Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

TFYC (was: Reversion best practices)

@ForbiddenRocky: If there is something about an edit[1] you feel needs discussion, you should start that discussion. Please look over WP:BRD and WP:ONLYREVERT for advice on reverting in a collaborative manner. By WP:POVNAMING it should be preferable to describe sections in simple, nominative terms, rather than using titles to advance a point of view (even the majority view). Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Had to step out. This had gone around before. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the top results that speaks to this point. If there are good reasons for keeping it the way it is, it should be possible to articulate those reasons. Rhoark (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE mainly. It's in the archive. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

BRD. You need to justify your edit. Edits like it have been against consensus multiple times. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's UNDUE to use simple, nominative section titles instead of endorsing opinions about peoples' motivations? That's going to be a tough sell. Rhoark (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, creating a section just for this is UNDUE. Not to mention all the extra words - what we have now is good clear and concise. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

IIRC the section is named as such because it encompasses more than just gamergator efforts to impact public perceptions via TFYC. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hence the splitting of that section in my edit. Rhoark (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason to split it into its own section. There were numerous efforts to impact public perception, of which this was just one; giving it its own section or going off on a tangent about the logistical details it involved is definitely WP:UNDUE, especially given the relatively slight attention this particular attempt seems to have garnished among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a reason, which is that the section title is endorsing an opinion. I'll edit to address just that, and then we can move on to the other matters. Rhoark (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; nothing in the section implies that there is any disagreement that those were efforts to impact public perception, and we cite several reputable news sources to that effect (meaning that we can state it as a statement of fact.) As far as I can tell, it is entirely uncontroversial fact, which means it's a violation of neutrality to describe it as an opinion per WP:YESPOV. There's nothing shameful or wrong about trying to impact public perceptions, either; it's not an accusation, merely a neutral reporting of what occurred according to all reliable sources. If you want to argue that it's controversial, you'll need to produce sources saying that those things were not intended to impact public perception in any way, which I don't think is an assertion anyone is seriously making. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "Efforts to impact public perception" is a title that needs immediate changing, there's nothing POV about it to me, either. It's awkward-wording for a section title and there might be phrasing more succinct to capture it, but that's far different from a POV situation. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Continue to allow Kotaku articles to be primary sources in this article?

Asked and answered. See the FAQ. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a forum. Any off topic or derogatory comments will be removed. Please try and stay civil when talking to other uses and always assume good faith. Since Kotaku is a controversially bias website towards the GamerGate [ BLP redacted]] a main part of the whole fiasco, should we really let Kotaku be main sources in this article? I know there’s no Wikipedia rules surrounding this but it’s just a thought; to stop this article getting out of hand. Here’s some links [2], [3] & [4] --Anarchyte 03:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC) We use Kotaku for only 3 different things: Tolito's statement about the allegation re: Quinn/Grayson being false. Here, absolutely, as a primary source (regarding Kotaku's stance on the accusation) it is necessary. As a representative link of the "death of gamers" articles that created additional criticism. It's not used to pull any of that criticism, so just an example, it is fine. As an example of how sites have changed their disclosure policies in light of GG, and again, as a primary source here it is fine. We do not pull any secondary analysis from Kotaku to use in the article, so there is no issue with using these sources. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC) And, of course, the gentleman in question was not an editor, was he? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Being a party to the dispute and a target of the games journalism consumer revolt, Kotaku should be treated as a biased source. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, they are revolting consumers, but that fact that they dont shower before leaving mom's basement to get their dorito's and mountain dew is really neither here nor there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) along with the rest of themainstream liberal press, no doubt?MarkBernstein (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC) The issue falls more in line with considering independence of the sources, not so much any perceived bias (which still can happen in truly independent sources). Kotaku and Gawker are clearly dependent as part of the topic. Gaming sites in general are partially dependent as while gaming journalism as a whole has been part of the GG topic, no other specific cites have been called out. Mainstream, non-gaming press are sufficiently independent as to prefer statements from those sources than from the semi-dependent gaming sites. -- MASEM (t) 03:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) (refactored) off topic discussion to User_talk:Anarchyte - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Batman and GG

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-arkham-knight-includes-reference-gamergate-1507896 - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Added that from an MCV source at the end. I would not be surprised if there are other sources that will come out in the future on it. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I expanded it a little bit to clarify what the gist of the parody was. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate-really

This, http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate-really seems to be a potential source for this article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Chrisrus (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Without taking a position, there is a relevant RSN discussion. Also, in this pages archives. — Strongjam (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the points User:Woodroar made in the RSN discussions. Techraptor doesn't seem to be a reliable source. However that article's mention of the HuffPo interviews has reminded me of something. Should we use statements from Gamergate supporters in the Huffpo interviews, to better describe what they portray themselves as? (Should I split this into another topic section?) Bosstopher (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Should I split this into another topic section?". Yes. — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My perception of TechRaptor has declined somewhat since bringing them to RSN. Other sources should be preferred. However, I do not agree with applying exceptional standards to sources with uncontentious claims. TechRaptor should be usable in principle for uncontentious claims and describing points of view. I do not think there is a claim which at present needs to be represented in the article for which TechRaptor is the best available source. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TechRaptor? You mean the site whose editors post in KiA and who coordinated the subjects of their articles on GamerGate in the same IRC chats discussed by Ars Technica? To be fair, I don't consider either of these illegal or necessarily unethical, but it does make them the exact opposite of an independent source. By comparison, TechRaptor makes Kotaku—which is "involved" simply by being the recipient of childish harassment based on debunked claims—look like the most independent bunch of independents that ever independented. I actually discovered this less than a week ago, or else I would have mentioned it in the RSN discussion linked above. But even without these details, TechRaptor lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require of our independent sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Totilo, Kotaku editor-in-chief, posts in KiA too. Almost like its a open forum where people can civilly discuss game journalism. And the IRC logs are as much a tempest in a teapot as GameJournoPros was. TechRaptor would certainly be involved with respect to some claims that could be made, but at the moment no claims are being made, so its a moot point. Rhoark (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What are "gamergate supporters"?

2nd paragraph of "History" talks about "Gamergate supporters" but nothing explains who this is. Another use of that term a few paragraphs later suggests it's the term for some or all of the anti-Quinn people.

Can someone either explain the term early on, or use a clearer term?

One problem is that nothing says whether "Gamergate" is the term used by the anti-Quinn people or the not-anti-Quinn people. I mean, is a supporter of Gamergate someone who says "Let's Gamergate this woman!" or is it someone who says "What's happening is unacceptable, let's make Gamergate an issue!"

"Perpetrators" (the people who carry out something) seems more accurate than "supporters", but with the above mentioned naming problem, I don't think just replacing "supporters" will be enough to make this term understandable to people who don't already know the topic. Gronky (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that because GG is amorphous and anonymous with unclear goals, the language to describe the people involved is messy. In broad strokes, "gamergate supporters" are generally taken as those that have been speaking negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems, but some sources, in their definition, include anyone that uses the #gamergate hashtag or tag, and that would include those that are engaging in harassment and threats. (Regardless, they would all be considered "anti-Quinn" in your question) Trying to make the distinction between these various facets has been a long running problem on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are many people who "speak negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems" but are not in any way supportive of "gamergate" . There are those who are involved in /"support" "gamergate" for the fact that gamergate is opposed to feminism and not because of any concern of "ethics" in gaming .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, GG supporters are people that speak negatively about gaming journalism under the hashtag GG. And on the last part, it's not just feminism, but any social or politicial issue (eg such as LBGT), though feminism appears to be by far the largest one. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No,to be clear GG supporters are those who support any part of the multitude of facets of GG - some "supporters" participate and approve of the harassment and death threats to women, some "support" the antifeminist drive to remove social criticism from games, some few "support" GG lame and incomprehensible "but ethics" stance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was focusing more on the issue that just being critical of gaming press doesn't make you a GGer - GGers nearly always associate their complaints with the GG hashtag. There's several facets after that within it, obviously. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh. "speaking negatively about gaming journalism" as in, saying it's pro-women biased ("Quinn got attention too easily")? Or saying it's anti-women?

I'm not going to fix this article (I had only a very passing interest, just wanted to see what this thing is), so I'm just posing the question so that people who are editing can see the comprehension problems that a casual reader will have.

If I were to try to fix the article, I think I would start by removing uses of "Gamergate supporters". The term doesn't seem to serve the intended purpose. Maybe there's no term that can serve all the needs presented in the article, so it would be better to have a descriptive sentence, which can be different for different contexts. Gronky (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, it's primarily against seemingly pro-feminist journalism and game development but there's other issues too (hence why "social justice" is a connected term). But we've been at strong odds, repeatedly, to struggle to find a good way to define things given the undefinable nature of what the claimed GG movement is, in contrast to what it actually demonstrates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea about it's RS status, but the title alone of this paper says it well: Molden, Dan T. "How Do You Catch a Cloud and Pin it Down? The struggle to define and identify the GamerGate" movement"." (2015). — Strongjam (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing that sourced described as a "department bulletin paper" , which means it likely lacks peer-review for an internal newsletter-equivalent, so its RS-ness is iffy, but I hope we'll see more papers like that to describe the problems. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We might consider using "Gamergate adherents" in some contexts, and "Gamergate followers" in others. When speaking of planning the operations that culminated in threats or discussed attacks, "Gamergate conspirators" would certainly be a suitable term amply supported by the sources. Under the circumstances, a Gamergater is anyone who claims to be one, typically by using the hashtag; there are no card-carrying members of Gamergate because they don't (as far as we know) hand out cards. As noted above, the motivations that lead people to endorse sending threats of rape, murder and mayhem in order to dissuade them from pursuing careers in computing are not very well documents; it is better for the encyclopedia to define Gamergate supporters by their action of supporting its notable activities or writing in its name. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think most or all of you are missing the problem. As an outsider having read the intro and the History section, I can't tell if Quinn is a Gamergate adherent/supporter or not.

