the issues of harassment or follow sources, merely that the article, to meet our basic point of view policies, needs significant repair. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that in August/September the reason for this article was the amount of attention the harassment aspects under the GG hashtag got - indeed, the AFD filed shortly after creation suggests that the harassment done under "GamerGate" was the notable factor, not the movement. But we're 5 months out, and things have changed. "Gamergate movement" gets more hits than "Gamergate controversy". The group of people under GG - at least as seen by the press - are the subject of intense criticism. Argubly the movement is its own notable topic, but I would never suggest separating it out at all, because the controversy over harassment, and the movement, are inseparable subjects. I've noted this issue several times before: we are really dealing with two different controversies - what the GG supports have against gaming media, and what the mainstream media has against the tactics used by those under the GG hashtag. The latter has clearly the most cover, but the former is readily sourcable to reliable sources (we already have that). The controversy is about the movement.

As a thought experiment (I would not suggest this format at all), consider if this article was about the GG movement, structured close to how Westboro is laid out. We'd explain how their group came to be and some of the activities they have done. We'd have to explain that there was harassment done under the GG name even if that's not tied to the group. And then we go into the reactions and criticism of the group. 99% of that content would be the same as what we have here. This is more evidence that that "GG controversy" and the "GG movement" are inseparable elements if not synonymous with each other, and as it makes zero sense to have a separate article on the movement when it is so tied to the controversy, we need to make sure that that is covered in an encyclopedic-appropriate manner even with there's only about a dozen RS sources we can pull from to describe this (using a lot of Singal's attempts to dive into the innards to help expand). That's the whole point of my proposed reorg is simply to make sure that we cohesively define what is known about the movement as the central figure to the controversy.

As for the draft, my plan to present something to review but without being disruptive (and as this point, I would even consider a user-space draft to be that way even if there's AGF that I'm not going to twist it around (I fear that others will want to do the same based on that), was to simply inject a revision into the draftspace article (Editeded off line), then revert, and then present the diff id as the first draft of reorg w/ minimal wordsmithing for flow, for evaluation, and why I made sure this was clear before doing that to minimize any apparent disruption that might seem to be. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You and I are thinking alike on this in a few ways, but I'm wondering why you don't like the format you've mapped out here? That seems to be the most reasonable way out, and solves 95% of the problems with this article as is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We are 5 months out and the only thing that has changed is that there are not new press reports coming out everyday of yet another another target of the vile vile gamergate harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, so now it's time to actually look closely at the article and get it in line with our NPOV policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please point out where we do not represent the subject as the reliable sources have presented it? Other than the fact that we spend significantly more time on the "but ethics" than the sources do-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Interjection on Day 6

This discussion, now in its sixth day, is beginning to resemble a rather dull saloon bar discussion largely between two parties who cannot see eye to eye. I think the onus is on Masem to explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices. Perhaps at this point others may want to chip in with their views. --TS 05:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I mean, according to that, you've already made your decision, haven't you? Saying "explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices" basically is saying "I think the RS say this, and therefore you trying to change it is working against that." Ries42 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at this stage I think we all are in agreement about what the reliable sources say. I'm trying to work out how this proposal is supposed to reflect those sources with appropriate weight, given what we already know they say, and especially given how overwhelmingly they say it. --TS 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, we're definitely in agreement about what the reliable sources being used in this article say. There's definitely significant disagreement still standing about whether we're using all the available resources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there remains a clear serious problem that this article has a non-neutral tone, despite having the proper balance of sources representing the mainstream view, which is against NPOV and also a point addressed by Arbcom in the NPOV statement. To be a neutral entity in this process, we cannot make the same leaps of logic the press has made in the absence of facts. And I'm addressing this as one that doesn't have much sympathy for the general attitude and the various actions made by GG but can see there's a huge problem in how this article's tone is written. People are shutting out any discussion starting "But the press says GG is bad!" but that's simply not how we can start as a neutral impartial article evidenced by most of our other articles on controversial topics on WP. Remember, I'm not asking to change the sources or the bulk of the wording, simply to reorder to improve the tone, narrative, and logic flow. --05:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting that from your proposed outline. You seem to want all criticism of Gamergate corralled in a single section. Isn't that like rewriting the World War I article to describe the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, and Gavrilo Prinzip's motives, and lumping everything else into an "aftermath" section? The Gamergate controversy _is_ the topic. That's why we gave the article that name. --TS 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because this topic is nowhere as complicated in the history as, say, WWI. There is one primary event - the chain of harassment from August to September, and while there are other smaller incidents, everything is still based on that month of problems. We explain that first, then the people that are at least central to some of the issues, and then the criticism of that group and what resulted. That's pretty straight forward and a common approach for single events across WP. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if you're _now_ saying we should severely narrow our focus. From an ongoing five month harassment campaign widely covered in reliable sources, you want to concentrate on just the first month. I still don't think I get the same description of what you want in any two comments. Perhaps you need to get a coherent idea of what changes you want first, in your own mind, and then you can present it here for discussion. --TS 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you also hint that the arbitration committee says something that supports your view that this article is in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. Be specific. Here is their NPOV principle as written. Explain why you think our article fails on this:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.[3]

I note that none of the findings that are passing refer to NPOV, though that doesn't absolve us of the duty to ensure that we get it right. So I want to understand your criticism and satisfy myself in this regard.

Because your criticisms are so vague and take on multiple facets when you're asked to be specific, it's very hard for me to understand what you criticism is except that you don't like it. --TS 07:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding timing - 90% of what this article focuses on is what happened in the first month - Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Felicia Day, the USU threat, the "Death of Gamers", and the initial Operation aimed at advertisers. The rest have be long-tail responses that are not part of the initial matters that brought this to attention, though are part of how the industry and the media has responded to this. It is not like your example of WWI where there were years of many different battles. Things happened, and they tailed off, with bits of news popping up here and there on long term reactions. If the past 5 months were the same amount of news day after day of Gamergate actions, it would be different, but it's clear that the effect of GG appears to be in its last stages, barring any major revelations.

