Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Suggested Re-Adding of the Ex-Boyfriend's Name

In this article, I am (I think understandably) hesitant to get within 10 feet of anything even resembling BLP. That being said, this diff seems like a misapplication of BLP. For one thing, the ex-boyfriend's named involvement is readily and repeatedly sourced (I'll link a cursory list below), and for another, it seems... hard to argue that the ex-boyfriend's name should be removed from his "revenge blog" covering an affair, immediately before discussing the affair with both parties named.

Sources: (Name not included out of an abundance of caution, and also self-preservation)

Here -- "But then Quinn’s ex-boyfriend, programmer XXXXXXXXX, wrote a blog post accusing Quinn of having an affair..."
Here -- "Quinn’s ex-boyfriend XXXXXXXX published a revenge blog listing men she had allegedly cheated on him with..."
Here -- "XXXXXXX did not take things well and wrote it all out at thezoepost."
Here -- Too many for me to directly quote.
Here -- "In August, an ex-boyfriend of Ms Quinn published a blog post, that ran to thousands of words, detailing intimate details about their relationship. ... The ex-boyfriend, XXXXXXX, has said he did not support the 'abuse and harrasment' of Ms Quinn." (There's more details in the body of the source.)

So, I think the above change should be reverted and the ex-boyfriend's name re-added. I'm happy to do so, but I'm hoping to get some thoughts or consensus first. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good instance of invoking BLP, his name has definitely been widely reported and no attempt to conceal it in our secondary sources. That being said, I don't think having his name in the article improves it at all. Our readers are unlikely to be aware of who he is and knowing his name isn't going to improve their understanding of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but this is an article about a controversy, and he is the author of the blogpost that played (at least) a significant role in the controversy beginning. I think there's some benefit in including his name, as the author of that post. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The name has been widely reported and is properly referenced. The only reason references with the name in it aren't placed immediately after the name is because there's a direct quote from the NY Times. WP:BLP does not appear to have been violated.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The name should be put back in. The name is well documented, and the facts of what he did are not in dispute. Libel and slander are about falsehoods. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and re-added the name; I'm willing to self-revert for a reasoned argument. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you only reverted part of the diff. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for neutral eyes on this matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and, according to procedure, comment should be made over there. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I did only revert part of the diff; that was my mistake, I forgot to copy over for the second section. I'm not entirely sure of procedure here; should I self-revert my reversion until the noticeboard is done, finish re-adding the name, or just leave it alone? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a clue as to procedure. But me, I'd revert my change, and then edit to include both changes - to keep future reverts easier, if they happen. Self-reverts are safe from 1RR, if I'm reading things correctly. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, you can read the refs for yourself. Referring to the BLP noticeboard procedure seems irrelevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't agree with reverting your edit to reinsert Eric Gjoni's name, Atoms. Given how readily he's named by our sources, and that I don't believe naming him as the writer of the blog post (which is undisputed) is alleging any crime, I don't see how it's a BLP concern. I can't change how it's currently written due to 1RR, but I do hope this is corrected soon. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of a pure abundance of caution, due to my revert being incomplete, I have self-reverted and have not (yet) re-reverted. (I'm beginning to get a bit dizzy, talking about reversions.) I'm going to wait until I hear back on whether it would be appropriate for me to re-add the full reversion. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to leave the change how it is, pending whatever comes out of the noticeboard. That in no way means I believe this to be a BLP violation. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There sure seems to be a pretty clear consensus that including the name is not a violation of BLP. I'd like to suggest that GeorgeLouis should self-revert based on this discussion. No Matter How Dark (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's another take on it. If we include Eric Gjoni's name, as it stands now (5 Feb 2014), he is not notable per WP standards. But as Strongjam mentioned, what does the article gain by the inclusion of his name, even a single time? We can debate his significance to the subject, but not his notability. Separate article or not, BLP comes into play if he is mentioned. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

To expand a bit more on my statement. WP:BLPNAME is the policy we should be considering. Now his name is widely reported on, but as that policy says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Now I appreciate he arguably is "directly involved," or at least was, but I don't think it adds significant value. The other thing that I think should guide us is not policy, but a good essay, WP:HARM. There are things about this controversy that I don't think we should cover, even though we could source it, as making readers aware of such material could cause harm to the individuals it involves and not add much value to the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. In regards to WP:BLPNAME, he is both clearly (and sourceably) directly involved. His blogpost is repeatedly stated in the sources to be central to the start if this entire fiasco. I'm not saying that he is notable, or that we should devote a section, subsection, or even an entire sentence to him. But naming him, once or twice, in relation to his blog post and the large (arguably ongoing) role it played? Yes, I think that adds significant value. To WP:HARM, I agree that it can be directly applicable to this article. I don't see how it is at all applicable here.

All of this being said, although I don't think this needed to go to the noticeboard, it's there now. I suggest we hold off debating here, to see what comes from there. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gjoni voluntarily gave multiple interviews to different media outlets about his blogpost and the fallout. I think it would be perverse in the extreme to extensively discuss the malicious attacks on Quinn, while somehow tiptoeing around the name of the person whose "dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats" (as per Slate) started this whole debacle in the first place. No Matter How Dark (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I vote that we name Gjoni; he started it and his post is clearly involved. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there are WP:RS for naming Gjoni, not just multiple references that circularly refer to each other (I haven't checked the above refs), then WP:BLP should be satisfied. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the comments on the noticeboard which point out that neither NYT nor WaPo would face libel or slander charges for naming Eron Gjoni, repeating their reporting would not be slander or libel. I'm going to revert. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't do this right now. I'll try to get back to it when I can. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. [1] -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This statement is problematic in a paragraph that starts with boyfriend's name A number of commentators in and outside the gaming industry denounced the attack on Quinn as misogynistic and unfounded. That statement could be construed as being about the boyfriend and/or "zoepost" blog. They need to be separated or the name removed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't see the conflict you're suggesting. You should feel free to make a specific suggestion that you feel will resolve the issue, though. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 22:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion Once Upon a Time

Why was the "Nominated for Deletion" template on the talk page removed? Not only does it makes interesting reading in light of ensuing developments (in a "The mighty oak was once a nut as you" kind of way), this is the first article I've ever seen which has had such a discussion swoop down the memory hole. kencf0618 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably just got lost in the grand scheme of things, I've restored it to the talk page. Fascinating read though.Bosstopher (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. And agreed... Even in the early days it was an evil Koosh ball...! kencf0618 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Brandwatch elaboration

