Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 39

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 35

←

Archive 37

→

update on arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/

One of our sources, http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/, has been updated. We should edit or delete the sentence which cites this source in light of this update. Chrisrus (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated to remove the radio silence bit. Based on the update it looks like there was a miscommunication between Wu & the FBI. — Strongjam (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Now it says that she's expressed frustration, but the authorities have responded that her frustration is not founded and cited evidence, and she has apologetically backed off that assertion. Even if she still maintains face-saving wiggle room that she still thinks her cases have been mishandled by other authorities, she provides no evidence or reason for us to pass such allegations from her along to our readers. Just delete it as a non-event or mistake. Chrisrus (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Miscommunication over one case. Her complaint about lack of action on all of the many threats and harassment against her are still valid. — Strongjam (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They might or might not be valid, but in this citation the only any evidence provided is also contradicted and retracted. What remains is a vague allegation with nothing to back it up. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement as it stands now is both true and verifiable. I don't think there is anything left to discuss. — Strongjam (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

While that statement may be true and verifiable, it's not a fair summary of that source. A fair summary of that source would say in appropriate language that that certain allegations were made on a blog that did not check out and were retracted apart from a vague generalization backed up by no evidence. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. No reliable source has said this, for the very good reason that saying this might arguably be libel. this discussion is quite possibly libelous as well, as one editor appears to be accusing the subject of committing a crime for which she has been neither charged nor indicted, based on that editor'so personal interpretation of something or other MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reporting that someone made a mistaken accusation and retracted it is not accusing anyone of a crime.

Don't take it from me, read arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ yourself and you will agree that it reports that certain allegations were made at the Mary Sue that did not check out and were retracted as a misunderstanding or miscommunication or mistake, apart from a vague generalization backed up by nothing. If you don't think that's just what arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ says, what then does it say?

This article merely repeats this unfounded accusation and omits the fact that the specific allegations turned out to be not true and were retracted and apologized for, which is the main idea of the source. If we're going to include this source, we should not just cherry pick a vague accusation and ignore its main idea. It seems better to delete the whole thing, because it's just about something that we thought was real but wasn't so oops nevermind. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Please quote from the article what unfounded accusation is repeated. — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wu has expressed her frustration over how law enforcement agencies have responded to the threats that her and other women in the game industry have received.[arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/]" This misses the main idea of the source and repeats her accusation that the law enforcement agencies have been remiss in responding, a claim not backed up by evidence in this citation. Chrisrus (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's a fair assessment of the source. We don't have to investigate any 'evidence'. Perhaps you'd be better off writing a letter to the editor. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The House Appropriations Committee has just formally supported the call for enforcement of laws against online harassment and Gamergate: [[1]] [[2]. Let's drop this unproductive discussion and move on. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not questioning the source so contacting them would not be helpful. This source says she said the response of the authorities has been lacking because of claims to fact that she now says "oops sorry nevermind" about. Chrisrus (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's not focus on one a single tree and miss the whole forest. Take it to WP:RSN if you think the source does not back up the statement. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The updated source still says she is frustrated in general about law enforcement's response to the situation; the detailed issue around the Columbus call was a mistaken choice of which agency to contact, and she apologized for her mistake once she got to the right one. But there's still her general sentimentes from her op-ed that in general, the lack of law enforcement actions on any of these harassment (not just hers) is frustrating. So the statement is fine with the update. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You say we shouldn't ignore the forest and miss the trees, but that would mean providing a holistic summary of what this source contains instead instead of just providing one cherry-picked detail. The fact that she finds the response lacking is just an insignificant opinion without something in the source to indicate that she's right about that. Chrisrus (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, her opinion in this case is not insignificant- it's pretty significant, so we include it. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This citation is about some allegations that didn't check out. If we use it, we should say that.

This citation is not about the fact that she says she still believes it's lacking anyway.

Her saying that, even though none of this evidence checked out, is in this citation. But there is no evidence here that it is lacking. We have nothing here but unsubstantiated allegations.

If we retain this source we should tell them what's in it: that she made some allegations that didn't check out and she apologized and retracted it but still thinks the response has been lacking.

Or we dump this citation on "Citation Contains Retraction" grounds. As we say, "retraction is strong evidence of inaccuracy." Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Read Masem's above comment re: still frustrated. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

He's right: it says she still believes it anyway. That doesn't address my point: that's not a fair summary of the citation and misses the main point of the citation and amounts to us repeating a baseless allegation. Chrisrus (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Then change it. You can edit wikipedia pages, can't you? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirements that when we use a source that we can only use the source's whole content in its entirety. We're summarizing, so using a single fact that is buried in a larger article from a reliable source is not a problem. Yes, it is likely the Mary Sue rant and the subsequent articles regarding that call and her initial failed attempt to get enforcement help would not have happened if she had contacted the proper department first, and we wouldn't have that "frustrated" statement. But it did happen, yet even after the article was updated, that factor still persisted, so its fair game for us to use and ignore the rest of the situation. (Remember, this is coming after the situation at PAX.) --MASEM (t) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, there is no obligation to always summarize a source. However, there is no obligation not to, especially if omitting the main point of a source amounts to passing along a baseless allegation, that's a problem.

To say "Smith was angry that Jones did something wrong" is to pass along Smith's accusation against Jones, something we shouldn't do without proof and important reason to do so. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's summarize the source holistically. Just that she made those accusations, but they turned out to be wrong, so she restracted them, but still nevertheless maintains that the response is lacking. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you have events flipped. Prior to that Columbus call (the one she recorded and had the caller's number for evidence) , she reports she had been trying to get other law enforcement agencies to act on other threats she's gotten, but from that was frustrated with the lack of significant response (eg the PAX situation). Then this call happened, one that she was able to record and get a number for, making it something possibly more actionable than previous threats in terms of enforcement, called the Columbus agency (unaward she was calling the wrong department for those types of matters), got even more frustrated with this specific lack of response, and wrote her opinion for the Mary Sue. And then she was told she did have the wrong department and thus got to the right person. Her frustrations with all other previous attempts still exist and didn't change, what the updated article still presents. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem is correct -- words I have seldom written! All news reports (including the world's top newspapers) agree that the subject has been exposed to vile harassment and that legal authorities have so far been unable or unwilling to prosecute the offenders. There is absolutely no doubt that the harassment is real or that it has been reported to authorities that range from local police officers to the U. S. Congress. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem:

You seem to be saying that:

1. She was frustrated because had been trying to get other law enforcement agencies to act on "other", less "actionable" threats, "in terms of enforcement" that she had previously gotten, prior to "the Columbus call".

2. Later she got the "Columbus call" which she recorded and got caller's number, making them more "actionable" in that way.

3. She rightly presented the Columbus Call Evidence to the proper authorities.

4. It was then that she then became "frustrated with the lack of significant response."

5. Then "this call" happened. She also a number for "this call", making it something also possibly more actionable by authorities.

6. She then called "the Columbus agency" who did not respond because it was not their job to respond or pass it on to the proper authorities, because she had the wrong department for those types of matters.

7. She then got even more frustrated with this new specific lack of response, and wrote her opinion for the Mary Sue.

8. She was then learned for the first time that she had had the wrong department and got to the right person, so she's not frustrated by the response to this call anymore.

In short, she isn't saying she is frustrated by the response to the first, number-and-recording-less calls. She is not saying she is frustrated by the lack of response to "this call". She was only saying she was frustrated by the lack of significant response to "the Columbus call".

This is what I understood you to be saying. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There's only one call, what you're calling "this call" and "Columbus call" are one and the same. If you eliminate your points 3, 4, and 5, then you have the order of events that I see it as described by how the original articles read and the updated stories. And your point is missing what you have as point #1 - that all the previous calls and threats she's gotten and reported (though perhaps without having caller number or recording) had left her frustrated with the general enforcement authorities' responses. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You now seem to be saying that:

First she got less actionable telephone threats. This fact is not in this citation, so, {{citation needed}}, if you would, but according to this citation, she was and still is frustrated with the inadequate response to these previous threats.

Later, she got the "Columbus call", which was more actionable, because this time the number was captured and the call recorded. She then mistakenly provided this evidence to an unnamed agency, the wrong department. Not hearing back and not knowing why, she then got even more frustrated and so wrote a piece for the Mary Sue complaining about it.

She then learned for the first time that she had had the wrong department and apologized but said but she's still frustrated about the previous lack of response to the earlier, less actionable calls.

Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ars Tech article says she's been frustrated before but if you read her Mary Sue op-ed "For this, I’ve had over 100 death threats sent to me by the hate group known as Gamergate in the last nine months.[...] And yet, terrifyingly, nothing has been done." which is unmistakably clear. Otherwise that's correct. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we've been talking just about phone calls. She's saying she is frustrated with the lax response by the proper authorities to "messages" she had received, which we can rightly assume means tweets and/or emails and such. Is this citation the first to establish this fact about her feelings about these messages? Chrisrus (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Mary Sue source which ArsTech refers to. But to eliminate that being an issue, I have added that MAry Sue as a source to that same statement. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We could cite that fact about how she feels to citations other than this one. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the Mary Sue essay she wrote is the direct, immediate source. Ars Tech summarizes it, but as it begs where the citation is actually coming from, using the Mary Sue source directly removes any question of this. (It should be noted her essay was also updated to reflect the corrected department contact, but it still keeps her prior frustration). --MASEM (t) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless we're going to tell the readers about this incident, I don't see what use this citation is to the article. How she feels about the response is found in other sources and not backed up by anything in this. Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, in talking about how GG is being handled by law enforcement, Wu's opinion on her general frustration with lack of enforcement response is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the enforcement response been lacking or not? If we phrase it like "Smith is frustrated that Jones was negligent", we express Smith's feelings as his opinion, but "that Jones was negligent" is presented as fact. If you say "Smith asserted that Jones was negligent", or maybe "Smith was frustrated at perceived negligence on Jones' part", that'd be different. Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We have presented this in the article as Wu's opinion that enforcement is lacking, so we are fine with that. We do state factually that to the best of anyone's knowledge no one has been arrested/etc. due to GG, but without additional comment. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I regret now not telling the readers what this source says. People should know not just that she thinks the response is lacking, but, but also that she made and withdrew those accusations. It might be important for them to know this. Chrisrus (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Mary Sue and the Ars Tech articles were updated after she withdrew her accusation at the enforcement office but left in her general frustration with the lack of activity from law enforcement in general in the overall GG situation, she clearly didn't withdraw that complaint. So summarizing just this is fine. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By what standard? Objectively, none of these threats have been found to be credible and even the ones that have identified the threat maker have been passed off as not credible (i.e. the PAX "going for the kill" threat and the comedian that claimed to crash his Prius were both identified by police). Police prioritize cases and part of that is determining whether a threat is physically likely. Local domestic violence threats where they are likely to become real violence will have priority over anonymous threats on the internet. Threats by anonymous people are very rarely carried out and that is juxtaposed against threats by familiar people and prioritized accordingly. We also don't know how many threats Wu has reported or what the disposition was/is. Why didn't she know that she should be calling her local police department until the Columbus prosecutor told her? There is simply nothing to write about the police response except what has already been covered and nothing indicates that the response by law enforcement has been inadequate. Wu may be frustrated but it's the same level of frustration expressed by all victims of lower priority crimes (i.e. a $100 break-in theft from a car may feel very violating and personal. The police will take a report. Don't expect the CSI van to show up looking for DNA evidence, though.) --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Boston Globe, Boston Magazine, and Rep. Katherine Clark are all unambiguous in reporting that Wu did report threats to her local police department. Kindly redact that mistake promptly. In addition, where crimes were apparently committed in other jurisdictions, as was the case in Ohio, Wu contacted authorities in that jurisdiction. End of story. None of these questions should be mentioned in the article; aside from another failed Gamergate PR initiative, there's no news here. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't "prove the negative day." There is no objective view or source that enforcement is lacking. Masem is correct that we should be reporting it as Wu's opinion and one that has evolved especially since the Mary Sue article got the attention of the Columbus prosecutor. Also, its a novel view that the threat she received at her home or business wasn't a local crime. I have no doubt she reported threats including the one to the wrong people in Ohio. As far as I have read she has not made a complaint about local police. Is there a source for that? --DHeyward (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

To wit, the namesake of this section updated the original story when it turned out there were errors made. Before Wednesday's op-ed was published, Wu claims her outside legal counsel had e-mailed one FBI agent she had contacted in the past, along with Boston police, but she was unable to reproduce those e-mails for Ars Technica before the holiday weekend. --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that those emails don't exist - just that she didn't get back to ArcTech in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct and I didn't mean to imply that they don't exist. The (paraphrased) "my lawyer sent one email to an FBI agent she had contact with in the past" doesn't exactly inspire confidence or support "Radio Silence from the FBI." ARStechnica tone changed, too, in the update as instead of "raising new questions", they use terms like "claims" but that's a bit cyrstalballish. In the MarySue article, after learning that "her staff" didn't actually contact Ron O'Brien (the person she calls out by name multiple times), Wu tweets her supporters to stop harassing O'Brien Everyone I’ve talked to there has been professional and very helpful. You don’t help my case if you attack them. These things happen. What things? O'Brien did nothing wrong and it was an error on Wu's staff or attorney (she blamed both). She later said to the Mary Sue "It’s worth clarifying, my frustration is with law enforcement overall, not with the Ohio prosecutor’s office." yet the Ohio prosecutor is the only one she bothered to call out by name. Maybe if she named her FBI contact or Boston PD contact or federal prosecutor, we could get to the heart of the frustration there as well, just as naming the Ohio prosecutor quickly identified the problem. It's somewhat disingenuous for us to write about her frustration without the Ohio backstory of where the frustration originated - it's why both the Mary sue and ARSTechnica added updates after all - I haven't seen anything since the last update where they were waiting for emails.. --DHeyward (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that while the Ohio situation caused Wu to put her feelings to paper and without it we wouldn't have her "frustrated" opinion. But that said, this source from WaPost [3] just added by Strongjam to support Rep. Clark's bill reiterates the frustration about lack of any followup by any agency, without even mentioning the Ohio situation. And it's hard to ignore that we know Wu contacted Pax and local police and got nothing there. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Veering off-course/not a forum

I'm not sure we know she "got nothing" from PAX and local police. They followed up with the "going for the kill" threat and there wasn't anything to do. Whether that was a problem with the law or a problem with the evidence, I can't say. The same is true for the Prius guy. He was not prosecuted even though he was identified. It's obvious to me that such "jokes" aren't excuses for threats and a person should know they are really terrorizing - "knowingly" is enough for a culpable mental state so all these should be prosecutable. So why/how did the Prius guy avoid charges? Did Wu seek and obtain an injunction against harassment against this person (again, this is step 1 in harassment protection)? Clark makes great op-ed's but her legislation doesn't address anything. It's a token and there are literally hundreds of agents and support staff that investigate cyber crimes, including threats. There's no priority in the legislation that would make anonymous threats more of a priority than they already are and credibility as well as prosecutor discretion rule the day. Ross Ulbricht was prosecuted for internet threats and cyber murder-for-hire and he alone would have eaten all the manpower resources allocated in that bill to investigate his threats. The main difference between the rhetorical device of comparing it to domestic violence is that women were/are being killed in domestic violence cases and threat investigations are prioritized in light of all the other crimes against persons. Anonymous threats are simply not known to lead to violence and this is going to be the first comforting words by a police officer that takes a report. DV threats do lead to violence and there are many more protections afforded to people that were in intimate relationships because of that. I'll liken it to an incident my friend went through: person broke into her home and went through all her clothes, stole some of her husbands' clothes and took a dump on the living room floor. For her, it's extremely personal and violating to have someone in their home doing those things. No one was home. Police explain that it is most likely homeless person based on the profile of what was stolen and what was left. They take the report and advise to call 911 if something happens while they are home but most likely this person won't ever return again. It's terrifying for the victim but the cop is going to go to 2 or 3 calls like that per week. And another 2-3 calls of domestic violence. And another 2-3 DUI's. And another 2-3 deaths (suicide, natural causes, etc). In the end, the burglary is low probability of solving and a low amount of tangible losses and a property crime compared to assaults and other crimes of violence. It's definitely a crime, and it's definitely terrifying, but what can be done? More manpower will go to all the cases ahead of a low-value/low-solution crime. Clark was very careful not to use language in the bill that determined priority or changed prosecutor discretion. She also didn't propose new laws to make it easier to charge and convict. Without knowing why the Prius case was not prosecuted, it's extremely hard to say what the problem is or even if there is a problem. Most states have a "Victim's Rights" program and victims should be involved in virtually all decisions for where they are victims even if it's only informational. Victim services [4], Victim's rights [5]. --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no question that crimes have been committed, and any passages above that insinuate otherwise are either mistaken (and should be corrected) or libelous (and should be rev-del'd). Issuing threats of harm to an individual, their family, or their property in order to persuade them to leave software development is clearly a criminal act; that the perpetrators remain, at present, either unknown or unidentified does not change the fact of the crime. That the crimes have been reported to appropriate police agencies is also amply reported. The question of the credibility of threats -- repeated endlessly above and in the archives by a few Gamergate accounts -- is relevant only for short-term police response and does not affect the underlying crime or mitigate its severity unless you wish to argue that no reasonable person could possibly find the threats to be frightening or disturbing. Since any number of excellent sources did find the threats disturbing, we can dismiss that line without further discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Fish

I couldn't find any discussion about this in the archives. The article currently reads: "Among those singled out was fellow video game developer Phil Fish, who was hacked and doxed after he defended Quinn and referred to those attacking and harassing her as 'ball-less manboobs' and 'essentially rapists'; Paste magazine said that these 'were fairly common statements from the combative [Fish].'" Here are the references used: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. The references generally agree that Phil Fish was hacked after defending Zoe Quinn, but none of the contemporary articles ascribe the attack to Gamergate, probably because the name Gamergate was not attached to the movement until several days after Fish left the industry. Can we retroactively assign blame to a group that didn't even exist at that point? There were no "Gamergate supporters" when Fish was hacked. The Phil Fish incident might be more appropriate for the Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn, or 4chan articles, but unless there is a reliable source that clearly links the Gamergate movement to the hacking incident (the current articles do not) then I don't see a justification as to why it should be included. Either that, or we should rewrite the paragraph to clarify that the hacks occurred before Gamergate had a name, perhaps as part of the "background" to the creation of Gamergate. 4chan ≠ Gamergate, and Gamergate was not the sole perpetrator of harassment targeted at Zoe Quinn. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph should probably be split up. The bit about Fish moved up a paragraph or two, and the bit explaining the use of "white knight" and "SJW" somewhere else. — Strongjam (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fairly obvious the harassment/hacking is related, but the timeline is a bit off. I'm done editing for the day, but if someone else wants to take a shot at it then be my guest. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that there is zero OR to take, for example, "Fez developer Polytron hacked in ongoing game developer harassment effort" from Kotaku on Aug 22 to consider Fish's harassment part of GG even though the term hadn't been developed. In the hacked info from Polytron, the hackers used a term associated with Quinn specifically coming from Gjoni's post (no need to repeat here). And while Fish might have existed before GG started, his connection to trying to defend Quinn after Gjoni's post is still a sign of what the harassment became. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal, I just think we can do a better job of the organization of it here. It's definitely all part of the same controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick revert comment

On this revert I did [12] , I will note that the validity of these sources have been discussed on this talk page before, even if they aren't the highest RSes. Also, the removal of them was stated because they were duplicative, but duplicate sources are not a bad thing; in one case, the original Mary Sue article written by Wu was removed in favor of the Ars Tech article that summarized her comments, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with including both. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the reliablity of APGNation been discussed before? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The archive search shows it coming up several times, primarily because it is an interview with TFYC, and less trying to be a "factual" aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To add, I'm not saying we can't rediscuss the reliability of these sources, but before they are removed from the article, that should be rechecked for each of the sources in question. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly APGN is not considered an RS yet due to the lack of journalistic experience within the editorial team. But the article in question (an interview with Matthew Rappard of TFYC) can be used to source TFYC's opinions on stuff and whatnot.Bosstopher (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign"