The last part Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited is what applies here. The article is writing strongly against the GG movement and/or very sympathetic towards the harassment victims, even if the bulk of the sources are written this way. We can't write that way, we are supposed to be amoral and clinically neutral which is a challenge here because of the emotional aspects this subject has. We cannot adopt the same tone and attitude the press has taken towards GG, and should be in all earnest and within the limitations of the source of our V/RS polices to present the GG side in an fair and impartial manner before turning to the massive amount of crit we have from the press against GG. And by fair, I don't mean equal time, because that's impossible per V/RS. But I do mean not assuming anything negative about them within WP's voice or approach to writing; we cannot present their self-stated goals and issues with any prejudgement either from us or the press; afterwards, we can include the cric in spades, or where it is attached to specific points where it makes more logical sense (for example, when describing the GG's "objective reviews" we can then counter that point right there that the concept is considered an oxymoron by critics), but the broad sweeping crit like "it's a front for harassment", etc. should be after we have fully presented the GG side. It's both more impartial and more logical in thought to explain the criticism of GG after reviewing all of the GG position. It's completely doable without changing, removing or adding any new sources, it is simply reworking order and sentence flow, as a first point, which is what I have clearly asked for above in this thread. I want to use the draft to show what that order would result in, but I don't want to do that yet given that we're straw polling to have the current version replace the main page, but I also want to make sure that others are clear what I'm doing first before massively reverting any changes. --MASEM (t) 07:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "advocacy or promotion" to report what reliable sources report about something. Indeed, that is exactly what Wikipedia articles do and exactly how they are written. And no, we are not required to present GG's claims as if they are true before reporting that they have been widely debunked by reliable sources. The NPOV policy does not require us to say that something which is false is true — and in fact, the BLP policy requires us to not present false claims as true when they relate to living people, as the vast majority of Gamergate claims do. These are not academic discussions about the finer points of a theory, but attacks on the characters of living people, and we have a fundamental responsibility to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is not "advocacy or promotion" to state what RS state they feel about a situation, but it is the case when we talk their side as being "right", even if we don't say that. When we write "GG claims it is X but many critics say it is not X", that is a tone that puts the GG as "wrong" and the press "right". We are required to present what GG claims about itself (the little we can extract from RSes) without any prejudgemental calls, because we cannot presume the popular opinion is the right opinion. In regards to anything BLP related in that, there is exactly BLP-tied item that we can actually pull from RSes as part of GG's position, and that is the one accusation that is undenibly proven false, the one about Quinn/Grayson/positive coverage. While I know there are many other accusations out there that some GG want to claim, there's nothing to be pulled from any high-quality RSes, and as such, as long as we are staying to RS coverage, the inclusion of any other BLP that would fall line with policy is not going to happen. (There will continue to be the nature that trolls and the like will stay trolling and insert unsourced material as for example on the Frank Wu article, but that's easily dealt with by BLP policy. This is what happens regardless due to the nature of an open wiki, which isn't going to change). And your final point "to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect" -- so are the bulk of the GG movement. They are real people too. No, BLP doesn't apply to them as a broad nameless group, but lacking any clear evidence that all of GG is responsible for the harassment, we should be presenting their side without any prejudgement. The press has enough words about them so the reader will clearly walk away to know the public opinion swings against them, but that should only be after they've read the press's arguments, and not from how WP's voice gives that. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Masem. On timing, now you're up to the USU cancellation which is in the New York Times in mid-October, two months after the fuss began with the Zoe Post. You also mention Felicia Day, which was about a week later. Can you see why this style of discussion is so frustrating? It takes ages for us to get on the same page about a tiny aspect of what you say we should do, and we still haven't examined why you think this reduction in scope is supported by the sources or how that fits in with your broader ideas. It's exhausting and it's clearly not going to get anywhere until we have clear, limited, justifiable and actionable proposals or at least a fighting chance of moving in that direction.

As to explain the gamergate position, I don't think we can do that because we have no reliable source that presents it as coherent. Possibly the best piece on that position (or at least the earnest search to see if such a position exists) is this piece by Singal.

As for the victims, I challenge you to demonstrate to me a way in which we are writing about the victims in a way that is disproportionate. What do you mean when you say we're sympathetic towards the harassment victims? Obviously even describing a victim of death and rape threats as such, even in the most spartan terms, will necessarily evoke sympathy in the reader. But what are we writing that unnecessarily plays on that sympathy? --TS 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake on the length of time but even with October, that's still at most two months of effectively much the same activity (as late August is when the stuff started). The same point is there - this is nothing like WWI in terms of the complexity of events which are the central part of the controversy. The history section captures that period - and the continued harassment that sporatically still occurs - perfectly. Also keep in mind that the press has not focused on any specific event in terms of criticism but the GG movement as a whole; the USU threat, for example, was where the long-running history was brought to the world stage, arguably, but it wasn't the event itself discussed but GG as a whole.

What I've been saying is that we have enough to write a brief but objective section on GG's stance. (brief due to the limited RSes that have talked about it) We talk about how they are (or aren't) organized, where they congregate, their estimated numbers, we talk about their ethics claims already, and actions they've taken in response to negative press. It's all there, but scattered like seeds instead of a cohesive section. That's what the reorganization I've suggested is meant to help. Then once the GG side is explained, we've got a barrage of various facets of negative criticism about GG as a whole, which make much more sense after you've explained the GG approach and mindset.

I never said we're disproportionate about the harassment victims, but we have to be aware that we cannot show sympathy for them just as we cannot show prejudgement for the GG side. I don't think the article at the present time shows any excessive sympathy for Quinn, etc. but it is a danger based on the language that has been used on this talk page and on the ArbCom page (particularly the talk page of the current decisions) that there may be a drive to "protect" these victims. We have to absolutely put down BLP controls to protect them, yes, but the implication of the tone of the talk page of the ArbCom discussion is something more than that. We have to treat the situation amorally, which is difficult here, it's not an easy thing, but it is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But we do have an objective section on what the views behind GamerGate are. We have a section that describes the GamerGate mindset and everything behind it, at least as well as we can for something as complicated and controversial as this. It is the current "political views" section, which has the analysis of numerous reputable sources who have gone over GamerGate's views, goals, opinions, and politics, and documented them in depth. (Most of them generally agree with each other, in broad terms, even -- as I keep pointing out -- the ones who can be generally described as 'friendly' to it. Pretty much all reputable sources that go beyond just describing it as a wave of harassment, at this point, are describing it as a culture war against what's loosely described as 'social justice.') You still have not really said what your problem with that section is beyond a vague assertion that it is not what GamerGate "really" says about itself; presumably you want us lead with a section that will initially ignore some sources in favor of others and say that these sources are what GamerGate "really" thinks while the ones down below are what "critics" say it thinks -- but that doesn't make any sense; all of our coverage, by definition, can only be based on analysis and criticism. GamerGate does not have one central mouthpiece, nor is there any obvious definition of the locus of the controversy; we must therefore rely on reputable secondary sources to collect and describe the views of people involved, which has produced our current generally-excellent political views section. What's your objection to that? --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, I like Masem's idea, but I feel like if we just talk about it, nothing will get done. Is it possible to have a "Second" draft, and have Masem lay out the whole article as he sees it in this new format, and then we can vote on it to replace the draft? That may be the best way to just go about it. Ries42 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's something much simpler we can do: simply move the current draft page into main article space, then use a new draft page for a proposed rewrite. Shii (tock) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I revoke the above comment in light of the discussion below about keeping the page on full protection. We need to do something to enable collaboration while still offering a presentable page to the world at large, since this page is getting significant media coverage and is the number one result for "gamergate". Instead, maybe Masem and others can start work at Draft:Gamergate controversy/2. Shii (tock) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input on draft version w/ reorg