SOURCE. Proposed text: From the tweets that BrandWatch's algorithm could identify as positive or negative in sentiment from a sample of tweets related to GamerGate, Newsweek made an analysis which "suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites". Newsweek also said that data "seem[s] to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women". Would people object to this elaboration? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see there's been a lot of discussion about this already. But here's my 2 cents... There is one fact that you can extrapolate from this with any real implications. "Most tweets" are not classified as negative. The author states that the negative tweets directed at specific people were in proportion to other people. All this data tells us is there are some negative tweets. Then, the author writes "which suggests that". Which is just that, a suggestion, not even an opinion or assertion. I think this should be enough justification to omit this information. (or seemingly lack-thereof) TyTyMang (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not totally seeing it your way. While "most tweets" are not negative - but from the other view, "most tweets" are not positive either. I do agree with that Newsweek explicitly says "suggest" - and I have edited the article accordingly, but I don't think that is a good reason why we should remove the whole thing. If they suggest, we report them as suggesting. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between the algorithm not being able to deduce "most tweets" and the actual content. People can read the Brandwatch article if they want to understand the analysis. Also, "suggestion" is not a weak word. For instance "the pile of bodies suggests a massacre took place" is just a way of inferring there is a logic to their statement. They could just as easily have said "a massacre took place" or in this case "GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists". I would further add that they are quite explicit in stating that this is "a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites". So, Newsweek actually believe that this is a fact, and that is what we represent - anything else is synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Koncorde: 1) what Brandwatch article? Only Newsweek is cited. 2) Regardless of whether "suggest" is weak or not, we won't do wrong by quoting it exactly. I clarified / added your suggestion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit of confusion there, 1. I meant the Newsweek article. 2. I was referring to TyTyMang who appeared to be arguing "suggestion" somehow undermines the whole thing and that it should be omitted. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor suggestion, because it was a statistical study by brand watch, you might say "...a significant proportion of the twitter population sampled by BrandWatch..." That's descriptive and more precise than "most tweets." --Modemx (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would object to any phrasing which stresses that most/some/any tweets weren't categorized—especially phrasing that leads with this information—over the actual results of the analysis. The Newsweek source devotes 7 paragraphs (10 through 16) to breaking down the results, and a single paragraph (17) about their methodology (2 sentences) along with a summary (2 sentences). Virtually all of the proposed wording is based on that single paragraph. Look, data analysis isn't always intuitive, and when working with unintuitive information we either need to present the necessary background for understanding or consider that unnecessary details get cut. I'm not opposed to mentioning the "undetermined" tweets, but we can't do it in a way that implies something the article doesn't actually say or stresses details about methodology over the actual results. Woodroar (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this. Importantly - methodology is irrelevant - we are quoting their finding which is explicitly mentioned in the title of the article. Attempting to undermine or apply undue weight to the methodology is exactly that - undue. We do not interpret the analysis, and we shouldn't apply meta-analysis to the paragraphs until we reach pseudo balance. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Koncorde: If we were to present it the way Rhoark or TyTyMang was saying "Most tweets" are not classified as negative - yeah, that might be meta-analysis, but my proposed text above just pretty much quotes from Newsweek. Here is what the article says Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." I'm not implying anything in the proposed text, readers have to draw their own conclusions.
@Woodroar: I have rewritten and reordered it according to your suggestion. Conclusions first. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Even with conclusions first, why do we care? It's a trivial portion of the source and ultimately unimportant for our needs. We could quote them, sure, or we could discuss the algorithm and undetermined tweets in Wikipedia's voice, but they're still UNDUE bytes better spent on something else. (I mean, if this were a news update on New Horizons and the journalist casually broke down the calculus they used to determine the probe's distance from Pluto, would we discuss the math or just give the results?) At most, I could see us saying Among the tweets that BrandWatch's algorithm identified... and then discuss the results. It's trivial, but short and sweet and unambiguous. The Newsweek source is unequivocally clear in presenting its results, it doesn't let readers "draw their own conclusions" and neither should we. Woodroar (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar: - changed again, much closer to what you said now. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's better. I still question the need for unnecessary statements about methodology, but the wording is mostly neutral. I think it could use some tweaking, but more to change the word flow than the content itself. I'll think it over tonight and take a crack at it tomorrow, if nobody else has. Woodroar (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The current version of the material on the page seems very neutral and makes no implications. But gives enough information to warrant the reader to have a look at the article to make their own decisions. Seems like the best way to incorporate this material without having to worry about the author's intentions vs the data. Errrr I was reading the wrong line. I was reading the first sentence of the second paragraph of this topic. Which brings up the question, do we need both? I prefer the first one obviously. But for another point: The article sites a "data specialist" to interpret the data. As the writer is not a "data specialist" we can then question their reliability in regards to the interpretation of said data by WP:NEWSORG "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint" It otherwise does not seem very meaningful to push that opinion into the article given the context of the suggestion in relation to the data. It only suggests that more negative tweets go to 3 specific people than go to 2 other specific people and also mislabels one of the targets a "game developer". I can see plenty of reason to not use this. I can't see how it's a positive contribution though. TyTyMang (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A. Not sure who the "data specialist is", they brought in a media analytics which isn't the same thing. B. The editorial oversight of Newsweek is not in question, therefore their interpretation of the data is valid. Also it cannot be denied that more negative than positive tweets were received per the data presented, and Brandwatch themselves are a reliable organisation for this sort of stuff. C. I'm not sure who you think is mislabelled. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Safe to say that there is no consensus for removal at this time. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not acceptable. No where in the piece does it say that their results do not generalize across all tweets. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So where in the Newsweek piece does it say "their results generalize across all tweets"? Likewise, where does the proposed text say that "their results do not generalize across all tweets"? You're reading and objecting to things that aren't there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I forgot to mention - that paragraph reads something awful.

Newsweek engaged Brandwatch to analyse a sample of tweets related to Gamergate. From the tweets that BrandWatch's algorithm could identify as positive or negative in sentiment Taylor Wofford suggested "that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites". Newsweek also said that data "seem[s] to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women".

Marginally better, but still not ideal in any shape or form. Koncorde (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess it's important to ask the question, are we including this information as a statement of fact? As they referred to a "Data scientist" (a specialist/expert) to clarify the definition of neutral and they do not confess to be an expert, we can say their opinion/analysis/commentary on this data may not likely represent a reliable or significant viewpoint per WP:NEWSORG. Their analysis on the meaning of the data is obviously flawed as anyone could easily see. As I'm sure it will come up, WP:OR seems only to make an explicit statement about contributions to an article. It doesn't seem to suggest against using common sense to exclude material. But even as a statement of the author's opinion, I still fail to see the rationale for the inclusion of this somewhat misleading material. TyTyMang (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this fallacy bingo? First question is irrelevant, and a clearly loaded question with an added dose of begging the question. Second statement is circular logic bundled with a false equivalence. Third statement is personal incredulity, with a shade of appeal to authority (given the previous sentence mention of a "Data Scientist") to undermine the source. Fourth statement is a red herring. Fifth statement is an appeal to ambiguity. Final statement is a duplication of personal incredulity.

I'm going to be brutally honest here and say that the Newsweek editorial analysis is more reliable than your meta analysis of their analysis. Therefore we will go with them as a reliable source for the statements that they make. If another reliable source wishes to take on their analysis then we will present both. If a correction is issued we will amend it. The question for this section is only the wording. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Koncorde: - Slate described the Newsweek article as "Defective quantitative analysis" and one of many "tactics that have been tried so far to stop Gamergate, none of which have worked" starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's his opinion, which is hardly expanded upon, but I would consider it valid criticism (although I would consider it largely meaningless given he doesn't expound upon the issues he has with the original analysis). Koncorde (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I will be reverting this edit by Hipocrite. The source is clear: Newsweek asked BrandWatch, a social media analytics company, to dig through the more than 2 million tweets about GamerGate since September 1 discover how often Twitter users tweeted at or about the major players in the debate, and whether those tweets were positive, negative or neutral ... ... Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's really not our place to draw conclusions or try to further elaborate from sources. We should phrase them as accurately as the source does (and as Hipocrite was attempting to do with his edit), or else we risk straying into original research territory. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Koncorde: So my interpretation of WP policy is flawed and I'm incredulous? If you're going to criticize my logic, at least provide a counter argument. And my reason for not understanding the inclusion of this material is not that I have the general inability to believe. But because I have yet to see a reason why this opinion about some data is so important to the article.

WP:ONUS "Not all verifiable information must be included in an article." - I don't see how this information improves the article. The data itself doesn't say much, why do we need a writer's personal opinion about it?

WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint" - The author of the piece is not a specialist or expert on social media data analysis. His opinion on the data is less likely to be reliable or reflect a significant viewpoint.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." - I'm not saying the source is unreliable in general. But in the context of social media data analysis, Newsweek does not seem an appropriate source. If this was an article about social network analysis would Newsweek be a reliable source for interpreting data? As Brandwatch did not state their interpretation of the data, that is actually what's happening here.

Here are my 3 main arguments, from interpretation of WP policy, for my position to omit. TyTyMang (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, how you present your argument is / was flawed, ridiculous and built around a false premise to start with. You have made several attempts at trying to undermine this article, and achieved some coherency only now.

A - Onus = I don't see how the article detracts, your opinion on the data is irrelevant as we are not presenting the data we are quoting the opinion of a reliable source (like most of the article to start with). Nobody else is questioning its inclusion, reliability or utility only the content included within this article.

B - Newsorg = we are stating the authors opinion, everything else is irrelevant, Newsorg is there to place greater authority with actual authoritative sources. If you can find one, then we can include it - otherwise your objection is groundless per "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact".

C - Context = correct, Newsweek would not be first choice for a Social Network Analysis page (as there are better primary sources, this is when Newsorg would be relevant) - but it doesn't make them unreliable as a source for internet drama. This articles standards of inclusion are far from scientific. Nonetheless your interpretation of this actual guidance is off-base, the sentence you quote is actually questioning the "context" of whether the source being used actually reflects / backs up the statement being made by wikipedia. We are stating that this is the opinion of a person. The article contextually supports their opinion. The article is from an otherwise reliable source with editorial oversight...context ends. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongest object possible - the sources does not disclaim that their conclusions applies only to the tweets that were algorithmically analyized. They are very clear that their results generalize. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Further note - I'm not going to be the one who starts the revert war with Starship.paint, but I think that him begging people to do so is in tremendous bad faith. No one has supported your edit, but you have now made it twice. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite; changing "their analysis" to "the tweets that BrandWatch's algorithm could identify as positive or negative in sentiment" seems to be using more words than necessary, while artificially weakening the analysis in the process. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 21:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Hipocrite fwiw. The changes so far are nothing like an improvement. Koncorde (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if my updates and changes are not appreciated, fine. I will revert the Brandwatch thingys to however it was before I started this discussion. But to post untruths like I'm not going to be the one who starts the revert war with Starship.paint, but I think that him begging people to do so is in tremendous bad faith is just crossing the line here. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, 1) I think part of the objection to "generalizing the data" is that there is a question about the statistical validity of generalizing the data. I think this could be addressed, but not in the scope of this article. 2) I think the opinion part about Adobe, Intel, etc could be included again while clearly marking the opinion as such. 3) I think Starship.paint's edit isn't clearer for including the detail about Brandwatch. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Law and Order episode

[2] The episode is due to air next Weds, and while Polygon is stating that it is definitely based on the Gamergate situation (as well as the Sony/Interview hack), I still would wait until it airs and the reviews clearly link it to GG, and/or we have a writer/producer from the show stating this was intentional. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

For reference, here is the previous discussion from the archives. Agree with the general sentiment that we should wait until it airs. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the word "alleged" from "harassment"

Re: edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=645921460&oldid=645921092

In this edit, the adjective "alleged" was removed from the noun "harassment" on WP:SCAREQUOTES grounds:

WP:SCAREQUOTES is improper grounds for this edit. WP:SCAREQUOTES actually recommends the usage of "alleged" in cases of asserted but undetermined wrongdoing. And rightfully so, if you will please agree, as we would not want to pass along allegations as fact without proper confirmation.

