Jump to content

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Neutrality

OP has declared his unwillingness to discuss the issue he brought up, so there's no point in continuing this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am neutral on this issue, but this Wikipedia article is laughably biased. Could some objective editors please come in and do a proper neutrality cleanup? I care only about the objectivity of Wikipedia, not the subject matter itself. I have tagged the article as having neutrality issues, please do not remove until these are resolved. Heaney5551 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it is generally considered appropriate for editors to use the talk page to identify the specific problems they have with the article in conjunction with adding such a tag. If you do not, it is also considered appropriate for other editors to remove such a tag. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia? Thanks for the condescension, but I've been editing Wikipedia articles under a different username since 2006 (changed because old username was too much like IRL name, and security of current job means I can't do that) and even on this one for well over 6 months. I stick to military equipment articles mostly, but when I read this article, and I'm a feminist, I was shocked at the bias on this page. Where I've edited, the POV-CHECK tag is perfectly fine if you're asking for the article to be checked by those who have a neutral and informed view on the topic. That's why I did not use POV (non-check). I care only about the neutrality of Wikipedia, and looking at the history of this page, it's absolutely clear that this page is biased. Even the BBC and The Washington Post article mentioned bias specifically on this page. When the BBC and The Washington Post suggest there is a controversy about bias on a specific Wikipedia page, and the article is almost identical in POV since, then there needs to be at least a check. Heaney5551 (talk)
There is controversy about bias for just about every contentious topic on Wikipedia. Having controversy about bias does not indicate that serious bias is actually present. And since, while noting the controversy, the BBC recommended this article as a "factual" account, I don't think we need worry at all (quite the contrary) about their opinion. Gamaliel asked you above to identify specific issues with article; it would be helpful if you did so. CIreland (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing on your user talk page except a welcome message, so I assumed you were a new user. No condescension was meant, I was only trying to be friendly. As a veteran editor, please remember our fundamental principle of assume good faith and accept comments in the spirit they were intended. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a long time since I've read through the article in its entirety, so I'd be willing to give a detailed POV check and feedback within the next few days. I have no clue if I count as "objective" or not though. Bosstopher (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should all be able to agree that this article's neutrality is suspect at best as long as Gawker Media, Vox Media, Vice and The Verge are used as sources, since those organizations are/were at the center of this controversy. I'd also argue that ThinkProgress, Daily Beast, Daily Dot are also suspect sources because their articles have trended toward advocacy, not neutral reporting. Skrelk (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The core claims in the article are supported by high-quality sources, such as the New York Times, BBC, and Washington Post. The lede is a proportional summary of the article itself, and your changes to the lede do not reflect the claims overwhelmingly made by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is filled with weaseling and innuendo, and with scars from the incessant efforts by Gamergate activists to insert various libels and insinuations. Other than that, it's the result of over a million words of discussion here -- discussion that has consumed an enormous effort. No, the article is not biased against Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think we both know you're heavily biased and wrong here (the article most certainly is biased against GamerGate, and I'm not even a GamerGate supporter!). But I don't have the time, energy, or influence to debate this, so I'm going to return to the Military section of Wikipedia, where we keep things neutral, constantly question the bias of ourselves and our fellow editors, and aim to create an objective encyclopedic entry on the topic at hand. If you can live with yourself destroying the legitimacy and objectivity of Wikipedia, then sure, go ahead. But I won't pretend to agree with you. Heaney5551 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
While the article does not present Gamergators views of themselves as a noble movement preserving the sanctity of gaming through its activities of routing out corruption in gaming journalism, that doesn't mean the article is biased. It just means that the reliable sources dont buy gamergators bullshit and so we dont either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for tacking to a tangent here, but how would you even describe a "GamerGate supporter?" Obviously there is some metric you don't feel you fill. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole amorphous, protean group association thing. If you'd prefer not to answer, I understand. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Checking for neutrality (and other stuff)

Ok here I go. I'll be ignoring the lede because people spend far too much time focusing ont he lede and ignoring the rest of the article.

History section

In general "Gamergate activities" and the history sections are seperate, despite the activities of Gamergate in many cases being a part of the history (Intel withdrawing and unwithdrawing advertising, TFYC, other email campaigns against advertisers). The history section should mention these events some of which were important parts of the history of the controversy. Either that or perhaps it should be renamed "History of harassment"? Although that would still be unrepresentative of the content of the section. There is definitely some form of restructuring that should be done here.
top Seems a good representation of the sources in question, I can't think of anything in the RSs which could be introduced that wouldn't be undue.
Gamergate hashtag The sentence starting "Early users of the term "gamergate" sought to define certain media coverage..." is not in the source, and needs to be changed, or given a source that represents these views ASAP.
Subsequent harassment The paragraph starting "Various people, some of whom requested to remain anonymous" details harassment against Gamergate supporters. It for some reason mentions a petition against Baldwin which nobody describes as harassment and shouldnt be there. This could be replaced by a sentence detailing the harassment faced by Gamergate supporter Lizzyf as described in the sources, or some of the other cases of harassment and doxing detailed in the Reason source. [1] [2]

Social and cultural implications

top Neither BBC nor First Things explicitly refer to the dispute as a "culture war" is it WP:SYNTH for us to describe it thus, or is it the equivalent of using a source describing soccer to write an article on association football? I dunno. Although some of the first bit is definitely not in the sources cited . UPDATE: This CJR source explicitly mentions the culture war.[3] While the Vox article mentions that "Every single question of journalistic ethics #GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with" the stuff about not focusing on major publishers is not in the source cited (I do remember an article by Erik Kain on the topic however if someone can find it). UPDATE: These sources could work[4][5][6]
Gamer identity This section should be cut down. Too much of the section focuses on background information which should be in the gamer article instead. The bit about "Gamers are dead" should be expanded a bit. Possible sources to use include Vox and the Escapist.[7][8]
Misogyny and sexism The Astra Taylor article is not relevant to Gamergate and should be removed. In the sentence starting "Simon Parkin observed..." is implying Parkin's interpretation of events is the objectively correct one. Otherwise pretty decent section.

I'll finish looking through the other half of the article later. Would appreciate opinions from other people. Thank youBosstopher (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Debate over ethics allegations

The CJR and Vox sources given say that Gamergate's ethic concerns are invalid, they do not however state that "discussion of gender equality, sexism or other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue." Would be better if the sentence was made similar to that of the lede.
Leigh Alexander is no longer editor-at-large at Gamasutra, but any changes I think of making to the sentence come off very ugly. Perhaps remove the mention of Gamasutra? Must be noted that this was a contentious issue back in the good ole days.
Gamejournospros Mostly decent. It's important to note that the Erik Kain article cited notes "eyebrow raising moments" from Gamejournospros, that used to be in the article. However all the moments in question come from Ben Kuchera, who has had a public spat with Kain in the past, meaning it would probably be improper of us to use him as a source for this. There is a VICE article including an interview with Gamergate supporter giving her views on Gamejournopros.[9] While an obvious concern is, that containing this could mean we are implying she represents gamergate as a whole, I think as long as we phrase it properly it would be beneficial to include her opinions.

Gamergate activities

Notyourshield on a personal level I find it depressing that our section on notyourshield implies they were mostly fake sock puppets. As a very wise writer once said: "It also has female trolls. It has African-American trolls and Asian trolls, gay trolls and straight trolls." Sadly the onion is not a reliable source, and the sources seem to erase the poorly thought out decisions by those real members of notyourshield. While Cathy Young claims women play an influential role within Gamergate, it could be SYNTH to include this in this section (as well as an overuse of Cathy Young). Apologies for the semi-soapbox, but I've always found this aspect of gamergate very fascinating in comparison to other facets (which very much follow the old lines of past harassment and controversies faced by Anita, Dina and co.).
Targetting advertisers Back in an old conversation on the talk page I meant to include a quote from CJR noting that this "didnt make Gawker [...] look good."[10] May add it, if no one objects.
Otherwise all good

Industry response

Jenn Frank while Jenn Frank was targetted under false pretense's related to disclosure the sources given only mention that she was unfairly targetted, and we need a source to go further into detail about the whole disclosure thing. I'm fairly certain I've read a reliable source on this at some point so one definitely exists.
The section on the Swedish game industry needs to be clarified, to note what specific industry group is doing the condemning. Also note that the original statement in question doesnt actually mention Gamergate. This may need to be phrased like the Morhaime thing or possibly removed.[11]
There is possibly room to expand the paragraph on the Crash Override Network using sources cited in the organization's article.
It's decent

Final thoughts: Does the article keep a neutral POV?