Per Tony's suggestion after the previous draft was moved into mainspace and encouraging us to use the draft page to explore this above reorganization, I have populated and sorted things around, changing just a bit of wording for flow but otherwise not changing anything else. You can see it at Draft:Gamergate controversy (but you have to backfollow the redirect link at the top) or just jump here [4]. This would not be the perfected text for this , but I don't want to have this sit there for too long as the current mainspace article keeps developing and creating too much of a divergence to catch up with.

Key things:

• In reorganizing the existing text, I recognized that while some of the criticism is broad and aimed at anyone that might have used the #GG hashtag, there are two areas of criticism that we can specifically pin onto the ethics movement itself - their lack of organization/leadership, and the debate over their ethics claims - no matter how much there might be spin in the press coverage, these two things are strictly issues the movement has been called out on, compared to the issues of harassment and sexism/misogyny which may or may not be by the movement but are core issues of the controversy all together. Short of more wordsmithing and adding a few details that we can source to RS's (eg like this article [5]), this is the concise summary of what the movement is and the criticism directed specifically at the movement.
• I pushed the misogyny/feminism section up higher in the following Analysis section, since that's gotten more coverage in mainstream (the gamer stuff was more from the game journalism side).

Again, the wording is not perfect and not significantly changed from the current draft, and there's probably a lot more that can be sorted around, but I want to present how this order would look that I feel better defines the movement without changing the balance of the sources. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not perfect, but better than present. I'll withhold further suggestions to avoid sapping momentum. Rhoark (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No one's saying anything else, and the article will just keep diverging. Pull the trigger. Rhoark (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Need a diff to evaluate. Make whatever change you are proposing and revert it immediately I guess. This "draft" idea is poor, at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. I'm not sure about the draft, or your intent in the reorganization (and I think that's a wide concern, considering the discussion below). However, this is a long, dense article with 150+ refs; it's going to be unduly difficult to compare all the changes made in the draft without a diff. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the only major thing on the draft was section reorganization without touching the bulk of the text beyond some wordsmithing to flow somewhat better for presentation, and trimming down some of the "Operation X" sections. More work on text would need to be done overall, all I wanted to do was present the reordered version. A diff for comparison is [6]. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The draft changes are completely innocuous, have been available 3 days now, and garnered no objections stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If anyone forms new opinions, they can patch them in with their own edits later. Rhoark (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving criticism and analysis to the bottom of the page causes an undue weight issue. Criticism and analysis should be worked directly into the prose where relevant, not relegated to the kids table at the bottom of the page. There's no way this draft article is going to gain consensus to stay. — Strongjam (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Strongjam, with further concerns regarding undue weight (or lack thereof) by the drafts tendency to move so much of the discussion of harassment, misogyny, what have you, under "Analysis" rather than a discussion of the movement's or opponent's Political Views. I still don't see that being supported without widely stretching the sources, and just the discussion on this talk page in the last 48 hours makes me fairly certain the change won't gain consensus. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a constructive concern, but I think its a greater problem of undue weight for analysis to precede the descriptions of what they are analyzing. It is not conducive to the reader's understanding. As point of fact, several previously uninvolved editors have recently come to this talk page to say they are having a hard time discovering from the article what Gamergate even is. Rhoark (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - it is impossible from the current article's state to learn what the GG's self-stated identity is. The goal of the reorg is to make that clearer and issue the criticism of their lack of organization and their ethics claim where they immediately apply, before getting into what is seen as the broader issues that go beyond just the movement are at play. Irregardless of what the movement has done, we as a tertiary source should be trying to make sure what we can document about them is clear. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Quality of sources

I know everybody is desperate to include their pet POV in this article, and that leads to an endless arms race of sourced edits supporting first one side and then the other, but I think it's time to take a step back. When you ave the Columbia Journalism Review and the New York Times, "Raw Story" is entirely superfluous (see [7]). The article is inclined to bloat as the sides pick and dig at each other, and one way to hold that back is to stick to sources matching the rigour and reputation of the best, with possible exceptions for obscure technical content that is not summarised in the higher level sources. There are several mainstream review articles by now, and we really don't need to go dredging the bowels of the tabloids for (often alas false) balance to offset them. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me tell you a story.

Obviously, all else being equal it is better to use a more trustworthy source than a less trustworthy source. The editorial interests of the NYT and Washington post are not a perfect overlap with those of an encyclopedia, though. Let's imagine Vermiculture Weekly, a (fictitious) 3 year old publication out of Ouachita, Arkansas breaks a story that redefines the content of Compost. Twitter is abuzz with the news, and it leads to the NYT writing a human interest story that only says "Worm farmers are covered with dirt." Now, although Vermiculture Weekly has a professional editorial staff and demonstrably has issued retractions in the past, partisans at Talk:Compost say they must "focus on what the most reliable sources consider important" and fight any addition to the article besides "Worm farmers are covered with dirt." As to why they consider Vermiculture not a reliable source, they point out its age, small readership, and the fact its authors are part time worm farmers rather than full time journalists with journalism degrees. Also, no other reliable source has written about Vermiculture Weekly's reputation for fact checking.

An astute reader will notice that the qualities that are being objected to are characteristics that are fairly inevitable in a publication devoted to worm farming, and that their closeness to the topic means their research and fact checking in that domain is actually far better than the New York Times'. This however seems to escape the notice of editors when Compost is replaced with anything controversial. While more reliable sources are better than less reliable sources, I think too much is being expected as a minimal hurdle for reliability, especially for inline attribution of a non-BLP claim. Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your very interesting story aside, I would like to support what JzG said by pointing out that, as of this talk page edit, there are 167 references on the Gamergate Controversy article. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that that's not too many, and is almost obviously a result of a "source arms race" as each "side" tries to add one more source to prove a point. Do we honestly need more, or do we need to go through them carefully and decide which are useful to the article, which are highest quality and most reputable, and which are just here for... well, for no good reason? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The article still does suffer from the RECENTISM of the initial few months of the system, and some quotefarm patches still exist, though far from where it was. There are details of the GG side that seem very nuanced (for example, the whole TFYC bit seems inconsequential from a large picture POV). There could be some trimming still without changing the balance. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I think, certainly where RECENTISM is concerned. And I realize that the current state of the references is probably inevitable until we get some good, reliable retrospective pieces. That being said, I don't think that's an argument for including every Raw Story (or similar) article that comes around, as I think was JzG's initial point. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Commentators have said that..."