According to the sources of this article, the threats against Sarkeesian were investigated by expert authorities and judged not credible. How can we pass them as credible if these experts quoted in the sources for this article say that they are not?

Therefore, I plan to restore the word "alleged" on WP:SCAREQUOTES grounds as soon as appropriate.

Thanks for your interest in improving this article, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The harassment is supported by numerous reliable sources, as cited in the article. Besides, we won't be saying that all instances of "harassment against Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu and others" are "alleged" because of details regarding a specific threat against Sarkeesian. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The recommendation of using alleged in undetermined wrongdoing is when an identifiable person has been accused of wrong doing. The harassment is well sourced and none of our sources say "alleged". Saying the harassment is "alleged" seems to suggest the victims may be lying about their harassment and is a WP:NPOV violation as none of our sources suggest the harassment is only "alleged". — Strongjam (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Credibility of the threat is not the same as an absence of harassment. It does not render the harassment "alleged". We've been through this on the Anita Sarkeesian talk page where you have attempted to leverage the same position. Your interpretation of wp:scarequotes is also inaccurate. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that police believe that nobody intended to carry out the threat of mass violence does not make the threat lawful, much less nonexistent, and certainly does not somehow render it "not harassment" as you seem to be arguing. No Matter How Dark (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to check the reference but I believe your understanding of the article is incorrect. The police did not say that the threats were "not credible" which implies that threats didn't exist. They did check them out and decided that the threats weren't at a level that warranted canceling the speaking engagement. But I'll have to doublecheck this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: To save you some time looking for it, it's from a USU press release, (which frankly I don't think belongs in our article,) my reading of it is they did a threat assessment and felt that there wasn't a significant risk. — Strongjam (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Yes, that was my understanding of the press release as well. Thanks for linking to it. In general, I find the word "credible" to be loaded and in a similar category with "alleged" and "claimed". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam was correct to remove this. The sources are unambiguous in this regard. The harassment is not alleged. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing "alleged". As noted, various kinds of harassment have been documented by reliable sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert by Strongjam 2

My one revert today. I think the statement is very well supported by the Gamergate hashtag section. — Strongjam (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely is NOT, and it's such an outright lie and 'Original Research', that's just not funny anymore... MicBenSte (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion

Not a discussion about deletion. This Talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Okay, took a peek at this.. and this is getting a shit article all over again. - Yes, it sources RSes - but those same RSes are just nothing more then an echo chamber. - Research has been done which shows the figures the RSes claim to be false (the base figures from Newsweek, not the article itself which is shoddy at best and http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/). - Also, where the hell besides Erik Kain's review are the HuffPo interviews and especially David Pakman's?

At the current state, this page is even WORSE then before because it so strictly adhers to WP:RS and only certain RSes which are SHOWN during the past months to only highlight one thing without taking into account everything else, this page feels like an total echo chamber because those RSes either only researched one thing out of many or just repeat what others of the former group said. The reason Erik Kain's blog and others were include were because they existed outside of a echo chamber and delved deeper into stuff.

But apparently, RSes = always true (screw that, I can name a few hundred cases I reckon where RSes publish objectively false information, if not outright lies) and rest = false. MicBenSte (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested changes to make to the article? Kaciemonster (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I try to come up with some, but considering the RSes are still one giant echochamber and the same narrative from the start of the controversy is still being used, if you want an article which not only uses RSes but is also factually correct (so both addresses the harassment (which has happened but cannot attributed to the movement as a whole, but only to subfactions, third parties) as well as adressing the ethics-issue (they are being documented, but not on RSes)) you're going to have to wait at least half a year I figure. To leave such an article which is completely narrow-focused up is quite debatable, and the reason all along that WP:BATTLE happened which led to the ArbCom case.

Also, interestingly due to the use of RSes only the harassment done to GamerGate-supporters are conveniently left out... MicBenSte (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey I'm slightly confused as to what you're getting at. Why have you titled the section "Nominating for deletion"? Do you plan to nominate for deletion. If so I need to warn you that there's no way it will work and you'll get WP:SNOW closed. As for the harassment of Pro-GG we have a paragraph about it in this section of the article, starting with the words "Various supporters, some of whom requested to remain anonymous," so it's not like we've left it out. I tried to expand the section earlier to detail the harassment faced by a certain pro-GG supporter, but general consensus was that it was undue weighting, and was bringing attention to someone who didnt want attention brought to them.Bosstopher (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion then? At this very moment, it's such an factual misportrayal due to the one-sided approach in/by the RSes, that it's by far one of the worst factual articles on the English Wikipedia. There's a reason I nominated it somewhere in September already for deletion - there's no way that under the current rules this article can be a fair portrayal. It's tainted beyond the core due to the original articles still being repeated (as well as the new ones who take the same approach) without any adequate research while not even giving room for any serious room - only mass paint-brushing a whole group of people as misogynist and harassers. Must I bring this matter to Jimmy Wales (AGAIN) and that the whole blasted procedure happens over and over untill someone sensible realises this is going nowhere due to exactly the fact the RSes are being the problem for an factually correct portrayal? MicBenSte (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Utah State Today- reliable source?

I saw this mentioned above by Strongjam, so I thought I'd have a look at it. I'm not sure we can use them to source things for the article. For one, they're not exactly a third-party source for the information we have attributed to them- they're a newsletter produced within the university itself. Additionally, the only person I can see mentioned as part of the editing staff is a person named 'Patrick Williams', but there's no information about who he is or any qualifications he may have. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems more like a question for WP:RSN. But I'll just add that just because it's produced within the university doesn't mean it's not independent. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As a it's currently used in the article I don't think it's an RS issue, it's basically just a press release being used as a WP:SELFSOURCE. I just think it's WP:UNDUE and doesn't really serve any useful purpose in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, if it was a student newspaper, there would be editorial oversight because there are separate writing and editing positions. But if it is a university newsletter, it's likely there isn't this division. The university newsletters I am familiar with had 2-4 people who shared all of the responsibilities and, organizationally, they were in the same unit as public relations and public information. They existed to promote the university, not report on breaking news. So, I think you'd need to know more about what kind of publication this is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to lede

This proposal will never reach consensus. Do not propose things that you know will be rejected. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The current lede is full of unsubstantiated nonsense and sophomoric bias, here is a proposed rewrite of it that presents the controversy briefly and fairly:

Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding corruption in the video game trade press and sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention beginning in august of 2014 following revelations of impropriety at several prominent video game publications when demands for accountability were met with accusations of misogyny and bigotry from the implicated outlets. Its supporters view Gamergate as a consumer revolt that seeks ethical reform in video game journalism while detractors posit that it is a movement centered around reactionary pushback against female game developers and feminist critique of video games. Supporters of Gamergate coordinate primarily under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate and in the various online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture between video game enthusiasts who want to see games judged purely on their own merit and a strata of commentators, critics and writers seeking to judge games in relation to wider social context. PavePenny (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article. Your suggested lede does not do that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also add that the article is thoroughly sourced. If the New York Times is "unsubstantiated nonsense and sophomoric bias", then there's nothing more we can say here. Woodroar (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the reliable sources I'm reading that have been used to support the apparently-painstaking writing of this article seem to agree that Gamergate's claims of "corruption" and "impropriety" are trivial if not wholly false, and widely agree that the public controversy has been wholly centered upon the misogynistic harassment of women in gaming and the resulting widespread perception that the gaming community (or at least a significant subculture within it) has a serious issue with sexism. Would you be so kind as to present the reliable sources which support your proposed edits? No Matter How Dark (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