This thread has become nothing but people namecalling and flinging insults at eachother under the thin pretense of improving an encyclopedia article. So I'm going to be bold hat this section, and create a new one below where the same topic can be discussed (lest I be accused of censorship). Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you have issues with the perceived behavior of another editor/group of editors, please bring it to WP:AE instead.Bosstopher (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

From the history section "After the blog post, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign. Commentators both in and outside the video game industry condemned the unfounded attacks against Quinn" -- "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is not anywhere in the sources. The word virulent never appears and the word misogynistic does not appear in this context. With enough written about this in the sources, I think we can reasonably ask for editors to not be phrasing things in their own words and just stick to what is in the sources, no? Handpolk (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No. "Phrasing things in their own words" is exactly what Wikipedia editors are expected to do. It's a process called "writing", which is what we are doing here. If you have some point to make that what Quinn experienced was not a virulent campaign, you can make it; otherwise this thread is closed and doesn't deserve any more discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only necessary to use our own words for the purposes of brevity or when words that describe the same thing are not in the source. When we go against the source and say something else entirely, which the source does not support, that is not encyclopedic, it is editorializing. "what Quinn experienced was not a virulent campaign" -- according to the sources, it was not. My opinion is not relevant. Handpolk (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Take your [www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/security/2499-when-the-internet-breeds-hate choice] . Or we can use torrent or vicious or aggressive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's in the source you can use whatever you like. The sources are already editorialized, we don't need to move even further away from what actually happened by editorializing ourselves. Handpolk (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you really so unfamiliar with the subject that you were unaware of the fact that there was indeed a plethora of sources describing the attack in terms similar to the phrasing of which you objected so that we need to start addressing your understanding of the topic at baseline zero or were you merely being "purely neutral"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the topic is at 'baseline zero.' That's not a bug, it's a feature. I care about the encyclopedia, not this controversy. If you include a source at the end of that section that backs up "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" I think the encyclopedia would be improved. Handpolk (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then as the FAQ's suggest, and I will repeat the suggestion, that you take a few moments and read through some of the multiple pages of archives to bring yourself up to basic familiarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I care about the encyclopedia, not this controversy. Then why aren't you interested in editing other articles? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you repeat it enough times, maybe it will become true! For the last week or so, most of my edits have been on this article. That is correct. Prior to that, I edited a variety of articles and I will continue to do so. I actually made non-GG edits today. Handpolk (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Prior to a week or so, you COULDNT edit this article. Once you hit that magic 500 you havent left. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I made non-GGC edits today, so that isn't accurate. This article needs a lot of work. I am willing to put in that work. Does that violate a rule or something? Handpolk (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu and Reddit, because, you know they have NOTHING to do with GG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but they are! Several hundred 4-character changes to to List of Tamil films of 1973! Rather than do all the changes in one go, though, they conveniently did it in pieces. See? Neutral.--Jorm (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been resolved to my satisfaction with the new sources. "misogynistic" is not directly stated in that way but it was used twice generally in a way that is close enough for me. Thank you Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise for not following through on your threat of hatting this discussion before we could improve the encyclopedia. And thank you TRPoD for finding sources to verify that sentence. Handpolk (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it's been changed and I disagree very strongly. It's attributing "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" to the Washington Post, a very reputable publication, when that isn't even close to what the Washington Post says. That sentence needs to be backed up by sources. At the end of the sentence. Handpolk (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post’s lede reads, "Rape threats. A hacking attempt on her Web site. The online publication of personal information, including her phone number and home address. Countless comments on her Tumblr calling her a “slut” and worse, including one that read: “Are you reading this? Of course you are. I will kill you.” It strikes me that "virulent and misogynistic" is a reasonable and even rather mild characterization. The article continues, "The post sparked a virulent campaign against Quinn." Misogyny? This writer uses "sexist" in its place: “Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.””

This sort of last-ditch hair-splitting was responsible for the originally lost reference. Now it's back. Do you really want to argue about sexism vs misogyny here? We can spend a few thousand words discussing that if you like, with the possible (though unlikely) result that we change misogyny to sexist here ( but not elsewhere, as the misogyny of Gamergate is very well attested in the sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking the WaPost lede as quoted above and coming out with "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is original research/synthesis. We can pull "harassment" from that, but we should never try to characterize a source with subjective and/or controversial adjectives/adverbs like "virulent" and "misogynistic" when they aren't stated. Mind you, I'm 99% sure we can find one or more sources to support the statement "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign", it's just that the WaPost source alone isn't sufficient for that. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why I put virulent in quotes; it's directly from the WaPo article. Also, I'm a bit concerned about the nybooks.com source because it uses the exact same word, virulent, which makes me concerned it took that word from this very article. That's why I removed it as a source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's in the body of the WaPost, that's fine and quoting it helps, and I'd agree the NYbooks source is likely borrowing the language. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The intent here is to insert quotation marks which readers will mistake for scare quotes, or at least as an indication that virulence is a personal opinion. It is in fact used in the news coverage of bother sources. One uses "misyogynistic" and the other uses "sexist". If the Gamergate fans prefer, we could reword to say "virulent, sexist, and misogynistic" using the language of bother sources, but I think that's redundant. We have plenty of reliable sources attesting to the virulence and misogyny; this is simply an attempt to dredge up this question one more time. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and for those of you who are (apparently) unfamiliar with The New York Review Of Books, it is among the most highly respected and influential journals of letters published today, The likelihood that Michael Massing -- former executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review -- borrowed "virulence" improperly or thoughtlessly from the Washington Post is risible, both on its face and because, if you read the article, you'll see he uses it for a rather nice echo (toxicity) in the following paragraph. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to reword anything, just properly source it. Right now it's implied the WashingtonPost said that and they did not. Also I brought this up and I am not a 'gamergate fan' -- in fact, I consider that a personal attack and an unfounded accusation. I demand that you retract that, apologize and not make future personal attacks or accusations like that or similar to that. Handpolk (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be careful if we are picking subjective terms from sources and speaking them in WP's voice. There's clearly no issue with pulling "misogyny" (and variants) from sources and stating that without attribution/quotes - nearly every mainstream press reporting on GG uses the term. "Virulent" is a bit less used (and when used, it sometimes used to refer to the actions of Gjoni or other individual actors but not to the harassment/supporters), but I can find at least two sources (WaPost and Wired) that use it to describe the harassment that way, so as long as both of these are sourced, that's fine. But if at the end of the day there was only one source that used the word "virulent" in describing the harassment, that would definitely be a case of quoting the singular source or making sure the word was attributed in prose. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

oh get real Based Masem. you are familiar enough with the sources to know that if they are not using the actual word "virulent" they are using synonyms for which "virulent" could be replaced without changing an iota of the intent.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do that though when we can just use sources that say the same thing? If the source says car, say car, not automobile. Especially when we're talking about threats and other controversial claims. Handpolk (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, "virulent" is not a word that has a lot of direct synonyms that have the same tone, at least in the sense that as a contentious label, we should not be adopting that word if the sources have not used it. For example, "hostile" is a word used to describe the harassment, from the sources. And while "hostile" and "virulent" are considered synonymous, the tone of "virulent" implies more (given that it derives from "virus" and attached to the idea of a spreading bitter hostility). As such, to use "virulent" instead of "hostile" would be a problem if "virulent" wasn't used by sources. Obviously, it has been used by multiple sources, so this is a non-issue in the current case. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{ping|MarkBernstein} Please tone down the nastiness and bad faith assumptions. I explained my reasoning; it's as simple as that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We are asked (again and again) to discuss the word "virulent" by perfectly neutral people of good faith who just happen to ask about this at frequent intervals, and who are (of course) completely unaware of the boards urging precisely this sort of time-wasting and repetitious stonewalling, and who have not troubled to review the archives or even to read the references. It's so much easier to suggest that a former editor of the Columbia Journalism Review plagiarized a newspaper in the New York Review of Books.

We've got the word "virulent" itself (so far) in The Washington Post, Wired [13], and The New York Review Of Books. You know this. So what can you mean when you write “if at the end of the day there was only one source that used the word virulent? ”

In case we want to delve further, here is some more “virulence” in Gamergate: Journal Of Gender, Race, and Justice, Feministing, Slice, Geek Feminism, Vox, The Guardian Online, Daily Dot, Forbes.

Is that enough for you? Would you like more?

Come now. Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. Why are you all continuing to waste the valuable time of your colleagues and the patience of the project? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind: in the links you give, not all uses of the word "virulent" and derivatives are in relation to the harassment, so that would not be appropriate to use those sources to support the given phrasing. (That said, in WaPost and Wired, it is for certainly stated to be the harassment) And in a topic that is a controversy and controversial itself, and under sanctions from Arbcom, AGF holds a lot more weight than it normally would hold, otherwise a battlefield mentality reigns. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Four times today MarkBernstein has accused me of being a gamergate supporter here to disrupt Wikipedia. When I warned him to stop, he called me a troll. This is unacceptable. Can somebody please tell me where do I report his behavior or whom do I report it to? Handpolk (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

YWP:AE / WP:ANI -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, editors shouldn't call each names...you know, like you called me a "SJW shill". Bad Handpolk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is your second warning to stop saying things about me that both of us know are not true. Handpolk (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We began with the (repetitive, vexatious, but completely neutral) complaint that "virulent" and "misogynistic" were insufficiently sourced. We immediate (re)located The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, and Wired. The editor who always joins these discussions to argue the same points argues here -- with some novelty, I admit! -- that (a) if an adjective is used by use precisely as in the sources, it must be in a quotation" or (b) if the modified noun is not precisely identical, or the construction varies one jot, summarizing the clear sense of the text is improper and we cannot use the adjective at all. And of course, we could not use any other adjective, either!

Three options are laid before us.