I've noticed a trend in the recent article changes to change wording from "This is the case" to "Commentators have said that this is the case," most recently [8]. If people are going to keep trying to make this edit, I have to ask, when is your personal burden of proof met? When can we, as an encyclopedia, stop saying "These commentators say this happened?" It seems to me (not to assume anyone's intent) that this wording can be used as a quick way to try to soften the wording of the article, when the sources say what they say. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to Retartist's post, in the section above, down here, since I second AtomsOrSystems' question wholeheartedly. I'd also like to note that the sentence in question is at the beginning of a paragraph which quotes two reliable articles about its point. This isn't a standalone opinion, its a simple topic sentence, and doesn't need to be weasel-worded. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice can be used when the claim is made by a source that is reliable as fact rather than just opinion, and one of the following is true:

• No one can be identified who thinks otherwise
• Thinking otherwise is WP:FRINGE
• The article is written in a scope that excludes other views (e.g., is the article Big Bang or Cosmogony?)

Rhoark (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't tend to believe that policy, or any other policy really, is intended to allow the insertion of weasel words against the preponderance of reliable sources. To say nothing of the argument with could/would (will?) almost inevitably lead to. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If weasel words were a problem, the antidote would be to specify exactly which commentators are meant. I think that's satisfied by having specific citations of those commentators nearby. Rhoark (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like condition 2 covers most of the scenarios people want to "Commentators have said..." about, also. For example, with Retartist's suggestion above, there just don't seem to be any reliable sources that actually disagree with the claim about women being the primary targets of harassment. Have I overlooked one? It seems safe to use the voice, if none can be found. Sappow (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We have sources in the article showing men on both sides have been harassed. There are many more non-reliable sources that could not be cited but can be considered for editorial decisions about fringiness. Combine that with mainstream discussion about studies by Demos and Pew on the overall level harassment against men on Twitter, and its clear that dissent from pat simplification of Gamergate is a minority, but not fringe view. Inline attributions should be strongly preferred to WP's voice. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess? But "men on both sides are harassed also" is not a claim exclusive or even really in conflict with "women are the primary targets". Do those two studies say that men are harassed more than women? That's what is needed to undermine the claim as desired. Could you link the study? I don't think I've seen it, if so. Sappow (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact. The primary sources are http://www.demos.co.uk/press_releases/demosmalecelebritiesreceivemoreabuseontwitterthanwomen and http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Both have been carried by a variety of reliable secondaries, with mixed reactions. Rhoark (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of those linked articles are clearly commenting on online/Twitter harassment in general, and so far as I can tell, neither mentions the Gamergate Controversy or its targets, either in general or in particular. So they have no real bearing on the discussion here. It's also worth noting that one was published in August 2014, and the other in October 2014. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pew one seems to explicitly support the claim that the most severe harassment behaviors (sexual harassment, stalking) does heavily bias towards women as a target, although overall men are harassed slightly more often in general (because of a substantial tilt in the less severe forms of harassment, like namecalling). The Demos piece is also very interesting, especially how it notes that women journalists and male politicians are targetted in a gender-disproportionate way, but I'm not sure of it's relevance since it is explicitly about the experiences of broader-audience-significant celebrities. The Pew one seems more relevant, but neither of them seem to really be directly applicable to GG as a phenomenon itself. Sappow (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, if anything they seem to highlight that GG may be acting abnormally compared to internet harassment's background radiation in general? Making that claim is OR as heck though. Sappow (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed: " This survey was conducted May 30 – June 30, 2014 ". The Pew piece's data collection wholly predates GG in even its preliminary forms. I'm not sure how much it applies to GG at all. Sorry for the sequential posting! Sappow (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't suggest that they prove anything worth including in the article, or really prove anything at all -- except that the idea GG might not primarily or preferentially target women is not WP:FRINGE. Rhoark (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that they don't prove that, or anything else about GG. They can't, because they're not about Gamergate. One of them entirely predates Gamergate. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Pruning Superfluous Additions

I will first off apologize ahead of time for any errors I make in using this talk page. I am still relatively new.

Anyway, I wish to bring up an example of something I do not understand, and have not received a reply on. In the second paragraph of the History section there is this sentence. "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8]"