I've read further down the article now and it seems "Gamergate supporter" is someone attacking Quinn (and related actions). When reading just the start, I was wondering if "Gamergate supporter" was someone fighting back against these attacks by making a big social issue of how women are treated in the gamer community. (Would a "Watergate supporter" be someone who supports corruption or someone who supports the investigation into the corruption?)

Maybe the article can be improved by using a less vague intro. I'll make an edit to the first sentence. As an outsider unaware of previous discussions, my edit is unlikely to please everyone but maybe it will add some fresh ideas. I won't be sticking around for long though. Gronky (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Supportive of your edit, but I feel it won't be uncontroversial. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: Do keep in mind that the lede of this article has already been subject to extensive discussion. A Gamergate support is a person who says, "I support Gamergate!" or "I am taking part in this Gamergate action!" or, more broadly, a person who works to promote Gamergate. For example, someone threatening to murder a female software developer and using the #Gamergate hashtag in the threat would certainly be a Gamergate supporter. The person receiving such a threat is unlikely to be a Gamergate supporter. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine it has! I gave it a try and I actually think my new version is not bad. I mostly just reused all the existing words. What do you think?

The problem I want to solve is that I don't know who would say "I support Gamergate!" I didn't know if Gamergate was the attacks or the fight back. I think some parts of this article are written by people who are so informed about the topic that they assume certain things are obvious/clear when they're not. Gronky (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's far better than most proposals that have been made. (There are likely people who will ardently object.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree -- that's far better than most proposals that have been made. I have made some small revisions which do not, I think, affect your clarification at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: I concur that the article is not doing well in explaining what is going on or who is responsible, but the changes you made are not consistent with reliable sources. First of all, "Gamergate" is frequently used to refer to a controversy, a movement, or a group of people. All these things are frequently related to misogynistic attacks, but it is not a common usage to define Gamergate as being the set of attacks themselves. Furthermore, the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Wikipedia should not take a side on those issues in such strong terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit I have proposed that makes it more clear what is going on, while reflecting the range of reliable sources is,

"The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspects of the controversy have been the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Such threats against these and other individuals are believed to come from a small minority of participants on either side of the debate."

There have been concerns this doesn't give sufficient weight to certain facets of the situation. I could support changing "gender" to "sexism", for instance, but I think this is a better starting point for revision. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Source for that? Based on the sources in our article it seems pretty widely accepted. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That there is relatedness is not contentious, but the level of relatedness is. Most of what happened with ZQ is older than the name Gamergate and involves a much smaller group of people. The highest profile threat against Anita had no connection with GG. Some sources don't care about these distinctions; others do. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

the highest profile threat absolutely had an absolute connection to gamergate. stop trying to whitewash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the facts well enough to reply on the substance, but if what you say is correct then "Gamergate" is not a defined thing that people can be a supporter of. What if the first use of "Gamergate" in my version was replaced by "the Gamergate attacks", and then uses of the term "Gamergate supporters" could be replaced by "supporters of the Gamergate attacks". Would things then be clear and correct? (In your opinion and in the opinion of the others here.) Gronky (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that would be an improvement, but the lede ought to start with defining the subject of the article and only then explain why it is notable. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give that version a try. As for more generally changing how the lede is written, I'm going to leave that to yourself and others :-) Gronky (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict The misogynistic attacks are the only notable activity* of Gamergate, and as explained above by Masem (!) attacks using the hashtag #Gamergate are nearly the only things we can actually attribute to Gamergate. It is extremely common to use Gamergate to refer to the attacks: the attacks are all that Gamergate has accomplished. The connection between Gamergate and specific attacks is not contentious: dozens of impeccable sources draw the connection -- which is inescapable -- and only the most rabidly fringe sources question it -- if indeed they do. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• One other activity of Gamergate has drawn significant attention in reliable sources: their tireless and unremitting attempts to use this encyclopedia and this page to whitewash their harassment campaign and to broadcast sexual innuendo concerning their rivals. At the moment, I think it best to resist the temptation to add a section concerning this; as Gamergate's campaign against Wikipedia continues, it's likely best to wait for the problem to be resolved. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This thread is still there, waiting for you to back up any of your claims. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, cool it. We don't need to go over (for the umpteenth time) all of the reliable sources which correctly describe gamergate as the death rattle of a woman hating niche. Consistently asking again and again for it to be shown to you is not constructive. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the highest quality reliable sources (like NYTimes or WAPost) do not say that GG is that; they do say there are factions within GG that clearly out to harass females and critics, but they are also clear there are factions within GG that want to discuss ethics, and do not describe these as "women hating". The group/concept, as a whole, has elements of fighting against feminism, and of contributing towards an environment where harassment is not seen as a criminal act, and that by associating with the group, those that want to talk ethics are guilty by association, but to present every member of the group as against feminism or directly involved in the harassment is completely against these sources. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources say there are posts claiming "ethics" that have nothing to do with ethics. Many used as a smokescreen to attempt to rationalize sexual harassment of the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't need umpteen times if we could get an honest consideration of the sources once. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Take back your unsupported accusation that fellow editors are not giving "honest" consideration. That is flat out false. Even crappy sources have been given excessive consideration. 39 god-damn archive pages of consideration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking it personal is telling but not indicative of the collective failure to give sources honest consideration. 39 pages show it by the shear number of complaints over the same lack of consideration. --00:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes, I will take wild unsupported and unsupportable accusations about editors honesty personally. Provide evidence or retract your false accusation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Being specific each time

I've made a new intro which is just my original proposal but with the first "Gamergate" replaced by "the Gamergate attacks".

I started to update the article body then to say "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" instead of "Gamergate supporters" but I stopped when I got to the 5th paragraph of the "Subsequent harassment" section which says that Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers organised an event for Gamergate supporters, and some other woman (I skimmed the ref but couldn't find who she was) received hacking attempts for supporting Gamergate. Did these people actually support the attacks and doxing? (I'm guessing they didn't) Or, in the context of this paragraph, is "Gamergate" something else? The "Gamergate supporters" who don't support the threats and the doxings, what do they say they're supporters of?

If people think the new intro text is good ([the link again), then the article could be fixed by someone who knows the context better than I do going through it replacing "Gamergate supporters" with either, depending on the context, "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" or description_number_2. (The latter being a few words to describe people who don't support attacking people but do think gamers should resist whatever Milo and Christina think they should be resisting.)

Is this a path to improvement? Gronky (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling it "Gamergate attacks" would be extremely bias and soapboxing. Yes, there were and still are attacks, and I did check that there are some sources out there, but there's a reason we call this article the "Gamergate controversy" - it is a controversy over why and the nature of not only the harassment but other means that have been used by GG supporters to sway others to their view, and the critically-negative reaction to these, and it implies that all supporters of Gamergate were directly involved or supported the attacks, which is not the case. It is the case that the harassment has taken center stage, but if you took that out and left the rest of the commentary in this, there's still plenty of criticism about the GG movement/supports about their otherwise legal but questionably moral methods of enacting change and their ideals that the propose, all centered around issues of sexist and feminism in the VG industry, so it is best to leave it at a middle ground as a "controversy" which also follows from searching the most common name on Google. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, i dont see how "Gamergate attacks" could be "extremely" bias or soapboxing. The gamergate attacks are what the sources are ALWAYS covering. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's why I want to be specific each time. The article currently lumps everyone together, as if all supporters of GG support threatening and doxing women. As I learn more about this, it seems a distinction can and must be made between those who support the attacks (associated with GG) and those who support something else which I can't define yet (a fight against pro-women discrimination? Radical feminism? Affirmative action for women???).

I don't want to call everything "Gamergate attacks". I want to call the attacks "attacks", and the non-attacks something else.

Using the term "controversy" isn't a middle ground - it's a decision to not tell Wikipedia readers what GG is. Gronky (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A controversy is what Gamergate is. It's a ton of people arguing on Twitter (and Reddit, and Wikipedia.) Some of them are really dicks about it and send threats. The threats come from both sides, and are not in themselves a side. Rhoark (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But the article uses the term "Gamergate supporter". Can someone be a supporter of a controversy? If so, what does that mean here? If not then all instances of "Gamergate supporter" are misleading or wrongly used and must be replaced, no? Gronky (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a cluster of issues, any of which may be more or less important to any individual supporter. They include the ideas that gamers are not in general hostile to women and minorities, that cultural critics of games are promoting censorship, and that games journalists have skewed coverage on these issues. Rhoark (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so "Gamergate supporter" can't be attributed a meaning. That means it can't be used (without qualification). Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"without qualification" GamerGate doesn't really draw a meaningful distinction between these facets and neither do the sources. (Probably synth/OR, but I've noticed GG seems to lump the anti-feminism in with 'ethical' concerns, because they think the games press shouldn't push an agenda.) The controversy is the harassment which comes from the hashtag and whether the harassment is a goal of GG or just incidental. GG supporters decry harassment, yet harassment comes from the hashtag. Ergo, the definition of a GG supporter is somebody who says they support 'ethics' in game journalism but might be sending death threats. This is what the sources (and thus the article) refer to when they say "GamerGate supporter". I don't think we can put that exact phrasing in the article (synth), but I doubt anybody will disagree with it. Radiodef (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If that's hard to tell from the article, its by design. As you should be seeing by now from these threads, certain editors are fighting hard to keep it out. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We mustn't accept unclear articles. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