Yeah, kinda I guess. There's some issues, but it's a wikipedia article and those all suck so it's hardly a surprise. Bosstopher (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from others

I've been wrestling with the history section. Trying to keep it topical resists chronology. Topical structure wants: What happened, What that has caused. Chronology wants: the origins, the main events, following events. As that section is now, it's less about history (chronology) and more about context. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that the only parts that really needs to have chronological order is discussing what happened in late August (specifically the accusations, the harassment, and the growth of the hashtag/movement) and the immediately subsequent weeks, and then point out continued harassment then on (which is the stuff that is clearly factual and why GG came to the forefront). Afterwards, the topical issues don't necessarily need exact slotting into the chronology beyond being clear it happened after August, and which get more into opinions, assessments, and the various other discussions. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We also begin referring to the movement as Gamergate starting in the second paragraph of the history section, which is before we ever talk about the origin of the hashtag or what it means to be a Gamergate supporter, and we mention the syringe received by Milo Yiannopoulos before we talk about his role in Gamergate. I really think the article's clarity would benefit from a chronological structure. I also think we should take a serious look at it from the perspective of someone learning about the controversy for the first time from our article. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, there is very little that depend on actual timing here, beyond late August and the few weeks after that. And the situation gets difficult to explain simply because we have the onset of two things at the same time - the subsequent harassment after the accusations, and the rise of the hashtag/movement, which are themselves tied in discussion together. It may be better to establish who the major parties are before getting into the history, but this then also puts discussion about Gamergate's stance before harassment is article which I know would not be seen as a reasonable step. We've got a chicken-before-egg problem here that is not readily resolved. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's as complicated as you're making it out to be. There also isn't much outside of late August and the few weeks after that to talk about, aside from the harassment that picked up again in October, so I see that as more of a reason for a chronological structure instead of a topical structure. It's really not that complicated. Blog post, harassment of Quinn, TFYC, harassment of Sarkeesian, creation of #Gamergate by Adam Baldwin while linking to two Quinnspiracy videos, Gamers are Dead articles discussing Gamergate and the harassment, Operation Disrespectful Nod, harassment in October. Fill in details where necessary. I don't think we need to establish the major parties before getting into the history, because we can introduce the important players when they become important. Chronological order means we can discuss responses to specific events, what caused them, and what they caused, and we can do it in the order that they happened, instead of trying to fit every event into a specific topic theme. Topical structure means that the reader will need to jump around the article for appropriate context, when we can just present it how it happened, in the order that it happened. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As soon as you get to TFYC, that's where you need to introduce what the movement claims it is. And really, I would argue that anything outside the initial blog post/accusations/harassment sequence is really all that is needed to be in a hard chronological order, with the exception of subsequent threats towards Sarkeesian and towards Wu. Stuff like TFYC, the hashtag creation, etc. are all elements that, while they did happen in a time order, do not affect the core timing of the harassment. (That is, take TFYC - what GG did with that had little influence on any subsequent events). It is much easily to approach this on a topical manner, outside of documenting when GG exploded in last August and the timing around that. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't introduce what the movement claims to be when we introduce TFYC, because the movement didn't exist yet. TFYC is relevant in the Quinnspiracy stages because when people were already angry with Quinn because of the blog post and the previous events surrounding Depression Quest, TFYC was upset with her for criticizing their game jam. It gave people who were already upset with her another reason to be upset with her, and it gave them an organization to donate to so that they would look good. I don't see any reason to separate it from the early events. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I see where you're going, but that's also getting into a very detailed account of events that, at that level of detail, is actually difficult to track well in the reliable sources. The blog post/accusations/harassment sequence is firmly established , core to the entire article, no questions, and that needs to be detailed to the chronological order. But at this point, I would argue that the exact timing of everything else, happening after late August, is immaterial to understand GG. There are certainly some events that affect others (Oper. Disrespectful Nod is a result of the "Gamers are Dead" articles, for example), but one thing WP tries to avoid is the WP:PROSELINE approach. In the larger picture of GG, these events should be listed, but the details of the timing - and thus the need to fit them into a chronological perspective - is unnecessary. And when we do that, then we can cover the harassment that created the attention to the situation, first and foremost, and then describe in a secondary manner how the movement started to develop after that. This untangles the complex timeline that would jump between many different events that would not make a lot of sense in order, but make sense when presented topically. But we could go very detailed on the timeline, but my fear there is that makes understanding the broader details and nature of GG lost to the nitty gritty of the timeline. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think PROSELINE is relevant here. I'm not suggesting putting events in a timeline, I'm just suggesting we put them in order. If they're already in the article, I don't think it would overcomplicate things to write about them in the order that they happened instead of separating them by theme. By putting events out of order, we'll need to go into extra detail to provide the context they happened in anyway. It may actually cut down on detail by putting things in order, because we won't have to explain something that we already talked about in a different part of the article. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't really need to give context to many of these side events outside "they happened after the start of the harassment". A few events are connected but both chronologically and topically - Gamers are Dead leading to Operation Disrespectful Nod. Does it matter any of the exact dates of this beyond happening post-August? Not really. Same can be said for nearly everything else, outside the harassment events. Hence, it makes much more sentence to group topical aspects together for more internal narrative consistency instead. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Look at this from the perspective of someone who is learning about Gamergate for the first time by reading our article. We mention Gamergate before we ever say what Gamergate is, we talk about things that happened to major players before we talk about the events that brought the major players into the controversy in the first place, we split media and industry responses to different events into at least 4 different sections based on theme and need to describe again what exactly they're in response to, we describe the structure of gamergate in the gamergate hashtag section and also the gamergate activities section, and we separate their activities from the responses to their activities. If we don't separate the content by theme, we won't have to repeat ourselves as often, and we'll be able to keep analysis of specific events with the details of the events. What I'm saying is that if we structure the article to focus on the events rather than trying to categorize everything by fitting the narrative into specific themes, it will help with clarity. Kaciemonster (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Except , GG is not event driven, outside of August-Sept 2014. Things that have happened outside that timeframe have been mostly isolated issues - necessary to discuss as themes, but their timing or order matters little. Also keep in mind that there are (at least) two different perspectives on what GG is, the predominate view from the press about harassment, and the minority view from GG about ethics. Separating the issues out as we are doing right now avoids jumping back and forth between the two perspectives, and helps to avoid confusing the reader. I've offered before that we can better collect all the information on the minority take of what GG is and the specific criticism aimed at GG the leaderless, unorganized movement, and separate that from the criticism of harassment as a tool and of the culture war. That keeps the thematic elements together from the two perspectives and makes the idea more cohesive. I fear trying to do chronological is just going to be jumping between the two sides far too much, and unnecessary for this type of situation that's more about the larger debate than the specific events that have occurred. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, I think Gamergate is absolutely event driven. There are very few, if any, isolated issues, and separating out Gamergate's personal view of itself from what the media writes about it aren't two separate issues. Separating the themes further won't help with clarity, it will just make it more confusing. At this point, you and I have discussed this multiple times in multiple different sections on the talk page, and neither of us are making any new arguments from the last time we talked about it. I think that we should acknowledge that this is a dead end to save us both from repeating ourselves again and again. Kaciemonster (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe divide the history section into a History section and a Context section? Seems overkill to me, but maybe. I don't have a solution really, just a comment that there's a problem with the history section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about a history section containing the events leading up to the creation of the hashtag? I think that might be a good combination of both history and context. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is that some of the RS and events that tie-in earlier events are notable by themselves and happen much later (e.g. Crash Override, and the GTFO documentary). I predict you'd still end up with oddly redundant or chronologically awkward bits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As a stop gap measure, I've relocated Yiannopoulos' syringe claim- pretty clunky where it was, but still clunky where it is now. I'm not sure it's altogether relevant to the article as a whole? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't think the specific claim is needed but keeping it as a source to say that the GG side say they have been targetted to. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If we were to repeat anything like 'GG has been targeted too!' then we'd need to further explain the false equivalence these claims perpetuate, and that overwhelmingly the harassment GG figureheads claim against them is fabricated, trumped up, or coming from 'within the ranks' as gamergaters harass gamergaters. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We already do, here at "Various people, some of whom requested to remain anonymous, have also been harassed for supporting Gamergate." paragraph. So instead of stating the Milo/syringe thing, just attach the ref to that sentence. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that your reply is a non sequitur to my comment. Perhaps reword what you wanted to say? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
What I said was that instead of keeping the text about Milo's syringe claim, which is relatively trivial, we can attach the reference that supports that to the sentence I quoted above that already exists in the article which is about GG supporters claiming being on the receiving side of harassment. We don't have to add any more text. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, gone ahead and done that. Lemme know what you think. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup that's fine. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: I'd suggest you stop claiming harassment against Gamergate supporters has been overwhelmingly fabricated. You didn't mention anyone specifically, but in context it was veering dangerously close to a BLP violation. Please do not claim that people are lying about being harassed, without any strong reliable sources to support you. While there have been a few cases of GGers being caught out faking harassment, none of the people in question (I assumed you know who they are too as you brought them up) have received any reliable source coverage. The paragraph in question mentions the "third party trolls" narrative and at no point goes so as far as to assume where the harassment comes from. I also dispute that the Milo syringe fiasco need be removed. The thing about Baldwin should be removed, it should briefly be clarified who Milo is, and that he had been doxxed alongside baldwin (young), and recieved a syringe in the mail (young and others).Bosstopher (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you believe any edits I've made have violated our BLP policies, I encourage and endorse your redaction or reversion of them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I dont believe you've violated BLP just that you're coming dangerously close. Claiming specific people (as opposed to people in general) are lying about harassment and threats with no evidence, is one of the most common causes of topic ban in this area, so I just wanted to point out that you were on the precipice of saying something very bad. Because it's not a BLP issue I wont add the stuff about syringes in without consensus. Will rework harassment paragraph a bit however.Bosstopher (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Isnt this supposed to be neutral?