We can delete all the adjectives in the article.
We can reexamine the sourcing for every adjectival phrase -- which I propose would begin by examining whether the word "ethics" has ever been applied to Gamergate without skepticism or irony, and therefore it, too, must be removed.
Or we can use common sense, recognize that the original question was proposed by a new editor who may not have read the sources or the archives, and accept a reasonable precis of the best sources.

Frankly, I think our choice is obvious, though I doubt my esteemed and very neutral colleague will agree. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly #2, however I personally wouldn't advocate every one, only those that are potentially controversial and readers may question the accuracy of. 'Ethics' would certainly be one example. Handpolk (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the issue has been resolved, in that where a questionable word was used, more sources to affirm the use of that word was added. So the situation is resolved. But in general, if we are using contentious words, we better not have introduced them ourselves (as WP editors) in the summation of the sources. otherwise that is SYNTH and NPOV, especially if the word(s) has strong implications. This is not a novel idea - this is exactly what WP:W2W guideline states and part of avoiding a biased POV in WP's voice. If we can source the word, then we're fine. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! I suspected there were Wikipedia policies to backup what I was trying to say. I am very shocked that the administrator who was going to hat this told me 'that's called writing, that's what we do here.' Handpolk (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The administrator who told you “that’s called writing, that’s what we do here” represents the overwhelming consensus of WIkipedia's best editors. Wikipedia is not Zagat’s or Bartlett’s; we summarize the sources accurately, dispassionately, and with due regard for the opinions of mankind, choosing our words and phrases to convey meaning concisely and accurately to our readers. But thanks for the fish! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is that we can violate NPOV W2W and SYNTH? Well, then consensus is wrong. And we aren't allowed to do that. Handpolk (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be helpful if the editor read WP:QUOTE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrase

In the hashtag section, which was beginning to look like a heap of scare quotes, I've replaced a couple of the most egregious instances with brief paraphrases. I've also fixed one instance where the misogynistic attacks on Quinn, etc, are mischaracterised as "coordinated discussions." --TS 13:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It would probably not hurt to review all quotes to make sure that there is prose directly attributing the source as to avoid the appearance of scare quotes (quotes when no inline prose attribution is give), either adding the inline attribution or paraphrasing. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, so I took a look at the first few quotations in the article. My first impression is that the current revision contains far too many quoted phrases where a simple statement of fact, or at worst an attributed paraphrase, would serve better. I may give the article a going over if I find the time. --TS 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" Take 2

So do people think this is an accurate representation of the sources? I think its a fair enough summation.Bosstopher (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are including two or more sources immediately afterward that use that wording exactly to refer to the harassment (which we have, it is not that it doesn't exist, just not added as a ref to that sentence yet) then yes. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So basically if those sources are added the problem is solved and everyone is in agreement about the actual content of the article, even if in disagreement about the theory behind it?Bosstopher (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources clearly characterize the harassment as virulent and misogynistic. Other adjectives could be added, but perhaps they can be reserved for use elsewhere in the article. "Toxic" seems well represented in the sources, for example. Since so many “new” and “completely neutral” editors repeatedly arrive to “question” this topic, it might be a service if we included a sampling of the threats -- perhaps in this case setting them off in a quote box because the whole point here is to call attention to them. The quotes from The New Yorker, Boston Magazine, and the Washington Post would be reasonable places to start. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a violation of soapboxing. Yes, GG harassment has been seen as bad, over and over again, we have that sourced. There is no need to add more fuel to that fire just because you can source how its described 20 different ways. It is only that we should be making sure that in summarizing the condemnation that commonly used contentious words are given inline sources so that it does not appear that WP is creating that contention. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There used to be a blockquote in the article but it was removed by User:Rhoark back in January with the argument "Block quotation should be used for readability, not emphasis". In my opinion plastering extreme threats of violence and rape over the article in block quotes would be innapropriate. While Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think we should make the article overly violent and explicit in tone and make it more distressing to read. It also feels to me slightly exploitative of the harassment that the people in question have suffered through. See for example Murder of Junko Furuta, where a conscious editorial choice has been made to keep the minimal amount of gory details in the article. I think it would be more tasteful to follow that style, while obviously not ignoring the real damage done by the harassment. Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To be precise, I replaced the block quote with a standard inline quote. I could not find any specific policy governing such a case, but I have never seen any precedent for highlighting a quote in such a massive font, and the MOS did not mention the use of quotation templates for such a purpose. It is my opinion that the quote does not belong in the article at all, but it was obviously prudent to approach the matter incrementally. Its inclusion is clearly for the purpose of editorializing, and it is not consistent with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. With regard to the question that started this thread, "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is an accurate paraphrase of what a lot of the sources say. It is, however, editorializing and peacock language not suitable for use in Wikipedia's voice. Rhoark (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:PEACOCK. It's merely descriptive of the type of harassment. — Strongjam (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a grandiose description of the type of harassment. A statement in encyclopedic tone would be along the lines of, "After the blog post, Quinn and her family received numerous threatening or slanderous messages by phone and social media. Commentators have called this a coordinated misogynist campaign." -> segue into discussion of all PoVs about 4chan logs. Rhoark (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. That just downplays and avoids describe it as our sources do. Bitter, hostile, and often misogynistic. — Strongjam (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we want to be very careful to reflect the consensus of the best and most reliable sources; if the sources report vivid and violent detail of repellent harassment, it is not our place to hide that from our readers. We want to be sure to get it right -- that's why we keep discussing this over and over and over again. Are only “new” and “completely neutral” editors who have arrive here from Gamergate basements permitted to raise questions? If we're going to ask whether the article reflect the preponderance of the reliable sources, I think there's a very good chance that the current text does not -- that it errs in excusing or explaining Gamergate harassment tactics in ways that the best and most reliable sources carefully avoid. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be very careful to reflect every consensus of every reliable source, in appropriately proportional space. This is one of the five pillars, and not optional. It is not our place to hide any views from readers, nor anoint any as more correct than another, preponderant or not. Rhoark (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I do want to alert my fellow editors to a fairly new twist we saw today. First, editors arrive to "clean up" the article by "removing unneeded references" to avoid WP:COATRACK. Then, some time later, "completely neutral" and "new" editors challenge the text as unreferenced, and claim that the text is unsupported by the sources. This claim was ~~a lie~~, regrettably, untrue; TRPoD found one source in minutes, Masem (thanks!) found another, and while we were speculating about potential plagiarism on the part of a former senior editor at CJR, a dug up a half dozen more. Net result: a lot of people wasted a good deal of time rehashing a question that has been thoroughly settled, PLUS the clever idea: one editor removes the references, and then the other editor separately removes the text because now it has no references. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I remind you of your duty to assume good faith. Where it relates to me, your accusations are completely without merit. At this stage, you are the one wasting everybody's time. We are very near resolution here. Let's finish up and move on. Handpolk (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We begin with an assumption of good faith that editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. We are not obligated to ignore evidence to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I added an artificial timestamp to TheRedPenOfDoom's comment above, to satisfy the automatic archiver. Please fix the date and time if you can find it from the history. --TS 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

new articles

http://www.themarysue.com/phd-in-gamergate/
http://www.ibtimes.com/e3-2015-gamergate-still-casts-shadow-gaming-industry-would-prefer-you-forget-about-it-1967194 (Can someone explain IBT's journalism model to me?)

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I can explain their journalism model, but these might help: International Business Times, Newsweek, and IBT Media. — Strongjam (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

-gate Clarification

Hatting this before anyone gets into trouble with 500/30. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Presumably one is coming here to learn about this controversy, rather than already knowing all about it, this being an encyclopedia article and all. The article notes that the name for this comes from "the American custom, dating back to the Watergate scandal, of using -gate as a suffix to denote political scandals." However, the fact that this mess follows some, but not all, of the conventions of the -gate nomenclature is, I think, potentially confusing to a reader not already familiar with the affair (it certainly did to me when I first started reading about it). That both the name of the article/controversy and the name of one side of people involved in it are the same is an unusual case. Today people don't speak of being pro- or anti-Watergate (or most any of the other gates). Instead, people usually came down on the side of those involved (anti-Nixon, not "Watergaters"); Watergate itself is an established fact.

Here though, a recurring phrase in the article is "gamergate supporters", which is extremely unusual if one considers the traditional usage. I understand the need for a catch-all term to stand for those on a particular side, and you can't ignore real-life usage, but I think the article needs to take greater pains to make clear to an uninformed reader, here for the precise reason of trying to understand what's going on, that in this unusual case whether the controversy is even a controversy at all is what occupies a large part of the debate.

I'll be making small edits aiming at clarity to try and take this into account. Palindromedairy (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Before you do something that drastic, can you provide an example of what you mean to do? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Before you do something that drastic, or anything at all, you need to make another 389 edits to other parts of wikipedia. Please read the special editing restrictions at the top of this page before proceeding, or posting here. The archives contain many discussions of Gamergate topics, including this one; they exceed a million words, but familiarity with what's already been discussed is also necessary for responsible editing. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Palindromedairy, when Gamergate first hit social media in summer 2014, it was originally called Quinnspiracy and focused on allegations that there was collusion between game developers and gaming journalists. For some reason, huge corporate game companies with plenty of money weren't suspected of wrong-doing but independent game developers were under suspicion. Those allegations were later shown to be groundless but belief in a conspiracy continued among some individuals. Then, Adam Baldwin coined the phrase "Gamergate" to describe the dispute and those who allied themselves with Gamergate were those who believed that a collusion existed, at the expense of gamers, and those who were "anti" decried the harassment certain individuals received from Gamergate supporters (or at least those who were sympathetic to supporters).

In terms of the example you provide, one might say that Watergaters would be people who supported uncovering Washington corruption. But in the Watergate instance, there was actually proof (police reports, money transfers, tape recordings) of wrong-doing. There isn't here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how else to phrase it. I'd just like to make clear that, though this article is called "gamergate controversy" there's only one side using the term "gamergate" at all, rather than it being a broadly agreed-on term and people then arguing over the ethics of the actions involved, as is traditional with -gate controversies. My goal is to make clear that the very controversy is controversial, which I don't think comes through right now.