let's be clear and follow the most reliable sources, then. We absolutely know the connection between Gamergate and harassment:every source discusses harassment. all the rest? It's debatable at best.Gamergate is about harassment, period . Full stop, end of story; Wikipedia still follows The Mew Yorker, The New York Times, TheGuardian, and all the rest of the good sources. 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Following the sources, I see they all identify that while harassment is what clearly is the only real major aspect produced by people using the hashtag, the supporters of Gamergate (a subset of the hashtag group) say it is about ethics. New Yorker [5] "The Gamergate hashtag has been used more than a million times on Twitter, for myriad purposes. Some denounce harassment but consider the tag a demand for better ethical practices in video-game journalism, including more objective reporting and a removal of politics from criticism.". The New York Times [6] "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women." (and to note, discrediting/intimidating w/o harassment/threats can be seen as a unethical but it is far from illegal since this is the bulk of what happens in political circles during elections). The Guardian [7] "As the hashtag has grown beyond its origin, there are supporters of the campaign who are unaware of – or unconcerned about – its roots [in the disproven accussations]". Only the most narrow, specific reading of the sources can come out with "Gamergate is only about harassment". There are plenty of questions these sources beg about those that claim to only be in it for the ethics angle, but that's far different from flat out stating they don't exist and GG is only about harassment. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, but he is not notable for being a saxophone player. Some people who say they support Gamergate may, like Bill Clinton, play the saxophone. Some people may claim to be concerned about ethics and they may say they are Gamergate supporters: how would we know? Gamergate's only notable activities are (a) its widely-discussed and infamous attacks on female software developers, and (b) its persistent attack on Wikipedia in order to improve its public image. This is lots of fun to discuss, apparently -- you're revisiting a discussion from last week for some reason -- or it's a nice opportunity for foruming. Gamergate's harassment and misogyny are well documents; its fig-leaf of ethical "concerns" are scarcely document save to dismiss them. Until Gamergate actually does something notable involving ethics, or until Gamergate plays the saxophone, we pay no WP:UNDUE attention to these purported concerns. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, that's not how UNDUE works, especially if we are talking contentious statements that fall under NPOV. The statement "The Gamergate movement is only about harassment" is, just at face value, contentious due to being a labeling statement. While I'd argue common sense means we should treat that as a claim not fact, the three sources (as a tip of the iceberg) are sufficient evidence from highly reliable sources to show that that statement is contentious, and cannot be said as fact or used as the basis to develop the rest of the article. UNDUE does apply that we're not going to spend anywhere equal time discussing the GG supporters concerns as there simply isn't that balance in the sources; but sources do describe enough to warrant fair, unjudgemental discussion of their ethics concerns. The largest part of this article will still remain the history/events that are primarily on the harassment, and the criticism about the use of harassment/threats, and the nature of the gamer identity that led to this situation. And I am addressing the comment you added yesterday, which you claim that the New Yorker, New York Times, and the Guardian all state that GG is only about harassment, and I've just pointed out that they clearly don't say that unless you take a very selective read of each article, which we don't do as an objective work. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And the Bill Clinton/Saxophone analogy is flawed to your point: yes, he is not most notably known for playing the saxophone among his other accompishments, but we do mention his saxophone playing and how that affected his public image on the article. GG is most known for the harassment, but the ethics aspects are well known, even if the major journalists like to mock that with "but it's about ethics in video game journalism!" memes. The ethics aspect exists, period, and to pretend otherwise is purposely whitewashing the article in favor of one side which WP cannot do. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Until reliable sources report notable actions arising from Gamergate's supposed saxophone playing, they're merely speculation. If major journalists broadly dismiss the existence of saxophone-playing in Gamergate, Wikipedia doesn't discuss Gamergate saxophones even though we may ourselves "know" that Gamergaters play saxophones and make most eloquent music. If we believe that journalists have banded together to unjustly ignore saxophonic Gamergaters, well, the queue for conspiracy theories is thataway. ----> MarkBernstein (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely wrong for a neutral encyclopedia. Dismissal of claims in reliable sources does not mean they don't exist, they just don't believe the claims have merit. For us as a neutral, non-judgemental encyclopedia, that means we should be documenting the claims and the dismissal of those claims, as long as we use RSes to do that (which we do as noted), with the only caveat in that any unnecessary BLP-violating accusations without relevant support are removed. Taking the stance that because the claims are dismissed means we shouldn't discuss them is extremely judgemental and something WP cannot do at all. Documenting these claims of the GG supporter side does not mean that WP is endorsing or supporting them, simply staying true to being an objective documentation of a controversy. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources give no credence to "controversial" positions like the CIA-sponsorship of the Kennedy assassination, Obama’s promotion of Islam, black helicopters, the incompatibility of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics, or Gamergate’s enthusiasms for ethics. Would you do me a big favor? If you've not actually read it in the last month or two, go take a fresh look at WP:FLAT. Take a deep breath, approach it with an open mind, forget it's me asking if that's what it takes.

As to discussing these claims, we have discussed them. You have personally written hundreds, nay thousands of posts about them. But the situation is absolutely clear: nearly no authorities recognize any substantial Gamergate accomplishments regarding ethics, while every authority discusses misogyny and harassment and the best authorities, when examining the purported ethical concerns, find them implausible..

When you come back from WP:FLAT, step back and ask yourself, how do you envision this turning out? Do you enjoy this? I don’t! Do you believe in the plan they're advocating over on Reddit -- that having bagged TRPoD, they can easily get me out of the way and do what they will? Is that the endgame -- and, with all your experience here, do you think it will accomplish its goals? And if it did work, even briefly, can you imagine the outcry in the mainstream press -- which would lead plenty of people back to repair the article?

You have a simple and superior alternative. Pick up a pen, and write about Gamergate’s ethical accomplishments. Publish in the Times, or The National Review, in CJR or in PNAS. Get yourself on CNN and MSNBC and Limbaugh. Do a keynote at Web Science or the WWW Conference or Wikisym or GDC. Go talk to your Congressperson and your Senators, get them to give speeches about Gamergate ethics and introduce legislation. Give interviews. Or, if you're bashful, help someone else do it. Take care of that, come back here, and you'll have no trouble at all discussing ethics here, because we'll have a clear and reliable discussion in plenty of great sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter to us as a non-judgemental work - if we have multiple sources that say that some of the group is about ethics - even if the sources follow that with harsh criticism, dismissal of the claims, or the like - then we still write that this is what some of the group claims to be about and do not author the article pretending that these claims never existed. It doesn't matter if there have been zero activities or results of GG's ethics side that can be documented, as long as we are able to document their motives. This is how we approach articles on convicted murderers, formally-recognized hate groups, and the like. We do not belittle - in WP's voice - what the persons behind these believe to be their motives, but just document them, and then document the criticism and rebuttals and dismissals of these motives from other sources.

And I stress that the sources are clear that there is a side of the GG supporters that claim to be about ethics (see the three statements above as a start). The sources use words like "ostensibly" to express doubt that some or all of these people are true to this motive, but they do report that this side with this claim of being about ethics exists. To ignore this is purposely twisting the sources to soapbox. The goal is not to elevate the GG side to make them look good or the like, or to show their "great accomplishments", but simply to reflect that the sources are not making as extreme statements that our article is currently making when you get into the details so that WP stays neutral, impartial and non-judgemental on the topic. Harassment has been done under the GG hashtag, but the entire body of GG supporters, which also use the GG hashtag, are not necessarily involved with the harassment (they might be, but no one has proof of this either way). That is what the highest RSes say. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Some Gamergaters may support the New York Yankees, but we don't know that. Some may support the Republican Party, but we don't know that. The only thing we know about Gamergate from the many reliable sources that cover it is that they send threats to female software developers; everything else is pretty much speculation. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

All of them? There's no reason to mention sports teams, but from what I've read so far I've the impression that Milo and Christina and their sort don't send threats to female software developers.

What does that latter group support?

Or, are you saying that that latter group is an insignificant fringe? (I don't know this sort of detail.) They organised at least one event, how many turned up to these events? Gronky (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We know there are some that do not support harassment and want to talk ethics (per Singal, NYTimes, and WApost who have talked to GG members, so that's not speculation), but we have no idea the size of this number relative to what the other internal divisions are (strictly sticking to RSes). We know the actions are what is clear, but how many involved and what proportion of GG they make up is unclear, though RSes believe this to be from a vocal minority of GG supporters. That's why the current lede, to its benefit, identifies that the actions are why GG is notable, not the ethics claims. But we should not be pretending that PP is only people that want to harass, even if that's the only notable factor that's come out of it; that's the nature of a vocal minority. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably at least half of the 38 archived talk pages concern who Gamergate is. They could have saved us much grief (and some topic bans, probably) if the movement wasn't an unorganized, leaderless, anonymous series of social media posts. The article would have been so much more easy to put together if they had agreed on a spokesperson(s). Coulda, woulda, shoulda though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Indeed. But we'll work with what we have. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are attributed with harassment but named/non-anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are not. Even within the anonymous subset, it's unclear how many are sending the "rape and death threats" that are covered as news. And even within the threat group, some are not even directly GamerGate. I came across a source today that explained the threat that triggered Sarkeesian's Utah cancellation was anti-feminist but not GamerGate related. The FBI made that distinction and opened a separate case. The aspects of gamerGate that are underrepresented are changes to gaming journalism disclosure requirements, the increase of the visibility of female lead characters in games as well as heightened awareness of female gamers and games, and the visibility of prominent female game developers and executives as the face of various games (in addition to the victims of harassment). WP has covered one aspect but for various reasons, these other significant developments are not covered. GamerGate coalesced a lot of disjointed pieces that revolve around women in gaming and not all of it is "rape and death threats." One notable aspect is that women in gaming are no longer fractured into players, developers, characters and various other separate pieces but now are unified more vertically in game products. That was a reaction to GamerGate threats and a recognition of the number of women in gaming but it is not the victim narrative of social injustice portrayed here, it's an empowerment narrative that plays out in events like e3 that is going on now. Make no mistake, it is gamergate related just with a different narrator. It is not a "pro-GamerGate" narrative WP characterizes as harassment nor is it the "anti-GamerGate" narrative that focuses on social justice. It's a narrative of gaming culture that is inclusive of women at all levels of gaming as a fallout from what began last summer. All these changes are covered in RSs and attributed as a reaction to GamerGate. What once was the separate groups of developer, game player, character, and software company executive is now represented in a vertical strategy of integration with a more singular voice. This source from last december speaks to its beginning in interviews with Bonnie Ross and Brianna Wu (note the problem with wikipedia coverage is evident by red and blue links - the answer as to why one exists and another does not lies at the heart of the coverage. Both are feminists, yet one wields significantly more influence in gaming and has done so for years, the other is a Social Justice advocate that runs a small indie development company. WP's article is heavily and POVishly skewed toward the Social Justice aspect rather than the gaming inustry as a whole). Ross spoke about issues but declined to detail any threats or harassment. She talked about the future. There are stories even today that talk about female gamers/consumers/developers/executives and the narrative response to GamerGate is integration, not revolution. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So create the article then instead of using it as a rhetorical device. — Strongjam (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's better to fix the false narratives. There are at least 10 prominent female gaming executives that don't have WP articles and are ignored by the GamerGate article despite significant influence. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"false narratives" ah... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are these the same narratives that are constantly crumbling? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

re" The aspects of gamerGate that are underrepresented are:

• changes to gaming journalism disclosure requirements

These changes are 1) already covered in our article. 2) relatively minor 3) hardly ever discussed in the reliable sources when discussing gamergate and so merit only small coverage in our article

• the increase of the visibility of female lead characters in games as well as heightened awareness of female gamers and games,

Given the lead time between game design and release, there really really nothing between when gamergate started and now that could have been covered in our article. There is one article i have seen that talks about the number of strong non chainmail bikini women characters in games that are just being released in concert with the recent E3. If they are the result of 6 months of serious retooling concepts and characters as a counter response to gamergate we can certainly cover that, but again, a single piece cannot seriously reframe the article's coverage. And I think we provide quite significant coverage of the renewed focus on women in gaming and in the context of gamergate what is covered about them: that they are subject to excessive levels of vile harassment. What else do the sources cover about the subject in relation to gamergate?