William Usher, for one, who is already cited as a source in the article. I also find it hilarious that the "reliable sources" you refer to are many of them either directly involved in or closely linked to the allegations of impropriety in this controversy, small wonder they'd downplay accusations of corruption. It is also deeply dishonest to assign culpability for "harassment" to the communities of reddit, 4chan or 8chan when there have been a sum total of zero discussions in either of those fora where any campaigns of abuse were ever coordinated in the name of #gamergate. PavePenny (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We summarize what the reliable sources say, which have been vetted and analyzed for months. Your proposed language does not summarize those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) CinemaBlend (where Usher posts) describes itself as an opinion site, and therefore isn't usable as a source for statements of fact; nor is it noteworthy enough for its opinion to be valuable on its own. The reliable sources we use for the bits of the lead you're talking about, though, are sources like the New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Inside Higher Ed, and so forth; our particular cites for the origins of harassment are to Ars Technica, The Guardian, and the Washington Post. These are high-quality citations, and are not particularly involved beyond the general accusation that the media as a whole is corrupt; while we can report such accusations when they are notable, our policies require that we stick with the same general definition of a WP:RS that we use elsewhere -- that is, simply accusing the entire media of being in cahoots doesn't change the fact that the New York Times is a more reliable source than, say, an opinion piece on cinemablend. It'd be a violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE for us to give accusations made by an opinion piece on cinemablend weight equal to the New York Times. If the media as a whole genuinely is unreliable in a case like that, Wikipedia is unfortunately not the place to start fighting back, because in the end we're just an encyclopedia and are just going to summarize what the most traditionally authoritative sources on the subject have to say. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your "high quality citations" have produced an article that is riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentation of fact and inappropriately opinionated language. Would you rather split hairs about what constitutes a "reliable source" or work towards presenting a factual review of this controversy? If the former you are of no help to this project. PavePenny (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you're arguing is that you're right and everyone else is wrong, because you say so. Well then, I'm convinced. No Matter How Dark (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't need five years of experience as an associate editor of a literary journal to be able to tell that the line "Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" is an example of fantastically poor language. Do you intend to amend it or do you feel it accurately reflects the standard of quality readers can expect from wikipedia as a whole? What makes me right is that I'm able to substantiate my claims and what makes this article very poorly written is that it is based on a foundation of empty conjecture if not outright lies. PavePenny (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There's actually a good point in this, perhaps poorly made. Should we remove 'multi-faceted' from the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly new. I have no objections to it being taken out. — Strongjam (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agreed that "multi-faceted" is clunky wording that adds nothing of value. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy requires that we stick with summarizing what the highest quality reliable sources say about the topic. This simply will not change. If anything in the article is "inaccurate" in the sense of failing to summarize what the 169 cited sources say, then please point that out. Or bring new high-quality reliable sources to the discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy also requires that you evaluate reliability on a case by case basis WP:RS. Hey check it out I can cite policy too. PavePenny (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Which of the article's currently-cited sources do you propose that we re-evaluate? No Matter How Dark (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Any and all sources that have financial or personal ties to either Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian or gamejournopros would be a good start. PavePenny (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please list them, and we can debate their reliability and importance to this article. But we must be consistent. You can't support keeping an unreliable Cinemablend opinion piece and then try to remove journalistic reporting by widely accepted reliable sources that you perceive to be sympathetic to Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. That simply won't fly here. Make your case, but it better be persuasive, since changes are made only when consensus is reached. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this talk page has 27 archived sections, where these sources and these issues have been debated ad nauseum. Please make your case for evaluating the reliability of either an existing source or a new source. It is easy to cite policy in general terms but much harder to create consensus that major changes are needed in the lead section of an article which is receiving intense scrutiny from a large group of highly experienced editors. You are, of course, welcome to try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with Polygon then, a publication not just with personal and financial ties to Zoe Quinn but also with staff members represented in the gamejournopros list. They have a vested financial interest in suppressing any allegations not just of their wrongdoing but that of their GJP peers and their links to Quinn herself mean they are not a reliable source of information on any supposed hardship she claims to have suffered. PavePenny (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What claims are they cited for that you believe they shouldn't be due to this allegation of improper behaviour? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For starters, this: "Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of Polygon, said that Gamergate has remained an amorphous and leaderless movement consisting solely of the hashtag so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability". Just to be clear, I have no issue per se with Polygon being used as a source but if you insist on citing them you should scrutinize them more closely as they are directly involved in this controversy so when Mr Grant issues this statement the question should natureally be, "what does he base it on?". If the answer is "a hunch" then he's got no business being quoted on an encyclopedia. PavePenny (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What source supports your claim that Polygon has "personal and financial ties to Zoe Quinn" or your claim that the harassment Zoe Quinn was subjected to is only "supposed"? I remind you that the Biographies of Living Persons policy requires that any allegation or claim relating to a living person must be supported by a reliable source, or it may be summarily removed and the responsible editor sanctioned. No Matter How Dark (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To start with, Ben Kuchera and Phil Kollar of Polygon both supported Quinn financially through Patreon. Quinn's "harassment" is a matter that is not only impossible to establish as fact as she herself has spokenly publicly encouraging people to send her abusive communication but the lede as it is currently written implies such harassment is to have taken place on twitter in conjunction with the #gamergate hashtag. Where is the evidence of this? It is not substantiated by any of the sources that are cited. PavePenny (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to second the statement that making repetitive claims about the sources (or the subjects of harassment), and trying to cast doubt on them (all without anything beyond words), is probably not going to get a lot of mileage here. As a glance through the talk page archives will show, it's all been said before. If you have any new information, new sources, or specific suggestions, please share them. If this is just going to be endless repetitions on bias in the media, well, even those of us who spent a long while actively avoiding this talk page have probably seen it all before. Many, many times. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 08:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already presented a very specific suggestion for how the article could be improved. Fundamentally the issue is this: conjecture is presented as fact and in an ongoing controversy that is heavily polarized the article only presents a single viewpoint and either omits entirely the opposing position or misrepresents it. The article should be based on fact and where facts are not available there should be no comment. PavePenny (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been asked for reliable sources, and you still have not presented a single one. If you cannot supply reliable sources discussing your assertions and contentions, they do not belong on Wikipedia. Please see the verifiability policy, which is fundamental to the encyclopedia. No Matter How Dark (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If your suggestion was your suggested change to the lede, it's untenable. As was stated above, the lede is a summary of the article as a whole. The article is written based on the reliable sources we have available to us. If you have specific sources you feel should be added, or specific (and, I apologize for the emphasis, verifiable) reasons we should reconsider using a particular source, please feel free to bring them up here. But simply repeating claims about various sources, their editors or writers, or anyone else, is not constructive. I also suspect it may sometimes skirt eerily close to a BLP violation. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 09:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I only have so much time to spare, I wrote up a suggested revision for the lede because that is what stood out as the most egregious and immediate failure

As for sources, yes I do have a few:

Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding corruption in the video game trade press[1][2][3] and sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention beginning in august of 2014 following revelations of impropriety at several prominent video game publications[4] when demands for accountability were met with accusations of misogyny and bigotry from the implicated outlets[5]. Its supporters view Gamergate as a consumer revolt that seeks ethical reform in video game journalism[6] while detractors posit that it is a movement centered around reactionary pushback against female game developers and feminist critique of video games[7]. Supporters of Gamergate coordinate primarily under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate and in the various online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture between video game enthusiasts who want to see games judged purely on their own merit and a strata of commentators, critics and writers seeking to judge games in relation to wider social context.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/

[2] http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/the-verge-updates-affiliate-link-disclosure-following-gamergate-ftc-campaign/

[3] http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/gamergate-kotaku-is-interested-in-igf-rigging-allegations/

[4] Thezoepost and related fallout in which Quinn admits to having been in a relationship with Nathan Grayson, and multiple examples of undisclosed conflicts of interest are uncovered involving writers financially supporting Quinn

[5] http://gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php And related articles

[6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/

[7] Self explanatory, already plenty of sources in the current article that support this view of the controversy

[8] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/11/12/the-authoritarian-left-was-on-course-to-win-the-culture-wars-then-along-came-gamergate/

Obviously if I had more time I'd like to suggest a complete rewrite but I hope this provides enough impetus to at least make an attempt to improve things. PavePenny (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blogjob? You think "oneangrygamer" on blogjob should be heavily sourced?

[1] Erik Kain, by his own quote, "this is opinion writing and should be treated as such." His pieces play an important role in the article at present, I think, and I'm all for that. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that his articles should supersede, for example, The Washington Post or The New York Times.

[2] Blogjob.

[3] Also Blogjob.

[4] Primary sources. Blog. Unsuitable for a variety of other (largely BLP-related) reasons.

[5] Clearly an opinion piece, already included in the article to demonstrate the opinion/views of the writer. Not sure how else you would want to use it, but there's not much more I think it would be useful for.

[6] See #1.

[7] Not self-explanatory at all, and not specific enough for me to address.

[8] I won't go over why Breitbart is largely considered unsuitable. There's plenty of reasons above in this very section, or scattered throughout the archives.