For example, the History section has a couple of sentences like "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest." I'd probably look at not using the term in that section (since chronologically it hadn't been invented yet), saving it instead until the "Gamergate hashtag" section and insert extra clarifying text there, so that from that point on it's obvious that we're referring to an collective side rather than the controversy itself. That way the movement coalesces in the article in the same way it did in real life, rather than anachronistically making it appear more collective from the start that it actually was. The harassment starts, the hashtag forms, the movement becomes branded by it, and then the whole issue becomes known by the name of that movement.

In any case, I see I can't do what I'd like, but I'd ask that it be done. Liz: I fully understand the distinction you're drawing, and agree that it is applicable, but I feel your explanation only proves my point. There are differences here from the standard -gate practice, and explanations like yours (not quite as detailed or technical, I was thinking) should be there to make the differences from the norm clear to an uninformed reader.

Thanks all for your time. Palindromedairy (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

DeepFreeze value as an EL

Completely inappropriate content by any measure.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is their contentious material criticizing journalists, which i should have seen as a problem. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

[ website redacted] DeepFreeze is a KiA-sponsored project url redacted that I found out about through KYM (which I wouldn't use as a source), but I think it could be useful as a source because since usually GG is too busy attacking the man/player (i.e. the LWs) and not the ball (i.e. ethics issues), I think it is a good example showing the opposite.

They dock points for journalists whom they can find issues with or they found on the GJP list, active and unknown if active. They also have articles complaining about things like review score inflation. One issue is that redacted links the ZP, is that a problem?

Can we evaluate it as a source? Give your thoughts. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As an EL? No. Definitely fails WP:ELNO on a #11, probably on #2, and generally hosts a collection of contentious material on living people. As a source, it's pretty obvious that it doesn't meet WP:IRS, it has not built a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Strongjam (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

for 11, you mean in terms of this. A fair reading, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 June 2015‎ (UTC)

For 11 I mean in the WP:ELNO list. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.). — Strongjam (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of those it fits. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an attack site to me. No editorial process, no masthead, no apparent oversight. Rife with BLP violations. Its listing for NPR simply says "boycotted by Gamergate." Same for The Guardian. They sure like Fox News, though! It appears to be a propaganda site, nothing more. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say you might be more or less misreading their FN section (it contains a profile on a guy on a list they dislike) as positive, even though there is no "Supported" tag. Otherwise, a fair reading. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not RS. Really has a problem with WP:ELNO. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Deepfreeze does not seem to qualify, however I think the KotakuInAction sidebar [14] meets the requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL. (And note that ELOFFICIAL links are explicitly except from WP:ELNO) Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the KotakuInAction article. — Strongjam (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The thread is over. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the concerns raised by Strongjam et al, w.r.t using this site for statements of fact, especially about living persons. However, I do request editors note that WP:EL (including WP:ELNO) relates only to the "External links" section of article space. It is explicitly not a filter for either Article references (which are covered by other content policies) or Talk page discussions (covered by WP:TALK & WP:BLPTALK). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post article sourcing statement about Gamergate supporters alleging Quinn/Grayson relationship was for favorable review

@Bilby:, take a careful look at the source. The second paragraph says "an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post implying that she had traded sex for positive reviews". That does not support "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here, @Torchiest:, after reading this repeatedly and with care. I wonder whether you've omitted a crucial word or something like that? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that "Gamergate supporters [alleged] that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest." It says the blog post implied it. According to whom? The author of that source, it seems. Note this doesn't change any text in the article, but simply removes a source being used incorrectly where there are already plenty of other sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I respect you caution with the source, but I'm a bit lost with what you're saying here. The line in our article reads "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest", and this seems to be fully supported by the Washington Post article. It makes it clear that the post (incorrectly) implied that Quinn had "traded sex for positive reviews", and that this lead to the campaign against Quinn, which in turn led to the campaigners claiming the GamerGate hashtag. - Bilby (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

is there confusion between the dirty double load laundry blog post vs the Washington Post? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in a place I can readily review the past sources, but this is something to double check and maybe err with less exacting language. I've not read Gjoni's post, only what others have reported about it, but the recent "Game of Fear" article from Boston Magazine does not suggest the post included the "sex for reviews" claim, only that (per Gjoni's statements) that Quinn was cheating on him with Grayson who Gjoni did identify as a games journalist. I know this contradicts the above WAPost which is why I think a second review of exactly what Gjoni's post set in motion, and what came from the GG side should be delineated. Or if we can find language that avoids having to define the line, that might be easier than the nuances of the situation (being that events at the onset were not as well documented as they are now since no one saw this coming). --MASEM (t) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the contents Gonji's post is out of keeping with what is being claimed here. Gonji didn't state that there was any "sex for reviews", but per our wording, the contents of the blog post did lead others to (incorrectly) infer that it had occurred. This required Gonji to clear things up with an edit to the post, clarifying the timeline, but by then damage had already been done and the whole mess was underway. Fortunately, our wording doesn't accuse Gonji of making these claims, so we should be good. We're using the Washington Post article and the other sources to connect the three elements - Gonji's blog post; the accusations against Quinn; and the start of Gamergate. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest maybe we can avoid having to discuss the specific nuances here with alternate wording that summarizes those three steps. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think the current wording does summarise them :) Our current wording is:

In August 2014, Quinn’s former boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, published a 9,425 word blog post ... detailing their relationship. The post ... included the allegations that Quinn had a relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news website Kotaku. ... Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. The claim was quickly investigated and determined to be false.

The controversy, originally termed the "quinnspiracy", adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate".

The timeline seems right - Gonji posted the blog post; his statements led people to infer that there was a problem with reviews; it was disproven; and it whole thing became known as Gamergate. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be as clear as possible. As far as I can tell, the rest of the sources used to cite this statement are fine, and I am not suggesting changing the phrasing in our article. But the WaPo line doesn't specifically say that GG supporters alleged the relationship was an exchange for a good reviews. It says the post implied that, in other words, Gjoni implied that, not GG supporters. The WaPo article never specifically says that GG supporters believed there was an exchange of sex for reviews. And I'll emphasize again, I'm not saying that belief wasn't widely reported, or that it isn't the consensus view. I'm just saying this source doesn't support the exact statement in the article, and should be removed as a citation just from that one spot. The source is used elsewhere, appropriately as far as I know, and again, there are still half a dozen other sources supporting that statement. Since it's one of the key points of the controversy, it should be strongly supported, but that's my whole point. The WaPo source isn't strong on that line, at all. I think it's OR to knit the bits and pieces of statements in WaPo source together, simply based on the preponderance of other sources actually making the statement clearly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Utah gun law edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=667440776&oldid=667427252

I'm not sure about the need for this edit. Comments? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not suggesting a revert of it, but I keep going back and forth over whether it helps clarify or just adds more words. I think part of the problem is that I know about Utah's law, so I don't see it as useful, but would the regular reader be served by the inclusion? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good clarification, although I'm not particularly attached to it. Most readers probably won't be familiar with Utah gun laws (I'm not.) Not sure why we have the quotation marks though, we could do without those. — Strongjam (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tightened the prose. Might remove the unlike other states bit, too. Not sure. Part of it just seems wordy maybe is my problem with the edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried tightening it a bit more to the salient points. As always ping if anyone wants me to self-revert and discuss more. — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Rhoark (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to the original edit, this source[15] says the legal situation is similar in other states. Rhoark (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Maybe I'm missing something, but that source seems to say the same thing as our article. It says "Utah is one of seven states that allow concealed carry on college campuses" and then adds "Utah law prohibits colleges from taking away concealed weapons from valid permit holders. Utah is the only state in the country with such a law." — Strongjam (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I missed that distinction. Rhoark (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would trim the current version right back to "because of Utah's implementation of open carry." This should be supplemented by a source that competently explains the issue. The only salient point here is that Ms Sarkeesian was not satisfied that she'd be safe in an auditorium where anybody could show up armed and be allowed in. This is such an obvious point that we don't need to labour it. --TS 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems too vague. The claim that the law precluded screening has also been disputed. I think this needs a little more detail to satisfy both NPOV and general encyclopedic interest. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed by whom and where? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed if we have a source disputing this we should look at it. Please let's see the source.--TS 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Had to scour my browser history, but I found it.[16] It's a local FOX affiliate quoting an attorney[17]. USU is "reviewing" the claim. Rhoark (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