The biweekly "but NPOV" is not going be any more appropriate or successful than the last 2 dozen without specific sources and a whole new slew of media coverage . lets not waste any more of our time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hardly find lines such as this neutral, since when was wikipedia so sensationalist? "It garnered significant public attention after August 2014, when several women within the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks." EEEEEE1 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've previously commented that the lede is a mess, but the actual content is indisputable. Koncorde (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer is pretty much the same as the answer you received when you asked pretty much the same question back in September: [[12]]. Since that time, editors have contributed more than a million words of discussion and debate to refine the page, which has been largely stable. The sentence you cite accurately reflects the view of the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, please, please, read previous discussions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just turn this page in to a redirect to Switzerland? Though I'm not sure that would quell the complaints. Dumuzid (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make constructive suggestions, make constructive suggestions. Like how to reword that sentence in a way you think is better but that still reflects the reliable sources. Saying, essentially, "Well, gee, this sucks! Someone fix it!" is not going to be productive. The sources are clear: Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian, among others, were subject to a sustained campaign of attacks, and a fairly goodish sort of chunk of the sources describe them as 'misogynistic'. There's been some discussion about qualifying the word 'misogynistic', but it didn't go anywhere, basically because no-one suggested any better way of putting it. So what, exactly, would you change? GoldenRing (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Congressional Briefing on Cyberstalking

Source: http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/15/8420237/depression-quest-creator-speaks-at-congressional-briefing-on

It looks like there is currently a congressional briefing going on that could lead to more proactive restrictions and actions against cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Zoe Quinn is one of the speakers at the event and various sources are directly relating the briefing to Gamergate, so it is relevant for this article. Probably only a sentence or two for now though, but if it does ultimately lead to new legal action, it would definitely deserve its own section. But that's a more future looking idea. SilverserenC 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this source ( http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/15/8420663/zoe-quinn-congressional-briefing-harassment-cyberstalking ) mentions at the end that Gamergate proponents are trying to hijack the Twitter hashtag related to the event. SilverserenC 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider adding to "in popular culture" in where we mention Sarkeesian on Time's list, similarly mention that Quinn was invited to speak to Congress regarding cyberbullying. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking to Congress is probably more important than just a 'in popular culture' reference. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If Congress actually takes action based on GG among other incidents, then yes, that's a more significant section up higher in the article. But she was one of many other experts and witnesses they brought it. That said, "In popular culture" might be the wrong section title. It's not "legacy" which generally works for creative works, but there is likely a better name to describe the one-step-removed type GG coverage like the Law and Order episode and this. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

more GG + Hugos

Looks like clearer claims of links: "Despite having a problem with subtext in fiction, the Sad Puppies also caught the attention of GamerGate agitator Vox Day (real name Theodore Beale), who rallied a more vocal group of online Hugo voters into the Rabid Puppies. Day published a list of his preferred Hugo nominees on his website and the Sad and Rabid Puppies alike ended up pushing a lot of the authors through."

Except I don't recall Vox Day/Beale being mentioned much in the older GG RS.

http://www.geek.com/news/winter-isnt-coming-hugo-awards-own-gamergate-is-delaying-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-1620356/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't think its necessary to have identified Vox Day before the Hugos, only that the press have associated that person with being GG now in relationship to Hugos. I would still want to see how this scenario is written out by the editors working on the Hugo awards, as it seems we can offload most of the issues related to that to whatever article they document this in. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I used to think following the GG stuff was convoluted, but GG + Hugos is even more strange. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think much to add, but listing new stuff in case anyone thinks there is:

GG and Calgary Expo

New thing?

I would wait to see if there's a more substantive article about this (which I have seen too) that covers the issue head to toe, which might take a few days as to allow the Calgary Expo to issue its own press statement on the matter. It should be mentioned but I'd want to see what the bigger picture is that's considered since there's a lot of angles between just these sources. (there's a bunch of online activity too such as [13] resulting from this). --MASEM (t) 18:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The Mary Sue is indeed reliable for their original content (i.e., no reblogged "[via some-other-site]" content), which this appears to be. I would also like to see a few more sources and a bigger picture, just for weight and long-term relevance. Woodroar (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For purposes of Gamergate, as The Mary Sue is a feminist-slanted take on pop culture matters ("We pride ourselves on being an inclusive, feminist community of people who not only love what they love but care about others who love it and have an intense passion for those who create it." from their about page), we should not consider it a strong RS for non-opinion materials, though note that in their current article I'm not seeing any issues of their reporting when collaborating other sources, just that I would make sure statements made by TMS we use are clearly attributed to TMS. In this case the Calgary Herald between the above linked one and this followup after the con have enough details, and we could at least use the Mary Sue to explain the first-person account of the forum being disrupted (eg: "Panelist Brittney Le Blanc described to The Mary Sue an incident where members from the group attempted to derail a panel on "Women into Comics"...") --MASEM (t) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart. Examiner also has a report on it, however that link seems to have been blacklisted... However it'll be a while for an update, since evidence so far in the social media speaks a different tale with not a single evidence from Calgary Expo yet. I would advice waiting until they make an official statement with their response outside of twitter.TheRealVordox (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
They made a more lengthy statement on their official Facebook page, as mentioned in the Calgary Herald link above. Woodroar (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Read that as well, but saying "Have" and not showing it means there's more to the story. TheRealVordox (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
We can't make that leap into original research territory. We've more than enough material to start including the misconduct of the Honey Badger boothpeople into the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
What I'm not seeing (not that I don't disbelieve the reports) from when I last checked is explaining the actual behavior problems, if there were any. I have heard they disrupted a panel, and of course got a booth under potentially falsified terms, so their expulsion was within CExpo's rights, just that the account of details is not as strong from the higher RSes yet. That might come tomorrow/Monday. I'd like to see the general expo end and post-con accounts made so we're not misreporting these breaking details. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that an unreliable source due to blog status? TheRealVordox (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
One sometimes gathers the impression that, for Gamergate supporters, a "weblog" is a news site that is critical of Gamergate. Here’s the [masthead for Raw Story]; it sure looks like they've got plenty of staff! MarkBernstein (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd classify Raw Story as a weak RS; per our article on The Raw Story "The Raw Story describes itself as progressive, bringing attention to stories that it sees as downplayed or ignored by other media outlets." In other words a usable but weak RS, particularly in light of straight up newspapers like Calgary Herald reporting on the issue. Also keep in mind, in the header for this specific story "Pandagon is daily opinion blog covering feminism, politics, and pop culture." so this is just a blog, most reposting from the Mary Sue's story with added commentary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

While waiting to see what other sources we can pull from, where do we think this should be added? This isn't really under harassment and feels like it falls better under "Efforts to impact public perceptions". --MASEM (t) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate-affiliated Events? Although that may become pretty overcumbered since it's too loose of a word. Something akin to "GamerGate support" without using those exact words and a use of a word that restricts it to events where GamerGate is connected. Tough word to find for this if it's supposed to be objective and neutral. One of the question that needs to be answered by Honey Badger Brigade if it was any kind of public relationship at all from a source to make such a claim in your original suggestion of "Effort to impact Public perception".
This does remind me of the harassment/threats/discimination that GamerGate supports already have like with the needles and the mouse(And various other unmentioned) targeted for their politics. Although not certain it could be added in that context due to the article's form and timeline. TheRealVordox (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting to see the varying opinions on how we should represent the story of gamergaters being kicked out of a convention for disrupting it. My opinion: Represent it as described in my previous sentence, which I believe happens to be how the reliable sources are reporting on it. Probably best put in the 'Gamergate activities' along the lines of "In April 2015, gamergate supporters attempted to host a booth at the Calgary Expo but were asked to leave after violating several of the expositions policies." PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can go with this. (Also,if it can be done without wandering into UNDUE, mentioning the Honey Badgers might be encyclopedic and/or helpful in web searches.) 15:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs)

Daily Caller report on the subject. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

About the FemFreq Twitter (Re-Discussed)

At the SVU episode point, the discussion of using Twitter as a point of interest in said episode that sparked a whole slew of different consequences, I wish to reopen the discussion of using that twitter input from FemFreq due to it's very loose connections to Miss Sarkeesian.
-FemFreq is an organisation and as such it could be anyone in the organisation that said the twitter.
-There's no proof of a connection of the amalgation of the female developer in the episode, Miss Punjabi, except speculations and assumptions.
"The character Raina Punjabi (played by actress Mouzam Makkar) resembles Feminist Frequency host Anita Sarkeesian in no uncertain terms (hair pulled back, giant earrings, shown in online videos giving monologues)." from ArsTechnica. Assumption.
"a non-traditional female developer who fights misogynist accusations of promiscuity and wears Anita Sarkeesian’s trademark hoop earrings." from The Verge. Assumption.
"In real life, media critic Anita Sarkeesian became the target of a misogynist backlash after advocating for more diversity in video games." from Observer. GamerGate related means Anita Sarkeesian Assumption.
Final source of Washington post does not even mention Anita Sarkeesian.
-The Character amalgation of fictional Punjabi has hardly no connection to Anita except from some familiar clothing options according to the former 3 sources, is that a strong enough knot to bring up Sarkeesians's relevance?
-Twitter as a source for an input in itself is not used as a reliable source in other cases, why now?
TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Feminist Frequency twitter account is a valid source for the opinion of the Feminist Frequency twitter account.PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but adding Anita's(Or FemFreq) opinion on the episode has what relevance to any article or reliable source?TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The character is an amalgamation of her and several other people gamergate have targeted. Her opinion is very relevant. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Two independent sources noting that the guest character resembles one of the public identities associated with Gamergate is completely reasonable to mention, as long as we say that's these sources made that comparison. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That I can agree with but not a part of my question of why we have the tweet. What relevance does her tweet have to do with any of the sources used to make her tweet important enough to write about? That's where my question is going. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, reliable sources making analysis , or what you are mistakenly identifying as "assumptions", is we EXACTLY the type of material include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
They can make the comparrison and notice some resemblance, yes. But tell me which article of the sources mention FemFreq's tweet? TheRealVordox (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The RS say the character was based (at least in part) on Ms. Sarkeesian, ergo a response by the organization she heads (and of which she is far and away the most visible member) is relevant. It's rather like (forgive the strained analogy) hearsay. If we were using the tweet to prove a fact therein, it would not be relevant. The tweet is not used to prove the portrayal was 'sickening,' but instead is there to show the state of mind of Ms. Sarkeesian's enterprise, and by extension, of Ms. Sarkeesian herself. Therefore, it is both relevant and reliable as to that narrow usage. Dumuzid (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
FemFrequency is an official, non-anonymous, representative of an organization with an identified mission and therefore a valid source for a response. (where as girlsgetout@twit.com posting #gamergaters r about ethics is not). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