Also, if I may make a suggestion to you, I think you will find considerably more traction for your suggested changes if you focus smaller, rather than a rewrite (and refocus) of the entire lede, or the entire article, -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 09:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You stress yourself the importance of verifiability. In this case yes, blogjob provides accurate information regarding the ethical complaints of #gamergate supporters. Instead of twisting policy to support your confirmation bias it should be used strictly to establish facts were possible and where information cannot be verified it is inadmissable. If you disagree that any of the sources I cited do not accurately reflect the statements they are used to support above then you must show how, if you are unable to do so your obligation is instead to edit the article to include them. PavePenny (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Do we have to rehash the Patreon thing? It was settled multiple times - the information is in the archives. 2) I can't believe 'Quinn's "harassment"' & "supposed hardship [Quinn] claims to have suffered" are being relitigated again. Again the harassment is well documented. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Kencf0618's changes to the lede

@Kencf0618: Hi there! You've changed the lede because you believe 'and others' is unsupportable due to it not being cited in the lede. Using citations in the lede is something that's been discussed on the talk page before- the consensus was that doing so was unnecessary as long as it was sourced elsewhere in the article. As such, unless you disagree with this consensus and would like to start a new discussion, I'd request that you revert your reversion. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, an editor has already made the appropriate changes, but I hope this has still aided you in understanding why I made the reversion you disagreed with to your change. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the SHOUTING. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this comes up quite a bit I've added a comment for future editors to try and redirect them to the talk pages first. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. kencf0618 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Painful Article

WP:SOAPBOX. No suitable change compatible with reliable sources proposed Avono (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

This article is a mess. Instead of being unbiased and purely factual, it reads like someone who is against Gamer Gate wrote it. The entire first paragraph of the History has nothing to do with Gamer Gate. Can we please get some work done on this? Dreg102 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

See several threads above on the same topic. Try searching the archives for similar complaints.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is a grave disappointment and deeply harms my respect for Wikipedia

WP:FORUM & WP:SOAPBOX.Comeback with a change supported by reliable sources Avono (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I've paid close attention to this controversy for some time now and being as I am a video game journalist (part time) I am intimately familiar with the impact it has had on my field. Articles on internet controveries are always inadvisable, all you are doing by keeping such articles on wikipedia is inviting that controversy to interfere with the project, but if you absolutely insist on keeping this article then the least you can do is strive to present an objective and comprehensive account of events. I had high hopes that the results of the arbitration case would lead to a better article, it is clear now however that there has been no attempt to improve things. Let's take the opening sentence as an example: "Gamergate is a multi-faceted controversy regarding sexism in video game culture" Right off the bat we an incoherent line of rubbish that speaks of a multi faceted controversy but only mentions one facet of it. Every single editor who has been involved in this circus ought to be ashamed of the damage they are doing to the trust people place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavePenny (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What changes would you propose? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be sure that any suggested changes are based on what high quality reliable sources say about Gamergate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the same high quality reliable sources that say Wikipedia is a misogynistic, woman-hating website? ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html

Review of Reliable Sources

My most esteemed colleagues, I would like to share my latest research with you. I have scoured the internet for articles about the GamerGate controversy, focusing primarily on news organizations that are considered highly reliable, with editorial control and a solid reputation for fact checking. For the purposes of this research I have deliberately avoided online news blogs, such as Wired, Slate, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, or any video game news sites. This is not because those sites are unreliable per se, but this controversy has received enough coverage in the mainstream press that I think we can focus on using higher quality sources with long-running, well-established reputations.

I have noticed that many content discussions on this talk page reference past consensus (you know, the consensus reached by the editors who owned this article, treated it as a battleground and have been topic-banned for it?), or seem to indicate that all sources agree with a certain position. This research is an attempt to address those issues directly. It will also be helpful to locate claims in the article space that may have been cherry picked from otherwise reliable sources. If we are going to edit based on a preponderance of sources, I feel we should be working from the most reliable sources available.

I found 62 articles in highly reliable sources that reported on different aspects of the GamerGate controversy. I investigated each article placed it in one of seven categories, listed below (with example articles in parenthesis):

Overview -- a macro-level article examining the controversy ([3][4][5])
Review -- an article covering how the controversy has been reported in the media ([6][7][8])
Profile -- an interview or profile of an individual or specific organization affected by the GamerGate controversy ([9])[10][11]
Column -- an opinion piece, typically written in first person, detailing a journalist's experience either investigating or covering the controversy ([12][13][14])
Event -- a story about a particular event, such as the cancellation of Anita Saarkesian's talk at Utah State or the release of the ArbCom findings ([15][16])
Business -- a discussion of the effects of GamerGate on the video game industry ([17][18][19])
Study -- the results of a poll or study that may be tangentially linked to the GamerGate controversy ([20][21])

I decided to compile the articles I classified as Overviews and Reviews. Those two categories include articles that attempt to maintain a dispassionate, disinterested, neutral tone. The articles are also attempts to report on the entirety of the story, not just one aspect of it. While no doubt the rest of the sources would still qualify as reliable, I feel they should be used carefully and in full consideration of proper context.

Here are the reasons I did not use the other categories. Profiles are generally written from the perspective of one of the involved parties, which makes them inherently non-neutral for a controversial subject. Columns are written with an acknowledged editorial slant; also not neutral. Events are good for sourcing specific occurrences, but shouldn't be used to draw general conclusions about the controversy. Business and Study articles are also generally focused on a specific aspect of the controversy, and should only be used to source the applicable content.

Anyhow, here is the list I compiled, starting with the most recent. I would like to hear from you gorgeous people to see if I'm missing any obvious reliably-sourced overview/review articles, or if any of the articles I've identified as such should be reclassified or removed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Here are the 2220 high-quality references I found:

Gamergate: a brief history of a computer-age war The Guardian
GamerGate: How the video game industry's culture war began Al Jazeera
Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs Christian Science Monitor
Video game world tensions erupt in 'GamerGate' AFP
Nobody Wins the GamerGate Civil War Bloomberg
How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop “in one week” Washington Post
How do we know what we know about #Gamergate? Columbia Journalism Review
The Gamergate controversy The Boston Globe
GamerGate is happening because we let it happen Entertainment Weekly
Gamergate: A Scandal Erupts in the Video-Game Community The New Yorker
What Is #GamerGate and Why Are Women Being Threatened About Video Games? Time
Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign New York Times
Lazy coverage of Gamergate is only feeding this abusive campaign The Guardian
Behind the furor over #Gamergate CNN
The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read Washington Post
#GamerGate Is Not A Hate Group, It's A Consumer Movement Forbes
#Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate On Women And Video Games NPR
With #GamerGate, the video-game industry’s growing pains go viral Washington Post
Gamergate-related controversy reveals ugly side of gaming community LA Times
Sexism, Lies and Video Games: The Culture War Nobody Is Winning Time
Zoe Quinn and the orchestrated campaign of harassment from some 'gamers' The Independant
GamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games Forbes

This list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, but I fully acknowledge that I may have mis-categorized some articles and completely missed others. Once we can agree on what constitutes the best possible sources for this article, I feel we may have a better shot at tackling some of the broad assertions made in the article space. Thoughts? Concerns? Additions? Subtractions? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to use only the most highly reputable sources then you should drop the WP:NEWSBLOG from that list, as you've linked to it above. To be clear, that's the Erik Kain pieces. They're not Forbes articles, they're from Kain's blog published through their contributor model. Unfortunately if we cut out all NEWSBLOGs we're going to get a lot of people yelling about neutrality because of losing those. — Strongjam (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate targets launch anti-harassment network, The Guardian