• and the visibility of prominent female game developers and executives as the face of various games (in addition to the victims of harassment)

I have seen none of the articles printed covering this aspect. Can you point them out? edit to add well from this [8] we could add "Bonnie Ross, the head of the Halo franchise, refused to discuss Gamergate" but i am not sure what that would add to the article. end of add

• One notable aspect is that women in gaming are no longer fractured into players, developers, characters and various other separate pieces but now are unified more vertically in game products.

Huh? If you mean that women in all aspects of the gaming community have been targeted, yes, we cover that. "Female vertical unification in gaming" is not a topic that I have seen discussed in any of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

New source

[9]. While Huffington Post (a site that I personally try to replace but use if necessary), the article is penned by William Cheng, an associate professor at Dartmouth College (read: not a random person). Importantly, he stresses that both sides are at fault that GG is continuing as it is, though placing blame on anyone (either side) that threatens but "find[s] safe harbor in excuses about verbal and playful make-believe, shirking all responsibility and reality." (Yes, more of that from the GG side, but he refers to the DC meetup bomb threat in the same tone as the other harassment and threats that have been issued). --MASEM (t) 06:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not just the Huffington Post, it's the Huffington Post blogs. It's an opinion piece (more technically, a WP:NEWSBLOG) so I don't think it's usable as a source. (You can see a related discussion about using the Huffington Post blogs as a source here.) It definitely cannot be used for statements of fact; it could possibly be used for statements of the author's opinion, but I'm not seeing why their opinion is particularly relevant -- I don't think just being an associate professor at Dartmouth makes them someone whose opinion is automatically important to the subject. Regardless, we probably want to avoid having the article swarmed with opinion pieces the way it once was. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

HP Blogs would be SPS but that would not mean that an "expert" or otherwise core involved party to GG that used that to publish would not become unusable; eg if Quinn decided to publish a piece on there about GG, it would certainly be a RS for us despite the SPS nature. I don't disagree that just being an associate profession who had yet to appear as part of the GG narrative is necessarily an expert, but it is an opinion that might be seen in the future by others, and if that is the case, would make this a source to include in paraphrase (eg w/o long quotes) with the other opinions. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You could see if he has a published paper on this. The HuffPo blog is odd. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any indication of Prof. Cheng's field of study? And do we feel it would make a difference to the usefulness of the source? E.g. if a professor of mathematics, then not really different from a "random person"; if related to the subject matter, then potentially more germane. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

He's an Assistant Professor of Music. Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So normally you wouldn't use this source, but you'll make an exception because it implicates both sides in GG. That's neutrality. I salute you. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let's just move on. Yes, it would be great if due diligence were our watchword, but as we're under discretionary sanctions we're also supposed to avoid antagonising one another.

And yeah, due diligence before proposing content should be our best practice. We're not newcomers. --TS 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

WAM Twitter Report

In November 2014, Twitter announced a collaboration with the non-profit group "Women, Action & the Media" (WAM), in which users of Twitter can report harassment to a tool monitored by WAM members, who would forward affirmed issues to Twitter within 24 hours.

This report was released in May: [10]. Radiodef (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about this (though had read it before). It seems to downplay how much presence GG harassment was (in that they only found it was 12% of all reported cases), but still appropirate to include to note the report finished. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well the finding is specifically that 12% of harassing accounts were linked to GG by inclusion in the autoblocker list. Radiodef (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed is their population is skewed. The reporters had to specifically report to WAM! and they didn't have to be the recipients of the harassment. It seems that it is very difficult to deskew that into any meaningful number that has statistical significance. That method is very prone to bias (very much like an online poll from a site that generally attracts a specific segment rather than a representative sample). It appears to be a way to motivate Twitter to deal better with harassment. Not sure anything about GamerGate is numerically pertinent other than it coincided in time with the survey. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"The first thing I noticed is their population is skewed." The sample of reports is limited. What impact, if any, this has on the findings is entirely speculative. I have serious doubts about whether such speculation is something we should be doing as Wikipedians. WAM is, as far as I know, a respectable and notable organization. What's more important is that we accurately portray the nature of the report. Personally I think the number is interesting, because it gives a ballpark estimate of how much Twitter harassment comes from GamerGate. Radiodef (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, this shows the problem of relying on WP:PRIMARY sources. There are cases where we can use them, but it can be tricky, especially for raw statistics like these. For instance, when you're saying "it gives a ballpark estimate", that's your opinion, not a fact (and putting it in the article would make an implicit statement of "this number is meaningful and relevant to the topic, look at it and draw conclusions from it.") For that reason, it's best to wait until we have reliable secondary sources that we can use to put raw statistics in context and analyze what they mean; for an editor to say "I don't feel the meaning of these numbers is as clear" is a reasonable objection to a primary source. If the paper itself provided some details on the meaning or significance of those numbers, we could use those, but since it doesn't, I don't see how we could include them in the article in any useful way. (Is 12% a lot? Is it a little? How does this compare to other hashtags or sources of harassment? Etc etc etc. We can't say or even imply any answers to any of those questions without treading into WP:OR, and without the ability to answer them the numbers are pretty useless.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is getting into OR, but a point the report makes is that a majority of harassment on Twitter during their sampling period was not related to GG, even though when they announced this report, they and other sources thought GG was in the spotlight (eg [11]). No, we can't say that exactly but we should document the report being done (which was big news) and this result without any added comment beyond explaining how they quantified the number. The reader can infer from the data if this means anything. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's not OR to point out their own, cited, deficiencies. Page 41 titled "Limitations" in section 1.7 shows a number of uncorrectable samples. The lack of GG harassment may be notable but it's pretty clear from their own analysis that their methods are insufficient for any statistical report. --DHeyward (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"If the paper itself provided some details on the meaning or significance of those numbers, we could use those, but since it doesn't, [...]." Yes, it does: "Although WAM!’s reporting period occurred during the controversy, only 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts could be linked to GamerGate." Radiodef (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is 12% of all the accounts reported as harassing to WAM were linked to Gamergate. There are other people who harass (alas) and of course not all harassment was reported to WAM. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right, it is 12% of the accounts responsible for 811 incidents during November. The WAM report itself is geared more towards the types of harassment and what Twitter did in response, less towards GG. Radiodef (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've skimmed the above discussion and gather that there is a problem with primary sourcing. A quick Google News search shows an article in Fast Company that covers the results reasonably well:

• A Snapshot of How Twitter Deals with Online Harassment

I hope this will be useful. --TS 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• • The one part of that FC article that stands out is what I was implying above - the amoutn of GG-related harassment turned out smaller than some had expected. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable conclusion to draw. The nature of the study means that you cannot determine anything about the percentage of harassment. The only thing that can be drawn is about the nature of the specific tweets reported to WAM, and in that case the only solid statement that can be made is the "12% of harassment reported to WAM came from accounts that had been linked to GamerGate". Anything else - such as whether or not this is a significant or insignificant proportion of GamerGate supporters, how this relates to Twitter harassment on the whole, and whether or not 12% is a significant number - cannot be drawn from the study. For those statements to be made, the study would have had to be based on sampling a statistically significant number of tweets and looking for instances of harassment, rather than following up on reported cases. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's not reasonable for us to conclude this from the phrasing of the sources, or that it's not reasonable for the sources to conclude this from the data? Radiodef (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I was stating, and I believe Bilby was also stating, that the source makes no statement about the extent of harassment in the world, or the proportion of harassment that stems from Gamergate, or the proportion of Gamergate supporters (whatever that would mean) who have engaged in harassment. It makes no statement about any of these questions because the data do not support any statement. It is meaningless (as I think Masem knows) to say "the amount of Gamergate-related harassment turned out smaller than some had expected" because the study was not capable of measuring the total amount of harassment, nor the amount of Gamergate-related harassment, and how would we know what "some" had expected? The study also did not indicate how many Gamergaters play saxophones. Let's stop this. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Related paragraph at TotalBiscuit#Consumer advocacy

The paragraph on this controversy at TotalBiscuit#Consumer advocacy appears to be written from the non-neutral point of view of GamerGate supporters — stating that the video that started the controversity was one on which Quinn was "discussed" without any mention of its false and misogynistic attacks, claiming that TotalBiscuit was "attacked on twitter" for his support of this video, pushing the ethics in journalism aspect of the case, and claiming that the misogynistic attacks associated with GamerGate were isolated instances unrelated to the actual movement. Might be worth a look, paying the same attention to neutral reporting of high-quality mainstream sources that editors here have been doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Aware of the paragraph. The video in question there is not the same video as the one that Baldwin was talking about when he coined the term, not sure what the video actually contained though. — Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. In any case we should go by what the actual sources say about the video, which in this case is that it was "discussing the subject" (i.e. the controversy) rather than Quinn herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