balkanization reverted

I reverted the balkanization sentence. What is there doesn't reflect the message of the cited article. The way balkanization is used in the article doesn't line up with the Wiki article linked. The use in Paste is much more nuanced and a little idiosyncratic. If what the author means by balkanization can be added without bloating that sentence, perhaps it can be readded. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: The Wiki page says, "pejorative geopolitical term", what the author of the article is trying to convey is not perjorative - the fracturing is kinda the main point, but more interesting is the description of where the fractures actually are. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia itself should not considered the authority here. See for example, M-W's definition of the term [14] which emphasizes the compartmentalization of a previously unified group, with or without political nature. Oxford's version [15] is similar, lacking the political bent. WP's version of the term being lacking of what I see as more common understanding of the term should not be a reason not to include what is a rather interesting taken on the situation. (Alternative, look at wikt:Balkanization from the wikitionary side which we could link instead). --MASEM (t) 02:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Or even better we can link to Balkanization#Other uses which takes the term at the more general value, in context of the origins of the term. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Still the other uses says, "However, Robert Morgus' and Tim Maurer's study suggests that the alarmist term “Balkanization” should be replaced with more appropriate terms as fragmentation and diversity." That is the problem is with the sentence as written. Balkanization sounds sexy as the money quote, but without of the context of the article the wikipedia sentence changes the meaning of the author's message. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Except that the Paste author specifically goes into the whole history of the Balkan peninsula (from where Balkanization arises from) as to explain how the term is appropriate to GG. And while fragmentation is part of the concept, it is the fragmentation with antagonistic results that is coming from this author and is what other sources outside of WP consider Balkanization. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The way I read it is a de-emphasis on antagonist fragmentation and more on healthy identity and relationships with other communities, "In short: a community should both ground and empower its members, so that they are capable of standing before society as neither nemesis nor nullity, but as a person." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The opinion is based on a more neutral stance - that GG was still a bad thing, and that the industry recognizing that they should not consider the gaming consumer as a single specific stereotype and working to serve a much broader number of groups is a good thing, but the way this was done inadvertently created antagonism between the groups, which the author believes is the reason the GG situation is so aggressive and have taken attack approaches - exactly the same means that the breaking up of the Balkan peninsula created numerous groups with hostility towards each other. The quote you cite in context is a criticism of how the industry turned to speak negatively on the gamer identity after GG started (the Death of Gamer articles), which furthered the fragmentation and antagonism in the process. Hence the need to tie this to the accepted definition of Balkanization. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source uses it in such a nuanced way and it requires as much explanation as is here to justify its inclusion, I see no reason to include this particular sentence about balkanization- I don't see it adding that much to the article anyway. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a critical opinion, being a neutral stance from a highly RS that comments on issues on both sides. The term Balkanization is not a novel term, and easily defined. The issue that WP's page does not reflect the common way the term is defined in reliable sources is not a reason to exclude this but instead to fix the WP article on Balkanization (which is noted to have a tagged problem, so this is known). That's why even a link to wikt's version of the term would be just as good. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think in order to introduce this properly, you'd wander way into UNDUE for the Paste article. It's not that I don't agree, but that as PeterTheFourthnotes - it's not adding much. Actually, I'd say this argues that there should be an article about culture war somehow. The comments in the Paste article are less about GG and more about gaming and culture in general. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

its basically just another "gamers are dead" article only going so far as to say "gamers never realy existed except as a concept used by designers and marketers." As he himself says, he is not using "balkanization" in its common usage, and so if we decide to use this source, there is no reason to use the term "balkanization" and then define it as he definesi t - just cut to the core and say that he thinks the new visibility of the various factions of the gaming community is a good thing if they can scope their identities without the new identity being solely/primarily in opposition to some other identity a la "i am a hardcore gamer not a wussie casual gamer." "I am a casual gamer, not a hardcore gamer lunatic" . But I am not really sure how that ties to the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Key points this essay establishes include: 1) prior to the last few years, the gaming industry has centered its focus on "young male gamer" and only recently has taken significant and positive steps to recognize that there's large diversity among games and thus no longer focusing on that one group. 2) by doing that, those a positive step, it had the potential to create antagonism from those that were part of that core set (as had happen in Balkan), and in fact did create that, with the most visible effect being Gamergate, and 3) the industry's response to GG, primarily the "gamers are dead" article, was not a step that would help calm matters and there were other ways the industry could have responded to promote acceptance and unity while still being diverse. This is a somewhat different opinion from the other takes we have presently in the "gamer identity" section, and as from an RS, should be included. It is using the term of Balkanization as defined by modern dictionaries, not some obscure meaning that our WP page puts secondary to it. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Trolls never die, they just keep wandering farther and farther and farther from any ethical center at all

some people oh yes, we are really really really about ethics. and autism . and revenge. but mostly ethics.

As a Pro-GamerGater I am following the rules that I know as of yet of Wikipedia but I am making my stance clear while attempting to following the pillars as much as possible. I am not here for malicious or vandalizing attempts but more of an attempt of being a discussion tool around GamerGate related events, while attempting to interpret articles objectivily. I am not a troll by any regard. TheRealVordox (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is still disputed

WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have specific things to discuss (e.g. not a vague 'this article sucks/is biased') start a new section with that specific concern in mind. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why does this article not have the neutrality disputed tag? Lets be serious for a moment: anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows this is by far one of the most disputed articles on wikipedia. Pottsdie (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific actionable complaints or are you just here for a soapbox? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Regular as clockwork. 10-4 good buddy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire talk is littered with page after page after page of people strongly disagreeing with the direction this article has taken. If you need a specific example, look through the archives and throw a dart. Pottsdie (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, do you have any specific article content that does not represent what the reliably published sources have stated about gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The talk page itself is the source in question here. Pottsdie (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethics in gaming journalism

In reply to this edit summary. What was allegedly "debunked above" was that the aim of GamerGate was "really about" ethics in gaming journalism. Nevertheless, the responses from media organisations regarding conflict of interest *were* about ethics in gaming journalism. This is not a non-neutral point. If you are pro-GG, you can say (at least off-wiki) "Haha, that proves we did achieve what we said we set out to do!". If you are anti-GG, you might be able to say (at least off-wiki) "Ah but no-one in GG really cared about this, because of evidence X Y and Z that I'll present". Whichever side you are on, if any, you should not reject the section title. To say that changes were made regarding ethics in gaming journalism as a result of GG is not to say that those changes were sincerely wanted by the GG side - that's a separate question. I take it that no one is going to claim that conflict of interest policies are not a matter of professional ethics!--greenrd (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that we already have an entire section called "Debate over ethics allegations" which IS the more general "response regarding ethics in game journalism" the section you renamed is a more specific response from Game Journalism outlets. Also I've added Polygon's more negative response to the paragraph. Bosstopher (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the issue. Sources discussing the ethics claims don't consider the conflicts of interest mentioned by GamerGate supporters to be actual lapses in journalistic ethics. (Many don't even consider them actual conflicts of interest.) So the two things, "conflict of interest" and "journalistic ethics", aren't always linked. But more importantly, only The Escapist discusses "games journalism" in general and is the only source to use the word "ethics", making the title change inappropriate. Totilo from Kotaku talks about Kotaku's updated stance on Patreon and conflicts of interest but also says that "[s]ome may disagree that Patreons are a conflict. That's a debate for journalism critics". (And, again, the actual journalism critics say it's not an issue.) North from Destructoid condemned harassment and said that personal relationships are "set aside" at work. No statements about ethics or the industry from either. Only Macris from the Escapist talks about "ethical standards" across the industry, and he even says that, in his experience, avoiding conflicts of interest is virtually impossible in the industry. (While writing this, I noticed that Bosstopher also added content about Polygon, along with Grant's view that some GamerGate supporters' demands actually violated professional journalist ethics codes.) So unless sources overwhelmingly state that these changes were about "ethics in gaming journalism", it would be inappropriate to use that title. Woodroar (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, this made me realize something else -- the paragraph in question is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. That is, it consists mostly of Wikipedia editors linking to blog posts and the like on the sites they consider involved, saying "look, this is important!" But that's (generally speaking) bad policy; we should cite reliable secondary sources covering these things to establish that importance, and should probably trim down the parts that we can't find a reliable secondary source for. What Greenrd says above is basically that this section is WP:OR in which people are trying to cite primary sources as evidence for an unrelated (and, at least going by reliable sources, unsupported) argument about the article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's... a fairly good point. Should we nix the section entirely? I'm not sure any of the meaningful content there isn't released by the website itself discussing its changes to policy (or its lack of change, as the case mostly is.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be better to rewrite the section a bit, rather than delete completely. The sources related to Kotaku and destructoid dont mention Gamergate or Quinn explicitly and should probably be removed. But the responses from the head's of The Escapist and Polygon also serve as lengthy opinion pieces on the topic of Gamergate itself, and Grant's articles also rebutt a lot of accusations GG supporters have placed against Polygon. Bosstopher (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Response regarding ethics in gaming journalism" section

Hey! Regarding this (newly titled) section- were Kotaku's Patreon policies changed/introduced in response to gamergate, or were they already in place before gamergate started campaigning against the website? I'm interested in knowing so I can clarify the somewhat ambivalent wording (if another editor knows they can go ahead, though.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on this kotaku link from 8/26/14 I believe there was a change (or at least a refinement) in response to Gamergate. It says things like: "We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers." Dumuzid (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a secondary source for that? Doing our own research with regards to it is WP:OR; like I mentioned below, I think it might be best to trim this whole paragraph until / unless some reliable secondary sources about it can be found. "Company in makes a blog post in response to social media argument" is not intrinsically noteworthy, and part of the impression I'm getting here is that people are trying to use these official blog posts and the like to make an argument that isn't explicitly supported in any reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies; I was attempting to answer the question rather than suggest that link as a citation. I quite agree that using the Kotaku link would be problematic. I have found a couple other sources, 1 and 2, but I don't know if Cinema Blend really counts as an RS, and Gawker is not a whole lot better than Kotaku since they are obviously part of the same over-arching organization. On the whole, I think you're right that this issue is not really notable enough to justify its current place. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Game of Fear