gotta love fox news facts - a statement about creating the largest school mass shooting is not "terrorism", its a "terroristic-type" threat. Right up there with the distinctions between "rape" and "rape-rape". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should rely on the the other reliable sources that simply declared it "not a credible threat" instead of worrying about whether the anonymous guy had access to nuclear weapons. Montreal is also known for lax gun control on Universities, too, for comparison. Oh wait, my BS detector is going off. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I am pretty sure we are not going to go down the lines of "She is a professional victim" or "she is just a scaredy girl who doesnt have the balls to stand up to what are obviously just idle threats from pimply teenage boys who are insecure about their penis size." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be removed. It's not even clear that she would ever have received the security she asked for which I believe was metal detectors. Regardless of state, that decision and its cost would be weighed against its benefit. If Sarkeesian mentioned the law, then it should be mentioned as she stated it and not an inference about other states or countries. It would be like mentioning that she doesn't request metal detectors at other college campuses, even ones that have been the subject to school shootings. Shooting people is illegal too so maybe we should mention that it must be safer in Utah because of the death penalty. These things just are not relevant. She didn't feel safe so she cancelled. Law Enforcement and the university couldn't identify a credible threat. Those are about the only two things that are notable. Why she cancelled doesn't really matter just as why the threat wasn't deemed credible doesn't really matter. Delving into state gun laws, university security and the various other aspects is more weeds. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So we can just go back to reliable sources? Salt Lake Tribune: "But after learning that Utah State University was legally forbidden from restricting firearms at a Wednesday lecture over which she received a death threat, the nationally-known feminist writer and video game critic canceled her appearance." [18] I mean these are the facts that we've lost sight of in this argument. --TS 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And that's about all we need to mention about gun laws as that one aspect made her feel unsafe. Not the other stuff about tangential comparisons of laws, policies and procedures. she's a credible expert on how she feels, not a credible expert on security, gun laws or safety. --DHeyward (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And more on point that doesn't address interpretation of the law: "But after learning that Utah State University would not install metal detectors to check for firearms at a Wednesday lecture over which she received a death threat, the nationally-known feminist writer and video game critic canceled her appearance. Law enforcement determined the threat was not credible." That's the facts as well without having to rely on an interpretation of Utah gun laws. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Tony Sidaway's suggested edit looks best. Or a new paraphrase of the Salt Lake Tribune TS brings up. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian's statements and most RS's about the incident consider the legal situation to be an important factor in what happened. I don't agree with the various editors who have suggested glossing over it. Rhoark (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The RS'ssay she was "told" the law meant something. There is no question that instilled fear in her. Who told her and the credibility of that source of legal advice is not given. We have reliable sources that say she asked for metal detectors. We have sources that say the threat was not credible. It's a lot of SYNTH to conclude that Utah's laws or the security decisions were, in fact, increasing her risk. It's perfectly acceptable, however, to outline her personal fear as long as we don't attribute that fear to anything other than what Sarkeesian felt. Montreal's very strict handgun laws didn't stop the shooting that was compared and its SYNTH to imply that Utah's laws would create more or less jeopardy. All the sources tell us is that it made her afraid, not whether it was reasoned or rational. Security experts deemed the threat to be not credible and that is also in the reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear here that USU's and Sarkeesian's interpretation of the reason why reasonable security precautions she requested were turned down coincide: that was that the law forbids it. The fact that other legal opinions exist (not held by those requesting the precautions or those refusing them) is not relevant to the situation. This article isn't a review of Utah law and such a review would not change the fact that the requested security precautions were refused. --TS 13:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the incident would be notable enough for an independent article, and in that article it would be of encyclopedic interest to discuss the laws that influenced the situation. That's nothing to do with Sarkeesian's state of mind. I don't think anyone's suggested using this angle to question her decision, or that there is a source that would be usable for doing anything like that. If consensus is that its undue in this particular article, I can go with that. I just disagree that it's unimportant or not worth talking about. Rhoark (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The law does not forbid metal detectors or identifying people with firearms and checking they have permits. Permits are required and people with permits carry guns all the time in every state. USU said backpacks would be disallowed but they could not remove firearms from permit holders (they did not say they couldn't identify those that had firearms and check that they had permits). It's SYNTH to say metal detectors are "reasonable" or her request that permit holders not be allowed to bring firearms was "reasonable." USU didn't comment on it's reasonableness other than to say security experts in LE determined the threat was not credible and they would ban backpacks and increase security to accommodate her concerns. Please note that guns are not banned even when the President is visiting in open forums. Again, we can say what she feared but synthesizing the law as being a common fear shared by the University and Sarkeesian is not supported nor is synthesizing her request to remove firearms from permit holders is "reasonable". If she had requested that law enforcement also not be armed, we could not synthesize that as a "reasonable" request even if other countries have unarmed police. Quite the opposite as USU went ahead with its view of reasonable security measures and still wished to have Sarkeesian speak. Taking guns from permit holders was not one of the "reasonable" solutions. Law enforcement doesn't ever do pat downs except if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred and the pat down is done according to Terry stop rules. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source indicating the dichotomy of views[19]. Sarkeesian: Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches. Source: But Sarkeesian pulled out after learning from university officials that concealed weapons would be permitted, as long as attendees have a valid concealed firearm permit in accordance with Utah law. FBI (from source): University spokesman Tim Vitale says the FBI told school officials the threat is consistent with ones Sarkeesian receives when she gives speeches elsewhere. There's a large chasm of synth to conclude her request at Utah was "reasonable" and there is another chasm in her term of "open carry laws" vs. the "concealed carry by permit holders" that is oulined by sources. Here's another source that speaks about what the police would do but thought pat downs and metal detectors were needlessly invasive. The FBI also comments that it is similar to threats she receives at other events. they also comment that Sarkeesian doesn't have pat downs or metal detectors at those events despite threats. They even go on to describe the threat Sarkeesian cited was unrelated to GamerGate and that is why she was more fearful in Utah. --DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus Check/Not a Vote

I am now confused as to who supports what. At one point I thought DHeyward agreed with Tony Sidaway's suggestion. I think Rhoark does not. DHeyward wants to add more(?), which can be a separate discussion? Is Tony Sidaway's suggestion ok?

Support Tony Sidaway's suggestion to use Salt Lake Tribune: "But after learning [etc]" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This SLT source, not the one TS proposed has more detail. It says the very specific and detailed threat was not GamerGate related. It was one of three threats, but the only one that proposed shooting. It was the first shooting threat she received. It was pursed separately by the FBI but was not related to GamerGate. The mention of the mass shooting threat needs to be removed from the lede. Analysis of gun laws is not necessary nor is conclusions about "reasonable.". -DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly see them as connected, and as one of the most widely covered incidents in during the controversy it belongs in the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources link Sarkeesian cancellation to a shooting threat. Please provide the reliable source that links the single shooting threat to GamerGate. The reliable source[[20] clearly says the shooting threat happened on monday and the GamerGate threat happened on Tuesday. Lumping them together is SYNTH. Sarkeesian has received threats before GamerGate so it's very probable that those non-gamergate threats will coincide with GG threats. In this case, the single shooting threat was specifically separated from GG. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And the most detailed account of the threats distinguished which of the three were GG and which were not. Of your quotes, only NYPost linked "shooting" with GG. Death threats, yes - mass shooting, no. She received 3 threats, 1 was gamergate. The GG was not the shooting. It's pretty straight forward that the link of GG to the mass shooting threat is a SYNTH. --DHeyward (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more:

You keep referencing WP:SYNTH. You'll have to break it down for me how you think this is combining multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not stated in any of the sources. —Strongjam (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You are synthesizing that the shooting threat was gamergate. It was not. Take the daildot piece quoting Sarkeesian [21] Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate We know what threat that was and what day it was received. Yes, she received 3 threats. Yes she received one "mass shooting" threat (Monday). Yes, she received one gamergate threat (Tuesday). No, you cannot synthesize all those into "she received 3 gamergate threats regarding a mass shooting." It's clear that there has been no established link between gamergate and the shooting threat. there's no question it's a death threat but leaping all around to make them all gamergate death threats is not supported. The SLT source is the most detailed and most accurate account of the USU cancellation and even show glaring errors in DailyDot (i.e. open carry without an permit to that venue is not legal and that's clear from the SLT, and also, police said they would search bags - also contrary to dailydot). We have to remove the synth and go with sources that most accurately capture all aspects. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not WP:SYNTH and I've given multiple RS to that make the link. Suggest you start a new section explaining what change you want to make and why and try to build consensus. This thread doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. — Strongjam (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit?

"because of Utah's implementation of open carry." per Tony Sidaway? What is there now is too little or too much. This edit works if it's too much. And this edit works if it's too little; the possibly missing bits needed could be solved with a second sentence. Go with this this edit, and then work on if it's too little some more? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi ForbiddenRocky & TS, I'm not sure that this language works for non-(North) American readers. The term "open carry" is not a familiar one for societies with less common, more restricted, gun ownership; and means "public consumption of alcoholic beverages" in some of them. We may need to clarify. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"because of Utah's implementation of open carry." wikilink enough? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the wikilink is very helpful. Perhaps "because of Utah's laws on open carry" or "because of Utah's open carry laws"? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I like "because of Utah's open carry laws" because it's shorter. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Made the edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Maturization of videogames, if that's a real word

per the AE. Editors need 500 edits and 30 days experience. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is borderline between original research and sourcing, but this might have to take place in here because of all the coincidences. After all, some sort of interpretation has to take place.

In the Social and Cultural Implications it is mentioned how several reviewers see Gamergate as a political coalition implicitly advocating for anti-feminism and gaming conservatism, so these publishers classify the movement as either right-winged or libertarian. One thing that can be added here perfectly is how the Gamergate movement is in the more general sense a conservative movement—similar to the Tea Party— and several publications have described it as this. Because video games progressively mature each year —so that video games become more than just "games", and instead more as political or social commentary and much more romantic in their cause for feminism, fueled by interactivity (and a lot more critical in chivalry-based characters)—, this movement is a backlash against the maturization of video games: those games that are artistic and/or have any sort of political or social message this movement is likely to discredit it. It is more that just anti-feminism that this group advocates, though that IS their main focus.

Since many Gamergaters and "haters" in general are in are in Wikipedia right now and name-calling I will give more specific details when a productive editor replies to this.