#gamergate, Apple, Confederate Flag

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/gamergate_attacks_racegender_baiters_like_apple_for_pulling_confederate_themed_games_from_app_store/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see an article that didn't just present its message as various twitter replies but actually analyzed/summarized the issues, but this would still be something to include. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

They did. It pretty clearly states Apple’s decision to remove games featuring the Confederate flag from the App Store is drawing the ire of GamerGaters, who see this as yet another attempt by those on the left to muzzle expression they don’t approve of.(sic). It's an article about GamerGate concerned about so-called "social justice warriors." It certainly isn't the narrative of WP's article, though it's closer to the actual beliefs. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Never meant we can't use it, just that I'd prefer if we could get a better source that explains or tried to explain everything by just presenting tweets and leaving the reader to figure out their meaning (since some of the tweets use wording/presentation approaches that are ingrained in the Internet culture but not clear to all users). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's terrible writing, but perhaps there will be another article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)“It’s closer to the actual beliefs.” -- how would you know? How would anyone? We do not make windows into Gamergate souls. We can only know their actions -- chiefly harassing women in computing, true, but here (apparently) taking some time from that great work to support the flag of the purported Confederate States of America. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The aspect of the Gamergate controversy that is most noteworthy is the harassment of women. There is no disagreement on that point. It has been explained to you - repeatedly and patiently - that the most reliable sources report that the activities and attitudes that are most prevalent under the label of Gamergate are opposition to censorship, or political correctness that is feared might lead to censorship. Your continual WP:NOTGETTINGIT is bordering on disruptive. Rhoark (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you assert that hard enough, Rhoark, you'll convince people one day. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the assertion of the twitter tag here is not about harassing women in this article. Though not sure why Wu would antagonize them with GG tweet. This is an article about the anti-social justice aspect of GG. It speaks to broader themes that have recurred such as "ethics in journalism" as it relates gaming journalists being cozy with social justice advocates, as well as other themes such as opposing pushes for politically correct portrayals in games that are inherently not politically correct. These are not new themes and reflects why the article is in such poor shape and also why an out-of-the-blue article that highlights it is easily understand by most readers without confusing them about what GG is. If you are confused because there was no rape and death threats, you aren't getting it. --00:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no way to judge -- and no reliable source to my knowledge has attempted to judge -- what attitudes are most prevalent under the label of Gamergate. How would anyone know what is most prevalent? How would we measure prevalence? Has Mr. Gallup conducted a poll of Gamergaters? If you believe that this is disruptive, please: AE is thataway ---> The Gamergate boards are all chattering today that my scalp is their next target, so be their hero and my guest. But this page is not that page: here we discuss the article and the sources, and no source reports a reliable survey of the attitudes of Gamergaters. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussing the article and sources is precisely what I think you should do. Mr. Gallup has not conducted a poll, but Mr. Bokhari has. To use it in the article it would need a consensus that he is an expert, but to use it to guide editorial decisions is perfectly permissible. For statements in the article, there are plenty of reliable sources that have sought opinions from people who identify with gamergate, singly or in aggregate. Do you need a link to my list? Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We already cover the position you're referring to, I think. The problem is that reliable sources have near-universally described it as a conspiracy theory or words to that effect -- see NYmag, CS monitor, Forbes, washington post, Ars Technica and The Guardian, among others. Our coverage must reflect that; we can't take one or two editorials and treat it as equally valid, since giving every position equal weight is actually a violation of WP:NPOV. Almost no reliable or reputable sources give any credence to the idea that the "progressive conspiracy" angle has any basis in fact; we touch on the bare one or two editorials that do, but it would be WP:UNDUE to treat the opinions of those editorials as having weight equal to the entire rest of the mainstream media. And it would be undue to even discuss it in those terms at too much length; we have to weigh aspects of the controversy according to the attention they received in reliable sources and according to the relative prominence and reliability of those sources. If you believe that Bokhari's editorials contain some dramatic revelation, you could send them to other major news outlets in hopes that they'll cover them, but it would be WP:UNDUE to devote huge amounts of time to his beliefs here. Even if you're not citing him directly, using his editorials as a justification to say "well, our article insufficiently shows what Bokhari says is the real issue here, so we need to add more on..." is clearly undue weight to his personal conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which you mean. I'm talking about the poll of Gamergate political attitudes at gamepolitics.com, which it unfortunately disclaims as Bokhari's opinion. Rhoark (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know Mr,. Bokhari was a pollster or a social scientist! How did he select the sample population for his poll? What method of statistical sampling did he adopt? What margin of error was reported? I overlooked all that! An interview with one or two people who say they are representative of Gamergate has no claim to represent the prevalent or preponderant opinions of Gamergate, any more than an interview with a colorful sign-waving fellow in Tulsa necessarily represents the prevalent opinions of the Republican party. Preponderant requires measuring a numerator and a denominator; to the best of my knowledge, we have neither. What we do have -- all we have -- are the notable activities of people calling themselves Gamergate; these are amply discussed in the sources and well represented here. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible grouping here with another trending aspect: Tauriq Moosa

The Mary Sue regarding the issue around Tauriq Moosa, a freelancer that wrote an article regarding some lack of racial diversity in video games, which led to him getting harassment under the GG hashtag but others standing up against this for him. I want to think there have been other cases, beyond the flag issue about and this, where harassment like this has come from side issues not directly related to sexism/gender. But I'm not 100% sure if we can work this in, in addition would be nice to have another source or the like to confirm this since Moosa's written for Mary Sue; since the story seems to be breaking now, it might be a day or two to see more. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate seems to increasingly be encompassing ever broader aspects of intolerance, such as racism. Would these two sources be enough for including this development in the article? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in the direction, I'd like to see one or two more sources backing up these two points (the Moosa incident I'm sure we'll hear more soon about from RSes), but's that's the suggestion I was going for. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and it's quite the leap to now claim racism. The intolerance is for political correctness in arenas that inherently are not politically correct. When the opposition was to game ratings and rap lyric censorship proposed by Tipper Gore, et al,, it was the same demographic that fought it. It's not intolerance, it's tolerance for anything someone wants to create with objective reviews of the material. There are many gender and racial barriers broken by that demographic flocking to material that entertains them. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I watched some of this unfold and that article appears inaccurate. As I understand it, the hashtag was hijacked in retaliation to Moosa's Twitter activity today, not over the article (which was published 3 weeks ago). I would definitely wait until more sources back up the story. Radiodef (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.inquisitr.com/2207377/gamergate-drives-critic-tauriq-moosa-off-twitter/ , but I'm unfamiliar with inquisitr.com WRT RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is an opinion piece: fact + opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This one does explain GG's beef with Moosa's article which is useful. But it also calls GG's tweets "too inappropriate for publication anywhere" which smells WP:BIASED if we actually go look at the tweets. I saw a racist-looking cartoon and some softcore hentai but most of it is pretty tame. Radiodef (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the quality of the writing of the inquistr piece - picking apart the fact and opinion is not easily done. "I saw a racist-looking cartoon and some softcore hentai but most of it is pretty tame" OR v. RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinion, and inaccurate opinion at that. Neither of these articles are adequate to support a contentious claim. Rhoark (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am merely suggesting we exercise caution in deciding what information to include and how to include it. Viewing the tweets ourselves to assess the opinion of the article is no different from viewing any other public record. Radiodef (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Expertise

Torchiest removed [12] a quote from Brianna Wu, with an edit comment that read "Brianna Wu is not an industry expert, so her opinion should not be cited for video game history." According to Wikipedia, "Brianna Wu is an American video game developer. She cofounded Giant Spacekat, an independent video game development studio with Amanda Warner in Boston, Massachusetts. She is also a blogger and podcaster on matters relating to the video game industry." A quick Google reveals articles by Brianna Wu, or about her work in the game industry, published in Inc, Bustle, Jezebel, VentureBeat, The Boston Globe, Polygon, The Guardian, Kotaku, and WBUR.

On the other hand, just above we have a seemingly serious proposal that a music professor be treated as an expert.

I suggest that the edit summary ought to be oversighted. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that she is an industry expert. However, no need to oversight this. Reasonable people can disagree about a persons credentials. — Strongjam (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wu is definitely an industry expert in terms of game development and running a studio (and certainly unintentionally as a target of harassment). However, one can ask if that is sufficient credentials to be able to comment on the industry as a whole particularly for "30 years"; Journalists, who are those that should study the history of the field, would be more suited than a developer. I personally have no issue with keeping the quote since it's not out of aligned with others in that same para, but there's absolutely nothing requiring revdel or the like - as a tertiary source it is our place to be asking fair questions about expertise as it relates to reliable sourcing and weight of those reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she's barely thirty years old herself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)She has no research background, only her personal experience. She's just an independent developer who has made comments on the industry that are simply her own views. There are thousands of independent developers with essentially identical credentials. I'm honestly a bit amazed at the claim that someone being a blogger and a podcaster makes them an expert on anything other than their own opinions. There are thousands of bloggers and podcasters that we do not consider reliable sources. And to be clear, founding a game studio gives you no special industry expertise. The point is, we should be quoting someone who has some research, not someone who has an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that she has reasonable experience with the technical side of development. I'm focusing on expertise with the industry as a whole, and its history. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like reliable sources treat her as an expert w.r.t. sexism in the industry.