As far as I can tell, the section ", described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay"," is entirely superfluous and serves no benefit beyond a jab at Gjoni. As I am new, I may have missed something which clarifies why this is needed, in which case I would like to know what. If there is not a reason, I feel it would be best removed as it adds nothing to the understanding of the controversy. 173.89.145.97 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's there to represent the mainstream POV of the post. That particular quote was chosen as it was the most neutral of the descriptions. Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I fail to see why a description of the post is needed. A summation of the history does not need to detail how the press thought about it, unless somehow that response was relevant to the controversy itself. As is, removing that section leaves the sentence as a simple statement of fact, leading into the more relevant sections dealing with harassment. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The response of the press to GamerGate is a big part of the controversy, though. There should be note of the opinions of mainstream media, which makes this useful to have -- even if it could be better stated and detailed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason we need to have any sort of descriptor of the post at this stage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To accurately reflect the POV of reliable sources of what most sources credit as the beginning of the whole controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we care about what "most sources" credit about one point? We don't attribute every single claim being made, why should this be different? The discussion you link to assumes we're okay with this sort of description, the question is now raised as to why we need a description at all. I'm not seeing the benefit from a NPOV standpoint. If anything, it seems to be asserting a very specific point of view by assuming the opinion of one source is the best way to describe something that doesn't need description and exists in the article on its own informational merits. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We care about representing "most sources" because, you know, its policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy does not require us to attribute random musings about a specific point, especially if it violates one of our five pillars. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As been repeatedly stated, it's not a "random musing." It was chosen from a wealth of examples as representative of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. — Strongjam (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And as has been repeatedly stated, there has been no clear rationale as to why we need to attribute anything to this specific point. Can you provide one? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV. As others have said, RS that have covered the post have noted on the tone. It is not neutral for us to ignore that. The NY quote is representative of the overall description used by RS and is the most neutrally worded. I've said all I have to say on this matter I don't feel this debate is moving forward at all. — Strongjam (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth taking a closer look at this now that some of the heat has burned off. I'm not sure I see the value in continuing to have it in there, even as I was agnostic about it before in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its important for context, without the mentions of length the reader could leave the article assuming Gjoni posted a paragraph on his tumblr or something. To be honest perhaps a quote noting the word count would be better, but there is a general consensus amongst sources for rambliness. Bosstopher (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That consensus is clearly in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a several page blog post, containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson" work better? We cover length, while removing the unnecessary quotation in an already quotation heavy article. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To make something clear, since I fear my purpose in bringing this up may be misinterpreted due to the heated nature of the article, I bring this up in an attempt to make the article more 'matter of fact'. I feel that this, and any, controversy would be best stated with only the bare facts to the viewer, allowing them to come to their own conclusion. I have my own biases, but I think we can all agree that if one side is 'in the wrong' than their actions should speak for themselves, so adding on pointed language seems... irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The article shouldn't try to persuade the reader that Gjoni is a fraud, and this statement should go, because it's not our policy to drop in colorful language from NYT or elsewhere. Shii (tock) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Describing the tone of Gjoni's rant is absolutely critical, because its the event that began this whole mess. This isn't some small detail, the RS describe its tone specifically, and so should we. This is not a neutrality issue, the sources all describe it in similar ways, and a large discussion between editors came to that phrase with consensus. Parabolist (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is kind of a neutrality issue, as we (as a project) are taking a position on the piece by including some sort of description of it and by choosing one and not others. No one is arguing that we shouldn't include note that there was a post that began the mess, but describing the tone is not something I'm currently convinced is neutral. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, no offense, you should reread the articles that describe its tone. Gjoni's 'essay' was not some dispassionate expose, it was an emotional, spiteful, and gross emptying of his dirty laundry onto the metaphorical floor. How we know this is verifiable is because sources knew it was important enough to specifically describe the tone of his post. Wingfield wasn't just padding out his article with adjectives. A lengithier discussion, for everyone to peruse, on this exact section of the article is here. Parabolist (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's already been linked once before. News outlets are able to (and often encouraged to) be non-neutral in their descriptions. The question is whether we need to also wade into the gutter, or if we're going to remain NPOV about the situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We report that they report. Considering that the passage in question is not only quotes, cited, but also prefaced with the fact that it is the analysis of the NYT author of the article, I have no idea why you think it violates NPOV, especially considering that Wingfield's opinion is not uncommon among those who have reported on it. 20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Parabolist (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainly because there is no need to report anything about it, as far as I can see. It exists whether or not we attribute anything to it, and by picking one random comment to attribute to it, it creates a few POV problems. What other reason is there to include the description except to make a statement, in Wikipedia's voice, about that post? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, an attributed opinion, in quotes, is absolutely not in wikipedia's voice, and I encourage you to reread the NPOV guidelines if you somehow think differently. Secondly, this is not a "random comment." This is the most representative quote of an opinion shared by multiple reliable sources, from the New York Times, one of the most reliable news outlets in the US. This is getting ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually have problems with it on non-NPOV grounds... which was the entire point of my clarification. I suggested something above, that translated the generally-accepted view of it by reliable sources into a much simpler, non-quote manner. a "many page blog post" says everything the reader NEEDS to know about it. The harassment that ensued is more important than qualifying the post itself. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why we should be paying any attention to the latest opinion gamergate agender pushing single purpose account. Yes the facts spoil your creation myth but that isn't really our problem.©Geni (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I do believe this would be both Bad Faith and a personal attack. Entirely unwarranted at that. Yes, I support GG, yes, at this time I appear to be an SPA, though that is only due to me not being entirely familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, so I am keeping myself restricted to a single general topic until I get me sea legs. The thing is, I am choosing to do this work politely, using only facts, and constantly keeping in mind the principles and requirements of Wikipedia. I will explain nothing to you, if you cannot at least address me civilly. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to get your sea legs I suggest working on articles related to pre-Victorian naval artillery. Its a large topic area with plenty of work to do and a much better area to lean than one in which you have a significant personal bias. Anglo-saxon ceramics would be another option. Hmm “using only facts” interesting claim. Thing is “The quote in no way increases a readers understanding of the controversy itself” is an opinion not a fact. If you want me to assume good faith I can only assume you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.©Geni (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should behave like newbie and not the 104th SPA gamergate advocate.©Geni (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

By including any sort of opinion, in this case, is us making a judgement of it. I'm very familiar with the NPOV guidelines, I am not new to this. Are you able to answer my question about what reason there is to include it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a significant point of view that adds understanding to topic that is well attested by reliable sources.©Geni (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Significant... how? The important part is the harassment that resulted, not the post itself. The controversy is about both the harassment and claimed reasoning behind both sides. The post, beyond being a trigger for events, is not as important as what resulted from it. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How in the world is the trigger for the entire controversy not important to the article about the controversy it caused? Parabolist (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I stated it was not as important in my second sentence for a reason. It holds importance, just not as much as the controversy itself. Stating the triggers of the controversy is needed to lay the foundation for the rest of the article, this is needed to enable a full understanding of the meat of the article. The quote in no way increases a readers understanding of the controversy itself. It deserves mention that it exists, and that it was long as Bosstopher said, but it is not the controversy itself and thus holds a lesser degree of importance. To use an example: If a driver were to crash their car into a home, the fact that they hit a home and potentially hurt people would be more important than the fact the driver fell asleep at the wheel. It deserves mention, but the primary focus should be on what resulted, not how it happened. Mentioning further is simply not needed, and should be cut. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is important, that's why we include it. What's not important is what random news organizations choose to describe it as. That's the difference. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