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life, ABC News Nightline

Zoe Quinn: '#Gamergate has ruined my life. But I won't quit', The Telegraph

There's quite a few other reports which are much more recent than the ones above, and take a more holistic, looking-back-at-what-Gamergate-actually-was approach. No Matter How Dark (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Strongjam that the Erik Kain piece falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and (lacking any compelling reason why Kain's opinion is noteworthy here or why it should be included despite that) doesn't really belong on any list of the most-reliable sources. I'd be leery about removing too many sources in any sort of mass sweep, though, given the complexity of the subject; remember in particular that sourcing is contextual and depends on what you're citing (eg. citing the opinion of someone who is relevant to the topic can be done using a source that wouldn't be reliable for sourcing other facts.) If you feel that a particular source shouldn't be used or that a particular statement in the article is not currently well-cited enough, I'd ask that you create a specific section for that specific concern, or that you make one edit for that particular part directly, rather than trying to make any sort of overarching change -- one talk section or edit per removed source or area of the article you don't feel is well-cited enough, basically, not a sweeping "we're going to use these and remove absolutely everything else, then remove absolutely everything not cited to them." --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the Forbes feedback -- I have struck those articles from the list. I wasn't familiar with that model, but it explains a lot. I thought there might have been a few self-published articles hiding in the shadows -- looks like this issue had been addressed previously in the archives. As for the additions, I had categorized The Guardian article as a profile (it's about Crash Override), ABC News as a profile (it's about Anita Saarkesian and Brianna Wu), and the Telegraph article as a profile (it's essentially an interview of Quinn). I'm not saying those sources are unreliable, I'm just saying that articles written on a macro-level about the controversy should be used when drawing broad conclusions. And Aquillion, I'm not proposing a mass sweep or overarching change. I do think it would be helpful at some point in the future, but I'm just not nearly talented or patient enough to pull that off. I tried it a few years ago at Historicity of Jesus and it was an absolute shambles, and not at all worth the time and effort I put into it. This is merely my attempt to create a list of articles that the editors can agree are the highest quality reliable sources on the subject to address recent content disputes, such as the recent discussion about the definition of GamerGate, or to address longstanding issues with the lead. If we can agree that, yes, these are the highest-quality sources that address the controversy then we can start drawing more concrete conclusions on "what the sources say." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's helpful to start trying to categorize highly-reliable sources and decide which ones we should use based on their content, never mind the long argument that might be had over what is and is not a "profile." This controversy ultimately isn't happening on a macro level, is it? It's happening to real, live people, and according to the sources, the most important and notable things it's doing are the attacks on people. Stands to reason that "profiles" of the people who have been targeted by Gamergate would be common and important in understanding what this whole thing is. No Matter How Dark (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me take a step back here because I think you might misunderstand the objective of this post. I am not recommending that we replace all references in the article with the ones I listed. I am not suggesting that we only use the articles I listed as references. I am not suggesting that any article I did not list should be ignored. I also did not suggest, at any time, that people are not real, live people. I've always believed, with all of my heart, that people who are affected by things are people who are affected by things, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a rotten liar. What I am suggesting is that certain articles are more appropriate to address sweeping, macro-level content questions, such as "Is GamerGate a movement?" "What is GamerGate?" "Does the lead properly reflect the article content?" "Have citations been cherry picked from sources?" "Should the GamerGate movement have its own article?" Because this controversy is happening on both a macro-level and a micro-level, like all things that happen, and the distinction in applicable reliable sources needs to be made. To your point, I would agree that for any and all issues relating to how Zoe Quinn has been affected by GamerGate, an article titled Zoe Quinn: '#Gamergate has ruined my life. But I won't quit' would be entirely appropriate. But to draw general conclusions on the controversy based on the content of that article would be inappropriate, due to WP:YESPOV, WP:RSCONTEXT, and WP:SYN. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the premise of this list odd. "For the purposes of this research I have deliberately avoided online news blogs, such as Wired, Slate, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, or any video game news sites. This is not because those sites are unreliable per se, but this controversy has received enough coverage in the mainstream press that I think we can focus on using higher quality sources with long-running, well-established reputations." Those excluded sites should be included for the depth they generally have WRT topics related to gaming and/or tech. This is supposed to encyclopedic - in that it has depth and breadth. Also, the fact that they are reliable sources means that they can and should be included if they have a detail not include among the sources in this list - also for many of the articles in the list the excluded sites are often the sources of their information. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First, not all reliable sources are created equal. This does not mean there are reliable sources we should specifically exclude, only that when we are drawing broad conclusions and giving statements of fact we should be using the best sources available. Do you seriously disagree with this? If the only source for a detail is a less-reliable source, then yes, by all means include it. But if there's a discrepancy between The New York Times and Ars Technica, you're saying we should just, what, flip a coin? How is the idea of "better" sources so difficult to understand? Maybe it will help if I start quoting policy. From WP:RS "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." From WP:V: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." From WP:OR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." From WP:NPOV: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." (bold mine) Those quotes are from the core content policies which explicitly state we should be attaching a value to our sources, rather than just treating every source equally. I'm not trying to sound snarky, because I do honestly appreciate the work you've done here and I thank you sincerely for your feedback, but you should really familiarize yourself with these policies so posts like this don't come off as "odd" to you. The second point...well, I've already made the second point a couple of times, so instead of quoting policy I'll just quote myself: "I am not recommending that we replace all references in the article with the ones I listed. I am not suggesting that we only use the articles I listed as references. I am not suggesting that any article I did not list should be ignored...What I am suggesting is that certain articles are more appropriate to address sweeping, macro-level content questions". Anyhow, thanks for weighing in. If you find a reliable and contextual source that you feel matches the quality of the 20 I have listed, or if you feel that one of the 20 is unworthy, then I'm all ears (eyes). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are fine points as well as "board conclusions" also is what I'm saying. I'm not seeing the purpose of this limited list. If it's not to exclude thing or point out unreliable sources, then as long as a source is reliable, it gets to be used within the article as long as it meets the criteria of Wikipedia. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And thus the page gets all shitty over again... because the 'RSes' are just echochambers who echo just about a small part. And scrapping Kain's articles.... MicBenSte (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree here, if you guys look at the authors of many of the sites, you'll find interconnected relationships between writers, Leigh Alexander(TIME, Vice, Former Gamasutra) is a friend of Simon Parkin(The New Yorker). and Nick Wingfield(Times). I simple google search of two names together come up with this stuff. Leigh Alexander has written for Gamasutra in the past, who runs the Games Developers Conference, Leigh Alexander spoke at the GDC. It's all the best interests of these writers to say "The Games Journalists found no corruption taking place, GG is merely a hate group", I don't think its conspiratorial per-se. But simply friends doing favors for friends doing favors for friends. Kau-12 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources that rely only on sources that are party to one side of any controversy cannot be rightly considered reliable. Chrisrus (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google searching names to call people "friends" to then disqualify articles they have written is not how we evaluate WP:RS. The New Yorker has perhaps the single most solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy around. The New York Times remains basically the paper of record for the United States. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're trying to figure out whether an article is worth using, we need to use editorial discretion. If we can choose between a variety of articles and find ones that do not show a possible conflict, we should obviously look to avoid them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not determine "possible conflicts," by google searching for authors names and then MSPainting red lines. This is Not On. Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "This is Not On" means, but we do use editorial discretion to decide whether to use a source on a regular basis. It's part and parcel with building a neutral, reliable encyclopedia article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are speaking in platitudes. Why are you doing that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A better question would be why are you avoiding the argument? PavePenny (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1) So, "friendship" may be a factor of editorial discretion, but most journalists in a given newspaper will have some kind of acquaintance with each other, and most journalists in a given field will have some kind of acquaintance. Using "friendship" to exclude journalists as a hard rule will eliminate most journalists incorrectly. 2) Also, using NYT to discuss Leigh Alexander is OK; but using Leigh Alexander to discuss Leigh Alexander would be problematic, but we aren't doing that. 3) "It's about journalism ethics" therefore "we can't trust the journalist" begs the question: is it about journalism ethics of the cited journalists? If so, what is the way to address that? I think the fact that non-gaming journalists (e.g. NYT) have looked into the situation and written summaries of what is going on at least addresses that hypothetical. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

These articles are the work of professional journalists writing for highly respected news organizations with long history of strong editorial oversight. I agree that, in general, they tend to be slanted against GamerGate... but that's the reality of the coverage that GamerGate has received in the mainstream press, and that's what we use to build our articles. An argument could be made that the current Wikipedia article does not reflect the proper neutral tone of the articles I found, but those edits will need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Personally I feel that these articles are far more balanced than the stuff you'd see in other "technically reliable sources." The Washington Post articles, in particular, are written in a fair, balanced, and neutral tone. Same goes for the Columbia Journalism Review article. I actually liked the Leigh Alexander article in Time, as she generally shied away from the more evocative borderline-opinion-piece language deployed by The Guardian. There's really nothing in WP:RS about journalists being friends, and that seems to be a very difficult standard to establish. Do we only focus on journalists who are best friends (besties!)? Or do we include ones that are merely acquaintances? If a journalists retweets another journalist, is their integrity forever compromised? Sorry. I'm being glib, but I've yet to see evidence that a journalist having a personal friendship with another journalist could compromise the quality of their reporting. A friendship with the subject they're writing about? Sure, then we're talking. But not with other journalists. Maybe I'm being naive. I did narrow down the articles published on highly reliable news sources quite a bit, to address the editorial discretion issue, but if you feel it should be narrowed further I'd love to hear it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Spiked naming pro-GamerGate one of the 'people of the year'