• SF Gate
• Bustle
• Bloomberg

Strongjam (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu is unquestionably an expert in terms of reliable sourcing; however, as a source who is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, we should not be relying on her for the kind of contextualization in this edit. Rhoark (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

By this reasoning, Gamergate fans could disqualify any woman as a qualified expert on the subject of her own profession, simply by sending her some anonymous threats of rape or murder. I wonder how many editors who are arguing Wu is not an expert previously argued that Somers (not involved in the game industry, no special training or expertise) is? Or Auerbach? There's a technical name for anecdotal evidence from extensive experience: History. And every good executive understands the history of their profession, even if they themselves are under 30. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree we have to be careful that "receiving harassment" immediately disqualifies a source but does affect how dependent the source becomes. We do have to be aware that as one of the most central figures of the situation, Wu's take is dependent, which doesn't mean it's not usable, but that we should try to make sure to use her opinions in context of other similar opinions in discussing the nature of the GG situation (her statements on what she experienced directly, that's fine to use). I'm sure there are other sources we've used that have also received some type of GG harassment but this has hardly affected them as central parties to the GG situation, so they're still sufficiently independent. (For example, Tim Schafer's role in Gamergate is so small as it would not make his comments fully dependent, though obviously he hasn't made any further comments).

Separately, the best way we judge expertness is to look at what that person has produced as reports/stories, etc. on that topic before in reliable sources. Somers is an expert on gender, feminism, and sexism studies, so her takes on how the GG situation overlaps with those areas is clearly in line as an expert. Auerbach is a proven journalist on discussing "on the media" topics, so his take on press and reporting aspects is appropriate. Wu has not produced anything comparable to either of these so we have no way to readily judge her expertise. She clearly has entrepreneur skills to run a game development company, so on the topic of game development and operations, yes, she's be an expert. But you can't assume that every executive knows the history of their profession, and Wu hasn't produce any work for us to evaluate in this manner. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that it's just a single quote from her with in-text attribution, I think it's all right. At this point (even if it's mostly because of the controversy) she's clearly a noteworthy commentator on the subject of gender politics as they relate to the game industry. Additionally, maybe more importantly, it's in the context of discussing the views of several other noteworthy commentators in order to establish and summarize a widely-held position; in that context, there's less risk of putting undue weight on her views. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your point about context is a fair one. By that same token, I don't see any mention of the study that came out a couple months ago saying there's no link between gaming and sexism. I've looked through the archives and don't see any previous conversation about it either. I'd say an actual study should be given more weight, or at least as much weight, as what are essentially opinions based on anecdotes. I'd like to work out a place to add some information from that source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(Note [13] Link to the actual study though the full text is behind paywall, but it is a peer-review published work.) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Study not really useful here I think. It was looking at if playing games had any link to sexist attitudes amongst Germans who played video games and found no link between the amount or type of games played. I don't really see where that would be useful for this article. — Strongjam (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture." So, can you explain how a study concerning sexism in video game culture is not relevant? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not a study concerning sexism in video game culture, but a study about Cultivation theory and video games. If you'd like to suggest an edit go for it though. — Strongjam (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Using a study to make an argument yourself (or to try to lead the reader to a conclusion) is original research; likewise, saying "I think this is relevant" without a reliable source making the connection is original research. If you want to relate it to the Gamergate controversy, you will need a reliable source connecting it to Gamergate explicitly. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet, an editorial about public engagement that says nothing about feminism is currently being used as evidence that Gamergate is antifeminist, while a peer-reviewed study that shows no link between sexist attitudes and gaming (two aspects covered in the first sentence of the article) is not relevant? You yourself used the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies editorial to "make an argument" that isn't "explicitly" stated in the text: [14] by shoehorning "antifeminist" into an article that says nothing about feminism. Yet for some reason that's not "original research"? I'm confused. And Strongjam, I don't need to suggest a specific edit to discuss improving the article. When I want to make an edit to the article, I will. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As WP:V says, we are supposed to summarize source material in our own words; and my reading of that is that "Gamergate has been described as being driven by anti-feminist ideologies" is a reasonable paraphrase of "it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." (Possibly we could expand it to "Gamergate has been described as being driven by anti-feminist or misogynistic ideologies" or "Gamergate has been described as being driven by anti-feminist ideologies, and by ideologies based around limiting women's rights as citizens" or the like, but that seems clunkier.) Whereas "here is something someone said, and here are some figures that I, as an editor, believe contradict them" is textbook WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again: Gamergate fans apparently argue above that having received harassment makes someone's viewpoint “dependent” (on what?) and thus questionable. This is a convenient policy for Gamergate, as (for example) I know of no female critic of Gamergate who has been reliably reported not to have received disturbing messages or experienced other harassment; the proposed policy would presumptively exclude all women in the game industry from expertise with the possible exception of outspoken Gamergate fans. And, in fact, we propose replacing or balancing this female expert with a male expert who once told a joke at an awards banquet. We argued days ago to include an editorial opinion from a music professor, but here want to exclude the opinion of an experienced industry executive. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the degree of involvement that is the matter of concern, as well as context; as described at WP:IS the more involved a person is to an event, the higher the chance that their writing on that event will be biased; it does not invalidate the use of that person's writing as a reliable source but we need to be aware that these sources will have more potential bias than others. This is why when it comes to Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian, we have to be aware that as key targets of prolonged harassment, they likely have a very swayed view of GG and the reasons behind it. Their opinions are useful to include but should not be presented in isolation due to their involvement. Just receiving a harassing message in no way makes that person involved (they can't control that), so the idea that viewpoints could be eliminated simply by being sent harassing messages is a bogus idea. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah -- it's only speaking out about the rape threats that vitiates or invalidates their opinions? Is reporting the threats to the police sufficient to cast doubt on their opinions, provided that they don’t give interviews and are otherwise demure and well-behaved? Or does that show they're too involved? Isn't it conceivable that, having viewed Gamergate's only notable activity at close hand, they have a better view than, say, a conservative pundit working in a DC think-tank? And, again, Gamergate can by your proposed policy devalue or discredit any person’s opinion and expertise -- or at least any woman’s -- by sending a few anonymous Twitter messages. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, a dependent source is not a invalid source. It simply means we have to be aware that dependent sources will have a higher likelihood of bias and we should be careful of their use as isolated statements; the more they are involved, the more this possible bias will increase, and as editors we just have to be aware of this as documented at WP:IS. Simply being a target of harassment on Twitter, or even reporting this harassment to authorities, is nowhere close to sufficient to make someone so involved to invalidate their statements. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So, neither receiving rape threats, reporting rape threats, or objecting to the threat of being raped (I'm just assuming that you think it's OK for victims to object to rape threats, do correct me if I'm mistaken ) are sufficient to lead us to question the validity of the expert’s views of her profession. In that case, why are you raising the question? Since the rape threats make no difference in our assessment of Brianna Wu’s expertise, why are we discussing this?MarkBernstein (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Source, but not sure yet if in scope to include

Wired on the new ICANN propose to make visible domain registration info, which includes how figures like Quinn were harassed and doxxed because of the publicity of such information, tying that to GG. I'm thinking - but I'd like to see more sources specifically that relate the potential of ICANN's decision to how GG targets were affected - that this would go around the issues of the difficulties of enforcing harassment, in noting that publicity of information doesn't help. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably too early to add anything about it here, although might be useful for the WHOIS article. If (and I hope when) this proposal is killed I wouldn't be surprised if we could add it to the Long term events section, or maybe the Responses outside gaming industry (assuming we have sources that say "it was rejected because of concerns about harassment such as what happened during GG.) — Strongjam (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should definitely keep an eye out for more stories on this development, if it goes anywhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ad targeting campaign reportedly cost Gawker 'seven figures'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/gamergate-website-rankings-winners-losers-5235157

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/12/8558320/gawker-discusses-cost-gamergate

According to the noticeboard [15], Mirror seems to be controversial because it has history of errors. Capital New York is owned by Politico. Some folks at the noticeboard [16] think it is reliable. I see some other sources [17] as well but they seem to hinge on the original article by Capital.

This detail was mentioned once at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 20#Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward but it's not clear to me if it has ever been in the article. I searched the revision history and did not find it. It's relevant because the WP article states "Vox‍ '​s VanDerWerff identified that [...] this new tactic of targeting the ad providers is on a grander scale and has the potential, if successful, to financially harm Gawker" and this detail sheds light on the outcome. Radiodef (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this came up before, but taking the Capital New York, what sets off red flags to me is that the seven figures is quoted to " according to two people in attendance at the meeting." without names or their positions beyond within Gawker. If it was a public SEC filing, sure, but this sounds like rumor mongering and data we should be careful of. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I also tried to find a source that doesn't depend on anonymous hearsay (or the CNY article). No luck. Also, tried to find anything the related SEC filing, couldn't find anything (but I might have been looking in the wrong filing). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I remember from the article, too, Masem, that the report of the monetary losses came from an unnamed person who attended a Gawker staff meeting. This financial setback might eventually be publicly mentioned in company reports, if they are released. But right now, it is hearsay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News, GG, Judy Blume, Sommers

http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/gamergate-is-trying-to-recruit-beloved-childrens-author-judy#.ljVnn8O7K

But I'm very leery of BuzzFeed as RS, even if this is from their news part. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And this reads as OpEd mixed with facts. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, it was Anne Rice they were championing. They need standard bearers. It's no longer about gaming or ethics in journalism (if it ever was), it's about defeating SJWs. SJWs are like unicorns, rumored to exist but hard to locate in reality. You can call a zebra a unicorn but that doesn't make it one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel the article provided is useful as a source? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: sourcability of the article: In my eyes, it is not useful. The fact a GG board likes the fact that Mrs./Ms. Sommers, a conservative, sees an opening to discuss aspects of feminist theory with a recognizable figure is next to irrelevant. These people discuss all kinds of things that are of this level of notability. Also, BuzzFeed News is okay with Op-Ed-ish writing. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations at start?

I've come recently to this article and was wondering why there are no citations next to the list of publications at the start - it can't help but seem a little evasive not having them next to what seems like an authoritative list of commentators, especially as it's not clear which articles are being cited. (For example, there are many Guardian articles referenced in this article: which ones are meant at the top? All of them? Or just some?) I think this would be good so that people wanting to get the facts from reliable sources can just move from the intro directly to the sources. Blythwood (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blythwood, Thanks for your question. The brief answer is that the introduction, or WP:LEDE, is intended to be a summary of the rest of the article; and any citations should be in the corresponding sections of the main article body below.