The only content of Gjoni's that is described is the part about Grayson. That allegation is rejected, so there is no danger of a reader being misled about what the mainstream view is. The aims of WP:DUE are satisfied. What anyone thought about Gjoni's writing style, or any content that's not notable enough to talk about in the article, is fluff. Rhoark (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, as has already been mentioned the Zoepost ignited the whole thing, and has been the focus of some specific coverage with press interviews of Gjoni existing.[9][10] The length of the post is vital information. There is a massive difference in writing a paragraph about you ex, and writing a 10000 word essay with notes citations and appendices. There is also a difference between a 10,000 word bullet point list of grievances, and a "rambling online essay" these differences are important to capture. Also at risk of opening a massive can of worms, should Gjoni's self proclaimed motives for writing the Zoepost be noted? Bosstopher (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is where I surprise those who are determined ti mislabel me. The answer, I would say, is no. While I honestly believe his motives would make him look BETTER... I can think of no reason to add it to an article on the GAMERGATE controversy. Gjoni's post helped light a spark, but I feel it is not important enough to warrant beyond mentioning it. Though, I do have to disagree with something you said. The quality or aspects of the piece is, in my opinion, irrelevant. The article is about the Controversy surrounding GAMERGATE, no? Gjoni is not part of it, and even the sources say he only unwittingly lit the fuse. I agree mention of it is important, but I feel it should be cut down to merely mentioning there was a long post by him that triggered the events that would become the controversy this article is about. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it can be handled with BLP in mind...maybe? There's no reason to open the can of worms, though: perhaps a word similar to "lengthy" might suffice? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggested above to use ""Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a several page blog post, containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.". Saying it was several pages would definitely get across the sheer length of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsFenrisulfr (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@AnsFenrisulfr "The quality or aspects of the piece is, in my opinion, irrelevant." Unfortunately, past a certain point, it's not up to editors to determine what is or is not relevant about particular elements of the controversy. The sources that report on this particular aspect very often saw fit to provide a brief characterisation of the post, in the style of the NYT example. To ignore the way that sources characterise the post would seem to me to be irresponsible. Lord Lion Lad 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your point... but I disagree with it. If the article was about gamergate itself, I would have much less issue since then the quality of things that started it could be relevant to how the current movement acts. As is, this article is about the controversy, not the movement. Something I feel editors on both sides seem to forget. The quality of the fuse doesn't matter when talking about the controversy it started. What matters is the controversy. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont undertand your position that it would be important to gg the movement but is not important to the controversy. and there are in fact several sources that specifically tie the tone of the original post to the acts make up the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, how to put this... the Controversy deals with the back and forth. A said B about C who said D about A. What is more, the controversy itself doesn't really kick off until the large number of articles are posted and GamerGate itself is started (Prior to that, something else was in the space). With this said, the qualities of the Gjoni post are largely irrelevant, since they are not a part of the controversy, they are something that helped light a fuel leading UP to the controversy. (Plus the quote as is, is a debatable BLP violation).

With that said, if the article was about the movement itself, the qualities of the post might be a bit more relevant, since THEN characterizing how a movement began is more important. Why? To cut off this question. Because an article about the movement has more to do with the PEOPLE than the ACT. An article about a movement deals with the people in that movement. An article about a controversy deals with two opposing FORCES. Not people, forces. It is more impersonal, since the greater focus is on what has happened, not who it happened to, unless who it happened to is required to further flesh out the whys of something happening. So to summarize, the qualities of the post are largely unimportant to the article, because the article is dealing with actions done and not people. Or at least it should be, instead of the weird hybrid of what should really be two separate articles. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the controversy deals with the fact that there were (and still are) coordinated campaigns of vile vile harassment under the auspices of "#gamergate", and that upon further exploration of these harassment campaigns, an underlying core of misogyny, sexism and harassment in the gaming community came to light. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that including that language sourced to the NYT is less than ideal. We should write "wrote a rambling online essay," since a "blog post" implies that there was an active blog of some sort there. However, the language presented is the result of a substantial debate that took place Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_18#Wingfield.27s_opinion_on_Gjoni.27s_blogpost among other places, and should not be revisited except as an agreed upon compromise being rescinded, which means we should revisit if calling the blogpost something in wikipedia's voice as opposed to the NYT's voice is appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No special procedures have to be observed to change consensus. Reliable sources say a lot of things about a lot of things. We are obligated to ensure verifiability and due weight, not to defer editorial decision making about what belongs in an encyclopedia to the authors of our sources. The quality of Eron Gjoni's wordsmithing is not of encyclopedic interest, and its not in an encyclopedic tone to describe it using either our own words or the NYT's. The only part of the post we consider important is the accusation about Grayson. We describe what the mainstream view of that accusation is in full sufficiency later in the paragraph. If describing mainstream opinion of any other part of the Zoepost is worth including, what is actually said by that part of the Zoepost would have to be worth including first. I don't think that is warranted, at all. The fact that the post started the affair obviates none of the above. Rhoark (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the sentence be revised to read as follows: "Shortly after the Steam release of Depression Quest in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a essay alleging, among other things, that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Rhoark (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The plain word "essay" provides false and unsupported dignity to the text in question.©Geni (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You've never read a second grader's essay about Justin Bieber, I take it. "Essay" is a neutral, nominative word carrying no connotations about the dignity, eloquence, or accuracy of what was written. If you have a better synonym, please share it. Rhoark (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"rambling online essay" is an acceptable description.©Geni (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It violates NPOV. Why are you in favor of eschewing neutral language for loaded language? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not say what you think it says. "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The quote is attributed and was chosen as representative of the views of sources on the topic. There is no violation of NPOV. You are suggesting we don't represent the views of reliable sources, which does violate NPOV. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic is Gamergate, not Gjoni. This specific issue is a biased take on this one source, included solely to disparage. The necessity for including it has not been demonstrated to this point, nor am I sure there is consensus for it at this point given the discussion here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a reasonably comprehensive list of source descriptions of the essay. "Rambling, online" seems to be a pretty good summary. What do you believe is not covered? I guess we could call it a screed? Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As hurt as I am that you picked tRPOD's list over my much larger and cooler one I agree that rambling and online are fairly good descriptors. I dont really get why there's so much opposition to the presence of this, and why it's thought of as NPOV violating. Calling a 10,000 word blogpost about an ex-girlfriend rambling is practically tautology. Rambling is hardly an insult, and is indicative of the general press reception of the zoepost. If the article for Disaster Movie is allowed to state "It is considered by some to be one of the worst films of all time." why cant we contain a quote noting that the Zoepost is considered rambly. As it stands for that exact same reason I'd be willing to replace the quote with a sentence detailing the extreme length of the zoepost. But I don't get why people want to replace the quote so badly in the first place. Bosstopher (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We still don't have anyone explaining why we need to have any sort of judgement on it. It's simply a repetition that, since other sources disparaged it, so must we. Gjoni isn't the topic. It adds nothing to the article except disparagement. Where is the logical rationale for including it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It provides useful context and is supported by reliable sources.©Geni (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Useful in what way? How is the reader's understanding of Gamergate enhanced by knowing that Gjoni was "rambling"? Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the RS consensus on what kind of thing served as a trigger for Gamergate. It shows the reader that, according to the RS, Gamergate was willing to start all of this over someone's "rambling screed". It informs the reader of the contempt with which the RS hold Gamergate's justifications for their actions.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The "kind of thing" is an essay. The rest of that is POV pushing. One sentence out of the whole article to explain that most reliable sources condemn Gamergate would be enough to satisfy WP:DUE. It is unnecessary sea-lioning and WP:HOWEVER to snipe at Gamergate using every last sentence or citation. Rhoark (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very naive to claim that the RS are condemning campaigns that are launched by essays. The very clear point of each RS when they describe the post as "rambling" is to imply "seriously, they started it over this", rather than a very matter-of-fact "this is an essay, let's move on". I could support something along the implication of "Gjoni's essay, which commentators saw as a unjustifiable reason to launch such a campaign" (replace unjustifiable with "frivolous", etc., as desired), but there is a very clear message of incredulity in the various RS commentaries.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources condemn one specific campaign that was instigated by one specific essay. We describe the situation such that there is no confusion over the attitude of reliable sources. We're not trying to identify general categories of things condemned by reliable sources. This article is about the Gamergate controversy. Whether the Zoepost was rambling, insightful, waterlogged, upside-down, or plaid, it does not merit embellishment with any kind of adjective in the article. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think replacing the quote with a sentence describing it is the best option. There are enough sources that describe it in similar ways that I think we can get a good descriptive sentence without relying on a single source's description. Honestly though, I don't see the big deal with just removing the quote entirely and leaving it as is. We already describe the allegations made by Gjoni and the harassment Quinn faced as a result, I don't think any reader will look at that and not understand that the blog post was an attack on Quinn and her integrity. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're describing the content by mentioning the allegations, a few adjectives describing the post itself seems only fair. Especially when it seems like most RS generally agree and had a similar impression of the piece? Actually, are there any RS who interpreted it otherwise? Sappow (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, I just think that picking a random quote from one of the many sources that agree on what kind of blog post it was implies that it's only that one source with that opinion and not like... all of them. I realize the point of choosing a quote was to keep the description from being in Wikipedia's voice, but I think there are enough sources in agreement that we should be able to come up with our own sentence describing it.Kaciemonster (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the description is fair. It is not in encyclopedic interest or style to describe it at all. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If all the sources are describing it in a similar way, it's only good practice to include at least some adjective or adjective string describing it, rather than leaving it as a blank noun. Especially if RS consider it a notable quality, and it isn't a BLP violation or anything else serious. I agree with Kaciemonster also. A quote is worth avoiding when there's this much consistency in how it is being covered. People who are objecting, can we at least agree on something like "lengthy" as a starting point? Sappow (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A naked noun with no adjectives doesn't scan well when reading it, anyway. At least IMO. Sappow (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If the desire is for some word, any word, then "online" will suffice without being unencyclopedic. Rhoark (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be encyclopedic. That's why it's in quotes, and attributed to a reliable source. Reliable sources aren't encyclopedias like Wikipedia, they're allowed to say things like that. In fact, they're encouraged! That's their job, and our job is to report them, which we're doing. Parabolist (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm. If not, you need a WP:TROUT. The 1st pillar of Wikipedia is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the New York Times isn't. When we quote the New York Times, in quotation marks, saying that we're quoting them, those words are not in Wikipedia's voice, they are in the voice of the author of the quoted piece. They do not have the same stipulations placed on them that things in Wikipedia's voice do, that would be ridiculous. That's the point here, and I honestly don't think this discussion is productive any more, its far too sprawling and unfocused. You're welcome to start an RFC if you still believe this to be an issue, or at the very least, start a new, highly focused section here to get fresh eyes. Parabolist (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those above who have said that the language in question is vital to describing the way the early events in the controversy have been covered by reliable sources; when the New York Times describes something at the core of a controversy in such severe terms, it's naturally relevant, especially given that this is consistent with how it was covered in most other sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some new perspectives on reliable sourcing

Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Guardian.2C_Alex_Hern.2C_Wikipedia_as_the_Topic

The interesting self-referential quandary this article has gotten into lately seems to have generated out of necessity consensus for two interesting principles about reliable sourcing.

First: A work containing gross factual errors is not reliable, even if from a reliable publisher. Note the fact that errors exist in this case is only confirmed by WP acting as a self-source, not other reliable secondary sources.

Second: A work can be deemed opinion/editorial and treated as such, even if not presented or marked as such by the publisher.

It will be a large project, but I think over time the existing sourcing in this article needs to be reviewed in light of these principles. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

While I agree reviewing sources is important, I feel it should be done for a different reason. With all the edit warring that went on, I think all sources should be re-vetted to ensure that all of them, no matter which 'side' they are on, comply with Wikipedia's policies. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Massive changes to policy and interpretation of policy would need to be community vetted other than by a couple of voices on a notice board and attempts to implement the same before such community consensus would be rather disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree to this, though do you think going through the sources to make sure nothing slipped by in the heat of the moment would not be a good thing? I am personally uncomfortable doing such a thing myself, as I have no been on wikipedia long enough to know what red flags to look for. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• The person commenting on that thread about how inaccurate sources are not reliable is only partially correct. WP:RS cares about reputation, rather than how editors feel; simply saying "I think that this source is not accurate, therefore it is unreliable" is not enough. As a more general guideline for situations like that, though, the best thing to do when you feel that a reliable source is wrong is to look for other, similar reliable sources and either contrast them or use them to support each other; you can't declare a source wrong yourself, but you can find a bunch of other reliable sources until you're sure about the prevailing view, and downplay or even omit the one source that got it wrong if it is clear that its views are WP:FRINGE. In a case like this where only one source is available, you can wait until more sources comment so you have better grounds to write part of the article. If there are a bunch of reliable sources and you feel that nearly all of them are wrong, however, you have no recourse -- that is an important part of what Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth means. We have to go with what reliable sources; we don't have to repeat an error in one source when the majority of other sources make it clear that that error is WP:FRINGE, but we can't dismiss sources (especially not when they are near-universally in agreement, as they are in most respects when it comes to GamerGate) simply because some editors feel they are wrong. In order words, you can say "this source got this part wrong, as you can see from these other seven sources...", and we'll go with the majority. You cannot say "all the reliable sources on this are wrong, I know the truth!" (or "all the reliable sources on this are wrong, let's use this blog post instead!"), because we go by reliable sourcing and verifiability rather than the opinions of editors. --Aquillion (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"GamerGate," not "Gamergate"

"GamerGate," with the second capital G, is the far more common capitalization for this controversy, and, as far as I can tell, the one Baldwin used in his tweet coining it and in all tweets thereafter. It is, by all accounts that I can concieve, the proper capitalization. (Yes, I know it was Watergate and not WaterGate, but this article is about GamerGate, not Watergate.) Garrett Albright (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, and per MOS guidelines, "Gamergate" is the better way to present the the title throughout. The casing is sources is not sufficiently consistent (even if it is how it might have originated.) --MASEM (t) 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS or no, it's incorrect, and to any degree that the casing is inconsistent, "Gamergate" is the less widely used and frankly just looks wrong to anyone with a familiarity of this topic, so it's not "better" either. For whatever it's worth, the arbitration pages for this mess got it correct.