I entirely missed it till I went back to the archives - Spiked ranked pro-Gamergate as one of their top-25 'People of the Year'. Worthy of mention? http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/trail-blazers-risk-takers-and-rule-breakers-our-people-of-the-year/#.VKvo8ivF_3h MicBenSte (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this would even go if we chose to include it. Do you have a proposal for its inclusion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We used to have a section on right-wing commentators that spoke more positively of the GG movement, like Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Y. (see [22]), which is exactly where this would have gone. I do not know why this was removed, as this is a necessary counterpoint in discussing the "culture war" facet of the controversy, and why the situation has gained larger interest. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe including Milo Yiannopoulos's writing for Breitbart would specifically be an issue, given the reliability (or lack thereof) of it as a source. Sidenote: Are we sure GG is a right wing movement? I've read several claims that they're supposed to be left wing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Including Milo's opinions is fine (particularly as we have other sources that state that he is a proponent of GG); we just can't use Milo's claims of actuality due to past issues with Brietbart poor fact-checking as a whole. And while I don't know for sure about any GGer's saying they are left-wing, the whole issue of ethics and trying to fight against the inclusion of social issues in games (and that's ignoring the issues of sexism, etc.) is very much contrary to left-wing thinking, and thus our sources as a whole classify the movement as right-wing in a political sense. --MASEM (t) 04:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with including his opinions merely because he has them is that we have an essentially limitless supply of sourceable opinions. What makes Milo's opinions notable or representative? Is he an expert on video game culture? He's not exactly a gamer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He's the opposite of a gamer actually - and kinda a hypocrite. But he's dug quite a bit of info up, conducted a couple of interviews (Quinn and Sarkeesian however didn't want to talk with him at all) and tried to get to both sides of the story - although due to his own political agenda it's slightly biased. (And slightly is an understatement here) MicBenSte (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would limit to people who have been identified in RSes as those that ... align? with GG (to the point of the right-wing nature of the issues). Milo and Christina both apply per at least that Salon article I've linked. In the case of this Spiked - which is a recognized publication (and not some random weblog) - that would also be appropriate. I agree a random proGG blog is not appropriate here which numerous have been proposed in the past; also keep in mind we're talking about when discussing the political identity/culture war aspect, which I've only seen from a few non-blog RSes (with most blog sources being on the ethics aspects). --MASEM (t) 05:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To add, I think we can add Milo and Christina's opinions on the matter via other RS directly. The Salon link above, for example. CNN has a quote from Milo, while [23] from WAPost talks on Christina's position, so it looks like we can include their opinions without citing the primary source, thus filtering what other views are considered appropriate per other RSes. Keep in mind that we also have articles that are critical of Milo and Christina's supportive nature of GG that claim to be using the group to their own ends (eg [24], [25], [26]) --MASEM (t) 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, while I think it's appropriate to include a variety of perspectives on this controversy, I'm skeptical about Milo and Christina (it seems odd to use their first names for identification, as the pro-GG folks do) because it's unclear what role they have in the actual issues of GamerGate. They are seen as spokespeople but that's because they have a large microphone, not because they have any knowledge of gaming journalism, game development or gaming culture. I think it's okay to use Sommers for her peculiar views on feminism, but, unlike most journalists covering GamerGate, Milo is actually a participant in the movement rather than a spectator, assessing and analyzing it. While there have been journalists sympathetic to those opposed to GamerGate, aside from Arthur Chu and Ian Miles Cheong, I can't think of any writers who are, essentially, have become a part of the debate . Chu is used as a reference once in this article but his more opinionated pieces aren't used as sources and Cheong is not used at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing though is that these people have been named by other RSes as part of those writing to support what GG's "ethics" side is doing; we're not randomly pulling these names out of thousands of pro-GG blogs. And the point is not to express much about their opinion, but just to identify them as the few media names that have clearly taken a side in the debate and their reasoning towards the culture war aspect. We're not making guesses by using who has been identified by here. (And I only ID them by first name as I cannot remember Milo's last name spelling off the top of my head, no other reason). --MASEM (t) 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, this is kind of a conundrum because GamerGate is consistent that they have no leaders. Yet they do acknowledge "ecelebs" who are seen as speaking on behalf of their cause. I think it would be fine to identify individuals as being important voices without reproducing their arguments here. That is simply an acknowledgment of the role they've played. I know Gawker has written about the importance of both individuals but I doubt that is considered a RS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to mention these "ecelebs" (for lack of a better term) and not mention why they've taken the cause when RS do explain this relative to the nature of this being a culture ware (even if they are considering their involvement self-serving as some of the sources I state above). I've pointed out we can include these reasons from non-SPS RS that speak about their motivations (links above). I'm not saying we need a full paragraph about Milo Y.'s involvement, but a sentence. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers. These are significant names attached to GG as from reliable sources and to not include them is failing to be objective. We just have to recognize they are a minor viewpoint and don't need more than a sentence or two. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see particularly criteria for THIS article set for which kinds of opinions to generally include, and where. A lot of the contentious stuff come from trying to include things from opinion pieces - sometimes because of the opinions cross into original research and sometimes because restating an opinion crosses so easily into synth. For this Wiki article, I think if there were a clearer way to mark opinions (e.g. put them in one section) that would help. I think notable opinions like Milo and Christina are important to include, but I have difficulty with the inclusion of the opinions of Givens - this is not to reopen those issues, but to illustrate that it's difficult to decide which opinions among so many to include. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, I've collected several thousand graphic images arising out of GamerGate and there is a frequently reprinted "ideology map" (for lack of a better term) with a four quadrant spectrum: left authoritarian, left libertarian, right authoritarian, right libertarian. I believe that the survey was taken at KIA of people who visited that subreddit and chose to participate. The bulk of respondents placed themselves somewhere in the left libertarian square (I'd say 75%) with right libertarian square coming in second. Of course, this was not a random sample and it's not clear how these four terms were defined for the survey takers. But the graph is frequently brought out when GamerGate is being identified as a right wing movement to argue that many pros actually identify themselves as left-leaning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that this is a disconnect between what the GG movement believes themselves as, and what other sources believe what GG are based on the motives (ignoring the harassment aspect). But it also depends where the center lies (which is the whole issue when you talk on things like Tea Party politics which bore out of a belief that the GOP was going far too center for their tastes). It would be nice to include that ideology map if we can get from an RS (I see one at dailykos, but yeeeah) --MASEM (t) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Masem, one incongruity in GamerGate is how many of the original participants (I think the numbers have dwindled considerably) said they were actually feminists. They specified this was pro-first wave feminism (about equality), not so-called third wave feminism which they saw as interested not in equality but in promoting women, at the expense of men and masculine culture. How they reconciled this with the element of GG that harassed certain women is unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the whole #notyourshield part that was an attempt to point out that the people in GG were not just white males, but females and minorities too. But again, we really do lack any really good quantification of the population of GG which is why way to categorize them is near impossible - you can't ready survey without bias of an anonymous population. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

the whole notyourshield being actual diverse voices for GG has been shown to be a sham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the incongruity between their beliefs and their claims. I was mostly using the question as a rhetorical device to indicate how there are even a sizable amount within the population who would object to these people being said to represent or speak for them. We can't really use these people because not only do they not have expertise on the subject, they can't be spokespeople by any degree if they are to be characterised (quite rightly) as right-wing given the claims of a sizable majority of the movement. All that said, I do appreciate you taking the time to educate people. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha; the way I would approach that is not to identify them as spokespersons, but simply people that have aligned themselves with proGG. They are notable persons, in part noted for their alignment to GG, but I don't think that neither they think they speak for GG, or that GG thinks they speak for them (moreso, it is the case from the GG angle that these are the few voices that the press recognizes and thus are their best mouthpieces, if that makes sense on the difference). I think we can say these people sympathize with the GG cause, briefly explain rationale for why they do, and then perhaps include how some other see their sympathy as only a means to push their own agenda. But certainly not explain they are the voice/leader of GG, as that's just not there in sources or in what GG's state. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to specify exactly what role these ecelebs play in GamerGate. They clearly have "fans" within the pro-GamerGate. But aside from the folks with big YouTube followings, many of the most high profile people have no connection to gaming or gaming journalism. But they are cultural critics, for what it's worth. But you can throw a rock in any direction these days and find a cultural critic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(A note regarding spiked, based on one RS/N discussion, is that for facts we should be careful but they would be appropriate to cite their opinion (with attribution) for something like this.) --MASEM (t) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in the first paragraph as sidenote? I'm not entirely sure. Could be also somewhere more down the page... Not exactly sure.

BTW, re-reading the ledger etc - and "These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event." are not sourced at all and are OR. While RSes attributed a lot of the stuff to GamerGate, as far as I can recall except for Gawker-related sites, no MSM has ever said the doxxing etc were coordinated. Especially not that threath of a mass shooting, (Redacted)

Re: Masem - it got voted 'blogs' don't have a place. I talked with Liz about it (I'll dig up the diffs later for that one), but didn't hear anything back from her yet besides that she agreed a few of the removed pieces should have a place. As of current, I'm not sure how to handle this. MicBenSte (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources in the Sarkeesian BLP and discussed on its talk page make it clear that there were two discrete threats regarding the university speaking engagement, the second of which specifically referenced Gamergate. Accusing Sarkeesian of making this up is a BLP violation. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, your memory is faulty. I read the BLP, and I saw what you mentioned I think (link 52) - however, that never claims it was GamerGate related but turned out to be an militant anti-feminist. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp As a matter of fact what is written there is complete OR, I can't find it back in the article AT ALL. MicBenSte (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Salt Lake Tribute source dosen't say "a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate?" Just checking. Hipocrite (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm a really bad reader at late time, I can't find such a thing in your mentioned article. Also, the links are way off with where they are placed then in Sarkeesian's BLP - they should be give an instant link where the reader can find the info, they shouldn't have to backtrack to 4 links earlier or later.... Also, if it's in there, two sources are counteracting each other. MicBenSte (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I see what you mean. However, it is only in the title, yet the body of the article counteracts it. So yeah. Shitty article there IMHO. What are we going to use - the header, or the body? MicBenSte (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Check again. The SLTrib source says "USU officials and Sarkeesian on Wednesday revealed new details about the threats. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate" just as Hipocrite stated. Woodroar (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In my defense, it's late where I live. But you're right... MicBenSte (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a random opinion piece from an anti-feminist website (or, at least, one aggressively critical of modern feminism, since the terms can be controversial; they particularly seem to come from the perspective that they believe it opposes free speech.) While we can mention opinions when they're relevant, it's important not to turn the article into just a dumping ground for any opinion piece some editor here agrees with; it's better to stick to opinion pieces from well-known high-profile otherwise reliable sources, which I don't feel this particular site merits. I mean, is there a reason you want to include their opinion in particular in the article? They're neither directly related to the controversy nor (as far as I know) particularly noteworthy in any of the fields it covers; and this particular opinion piece isn't even about the article's subject directly, just mentioning it in passing as part of a longer list. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I asked - I wasn't sure whether it had a place. *Shudder* MicBenSte (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that this list article isnt of any particular use here, other articles have been written on spiked such as this one arguing gamergate is part of a culture war. It's nothing particularly amazing, but then again neither are most of the sources we use. Bosstopher (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked out the link and I'm surprised that Spiked is seen as a reliable source. It looks like a pretty flaky website. Do they have a print version? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember, 'reliable source' is contextual. I think we generally wouldn't rely on them to source statements of fact (they're not, as far as I can see, a 'well-established news outlet' or anything like that, and they seem to focus heavily on opinion anyway); and I'd probably say that they're a 'questionable source' as described in WP:RS, but we could (in theory) still cite them to describe their opinion. The question at that point is whether their opinion is particularly relevant to the topic at hand; I'd generally argue that it isn't, but that's a matter of whether it would be giving their opinion WP:UNDUE weight rather than whether they're a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

re: "online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan from a vocal minority"

My revert of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=645645952&oldid=645645463 (gah I don't know how to make that pretty) was reverted by Avono. The sense of the German article does not support attaching from "a vocal minority" next to "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". Later in the Der Bund article, "vocal minority" (as translated) is used, but in a sense that who is or is not doing things is not clear. I don't think the article supports Avono's edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave this to German speakers, although it would be helpful if someone was able to pull the relevant quote (and translation) from the article If that's possible.