Of course, given the number of changes to the article, there is the chance that there are sections of the lede which do not have corresponding sections in the body of the article; and therefore are without appropriate citations. Should you identify any, please feel free to discuss them on this page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well said Ryk72. In this case those citations can be found in the Debate over ethics allegations section, first paragraph, second sentence. Part of the problem we have with putting citations in the lede is that there are 200+ of them right now and the lede would quickly turn into long strings of citations. — Strongjam (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence that Blythwood is talking about ("Commentators from ...") differs from the rest of the lede in that respect, and the proposal to add references to just that part has merit (as an exception to "lead doesn't need references"). We wrote it as an enumeration of sources as a way to replace a previous (unsourced) wording with an edit war that alternated between "most sources", "many sources" and "some sources". The suggestion to add one or two references for each source mentioned in that sentence would help readers to find their way to the most representative articles that have been published on the subject, without having to hunt them in the article's body among the multiple sections. Diego (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could move that list of publications into the body where it is appropriate, removing it from the lede, but making sure that in reading the lede, the reader should be able to scan the body quickly (via section titles) and find that same list, now appended with the individual references. I would fear having to add just citations for that because that would lead to begging citations on nearly every other sentence and that got sloppy really fast before. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. We could replace it in the lede with 'The vast majority of commentators have dismissed...' or something like that? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 14:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because that's the very kind of original research that the current wording intended to avoid. Diego (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"Many mainstream publications have dismissed..." is valid and not OR or weaselly but still gets the point across (that the press generally has rejected any validity to the GG arguments) --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the proportion is relevant, which 'many' does not get across. Nor are all of these publications mainstream. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 14:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The proportion of those sources that have dismissed the claims of GG relative to the number of sources that have actually reported on GG is very high, but the proportion relative to the number of possible sources that could have reported on GG is far less, which "vast majority" would be belying; "Many" is a fair, or alternative "most sources that have reported on GG have dismissed..." to reflect the former aspect. And the reason to use "mainstream" is to differentiate from video game publications to show that there's people that have looked outside in to make the call. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You're free to bring up the number of sources you believe dismiss their claims compared to the number of sources which take these claims seriously if you're willing to compile a list of some sort. In the meantime, I'm leaning towards going with the current established consensus. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 14:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an issue of how many that agree with the GG claim, just how many possible mainstream sources there are overall in the world that could be taken as "commentators" and how many of those have actually reported on GG. (It is not a very large proportion). "Vast majority of commentators" is original research given that we are likely reflecting on the order of 100 viewpoints we bring into this article, and there's 1000s of possible commentators out there. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, a fresh face arrives to re-argue a settled question about the lede, and once again these old discredited arguments are carted out from the cemetery stable in the hope that, this time, one will trot. It is not "original research" to summarize the consensus of reliable sources in the lede; that's what the lede does. No, we can't speculate about what sources that have said nothing might have said if only they had said something. We've just had this discussion and nothing has changed. There is no need to write another 20,000 words on the subject; it won't affect the article but it will dismay good editors, attract bad editors, and make the project appear even more ridiculous, MarkBernstein (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is questioning the validity of the statement, but how to present it better that further avoids the question of including citations and/or offsetting more into the body while keeping the crux of the statement. This is a valid discussion on improvement. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about Authorities in journalism overwhelmingly dismissed the purported ethical concerns,...? That's a fair precis of the situation; no major authority on journalism has found the purported concerns well founded, nor has any respectable source condoned Gamergate’s harassment of women in the software industry as a reasonable response to those purported concerns. We could also write "Essentially every authority on journalism," or "Nearly all commentators." We wouldn't even think about proposing "Some" or "Many," since we know the whole world is lined up on one side and there's nearly no one (or literally no one) on the other, and since we just discussed that at length in early April. If there is a prospect for actually improving the article here, please propose it for discussion, otherwise please close this discussion, which repeats a previous fruitless discussions. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we have no idea if the whole world is against GG, as only 100 some comments out of 7 billion have said anything we can document. It is original research and POV pushing to make this assumption. "Many" commentators is accurate as we have those 100 some statements, but that limited sample cannot be used to say how the entire world reflects on GG, just the near unamity of those that have commented on it. And nonexistsnce of opinions contrary to that point does not mean those opinions do not exist, just not documentable. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem and MarkBernstein: do you believe either of you is saying anything in this thread you haven't said a thousand times before? If not, please discontinue, both of you. I'm also not seeing how any of this actually relates to whatever point the original poster tried to raise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the suggestion of the potential relocation of the list of works that have discounted the GG ethics into the body, with appropriate replacement language to reflect the appropriate scope of that list, is a potential improvement to the article and something that has not been discussed before. If we considering moving that list as to still avoid having references in the lede (per the original point), how to replace it is appropriate discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The list was added during a discussion about what the appropriate wording should be. Eventually Hipocrite added the list of commentators as a compromise position. — Strongjam (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I consider that portion of the lede problematic, though it does what it's supposed to in that it reflects a body that is problematic. I'm working on a draft. Rhoark (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we just have maybe an efn in cases where there are multiple articles by the same publication cited? This is a small point and I don't think having a huge argument would be constructive. What I think would be nice is an extension of the intro extending the point, saying that many of these sources have concluded that Gamergate is not merely based on unfounded opinions but also seems to have made its main goal online harassment of people it dislikes. My thinking as an outsider to this area is this compares well with (say) homeopathy, where the intro notes (with citations, incidentally) that homeopathy is not only nonsense but also harmful since it discourages seeking of actual medical treatment. Blythwood (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

e3 female respresentation

I think maybe the e3 female representation sentence should move to the gamer identity section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the sources are stating in their words and not as direct statements from any publisher/developer/expo organizer, I think leaving it where it is - about industry response - is better. There's nothing there to affirm the introduction of more female characters/larger female attendee proportion was intentional, which would be an aspect of addressing the gamer identity. Also a thing to keep in mind is that E3 is a closed event, limited to press and industry reps, and not the usual gamer population (save for a small # that the ESA allowed this year for the first time), the E3 proportions aren't really reflective of the gamer identity today. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been keeping out of this, but looking at the paragraph, the "increased presence" was an observation by them as well and not necessarily fact either. I think that's an important distinction to make.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Interview with Pro-GamerGate Developer

My E3 Meeting With a Pro-GamerGate Developer. An interesting interview of developer Daniel Várva, who supports GamerGate. Might be something to get out of this. GamerPro64 22:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an interesting interview but I don't see how it can contribute to this already densely referenced article. The most telling part, I thought, was this: Time and again, I sensed, he was annoyed about who was listening to whom, about who got attention, about whose voices were heard, about who was making an impact on games and games culture. That was the pattern. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple statements I think we can incorporate smoothly, working on the basis that the interviewed person does speak for a multitude of smaller game developers as he implies. I've seen twitter messages that echo this but no reliably sourced to 100% affirm it. First would be stating that some developers fear that speaking in favor of GG would deny them coverage of their game, and secondly that some developers see imbalanced coverage of smaller indie games which is part of the ethics issues that GG purport exist hence why they support the cause. (do note, these are claims, not facts). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

working on the basis that the interviewed person does speak for a multitude of smaller game developers I don't think there is any way to verify this is true. It's an assumption that can't be supported by reliable sources. That's been the big problem with this article is "Who speaks for Gamergate?" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The position here is not that he is part of GG, at least directly, but supports the intentions of GG due to his position as a game developer. But I do express the concern he is stating (or that the article makes this statement) for many similar developers in the same light; that's just not clear. If it came from the mouth of a well-known developer, I could see this having more relevance. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be another one of those "I sense that this isolated, anomalous statement by some random person actually speaks for a huge number of others that I now claim are as significant as those who have spoken again and again." No. Find one or two reliable sources. Everything in this and every article has to be reliably sourced. It's how we do things. --TS 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically this is a reliable source (Kotaku, though dependent due to their role from the start). I just express the same concern that this is a relatively unknown developer that suggests speaking for many others, and that's a problem, just like the Gawker 7-figure thing above. We have no way to verify this is the case and not enough from the developer to know if he is an expert to speak for all. --00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

There's no need to imply in the article that the developer is speaking for others. It's the opinion of one participant in GamerGate that has been singled-out and published by a reliable source. The salience to take into account is that of Kotaku, not the developer. Diego (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Although, it *is* Kotaku who suggest that the developer is speaking for many others, not the developer himself: This is exactly the kind of talk that many a game creator and critic across the political spectrum has given when discussing ways that video games can advance as an artform. These are the kinds of talks about game design I’ve enjoyed having with the scene’s creators for a decade." Diego (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I was thinking more in terms of the situation with GG. I would really accept that the developer's POV on small scale game development could be easily shown congruent with other small devs from prior publications. It's the GG situation that it's not clear yet. As noted I've seen unusable Twitters and blogs that seem to align but can't say for sure if it is a wide-spread accepted position or not that this developer can fairly speak towards. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There are various sources that talk to various kinds of people connected to Gamergate. Sometimes the source connects them to Gamergate, and sometimes they self-identify. Even in the latter case, the decision to quote and publish is an indication the source considers the views relevant to some degree. You can go through the sources one by one and ask "why this one? why that one?" but taken together they are part of the range of reliable sources that must be accounted for. Rhoark (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is not a reasonable source for suggesting any level of GG cohesion or central ethos. It does reinforce the focal point of Sarkeesian, Quinn and the use of SJW phrase. There are a few reasonable quotations regarding people of colour in historic europe, and freedom to create their own without being concluded as racist - but would be better suited to discussions / wiki on depictions of people of colour in video games rather than GG.