Thank you,

FDJK001 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, according to the prominent notice at the top of the page, this area is currently open only to experienced editors with at least 500 edits. You have about 430 edits to go. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The word is "maturation". Rhoark (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism

The editorial from the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies is being used as a citation to state that "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies." I removed this citation, and my edit was reverted. The editorial never mentions the ideology of feminism. It says: "the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." This is not the same as "opposition to feminism" which is the narrow definition of antifeminism. Stating that "excluding groups of people, particularly women" = "opposing the ideology of feminism" is original research. Women ≠ Feminism. Sexism or antidemocratic (the term used in the article) would be the more appropriate term to use. Note, I am not asking that we remove this sentence from the article, and it appears that other references have been added to bolster the sentence. I am only claiming that using this reference as evidence that Gamergate is described as having an antifeminist ideology is incorrect. This is why I removed the reference again. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it again. The reference may not directly say anti-feminism, but it with the vice reference can reasonably be paraphrased taht way. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

For context, previously discussed here. The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women. "Anti-feminist ideologies" is a fair summary of "limiting womens' rights as citizens". — Strongjam (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Raises concerns of WP:SYNTH - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? Limiting womens rights as citizens is pretty much the dictionary definition of anti-feminist ideology. — Strongjam (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this reading; it's a reasonable paraphrase. Rhoark (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No concerns of WP:SYNTH at all. The nature of paraphrase is that we substitute synonyms and summarize positions. To say that "The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women" is no more synthesis than to say that supporters of (say) George W. Bush are Republicans, that the Pope is Catholic. or the Marais is in Paris. Good grief~ MarkBernstein (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources stating that Gamergate opposes the ideology of feminism, where it is stated explicitly without the requirement of synonyms. The article never mentions feminism. Why not just keep the stronger sources to support that sentence? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Why not just keep the stronger sources to support that sentence?" because when that happens, then people complain about things not being sourced well enough. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. ColorOfSuffering may have a point that our summary doesn't accurately represent the source. I mean, the source does say "women"—twice, even!—and then it mentions the primary goal of feminism. I think a better summary would be "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist, anti-woman, and anti-democratic ideologies as it transparently seeks to restrict women's rights, censor ideological opponents, and bar them from the games industry". I think that's a fair summary of the above quote. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a pa~rticularly strong source - it's an editorial, so opinion, and it requires synthesis of the actual content of the source with "The main defining attribute of feminism is equal rights for women" to support the article text it's being used for. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Then we can go with Woodroar's suggestion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Raises questions of WP:UNDUE - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice the long list of citations for the next sentence; many (even most) of them apply to the sentence you're referring to. I've moved a few up to make it clearer, but that sentence is well-cited (and carefully worded to make it clear that we're reporting their opinion rather than stating it as fact, of course.) Truthfully, if anything it should go into more detail, since the fact that a large number of high-profile commentators from reputable, mainstream sources have described GamerGate as containing or being driven by anti-feminist ideologies is extremely well-sourced. (Obviously not everyone agrees, but the section goes into that, too, and covers the various noteworthy perspectives with regards to people who say that the anti-feminists involved in GamerGate are just exploiting it, etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an editorial, so I don't see it as a particularly good source. Giving that much space to an opinion would be fairly undue. If we were to go that route we there are certainly other quotes from the editorial that can be added to the article. Such as "For those troubled by corruption and politicization of the games industry, #gamergate is a much needed grassroots movement." Or this good question: "Is this merely an outcry from people with conservative, one might say reactionary, values, masked in scientific rhetoric, or do they in fact, as they themselves claim, have different knowledge or expertise which is not taken into account in science or policy?" ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, what it says has to be taken in the context of what other reliable sources say; we mention the anti-feminist description because it's something many high-profile commentators are in agreement on. Second, quotes have to be taken in the context of the entire piece; pulling a rhetorical question out of context is misrepresenting a source. The overall thrust of all four of the sources currently cited in that section clearly indicates that the authors agree on the fact that GamerGate is driven by anti-feminism. Third, what you're trying to read into it is already in the article (and, in fact, cited to better sources); we do discuss the debates over ethics allegations and the belief some people have in an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues. But sources have to be read as a whole; that editorial, for instance, is clearly dismissive of that as a justification, since it weighs the two claims against each other, then says definitively that GamerGate is "anti-woman" and "anti-democratic." (Note in particular that it says that many within GamerGate are explicitly out to limit women's rights -- as in, it says that it is their stated goal.) I think that among the various sources it is a bit more strident than most in that regard, but that general dismissal -- not just of the ethics claims, but dismissal of the claim that ethics is actually what is driving the people who were most active under the hashtag -- is near-universal across reliable sources that go into any depth on the subject, including ones that are not editorials; so that's how we have to write the section that covers the sinister-unethical-conspiracy allegations. The majority of reliable sources that have gone into depth of GamerGate's goals and ideology -- the ones who have tried to figure out what it's about rather than just reporting that everything is controversial -- have come to the conclusion that, while it is big and complicated, it is ultimately driven by culture-warriors using it to score points in an ideological crusade against people they disagree with (or people they want out of "their" hobby), particularly progressivism and feminism. Therefore, while we can and do note that it is controversial and that some people disagree, that is the perspective our article needs to present as mainstream. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at, and it's entirely reasonable. I disagree that the editorial reaches a particularly "strident" conclusion, but maybe that's because I don't see "anti-democratic" as being a particularly evocative word. It's a term of importance to those who study in the fields of public understanding, engagement and participation. To me, it appears that the authors deliberately avoided inflammatory terms like: harassment, misogyny, antifeminism, conspiracy, anti-woman, death threats, thuggish, criminal, hate group, et cetera. Also, I don't see the part where the article is "dismissive" of Gamergate's supposed focus on ethics. An actual quote might help me there. "Excluding groups of people" and "ethics in game journalism" are not mutually exclusive so far as I understand it. Different individuals in a group could reasonably hold both views with equal sincerity, could they not? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and you're free to insert content to that effect if you can get reliable sources for it. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times has described Gamergate as "this year’s antifeminist activist campaign":

“A lot of it was me dealing with ‘gamergate’ folks,” he said in an interview, referring to this year’s antifeminist activist campaign by some video game enthusiasts. “I’m like: ‘God, I’m wasting my life. Why am I spending time on this? There are so many other things I could be doing.’”

See [22]. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, from New York Magazine:

“Just about everyone in there who spoke openly expressed how mad and frustrated they were that progressive politics and feminism were impinging on gaming, which they saw as an area they had enjoyed, free of politics, forever. They were extremely open about this. A day or so later, another gamergater, @Smilomaniac, asked me to read a blog post he’d written about his involvement in the movement in which he explicitly IDs as anti-feminist, and notes that while some people claim otherwise, he thinks GG is an anti-feminist movement. (He later added, via Twitter, “You're not distinguishing between feminism and 3rd wave radscum which is what ‘we’ dislike ;/ " — the clarification is appreciated.)”

New York Magazine on antifeminism. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Those are very high-quality sources that use the word "antifeminism" to describe Gamergate! You should add them to the sentence, though I feel there are quite a few sources there already. I'm not sure why you posted this links. I completely agree that high quality reliable sources have called Gamergate an antifeminist movement. My only point is that the editorial appearing in the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies never discusses feminism. The fact that it's an opinion, and that it requires "synonyms" makes it a lower-quality source. I felt it should be removed. Others disagreed. At this point I'm more than happy to cede the point and move on to other topics. Thanks for the fruitful discussion! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That quote brings up an important point that there is not a singular definition of feminism or anti-feminism. While the main point of this thread is that describing opposition to women's rights as anti-feminist is a fair paraphrase, we should not equivocate in the opposite direction when a source calls something anti-feminist. We should take care to understand exactly what the source meant to denote. Rhoark (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we do better by victims of harassment?

I want to echo Mark Bernstein's statement at AE, "We have no business broadcasting murder threats against Gamergate's victims or broadcasting sexual gossip about Gamergate’s perceived enemies". I have mentioned already that I don't believe direct quotations of threats are in line with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It may also be possible to further reduce the coverage given to sexual allegations. Reliable sources say that the allegations regarding Nathan Grayson are unsubstantiated, and in any case not the core of Gamergate's concerns. The article may be describing these things in more detail than is warranted by encyclopedic interest. Rhoark (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the core of GG concerns? RS make it clear that it was the flashpoint of the whole thing. Is there anything specific from the article you want to remove? — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin, yes. Core, no. I would like to see all direct quotes of threats removed. I'm also interested in what other people want removed. It's been asserted that this article is being used to perpetrate further harm against victims, and that is extremely serious. Rhoark (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that we could remove all mention of Gamergate’s harassment to "protect the victims." Then we could indeed rewrite the article to say that Gamergate is about ethics! And we could all get ponies! The problem is, this would be seen by the whole world as a palpable lie, and merited scorn would be heaped upon Wikipedia. Gamergate’s harassment is its only notable activity.

What we should do is watch this page, Zoe Quinn’s page, Brianna Wu’s page, and every other related page and their talk pages, and instantly revert and oversight any attempt to use Wikipedia to smear Gamergate’s targets, or those who would like to defend them. TRPoD, Strongjam, PeterTheFourth, and I have done this dozens of times, as did editors like Tarc and Ryulong. Some names that appear rather often here seem less often to be found rooting out the vile filth that Gamergate continues to exploit Wikipedia to spread. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that's happening? That's my perception, at least. I'm watching this, Wu, and Katherine Clark. I've never seen vandalism that was still live by the time I even saw the page move up on my watchlist. Is there something more you'd like people to do? Rhoark (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GG/E3

GG at E3. Destruction currently off line but rss version shows numerous posters insulting towards Sarkeesian around E3 at LA. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Doom criticised by Sarkeesian in the Guardian. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in The Independent, which is just as reliable a source. But it seems to have nothing to do with Gamergate. If we made this article about everything Anita Sarkeesian has ever called violent, it would fill up with reports about violent things. The article is, instead, about Gamergate. --TS 01:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are apparently posters in a similar style mocking various people. Rhoark (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm straining to see an evident connection with Gamergate at this point. --TS 01:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to know it's Sarkeesian and FeministFrequency which is assuming a lot. That's not on the poster either. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "The background of the posters features #GamerGate written repeatedly in light grey text." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The posters... yeah. What ForbiddenRocky said.--Jorm (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's those third party trolls the kids are raving about, that's fairly conclusive a connection to this article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if it is those third party trolls the kids are raving about, its relevant to the article as to how just incorporating #gamgergate into your meme makes it 1000 times more horrible - the new metameme. But we need a better source telling us how it is relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

polygon --MASEM (t) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

USA Today coverage of E3. Bonnie Ross featured. I'm sure she's less influential than any number of GG victims. Tough choice to decide who we should have bio articles for role models and gaming influence. Maybe it's because she doesn't tell us how many rape and death threats she receives and that's the true measure of a women's worth in WP space. "Microsoft Vice President and Head of 343 Industries" pales in comparison. --DHeyward (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this related to GGC? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. RTFA --DHeyward (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a RS on GGC. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing the relevance. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either: it mentions that she spoke on continues issues with women in the gaming industry, which clearly but not directly allude to GG; USA Today makes the connection but this does nothing to explain or expand the story. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would love to include something about the posters and Bonnie Ross and E3, but there no direct way to do this from this source. There isn't even a passage to COPYVIO let alone paraphrase for inclusion. However, it does indicate that there might be one later. On the other hand I saw an article saying that many people are avoiding saying GG at all in gaming contexts. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have included from the above Polygon article that mentioned that there was still gamergate activities at E3 (though didn't go into details of the poster), combining that with the previous issue from the Canadian Game Developers conference (the Death Eaters/Voldemort thing). That last one, that's where the conference specifically said not to mention GG. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to writing an encyclopedia article. Bosstopher (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