Game of Fear: The Story Behind GamerGate - pretty substantial article, goes more into the story of Gjoni and Quinn than I've seen elsewhere, possibly useful in fleshing out the early parts of the timeline. Artw (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be just a bit wary of how detailed they go in to the pre "The Zoe Post" stuff. That's getting into a lot of personal details on both that aren't critical to understanding of GG, and while backed by an RS (that spoke to both) edging on how much BLP is really needed here. I would include that the post was written after Quinn had a restraining order, and that Gjoni wrote the post purposely hoping to have "the internet machine" lash back at Quinn (The author did spoke to Gjoni on his actions, so we're not talking about heresay). --MASEM (t) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
But to be clear, 100% full support for using this article here. Just don't need what gets into the details of their relationship outside of its fallout. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate came entirely out of Gjoni's failed relationship with Zoe Quinn and his need to take revenge on her, and GamerGaters remain obsessed with her to this day, so I don't really see an relevancy concerns or need to be coy about what is very much public information regarding his state of mind and motivations. Artw (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Masem's concern is running afoul of WP:BLP which is more stringent than what RS can say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for example, the article explicitly mentions a brand name Gjoni used about Quinn that is a huge BLP issue. We have no need to repeat the extraneous claims of Gjoni here. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

GG as example, topic, reference

So GG gets used as an example, reference, touchstone, topic in passing, etc. We don't address this phenomena in the entry, but it happens all over the place in RS. Much discussion orbits GG without being directly about GG beyond pointing to GG as a visible example of larger issues.

e.g. hugos, recent transphobia in gaming, comparison of X to GG, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate

How do we add this to the entry? I think it would fix some of the places where things have been shoehorned awkwardly into a related topic. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Goes back to above about the suicide. There are some things that GG has done which is the same pattern of earlier events, like online harassment towards woman, trans,gay, etc. GG is just an example and not the focal point of these, here GG should be cited as an example in those articles but the GG article should not be used as a central point. But of the young white male disenfranchised culture war, GG is by far the largest and foremost event so when events are related in this manner they should be discussed here. This is not say that some of the higher education article can't be used, but for example the part about GG making it impossible to be neutral in discussing related topics is fair to include in the In other media section. Bit in general just because GG is mentioned as part of discussion of another topic doesn't mean we should necessarily include it here. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
we wait until third parties comment on the fact that everybody can and does use gg as a prime example of the evil in world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Death

Something we should possibly cover: Online Troll Urges Game Developer Rachel Bryk To Commit Suicide Artw (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with GamerGate? GamerPro64 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be part of the larger gaming + culture war that Masem and I have been having WRT where GG is used as an example + other topics. This does seem to be tied to GG, but not explicitly stated in the source; it would required OR to link it to GG. SHORTER: Can't use it here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe see if it works with Gamer or Sexism in video gaming ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Different culture war. Concurrently and completely separate from GG there has been a LGBT (particularly trans) combative nature online; they deal with the same issues of cyberharassment but not the gender cultural war that GG is part of. The venues they cross over in terms of those speaking out against it are similar (an issue dealt by the recent Senate hearing, and part of the message the Calgery Expo was trying to present), but it's a very different type of "war" than the GG + related culture war. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of intersection here between typical gamergaters and the people who would have been hurling abuse at Rachel Bryk. I think it's definitely worthy of inclusion as more of the 'culture war' type angle, but it's difficult to tell where in the article it would be best to include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the source even a reliable source to use here? I never even heard of Vocativ until now. And even then I fail to see its inclusion to this article. GamerPro64 23:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Washington Post article, GamerGate mentioned. Artw (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The connection in that article to GG is still weak. There's no question the same mentality of people performing harassment leading to her suicide and those doing GG harassment is similar, and perhaps even common people, but as one who's also watched the trans-issue play out loudly over the recent months, its a far different issue, and just because this happened to involve a game developer doesn't necessary make it GG related. They are linked by cyberharassment mentalities, not by culture war. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a fairly direct link with the culture war stuff re: ("raises questions about the misogynist online gaming culture that reared its ugly head during last year’s Gamergate controversy.") PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no "trans issue;" there's just Gamergate’s ongoing, orchestrated campaign of misogynist harassment. An issue is subject to debate or discussion: what would one be discussing here? Whether it’s OK for a transgendered software developer to live? Note the closing quote from the Gamergate organizing board: "good riddens." I suppose we're going to have another five-thousand word debate here on the issue of whether this was done by Gamergate supporters or by entirely different people who just happen to have been using the same boards, the same techniques, the same rhetoric, against a very similar target. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we could put this, some of the cultural context stuff, and other examples of GG-type behavior being compared to GG in the Social and cultural implications section or Gamergate activities section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
How about "Gamergate as benchmark" and talk about the comparisons to GG and uses of GG as example. There's plenty of RS for it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
She committed suicide because she was harassed for being a trandgendered person. Nothing to do with GG or any GG related issues. The 4chan-mentality of turning to cyber harassment is common but this has nothing to do with the culture war about the "young white male" losing predominance in various fields to which GG has been directly compared. Instead, this is simply because there are people (both genders) that do not accept the idea that sexual identity is something that can be chosen by the person and chose to attack those that are trans or support it. It has been a much longer time coming (since at least 2010) but existed before GG. To connect it to GG beyond any more than the common use of cyberharassment is a pure synthesis. Of course, one could argue that we might have a section about opinions of the use of cyberharassment, but this topic alone begs for larger coverage than Computer crime currently offers, and GG is not the page to start it because cyberharassment long predated it. On the other hand, the "young white male" culture war is something that GG is the epitome of, and until a page is made about that, makes sense to discuss how related situations to GG fall in here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
GG is reportedly pro-harassment and anti-transgendered person. If RS are noting this connection (and the washington post are) we should. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not a doubt in my mind that gamergate is transphobic, but what amounts to an aside in the Washington Post article about Ms. Bryk's suicide strikes me as a slim reed on which to lean. I'd say that unless a connection is made more clear, it's best left out; I sometimes fear this article will become a dumping ground for "bad things online." Then again, there are plenty of wiser wikipedians than me around here. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the first article even connects GG with transphobia though it would be no surprise that transphobia exists in the GG community. Everything's been about their antifeminism, and the name drop in this begs the WEIGHT issue for inclusion. If it is demonstrated more that GG had a hand in the harassment that lead to the suicide, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Presumably, the criminal conviction of a known Gamergate supporter would justify inclusion here. Would any other development, in your view, do so? Repeated discussions of this sort in impeccable sources, perhaps? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It would need to be more than one name drop in a source to surpass WEIGHT. If two or three highly RS sources ascribe some responsibility of her suicide on the harassment from transphobic GGers, that would be something. This article does not say this. Even the point the GG is transphobic is OR given that no RS have made this claim even we all agree this is the likely case. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that gamergate has been linked with transphobia before; for instance at Ars Technica. I just don't think it's helpful to discuss this particular tragedy in this article. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, it is a different culture war, though I would not be surprised if there's a common membership to those performing the harassment to it. But it is not the same culture war that has been directly tied to GG like the comic-gate stuff which has been directly tied. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ctrl F "Gamergate" = 'Phrase not found' Bosstopher (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, attempts to include this incident look to be just more POV pushing. Weedwacker (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have ideas to improve the article, by all means, suggest them. Dumuzid (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing a para from "In other media"

This paragraph is embarrassing.

  • I have no idea what "Patterns of behavior related to the ongoing culture war that has been demonstrated by the Gamergate controversy have been identified in other media areas." is supposed to convey to the reader that couldn't just be done by saying what we actually mean. Reads like throat clearing to me, at best.
  • "...to counter an increase in the diversity of the awards given out..." Unless the Hugos added new categories that's probably not what we mean.
  • "some with connections to the Gamergate hashtag" How do you get a connection to a hashtag?
  • "...which has been compared the cultural divide and motivations of the Gamergate controversy." By whom? And what is being compared? What is the "cultural divide" of gamergate? And why, given that we're so picky about ascribing motivation to GG to we blithely accept that comparison here?
  • "... Some revisionings of popular comic book characters in 2014" What is a "revisioning"?
  • "... led to similar outcries and pushbacks by a number of readers..." This is bush league. A "number of readers"? Also "pushbacks" is not a word. And who is judging the complaints of the puppies to be "similar" to the complaints about Thor et al.? Not the salon article, because it came out before the nominees were released. The atlantic makes some comparisons between GG and the Hugos but not the Hugos and comics, probably because the complaints aren't actually similar.
  • "...in a manner that has been compared to Gamergate." Again, compared by whom? Is there any evidence that this is something other than Milo having a tantrum about the 21st century and Salon getting the vapors over it? Because I'm not seeing it.
  • "...including Yiannopoulos..." Yeah, including Yiannopoulos because he's the focus of that Salon post. There may be other readers, but salon only links out to Yiannopoulos and focuses on him. It's unacceptable to weasel out of that fact about the source by including its main focus as a "by the by". It's more frustrating because Salon out and out says it's an "[attempt] at manufacturing controversy" and we've somehow digested that and presented it to the reader as though it were an actual live issue without any additional sourcing.
  • "what they perceive as forced diversity into the comic books" What in the ham sandwich is forced diversity (or "the comic books")? And here again we're ascribing motive unnecessarily. Aside from invective, the source is pretty unclear on the motives of "readers". If we're interested in Yiannopoulos's motives (no idea why we would be) then he has a website we can link to.
  • The use of passive voice and compound sentences (really, comma splices) throughout makes it difficult to figure out who is doing what to whom and why.