All in all, very little is offered by this article to the gg-wiki. In particular there is a significant deficit in discussion of ethics. At the most something like "in an interview with Kotaku, game developer and GG supporter David Vavra was critical of perceived bias in coverage and characterised criticism by SJW as akin to censorship". Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom Come has been criticized about race representation since before GG[18], in a way that basically parallels the dialogue in the RSes about Witcher 3 [19][20][21][22][23] It would be better to detail it in the Witcher 3 article, but the Vavra story is a second point of contact between Gamergate and Witcher3/#GamesSoWhite (the first point being the Tauriq Moosa affair). Rhoark (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Huffpo live interviews

As I mentioned in the above section, do you folk think there's anything that can be got out of the Huffpo Live gamergate discussions (such as this one)[24] for the article? The big issue here is that there is no one person who represents Gamergate, so it would be hard to decide what weight to give a certain GG supporter's statements. Would perhaps the discussion including Brennan be one of the more useful ones? His opinions would be worth mentioning regarding the intersect between 8chan and gamergate. Bosstopher (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a transcript? I don't have the patience to sit through a video. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't find one and it's been half a year since I watched this (how time flies!). I'll rewatch tomorrow and come back with proposals. Apologies for bringing this up without looking through things properly. Just sort of got reminded about it by the above section. Bosstopher (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"... no one person who represents Gamergate, so it would be hard to decide what weight to give a certain GG supporter's statements." What a can of worms. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

At some point, there is a reasonably assumption of reporter reliability that if a RS says "we have interviewed people we think are part of the GG movement even though its anonymous and unorganized", we should be able to trust that the reporter has done as much possible background checking to make sure it is not some random person pretending to be as such. Case in point: Singal's famous dive into KIA to try to get a feel - Singal's expresses the concern he didn't know who he was talking to but does believe he learned about GG from the proGG side. I'm not 100% sure of that credibility to the Huffington Post (which while a RS is still struggling to establish itself) for this specific facet. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So I kind of lied about that whole "rewatch tommorow" thing and instead had a lovely holiday. But thankfully some mysterious noobs decided to do my work for me by transcribing the whole thing and post it on my talk page.[25] I haven't looked through all of it yet so I'm not sure how usable the interviews contents are, but thought I'd post it here to see if anyone else has any opinions. Also despite linking the gamergate women interview, I think perhaps the Brennan and Wu interview may be the more useful one due to it including Brennan and Wu. Bosstopher (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Verge, comment, Gamergate

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/355573/the-verge-temporarily-cans-comments-for-a-super-chill-summer/

Not sure if this is just in passing: "What we’ve found lately is that the tone of our comments (and some of our commenters) is getting a little too aggressive and negative — a change that feels like it started with GamerGate and has steadily gotten worse ever since."

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Time: gamergate, SDCC, kids, gamers

http://time.com/3948744/video-games-kate-upton-game-of-war-comic-con/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We should really have a article talk subpage that includes all of the references that have been provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We have the meta sub-page. Though we could create a refs sub page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In reviewing, I'm not sure this is a source for this article. They use the GG situation to set up that child gamers do not seem to have strong gender bias in the video gamer players they play (eg >50% of boys wanting to play a female character), but that doesn't seem to add directly to the GG situation itself. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Masem here. It's an interesting source, but I don't think it relates to this article except indirectly.--Jorm (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Crash Override Network in External Links

I'm curious as to why a link to Crash Override Network's Tumblr page is being used as an external link for this page. An external link for its own page makes sense, but it being has me wondering why its here. GamerPro64 00:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It was added in this edit by Rhoark. Rhoark, why did you add a link to the Crash Override tumblr in the external links? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's potentially useful information to anyone encountering the topic. It's a link to the information, not to the organization, so I linked to the tumblr (where the substantive content is) rather than the official website (which consists mostly of a logo). Rhoark (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get what its doing here. "Encountering the topic"? What does that even mean? GamerPro64 00:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-related: I do support Rhoark having added a link to Crash Override, although I'd probably prefer a link to the proper site which contains a link to the tumblr on the main page. Given that it's an anti-harassment group created directly in response to gamergate harassment, it's a good include in external links. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If we did not have an article on Crash Override, I would agree the link would be appropriate for an organization specifically created by those targetted by the harassment in response to GG. But as we have the Crash Override article, and that is (or should be) linked, I think this link is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, link is not needed here. Maybe a See also section with a link to the article page. — Strongjam (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, that would not be necessary if Crash Override is linked in the body of the article. There might be a reasonable argument to make a navbox on the Gamergate controversy to link all the main articles on this -- but I do not know how in general we'd look at a "negative" navbox appearing on a BLP page such as Quinn's even though it is relevant, hence why we'd really want to discuss that before adding it. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A navbox is probably a poor idea. Crash Override is linked in the article, so we should be fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH of Gamergate in news

I'm going to note again that much of the Gamergate use in the news these days is as a bad example. Though I haven't seen any RS say such.

https://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sorry-gamergate-even-teenage-boys-are-sick-of-sexist-video-games/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Other coverage: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/67902/20150710/study-shows-that-boys-want-better-female-representation-in-video-games-too.htm ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Different other stuff: http://fusion.net/story/164130/former-reddit-defaults-and-gamergate-taking-root-on-upstart-competitor-voat/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The raw story link seems the same basic story as the Time one a few sections up.

Do note that there might potentially be a connection to the mess happening on Twitter (the result of firing the long-standing AMA editor) and GG, but nothing yet direct - that fusion article alludes to it, but that's not really as explicit that we should look for. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

First RS that comes to mind is Nathaniel Givens, who talks about gamergate losing the PR war and becoming a "toxic" term in the press. Though I'm not sure if it can be used in combination with this stuff.[26] Bosstopher (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Airplay

So apparently next month there's an event called Airplay that's being run by the Society of Professional Journalists. The event involves "ethics in games journalism" and will have GamerGate supporters in attendance. Now while there hasn't been any real consensus on the reliability of GamePolitics.com, their article on some issues with the event seems to be something to consider. SPJ AirPlay experiences some turbulence. GamerPro64 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This has honestly been really interesting reading. I followed this through to the SPJ AirPlay update here, which has a very entertaining opening- "What happens when you give GamerGate panelists almost everything they want at AirPlay? They threaten to quit."

I don't think we should include the event in the article until it's either held or officially cancelled, but thanks for the link. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

different source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/why-is-the-society-of-professional-journalists-debating-game#.cj2ZZ4Mpe ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

/r/coontown and GamerGate

Possibly of use if we are going to exams on links between racism and Gamergate, this article takes a look at data for the racist subreddit /r/coontown and amongst other things finds significant overlap with /r/KotakuInAction. Artw (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to be a wiki. In any case it's highly unlikely to pass any reasonable test of verifiability based on our reliable source guidelines. --TS 01:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

agreed. Though it may well get secondary coverage. Good to have data on this in any case. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the attention Reddot has been getting recently and that a lot of it mentions KiA secondary coverage seems likely. Even outside of that data this might be a good opportunity to flesh out the role of KiA, which I think is under-covered in our article. Further coverage of the Chans would also be desirable but good luck finding any journalists willing to wade in any further into that mess. Artw (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Inc. Magazine

David Whitford, "WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army", Inc Magazine, April 2015. [27]. Some excerpts.

Then again, it's hard to see how Gamergate has ever had anything to do with ethical behavior, given how quickly it devolved into a misogynistic maelstrom.

The trolls took note. The worst of what came raining down on Wu won't be reprinted here, but the curious can look it up online. Just be warned: It's shocking, gruesome, specific, and obscene, involving many variations on murder and rape. "And, here's the part of the night where I call the police," Wu tweeted at 8:14 p.m. on October 10, 2014, in response to a four-minute cyberbarrage that began with, "Guess what bitch? I now know where you live," went on to reveal Wu's home address, predicted "your mutilated corpse will be on the front page of Jezebel tomorrow," and concluded (sloppily, but we get it), "nobody wil lcare when you die."

Since then, Wu has documented about 45 death threats, the most recent delivered by a masked thug via YouTube just days before this story went to press.

What darkness lies at the root of Gamergate is a question no one can answer, but there are a few plausible theories. Quinn argues that this is what happens when an overlooked but nevertheless proud male subculture feels threatened by the mainstream. Women represent "an invasion into a territory they've become quite comfortable in," says Quinn.

Also mentioned this at Brianna Wu, but this might be useful here -- especially as it again speaks to Gamergate's motivations. There's also a useful two-paragraph quote from a law professor who specializes in hate crimes:

Sex is a recurring theme in these sorts of attacks, says Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Women, who are 70 percent of the victims, are sluts or whores or not real women; men are predators or pedophiles. "The whole point of this abuse is to put someone in a box that is destructive," says Citron, "to call into question their integrity, to demean them." To redefine the victim on the abuser's terms "and fundamentally distort who she is."

This last might be particularly useful here as it suggests why Gamergate's attacks (and our own discussions here) are so often concerned with sex. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

crave: How the Internet is Changing the Relationship Between Men and Women

http://www.craveonline.com/lifestyle/tech-and-gadgets-news/878503-internet-changing-relationship-men-women

Never heard of this source before. Dunno if it's RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate hashtag origins

Hey. I reverted an edit by Masem that used a quote by David Whitford, writing for Inc Magazine, to describe the origins of the hashtag as including 'something resembling a rational online debate'. I don't believe this is a mainstream view- it's far more supported that the 'rational online debate' aka 'it's actually about ethics in games journalism' stuff came in after the origins of the hashtag as a harassment brand. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

agreed. It's clear from context that Whitford is using this as a rhetorical device; he's discussing irrationality, not studying the history. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The author's construction of ". . . there may have . . . then again . . . ." implies very strongly to me that this is, as Dr. Bernstein said, a rhetorical device--a hypothetical. I don't think it supports the contention that 'rational online debate' ever actually occurred. Dumuzid (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fortune: Poole, 4chan, Gamergate, Reddit

http://fortune.com/2015/07/11/reddit-ellen-pao-future/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Going to recycle this section for another source. Chip Zdarsky's new comic takes on GG. Houston Press. Might be usable in the Responses outside gaming industry section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by this comic. Has the artist said that this comic was based on GG? Are there any other sources talking about this? GamerPro64 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I note this is still not yet at a point where it directly connects to GG to be useful, but this new interview with Pao from the Verge talks to the effects of "the coordination and amplification of harassing behavior" in light of the Reddit situation, but I can see this vectoring towards a larger thought that would encompass GG as well as the Reddit situation so more articles of this vein may come about that would be appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)