I don't understand how frequent Wikipedia editors can bemoan their own declining numbers but then make it such a fight to change the simplest yet most blatantly incorrect things. Garrett Albright (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, how is it incorrect? Baldwin's initial tweet might have been camel case, but today, the case choice is not clear, and there's no authority to tell us what is the "right" name. While camel case may be the more common option, either way is correct, and there is a house style that WP does write towards to make reading comprehension by editors where English might not be their first language easier. I do note that most "-gate" scandals don't capitalize "gate" - on WP or elsewhere (like the current "deflategate") so its wider used style to not capitalize the "gate" part. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate actually redirects to camel case, FWIW. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It must have moved as the standard casing version seems to be the one to stick. Even then, going to google news hits, it's clearly the common casing as opposed to camel casing that's most common.--MASEM (t) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

With lack of some kind of authority to tell us which one is correct, let's find reasons to pick one or the other. I already laid out my reasons why "GamerGate" should be used; it's what Baldwin coined, and it's far more common. What are the reasons to use "Gamergate?" Garrett Albright (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

CamelCase words are not common english and per WP:MOSTM are generally rewritten in standard casing. As an example, see List of scandals with "-gate" suffix that all of them as standard casing. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it as it is. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-GamerGate person here. For the record, I have no intention of making any edits to the article or contributions to the talk page apart from this tangent because I am far from neutral. I don’t think anyone cares much about the name, but I thought you could use some off-Wiki perspective.

GamerGate may be a consumer revolt for some, or a movement to others, but at the end of the day, it’s a Twitter hashtag. If you look on Twitter, you will see that the hashtag autocompletes to ‘GamerGate’ and that the overwhelming majority of people tweeting the tag spells it the same way. Additionally, almost every instance of fan art, project, opinion piece, etc. by its supporters also spell it as ‘GamerGate’. I find it curious that while many editors appear to be concerned with the concept of ‘identity’, that they would disregard this facet. Though judging by the current content of the article, I would almost expect it to be referred to as ‘GooberGate’, ‘GooberGoober’, or some equally childish misnomer so common among its diehard detractors.

It should be noted that in contrast to Twitter, the majority of mainstream media articles published about the topic appear to write it as ‘Gamergate’. However, there are some interesting exceptions. Many sources will spell it ‘GamerGate’ in one article, and ‘Gamergate’ in another. The mix-up is likely a result of the difference between what is seen on Twitter, and what is reported in secondary sources. Though impossible to determine, it would be interesting to know how Wikipedia’s spelling affects its use. Regardless, it would be prudent to go with the spelling used by the medium under scrutiny, which is Twitter, but like I said, it isn’t something people will be mad about. DiscardAfterUse (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your question as to the distinction of the capitalization of GamerGate. Unless it has changed, searching "Gamergate" shows an article about ants. However, searching "GamerGate" redirects to this article. (I am also a fan of TableTop and have to search that specific capitalization versus Tabletop to get the web series) Bzfoster (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review in the Gamergate Organization section

I'm having a difficult time locating the following claim within the attributed source: The Columbia Journalism Review's Chris Ip said any legitimate message from Gamergate supporters regarding ethics in journalism was being lost in the noise created by harassment, sexism, and misogyny. From what I can tell that claim is a paraphrase of Chris Grant and Jesse Singal, who both provided quotes for the article. The full quote from Grant is "The closest thing we’ve been able to divine is that it’s noise. It’s chaos. And all you can do is extract patterns from the chaos. With no leaders, with no agenda, with no message, all you can do is find patterns. And ultimately Gamergate will be defined—I think has been defined—by some of its basest elements." Also, the claim that the "noise" is the result of "harassment, sexism, and misogyny" is also not supported by the source. Chris Ip attributes this problem to "faulty PR from the movement, but also the difficulty of covering any digital-era subculture that works in anonymity." The sentence in the article as it stands seems to be a synthesis of the quotes that Grant and Singal gave for the article. It should be noted that the second sentence attributed to that article: "With anyone able to tweet under the hashtag and no single person willing or able to represent the hashtag and take responsibility for its actions, Ip said it is not possible for journalists to neatly separate abusers from those seeking reasonable debate" is fully supported by the reference. I recommend we eliminate the first sentence and keep the second, or failing that, parse out the claims in the first sentence and attribute them properly to both Grant and Singal. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good overall summary, but it's phrased backwards from the source. In the middle of paragraph 8, we have When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press. Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate...have been debunked [emphasis mine] which speaks to the murkiness of claims by Gamergate supporters, as seen by journalists. Earlier, paragraph 6 says The multitude of explainers on the subject are testament to the complexity of defining Gamergate. But what has been clear to the media is its effect [emphasis mine] and then goes on to provide details about "death and rape threats" and sexual harassment. I do agree that our summary seems to have incorporated some of the quoted material from the source rather than purely Ip's phrasing, though the general point is the same. I wouldn't be opposed to a rewording of our summary. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu pic in the lead

Why is a picture of Brianna Wu in the lead of the article? [11] I get that she's mentioned a lot throughout GamerGate, but I don't understand why there's a picture of her at the top. GamerPro64 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly it's not a very good picture either, just a still from a youtube video. I don't think it's needed. — Strongjam (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I decided to remove the image from the lead. I mean, if we can find a better image of Wu it would be fine to add her. But I don't see the point in having her image in the lead section. GamerPro64 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone has added Quinn now. I'm going to strongly argue that I don't think we need any lead photo. I don't think , from issues we've had with Quinn's image before (the one we have vs one taken from a game convention), Quinn would want herself to be the headline photo for the GG conspiracy, nor Wu, nor Sarkeesian. There really is no good image for the lead presently, arguably. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Masem. I don't know that we need a pic, although I'm willing to entertain the idea, but neither the previous Wu pic nor the current Quinn pic serves the purpose well, in the lead. Also, as Masem says, I don't know any of them would want to be the photo in the lead. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I can agree with that. Probably for the best that there would be no lead image in the article. GamerPro64 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If anything, lead pics should be of reasonably high quality, or be very poignant illustrations of the topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is no single person who is representative enough of the Gamergate controversy to belong in the lede. Rhoark (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I shifted the Quinn picture to the main text, there are no pictures in the lede now. Issue settled, I believe. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)