This does raise the question, again, of if we really need all of these sources. In an article with 169 references (and counting), does this German-language article provide us with anything not present in the plethora of English sources? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I speak German. Google translate does an OK job on this page, you can check for yourself. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*relevant quote 1* This opinion war takes place online. Locations are posts in forums, social media or comments orchestrated and email protests. A minority also attacks on anonymous attacks on critics and dissenting means of online stalking, Wikipedia vandalism and threats of violence.

*relevant quote 2* What it is about at GamersGate, depends on the interpretation of controversy. The activists and supporters of GamersGate imagine themselves in the war against a major media conspiracy that would "Gamer" brand it as sexist and accusations of conflicts of interest gaming press ignore. Affected journalists and critics, however, see a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists at work. The debate is diffuse. That GamersGate activists are not a homogenous group, making the situation any clearer.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is that a reason to exclude it? Der Bund is a reliable source. My main problem with including it is that it makes it hard for other editors to check the citations easily.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NONENG is the policy. Basiaclly no reason to exclude it, although we should prefer an English source (as this is English Wikipedia) if it fills the same role. — Strongjam (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a reason to exclude it, at all. I just think it's one more prod for us to consider the reference bloat on this article. Either way, probably not a discussion to have in the midst of this section. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is a controversy over coverage of video gamers and players. A Part of this Community raises that the gaming press is interdependent with the gaming industry and that they are attacking their hobby. This opinion war takes place online at posts in forums, social media, online comments or through orchestrated email protests. A minority also resorts to anonymous attacks on critics and dissidents through Onlinestalking, Wikipedia Vandalism and threats of violence. Only thing not supported is "vocal" which I am going to remove. Avono (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting "minority" next to "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan" is not following the sense of the article - it isn't talking about a minority of "Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is some incredibly bad wordsmithing, and creates synthesis by putting the minorty next to the cites. I'm not going to revert, because I'm not the one starting the revert war, but this is a mistake being writ large. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The "minority" reference is unclear who it is referring to. It is a minority of Gamergate, not a minority of those groups (although that is also true). Either way it just doesn't read well. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

well somehow we have indicate that not all of gamergate is responsible for the harassment. Maybe These attacks were primarily performed by a minority within the movement? Problem is that movement is defined afterwards. Avono (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If that was what you were trying to get at, then I'd say if the German source was the only source that got at it, then it's not adequately verifiable. I don't see that the German source absolves Gamgergate supporters of responsibility, merely that the harassment was not actually engaged in by thousands. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1) If the goal is somehow state "that not all of gamergate is responsible for the harassment" - it should be it's own sentence somewhere. 2) It will need a citation other than this Der Bund article, because it doesn't support that idea in any clear fashion. Also, that article's information appears to be dated (2014 Oct 10) in a way that would be superceeded by later information. ForbiddenRocky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"by a minority" (minority of who?) by itself reads incredibly poorly, so I'm going to remove it for now- feel free to reinsert if you can come up with a way to word it that doesn't detract from readability. (Also: Doesn't 'at times' imply that only some people would be co-ordinating it there, anyway?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the Bund article appears to be an editorial; that means that it can be cited for the author's opinions, but cannot be cited for matters of fact. (That is, we can use it to say "this person thinks XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "XYZ is so".) Either way, it seems to me that putting the 'minority' wording in the lead solely based on one article would give WP:UNDUE weight to that source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have located more sources.

The Washington Post: "Both mainstream gaming critics and many Gamergate supporters insist the brutal trolls are just a small, vocal minority. There’s plenty of social science to back that up, too: We know that people are more aggressive, more argumentative and more nasty when they’re permitted to comment on something without using their real name." (this directly supports both "vocal" and "minority")
The New York Times "The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women."
The Guardian "In other words, the movement is focused on 'ethical problems' in games journalism; the harassment which is endemic in gamergate is then blamed on 'a much smaller faction'...The Gamergate line is that it vigorously self-polices, tracking down rogue elements within the movement who harass women, and telling them to stop." (he appears to be summarizing the NYT article)

So that's three more sources on top of Der Bund. Is this weighty enough for inclusion in the article? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Gamergate is already described by us as an "anonymous and amorphous movement" because our sources belabor that point. Of course not every Gamergate supporter is harassing women, just as not every Gamergate supporter is calling in threats, or reporting threats, or donating to TFYC, or participating in Operations, or posting on 8chan or Reddit or Twitter. Our sources bear this out. Making that point only when it comes to harassment is like us writing "reliable sources report..." only about the harassment. Woodroar (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying -- we can't qualify everything in the article. But the current sentence is very confusing. Is the "anonymous and amorphous movement" synonymous with users of the GamerGate hashtag? Isn't is a bit redundant in its current state? It's akin to saying "the anonymous users of these boards are amorphous and anonymous, and conducted an anonymous harassment campaign using a hashtag anonymously." What exactly are we trying to say? The sources say this: 1) The initial round of harassment took place using the gamergate hashtag. 2) The attacks were coordinated anonymously on 4Chan, 8Chan, and Reddit. This goes back to the problem that there is not even an attempt to define the GamerGate movement in the first paragraph, so we get "Here's the bad stuff they did" before we even know who "they" are. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I personally think our present course is imperfect but the most appropriate for the subject. Gamergate isn't organized, so we're left describing general trends and activities rather than something precise. In a lot of ways, it's like the black bloc. I wouldn't draw too many parallels, just that "this is what we call it; some people did this; some people did this; some people did this; and there may be overlap between any or all of those people". Woodroar (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Then by your own admission the article is deeply misleading, harassment is not a general trend in gamergate, as is verified by all sources that have bothered to attempt to verify such claims. PavePenny (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Harassment is a widely-reported element of the movement, whether or not every single member engages in it. Woodroar (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Widely reported does not equate to widely practiced, and article needs to reflect this. PavePenny (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the reliable sources, and what they report. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If the information a source reports on is not verifiable then the source is not reliable. You are attempting to use wikipedia policy to mask your own confirmation bias and frankly it's shameful. PavePenny (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you have the information on how a source can be used, and what makes it reliable or not, because I have personally shared them with with you. If you actually want to make constructive change to the article, I would like to once again suggest that you offer something more than empty words on the talk page, with no actual backing in anything other than your opinion. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion when expressed has been backed by fact, your impotent bleeting about the reliability of sources has not in any instance refuted a substantive claim I've made. Your involvement in this article is to the detriment of the project, either take your responsibility to edit it to fairly represent verifiable fact or step away from it and allow someone competent to have a go. PavePenny (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The point where you personally attack me is the point where I'm going to stop responding, so this doesn't escalate. However, I would like to ask you to consider what it means that you think you know the "facts," and yet have been unable to provide any reliable backing. As has been said before, I would love to edit this article based on what I know to be true; I suspect others wouldn't be so happy. I also am not sure it would be best for the article. That's why we base everything in reliable sources. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PavePenny, I respectfully request that you cease all personal attacks on other editors, and assume good faith unless you have rock solid evidence to the contrary. If another editor engages in indisputable misconduct, discuss their behavior at the appropriate administrative noticeboard. Ongoing personal attacks are likely to lead to blocks or other sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I mostly concur with Woodroar. However, if you think that more should be added for reasons not addressed by Woodroar's comments, I reiterate that it needs to be it's own piece somewhere and not appended next to "online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan". Which also to say, I'm not sure the current "anonymous and amorphous movement" belongs attached to the "online [...] 8chan" sentence, but this phrasing makes more sense than the "vocal minority" phrasing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, descriptions like "anonymous and amorphous" definitely belong here. Please keep in mind that we're writing for everyone. Ideally, someone who's never heard of 4chan, memes or lulz should be able to understand the jist of this article. Be careful not to over-prune it.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html

[1]