I'm also not sure why this belongs in "In other media" as that is a section normally used for stuff in the first graf (and not the second, but that's another fight). We should probably have something about the Hugos on the page, given that there are a raft of sources on the subject. I don't know how many sources there are connecting GG to complaints about comics, but if the Salon source is all we have I don't see why it needs to be in the article.

We have two thoughts we want to convey to the reader. First, that the Sad/Rabid puppies takeover of the Hugos is both reminiscent of and linked to GG. Second, that Milo Yiannopoulos is mad about a thing and Salon is mad about that (and this is somehow linked to GG). We don't do a good job of conveying that. So I'm removing it. Protonk (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then fix it but don't remove it. If it is there, and perhaps tagged with a copyedit tag, then others know there might be problems. Unless there's outright BLP issues (which there aren't in this) removal is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No. A fix would be to reduce it to two declarative sentences (or one, given that I'm only really convinced that the Hugo mention belongs). You can feel free to do that yourself. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Further, because we require BLP violations be removed does not imply that the only content which should be removed is that which violates BLP. We remove content all the time from articles where it detracts from the reader's understanding or where the information it presents is marginal. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
However, we've had discussions about including this material (not the specific language) in the past, so removing information that was agreed to inclusion by consensus is not helpful. Tagging for copyediting problem, yes, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
These are not just copyediting problems. The content that was removed is inaccurate, uses weasel words to avoid specifying claims and arguably misrepresents sources. Consensus that we add content isn't consensus to keep it around in whatever form it took when it first landed. And please don't patronize me by telling me what's "helpful" and "fine". Protonk (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first. I agree with your points of what was wrong but all of that is one wordsmith away from a fix, save for what you think was the connection between the Hugo and comics, which there was none - its Hugo to GG, and separately comics to GG. If the language suggested this, it should be cleaned up. Removal of content that is otherwise not an immediate content problem (like BLP or unsourced material) and that can be fixed is counter to WP policies, particularly on a page like this. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
"Everyone one of the points you make above is easily fixed if they were identified on the talk page first." I did just identify them on the talk page.
The two discussion I see about the Hugos are here and here. Is there another discussion I'm missing? Because neither of those show thunderous approval for including this material. If I'm to be beaten about the head and shoulders for not respecting consensus, I'd like to see one.
I'm not going to go in circles about the content removal question. You have made the same statement twice now. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Protonk: I don't disagree, but n practical terms it might be easier if you'd propose that sentence or two. You're not alone in your concerns here, but I do think the connection to the Hugo mess should be drawn explicitly. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added the paragraph back with edits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The more I read and re-read it, I support taking out the Hugos mention entirely. It strikes me as essentially an out-of-control 'see also.' It's certainly tangentially related, but I don't think the mere presence of Mr. Beale makes it worthy of inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

    • Two things:
      • It doesn't belong in "In other media", period. It's a weird non-sequitor to go from Law and Order to an actual thing that happened in a section not normally about that. I'm not sure (yet) where else to slot it, but it belongs somewhere else.
      • I think it plainly deserves mentioning. We haven't really picked the best source for that and using the source we do makes it seem tangential, but they're pretty closely related. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, given other sources it could definitely go in (and I personally suspect the connection is pretty close), but all I could find in my grueling few minutes of searches were sources essentially saying "this is reminiscent of gamergate." I'd say we nix it until an RS has something more than that to offer, maybe? Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Really?

This talk page is for suggesting and discussing specific improvements to the article, not WP:HORSEMEAT conversations about bias. Yes, really. drseudo (t) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This article is incredibly biased, and clearly takes the side of anti-gamergate. Although I am Pro-Gamergate, I think that it would be best if this article represented both sides, instead of one. However, lines like this:

" It garnered significant public attention after August 2014, when several women within the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks."

or

"In the wake of these canards, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign."

or

"Gamergate supporters attacked other victims with harassment, doxing, and death threats. Those who came to their defense were labelled by Gamergate supporters as "white knights", or "social justice warriors"."

Really? These are just a few of many lines that are incredibly biased. This is the most biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I think that at this point that this article needs to be completely rewritten.

Theawesome67 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Really. Dumuzid (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The three sentences you call out above are all amply supported by the preponderance of the reliable sources. Do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article that accords with core wikipedia policies, including WP:RS and WP:UNDUE? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Depression Quest

Im looking at the reviews for Depression Quest and it looks like the reviews were mixed at best. Is there a reason as to why the sentence is constructed as "Though the game was positively met by critics"? Would it not be more accurate to say the game was reviewed positively by "some" critics? Cavalierman (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please cite the reviews in independent reliable sources which were negative, Cavalierman. Then, we will have a basis for talking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems like WP:OR. I was under the impression that the reviews were designated that way because it was the general take of the RS? Dumuzid (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Dumzid is right and we should get rid of the whole "was met positively". Here are the reviews I was talking about:

The first review I looked at was Reaxxion: http://www.reaxxion.com/2167/a-review-of-the-anti-game-depression-quest The other one I looked at was Operation Ranfall. http://operationrainfall.com/2014/08/26/review-depression-quest/ Both give a negative overall review. Are these not considered "critics" Cavalierman (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman:It would be preferable if you could cite secondary sources for your proposed change, rather than primary sources like the reviews themselves. I think 'was met positively' is fair given the reliable sources, though a qualifier like "for the most part" might be accurate, but it seems to be a case of 'omit needless words' for me. Dumuzid (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It is our obligation to summarize what the full range of reliable sources say, and that is in no way original research. Neither of the sources you linked to qualify as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. They are basically blog posts by individuals expressing their own Individual opinions. Those sources show no signs of professional editorial control, fact checking or error correction. I consider them worthless here on Wikipedia. If a large majority of actual reliable sources reviewing a game, or a movie, or a book are positive, we say so. If it is a 65-35 split, we say most reviewers were positive but some dissented, and summarize appropriately. If 98% were positive, but 2% fringe sources dissented, we give very little or no attention to the fringe sources. So, how does it break down here? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I checked through the sources we had for that bit, the only source that mentioned the amount of positive reviews stated that the game received near-universally positive reviews so that's how I've phrased it in our article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Both Cullen + Peter are right here. We're looking at reviews from mainstream/well-established sites simply because anyone with a computer and internet connection can claim to be a reviewer, so we use what is stated about reviews from an established presence. It's well understood (even before GG) that the non-mainstream reviews were poor and perhaps influenced by how some saw Quinn rather than the aspect of the game, and that's factored in the article appropriately already. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It should reflect Depression Quest#Reception. i.e. not fun. dark, educational. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This seems extraneous to me. Isn't linking to the game's own entry enough? I don't see how that really affects this article. Dumuzid (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not seeing where in the references Depression-Quest received "near-universal" positive reviews. As a matter of fact, can anyone provide more than one reliable source that gives DQ a positive review? I am excluding blogs and unreliable sources- I am talking about actual mainstream reviews and critics who received the game positively. I am only finding one. Cavalierman (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Aja Romano for the Daily Dot writes "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression..." Phil Savage for PC Gamer writes "Depression Quest is a particularly interesting pick. Developed by Zoe Quinn, it's a moving and revealing insight into what it's like to live with depression." You're welcome. Source: The citations directly after the phrasing you are criticising. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This is very interesting. In the Daily Dot Article NBSB references, the quote reads as follows (notice the embedded links as they were in the original quote): "But while it received nearly universal positive reviews from professional critics who praised it for immersing players in the difficult experience of depression, many gamers saw it differently." If we look at the first "review" linked (rockpapershotgun), there is no review at all. The author admits to have never played the game. The second review is indeed positive, yet the third piece from destructoid is merely a preview/description. The author gives no indication that he ever played the game, much less a review. So we have exactly one source that apparently misinterpreted other sources, and this is the basis for "nearly universal positive reviews"? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this seems to be jumping to conclusions not to mention misleading our readers. Thoughts? Cavalierman (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Our job is to reflect reliable sources, not research the claims they make. I suggest you read our policies about original research on WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter is correct, reliable sourcing call the reviews positive. But we should be aware as editors that the review like that of RPS (first link above) is the type of review that triggered the ethical concerns of GG. No, we can't make that statement as no other source explicitly mentions that so it is otherwise OR, but we should be aware of that type of history is involved. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What “ethical” concern, precisely, does Adam Smith’s short announcement in Rock Paper Scissors raise? And what policy permits us to use this page to publicize that Mr. Smith’s writing raises ethical concerns? I don’t recall seeing a reliable source say that, there’s no reliable source cited above, and since Adam Smith’s photo and biography appear on the masthead page I expect he’s a living person. Adam Smith is the reviews editor of the site, he expressed an opinion, the site published it. That’s how publishing works. I suggest that you rephrase or strike. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the site is "Rock, Paper, Shotgun." That being said, I guess it might be argued that it's not really a positive review, but like MarkBernstein, I completely fail to see how it raises any ethical concern whatsoever. Should Depression Quest not be reviewed by anyone whose life has been touched by depression? I also agree that it borders on a BLP issue. Taking a step back, might this entire conversation be better situated at Depression Quest? Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue as related to the GG situation (just for clarity) is that GG would state that because Adam Smith actually never played the game beyond looking at the title screen (per his review) but immediately praised the title for dealing with the topic of depression, he gave a positive review for it's message and not for gameplay, graphics, etc., what GG proponents would say are necessary as part of a proper "objective review". Focusing on the message instead of that, in their minds, is an ethical concern because the reviewer is putting message over material content and failing to serve what GG sees as the main gaming audience. Again, that's GG's line of logic, not mine, nor that of most other people; we have this logic already discussed in the article, just not discussed in any RS in the specific context of the DQ reviews. But for purposes of improving this article, there's not much else we can say to this. RS say that DQ had positive reviews, and we know there was some backlash from those reviews, but the clarity of the backlash would not come until GG got into full swing and the call for "objective reviews" came out. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And we know all this... how, precisely? How do we know this is GG's line of logic? Does any reliable source say that this is or was GG's logic? Moreover, here on this talk page, a named individual is still being accused of hazy “ethical” transgressions which are neither specifically stated here nor supported by reliable sources. In point of fact, the reliable sources have indicated that the so-called “ethical” concerns you raise in the paragraph above are no such thing. Writers frequently express interest or excitement in forthcoming work because of its subject matter or authorship, and there is no reason to think this an ethical concern. Suggesting ethical concerns exist regarding the work of a specific writer, on the other hand, requires a specific standard of evidence called WP:BLP, and we're still waiting for that. Suggestion: it's time for this discussion to put on a hat. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, let's end this. And I know "it's about ethics in game journalism" has become the slogan for gamergate, but I am still a bit taken aback to see a specific, named person accused of ethical indiscretions by "failing to serve...the main gaming audience." Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No BLP statement has been made here. I am not making any such accusation towards Adam, just that this is what GG would want people to think, and why this post came up in the first place about what someone claimed were poor quality reviews. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Masem, on balance I don't think this is a BLP issue, but for me, it comes uncomfortably close. If you were to report that "followers of 52-pickup-gate believe Dumuzid has committed several murders," I think you'd agree we'd have a problem despite sourcing such a claim. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we have sources that explain - not specific to any review but reviews in general - that GG wants what they call "objective reviews" that ignore any messages or story or the like in games and focus on the gameplay, graphics, and mechanics. (eg [16], [17]). I'm only explaining that this is how the GG side thinks, for purposes of understanding for us editors of why anyone would question the claim that DQ was critically acclaimed, and how these DQ reviews would fall into GG's idea that there were ethical problems with these critics and sites. I am not stating from my own POV that there's any ethical issues here at all, only to describe the GG logic here. This information cannot be added because there's no appropriate sourcing to tie the DQ reviews to GG's "objective reviews", but only that this line of reasoning exists within GG, and we should be aware this does exists to prevent its addition without forthcoming sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And dont forget the objective "how fun it is".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
But, no Masem, we do not need to take into any account gg's completely divorced from reality misconstruing of words. we are not their therapists nor a substitute for an educational system which has obviously greatly failed them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We are an objective source, so we absolutely need to have clarity without judgement of what their stance is, regardless of how "wrong" the predominate POV says that stance is. This doesn't have to be clarity to be repeated in the article (particularly if there's no RSes to work from) but a baseline that editors working on the article understand as to be able to place other content in place around it. Articles may be based primarily on content from RS, but it is extremely important to keep in mind when using those RSes what exists beyond that "garden wall" to write effectively about it; in our case, our breakdown of GG is a novel approach compared to all other sources, but that's our ability as a tertiary sources to look at the big picture and organize and incorporate the best sources to our ability, but that can't be done with ones' head stuck to only the given RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We are an objective source when we objectively report what the reliable sources have reported. We are an UNobjective source when we start with the premise that the reliable sources for some reason (its a great conspiracy!) are not actually reporting accurately and then try to spin the content to make up for what the gamergaters (well some gamergaters - not those the are sending death and rape threats , cause we know that they are not really gamergaters - but we know which ones are the actual true gamergaters and are going to read their minds) really are about. Ludicrous hogwash counter to EVERY policy of the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, WP:NPOV allows use to determine, as editors via consensus, if an RS stating something as fact really should be stated as opinion. We have that ability to consider what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture. So yes, policy does allow for this. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Which part of NPOV are you citing here? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.". --MASEM (t) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That piece of policy describes how to handle opinions in reliable sources. It doesn't say anything about using "what is beyond the RSes to understand the larger picture" or coming to a consensus to add in as an opinion what a reliable source states as a fact. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It's implicit - to understand if a source makes a statement but does not clarify if the statement is a fact or an opinion in their voice, you have to understand how that statement fits in context of the topic, and that requires understanding the full picture, not just what RSes say. And if it clear that the statement made by the RS is an opinion counter to the larger picture, we should thus attribute as an opinion. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it isn't remotely implied from that piece of policy that we should be doing original research to determine whether or not we should state a fact from a reliable source as an opinion. It's saying to state opinions as opinion. Note the other policy at WP:NPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Who has a "full understanding" of the topic and how is the insinuation of that "understanding" into an article without sourcing not prima facia OR? Protonk (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. First, understand that anytime we summarize an RS we engage in OR, but it is an acceptable level of OR for WP's as long as we don't mistate the source. Determining if a source is speaking as fact or as opinion is an acceptable amount of OR, since that's basically the difference of saying "Water is wet" vs "John Smith said water is wet". Further, "Avoid stating facts as opinions" applies to uncontested facts, and that's where knowing what is beyond the RSes come in. We know that GG have repeated countered the claims about their group, so any "facts" about GG that they have countered should be considered opinions, even if there's a possibly that these GG counterstatements are fabrications. Note that we don't have to include the counterstatement aspect, just instead of saying "GG is anti-feminist" that "GG is said to be anti-feminist by the mainstream press." That's it, it's not that difficult to use it that way. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We should not be using information that cannot be found in reliable sources to determine how we write our article. The policy that you cited does not even remotely suggest that. If different reliable sources didn't agree on whether or not "GG is anti-feminist" we state it as an opinion. It is not within policy, however, to give priority to an opinion that we can't even source in an article, which is what we'd be doing if we consider GG's opinion of themselves of higher importance than the analysis of reliable sources. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Just as there's no need for us to wear tinfoil hats, lend credence to quack medicine and fringe science, or pursue conspiracy theories, there's no particular need for us to make windows into men’s souls look beyond whats reported. There is no great media conspiracy theory. I know some editors think they have good sources for the Real Story Of Gamergate, but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is. We're a tertiary source. We compile information on a topic. While we can only include RSes into an article, being aware of anything outside the RSes can help with organization, finding potentially new reliable sources or angles on a topic (existing or that might come up) and other factors that make for a good encyclopedia. We can't include those other sources at all, I totally agree with that, but we should not pretend they don't exist for purposes of discussing how to improve the article. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Masem, that is flatly unacceptable. I have no idea what you imagine the universe of true but unverifiable information is about gamergate, but more importantly, neither does any reader. Our core content policies V and OR exist to prevent this sort of thing. What you are proposing is that we write an article holding in mind references that we have no intention of showing the reader. A critical reader must be able to read the text of the article and verify for themselves what is on the page. Every other content policy and guideline flows from that. I get that a lot of discourse exists outside of reliable sources and I get that our guidance on sourcing precludes including some of those (as our BLP policy precludes linking to the Zoe post even though that would improve the readers understanding). But we cannot lie to the readers. If we want to include non reliable sources to give a broader picture, then let's form a consensus and do that. If we can't (and we probably can't), it is misleading to construct an alternate narrative that exists only on the talk page and in the minds of editors. The article has to stand on its own. At this point it isn't even about whether or not this represents special pleading on behalf of a fringe viewpoint (though it is), it's about not abdicating our responsibility to our readers. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never said we need to include this information, nor can we. I completely agree it is unsourcable and would fail WP:V with lack of RS for it. But this is true information that anyone following the GG situation knows exists, and we similar as editors just need to be aware that there is more to a topic than just was RS give, as to apply WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and other policies appropriately. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"But this is true information that anyone following the GG situation knows exists " Point to where in the article a prospective reader might learn this fact. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Also (and I want this answered separately) how can you justify saying what you said to me and in the same minute saying "We can't include those other sources at all, I totally agree with that, but we should not pretend they don't exist for purposes of discussing how to improve the article." If that isn't going to go into the article at all, then why are we all wasting our time talking about it. If it is going in the article (and it is and has been) then why bother responding with the above? Protonk (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I never said it needed to be in the article, I'm saying that as tertiary editors we know this exists, and knowing this exists outside the bounds of RS can help guide us in writing the article from RSes. Unrelated example: Civilization V on release was well praised, but there was a huge user backlash due to bugs and other factors that one can see via Metacritic user ratings, etc., but nothing from a single RS. Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that. Same idea that started this section off: RSes say DQ got critical acclaim, etc. but as the original poster noted, you start looking at the reviews and there's some questions in that, not to mention what other RSes say. Here, there's nothing new we can add but being aware that these type of reviews are exactly in the scope of GG's "objective review" concern may help us to find other sources and describe this better in the future if new RSes come along to help on that. We cannot be so narrow minded on the subject to not even concern what other sources and information say about a topic even if they can't be included, we write better articles when we as editors are aware of the larger picture beyond what policy allows use to document. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"Obviously we could not include that in the article, but aware that there was lots of users complaining about bugs, there was one RS review that did score the game rather negatively reflecting on the bugginess, etc. While we could not mention a single thing about users reviews, this RS review was used in lieu of that to show that there was some issues regarding that." Then we failed the readers of the Civ V article. Period. Raising that source to prominence on the basis of hidden information that a critical reader could never verify using the references linked in the article violates V, NPOV and OR. How is this unclear? Protonk (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, anyone can go to the Metacritic page (which is linked as a reference due to the main reviews) and see hundreds of negative user reviews. The information is not unverifyable, it's just not reliable, which is a different problem. We have one review (from a source that would normally be included in the first place in terms of reviews) and have one line to explain why they gave it a low score that aligned with the user review issue. No pandering was done here because the review was otherwise "in process". --MASEM (t) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
So what's the plan here? That readers lurk on 8chan to learn how it's really about ethics in order to understand why our article is so obtuse? Protonk (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
To make sure that we keep our article non-judgemental, and being aware of what else has been said so that when SPA/IPs come here to complain about the article we can provide what they need to be able to show to include it, as was done at the start of this section, as to be able to work with them instead of chasing them away. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We've been talking about this for months: We cannot, should not, and will not do original research into the souls and intentions of Gamergaters in order to influence the article. The article reflects the consensus of reliable sources, period. Nor do we need to "work with" the sock puppets and SPA accounts who come here with such regularity in order to rewrite the article so it can promote Gamergate’s harassment campaigns. Wikipedia is not a subsidiary of 8chan. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a good mentality to have to develop a controversial article on an open wiki. We absolutely need to work with SPAs and IPs that come here with honest intentions of trying to improve the article, even if their suggestions are impossible to include. Ignoring what GG is saying about themselves is not an objective attitude here. Yes, we may only be able to include what RSes say, but we can determine how those statements fit into the larger picture better by understanding the full situation, and failure to want to do that is not going to help maintain objectivity, a requirement for WP editors. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait, Masem, your contention is that a Wikipedia editor who somehow knew nothing at all about gamergate except what he or she read in the RS would somehow be less objective (per the WP definition)? Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. This article is written in a highly judgemental manner against gamergate in Wikipedia's tone that GG is bad and wrong and evil, and with fairly poor explanation from existing RSes of what GG's side is in all this. It is no question that the predominate opinion is that GG is bad and wrong and evil, but that's an opinion that should be attributed to the press and not in any way stated as fact. Let the reader judge for themselves if GG should be considered wrong or not, we should be simply laying out what the sides have said about their POV, relative to WEIGHT, for this and make no attempt to be critical towards it. This is why we as editors should be fully aware of what GG's claims are even if they aren't in RSes so that we can help use the existing RSes to capture their side better. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just so we're clear, the plan is to structure and write the article based on sources that we cannot show the reader (and in many cases cannot even post on the talk page or discuss in detail) so that we can more fully accommodate a fringe viewpoint? Protonk (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we should. In the past I presented a version of the article that added no new sources, but simply ordered the material in a manner to make it very clear what the GG side was about, separate from the harassment and feminist issues; I could do that because I was aware of what the finer details of GG were and thus could organize the existing information better without any major wording changes. Given that they might be fringe but they represent one side of a two-sided argument, this seems to be an extremely objective step to improving the article. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That's unacceptable. Completely. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It is unacceptable of a objective, neutral encyclopedia not to consider what is beyond the reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone in this thread agree with your interpretation of our policies? Protonk (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
If that were true, don't you think some policy or guideline somewhere would state that? Explicitly that? Because we sure do spend a lot of time explaining why we use reliable sources. Seems like a pretty big oversight. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the concept implicitly to support policy, and used throughout other less controversial areas (such as at ITN), but yes, it is not documented which is disconcerting. Because this is a rather key issue, and goes into policy beyond just how it applies to GG, I am asking this over at NPOV, over here: [18] And if it is the case that we can't go and consider non-RS external sources in crafting an article, I will shut up about that in the future. But we need more opinions on this as policy, hence asking there. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that what Masem is describing (advocating for us to completely ignore policy specifically for this article because it is 'judgemental ... against gamergate') is not acceptable, especially for an administrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Policy is not absolute , this is why WP:IAR exists. Further, as long as I do not use admin privileges to enforce my take on policy without the backing of consensus, that's an absolute none issue and approaching a personal attack. Talk page discussion is healthy and appropriate per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
really Masem? What exactly is the improvement to the encyclopedia by tossing all of the content polices out the window to present GG from a view that is not supported by any reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a productive line of discussion. Let's try and focus on the policy questions at hand. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

'Response from gaming journalism sites' section

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but it was archived with little discussion, so I figure I should rehash my reasoning here. The problem with this section is that (as far as I can tell) it relies entirely on primary sources. While we can cite them in some situations, it's clear that in context, it's citing them in order to try and make an argument (that these responses are meaningful, significant; that they represent the industry either successfully fixing itself or reacting to real problems, depending on your point of view, and so on.) That violates WP:OR. If we are going to cover those responses (and I'm not sure they're notworthy enough to include), I think it's important that we cite it to reliable mainstream sources attesting to their significance, not just to blog posts from site owners saying "hey yeah we heard there was some social media controversy, so we're putting out a statement." --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The sites are reliable sources, and primary sources are allowed when used to explain the positions of the people involved. I don't think it's WP:OR to say it's an industry response when each source explicitly says they're responding to the events. I'd like that section to be reinstated. It's been there for months without a problem, and it has previously been discussed and revised. I'd say that indicates at least some consensus to keep it. —Torchiest talkedits 12:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Honestly it just seems like undue weight- no secondary sources reported on the statements and they had no impact whatsoever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't see how it's undue weight when gaming journalism websites responded to the purported goals of the group by drawing attention to existing ethics policies or writing up new ones. Outside of that, though, this source (a reliable source already used in the article) reported on the ethics policy updates. —Torchiest talkedits 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see a sentence mentioning this stuff, but an entire section certainly seems undue to me. Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
A sentence, just listing the sites w/o details, is fine, definitely don't need the section. But the changes do need to be mentioned as the reason.com article points out that this was in reaction to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Four websites wrote pieces specifically talking about their responses to the accusations re: ethics violations. They're secondary sources with regard to the event, and reliable primary sources for describing their own actions. At least one other reliable secondary source reported on this events. An industry response section only makes sense to give a full picture of the events that transpired. —Torchiest talkedits 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I find that I agree with -MASEM: a sentence acknowledging that some Web sites responded to Gamergate accusations by explaining or modifying their policies might not be inappropriate. A section is WP:UNDUE for such minor responses. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 to Masem's suggestion here. 1-2 sentences seems appropriate. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I've restored what I hope is a suitably trimmed-down paragraph. —Torchiest talkedits 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I would remove the references to Destructoid and the Escapist. If they're not notable enough for secondary sources, I think we should do without them. Dumuzid (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What gamergate is about

This is not a forum for discussing what Gamergate is about. Comments should be focused on suggestions for how to improve the article. Make sure to support those suggestions with reliable sources.Bosstopher (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

GamerGate is not about sexism. It is about corruption in journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Bomb threat at GG organized meetup

[19]. We have a paragraph that this can be added to already regarding the threats GG supporters say they've gotten. However, I want to be careful with the language because as the article carefully notes, the only official reason the meetup was abruptly ended was the bar claiming it was a fire drill; the presence of police and the twitter thread are supposition evidence that something else was going on. But this was GG's first official meetup organized by Christina Hoff Summers and Milo Y., so this definitely should merit a one-sentence addition. (I would like to see additional sources to confirm how the police state this). --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

By itself it isn't actually anything at the moment. At best the source is a citation that Hoff Sommers and Milo are ostensibly organisers, but everything else is very vague. Wait for a more complete source with some actual verified content, otherwise this is just hearsay. Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)This seems to be the most actively that Sommers has indicated her affiliation with GG. In the past it has always been sympathetic but highly veiled allusions to the LW and a full throated "Those feminazis are bad bad bad for trying to take the games away from the boys." but i had never seen any actual support for gg. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's give this one some time. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree now we probably should wait to see if this is covered in a larger source (again, particularly of interest if we get a reason the police were there, but without that its speculation) --MASEM (t) 01:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Kotaku just covered it. I think its worthy of mention. A ton of articles have mentioned it already. http://kotaku.com/gamergate-meetup-evacuated-after-apparent-threat-1701761645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The article you gave was already linked by Masem. We're wondering if this is enough to build an inclusion on (in my humble opinion it's really not for now). PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As noted above, the only affirmed fact we have is that the meetup was terminated early due to a reported fire drill. There does exist that tweet and there does exist the police presence but we have no idea if these are connected yet. Even if they were, where your addition in the lead was the wrong place as this would be taken as harassment towards GG supporters, not what GG is claimed to have done. (Unless at the end of the day, it was shown as GGs negatively attacking their own but there's no evidence of that now). --MASEM (t) 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is harassing, no threatening GG Supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor3 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, even as the Kotaku article points out, the only thing that can be confirmed is that the bar the GG meetup was at had stated there was a fire drill and had everyone evacuate. The presence of the police outside is odd, and tied with the bomb threat via twitter, certainly speaks to a possibly different reason the fire drill was used. But we cannot connect these as being harassment towards GG yet, it's speculation we can't yet make, and the only real story is that a meeting was ended by a fire drill. Give it a day or so as more might come out. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought that Tweets weren't accepted as reliable sources. Or has that changed? Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This tweet is currently sourced in the article. I would have to say this has indeed changed. If they're reliable regarding GGInDC, why not use 'em? Camarouge (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Twitter, like Tumblr and Facebook, can fall under the lines of WP:SELFSOURCE. They could work here. One tweet from FemFreq's account is already here. GamerPro64 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article from Destructoid. #GamerGate get-together sabotaged by threats. GamerPro64 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Now there's an article about it on Polygon. This could be enough to actually put this info into the article. Bomb threat clears out GamerGate gathering in Washington D.C. GamerPro64 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Importantly, they quote the police and affirm the connection, and also do state that Sommers and Milo Y. were present. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
FBI informed DC police about a credible bomb threat. They also mention Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[20] Please check this addition just to make sure. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Another article written by Cathy Young, who was at the event. —Torchiest talkedits 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_36&oldid=1086315481"