"how many rape and death threats she receives and how that's the true measure of a women's[sic] worth in WP space" is needlessly inflammatory, DHeyward. You'll have more success if you don't actively seek to offend those reading your suggestions. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Might want to brush up on possessive use of the apostrophe before adding sic, skippy. --DHeyward (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Though if you meant to tag "a", technically it's correct but I'll concede that the "a" could be dropped without the loss of meaning. It is, after all, many women. Good clarification. --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it when people recognise their mistakes. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying the sic belonged in a different place or not all since everything was in agreement? That's mighty kind of you to admit that. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

e3 gg and stuff

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/61786/20150619/e3-2015-showed-strides-female-representation-gamer-culture.htm

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu — We are winning. We are changing the games industry

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/06/19/brianna-wu-we-are-winning-we-are-changing-the-games-industry ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Times article on GTFO

Nothing particularly new. http://time.com/3923651/meet-the-woman-helping-gamergate-victims-come-out-of-the-shadows/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

While I added this (there was also a NYTimes bit on GTFO), and it was edited to add quoted, [23] this diff is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox to be used to condemn any group, period, regardless of the severity of their actions. We have more than enough sources that show general condemnation of the GG movement, we don't need yet another quote about it that it irrelevant to the documentary aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's important to have a quote like that there in this case, I think, to give an understanding of what the documentary's take on the situation is and what perspective it's written from. Without it, the impression it gives is that the documentary is saying "oh, GamerGate wasn't a big deal, because the harassment really just came from a larger cultural problem"; what she's actually saying (as I understand it) is that GamerGate, itself, was harassment, and that the harassment that makes up GamerGate should be seen in the context of a larger cultural problem that temporarily adopted #GamerGate as a label as one way to attack its victims. Covering this aspect is important because it defines the documentary's entire take on GamerGate, which is the reason it's being mentioned here at all; and because omitting her condemnation could give a misleading impression about what she's saying. --Aquillion (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How can the quote that directly relates the documentary to the subject of this article be irrelevant? And it is not soapboxing to represent the fact that EVERYONE looks at the subject with complete disdain - it would be WP:NPOV violation to whitewash that fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is soapboxing. We do not take sides, so even if 99% of the press is clearly on one side of an issue, we have to remain neutral in tone and approach. That's required by NPOV. Otherwise, we are making WP involved and that's not our purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not talking sides. We are accurately representing that the director is in no uncertain terms stating her position on the subject of this article and her position is not that "its just something that happens" and we cannot misrepresent her position as if that is what she believes.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Excluding her opinion of GG is not misrepresenting it. The fact we have excess number of sources that already condemn Gamergate means we do not need to repeat a condemnation given by any source, especially given the way that any opinion from a RS that is supportive of GG is heavily argued against inclusion - that is biasing and not being impartial. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't really get where you're coming with from this at all. The paragraph is meant to explain how Gamergate relates to the documentary, the quote explains how Gamergate relates to the documentary. It's informative, not soapboxing. Bosstopher (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The "terrible, terrible thing" is given in a standalone aspect, which makes it piling-on to the already covered facet from numerous sources on the public perception of GG - as currently included, it is yet another gab at GG and thus feels like soapboxing on how GG should be taken by the reader as bad. (They should come to their own conclusions without the help of WP's prose). Now, if there's a way that that quote or a different quote from the articles could be include to explain how the producer's feelings on the GG matter contributed to how it was included in the documentary, that might be reason to include. But just a quote of them saying "it's bad" without any other context beyond what we already have is just excessive. It goes back to the quotefarm issues before, where we were citing everyone left and right which was unwarranted. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and will restore the latter half of the quote which was originally there so that it isn't just a quote saying it's bad.Bosstopher (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you do that, we should use the whole quote phrase instead of splitting it up since as it was added originally, it looked like two separate quotes. But the NYTimes version does say why she says it was a "terrible thing" in the same quote line, so that's fine as a single whole quote to address the point above. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(Specifically "It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem." is the full quote, and I feel that "but it's actually"... is a key part of why GG is highlighted in GTFO. So the whole quote w/o interruption should be used). --MASEM (t) 23:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

so like sores oozing foul smelling pus are symptomatic of gangrene. i guess its important to make that connection clear.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because just as gangrene is not the only reason one may have oozing pus (there are other reasons it could happen), the nature of GG could be representative of other things, things that we as WP cannot connect as it would be original research. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but can you justify ignoring Occam's Razor in this case with RS that doesn't go into UNDUE? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"GG is a symptom of a larger problem" is not a clear fact, though one I would certainly not deny and that claim is well documented all over. There is no clear reason why GG has happened that Occam's Razor would apply (there's no simple explanation). --MASEM (t) 02:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In it's current state in the article it's not clear what the film's connection with GG is beyond just sexism in videogames and that it was in production during the controversy. I'll take a try and making it a bit more clear what the connection is. — Strongjam (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Feedback welcomed. — Strongjam (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

New essay/opinion from David Auerbach

From what I can gather, everyone except Masem who's commented in this thread thinks the source probably shouldnt be used due to it's self published nature. Also we've annoyed Auerbach. As this conversation is going nowhere except bad places I'm hatting. Feel free to unhat if you think this source can be used in the article. Bosstopher (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Note: making sure this is clearly stated as an essay/opinion piece and only should be treated as such, but as a notable journalist involved in the situation, Auerbach's opinion does have weight. [24]. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also to add, the thing to add is Auerbach's speculation on why most AAA pubs have been silent on GG (which I could have sworn the lack of response has been commented on before in RSes, but can't find immediately) .--MASEM (t) 03:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Auerbach is in a tiny minority in his statement that AAA games producers are even tacitly in support of Gamergate. The far more plausible reason for their silence is they have no desire to do anything to be places on the gamergate "acceptable target" list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting, but the article is self published as well as being an editorial. Without some additional support, his argument as to why AAA developers don't (generally) speak about Gamgergate doesn't seem particularly useful, and to be honest it doesn't seem overly accurate either. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he's spot on. The difference is the AAA doesn't consider all gamergate supporters to be supporters of harassment campaigns against women. They are gamers and customers. Only the warped logic of wikipedia echoes "journos" views. It's clearly not what others think and their silence speaks more loudly than the "weight of reliable sources." Failing to differentiate Wikipedia from reality is why the article sucks. They ignored what journos complain is not ignorable. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that we are unable to use silence as a source. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Still, he's right. Wikipedia rules don't change reality. He's spot on about the failed expectations of those that "won" in October and are ignored with silence now. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. The important part is that this is both just his self-published opinion and WP:FRINGE, so highlighting it in the article would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's SPS. It's not fringe, though, and I'm not sure where you are coming from with that. He covered a press conference where GG related questions and concerns were shut down (again) - it's a followup to the money the industry gave late last year to fight sexism and an extension to social justice concerns and gains that were actually made in influencing AAA games. It's background material for article writers. It's a view about journalists expressed by a journalist that's covered the topic. If the goal is NPOV, this is part of what's missing in the article. The lack of "coverage of the coverage" in citable, reliable sources is a Wikipedia problem but that's our artificial construction of how we write. We can't change it but we should recognize it as missing and seek citable sources to use. Believe it or not, there is a journalism and social justice aspect to GamerGate and Auerbach is someone that has covered it. Despite the money given last year to Sarkeesian, et al, (that's a part of GamerGate and is not fringe and that money was not reparations for harassment), despite the questions posed to AAA trade groups, no "seat at the table" was given. Gaming press updated their policies regarding journalist fraternization and COI, but the industry hasn't changed to include social justice concerns the journalists are close to. That's Auerbach's observation and we gloss over those relationships and we completely miss the followup. --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are no other sources stating that AAA is supporting Gamergate, a sole voice making such a claim when every other business that was seen as supporting gamergate has backpeddled so quickly and specifically announced their support of programs absolutely contrary to GG, making such a claim is indeed FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about supporting Gamergate. We make reference to many things that are fallout from gamergate though. Example is the legislation proposed by Mass congresswoman is fallout from gamergate but there are no sources that say explicitly that it is opposing gamergate. Gamergate isn't mentioned at all but we know she met with Wu and mentioned her. What's notable (and has been noted) is that the legislation is a very weak funding bill, there are no prosecutions even when the identity of harassers is known yet we don't say law enforcement is supporting gamergate. This Auerbach piece is showing very little progress in changing AAA games or giving gamergate opposers (since you seem to like framing it that way) any voice in development. In other words, nothing has happened, despite the articulation of how bad gamergate has been. We have given voice to the frustration of lack of prosecution and this is an observation of more of the same in the game dev arena. All the Bad Things about AAA games is being quite visibly ignored, just like prosecutions and just like legislation. Are you happy with the response to Gamergate at any level? Do you really think it's a fringe view that nothing is being done or do you selectively use it to make your point? Journalists are just as frustrated that AAA is not responding just as Wu is frustrated at Law Enforcement. Neither are fringe. One gets covered though. Auerbach points out that journalists are also frustrated. It's a SPS but that's it. It fits all other gamergate narratives expressing frustration and we should continue to look for sources that continue that point. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You should think again, because it is right there in black and white " The AAAs *are* supporting Gamergate, at least tacitly. " I am not sure how much clearer of a statement one could make.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an SPS, and even though a case could be made that Auerbach is an expert, there's no way to stretch that to speculating on the motives of third parties. Rhoark (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a fantastic source for the opinion of Auerbach. I'm not sure Auerbach holds any sort of significance or expertise re: Gamergate though, so not sure if we'd be able to use his opinion too much. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a reliable source cited in the article. This is largely an extension of what he wrote last September. Very prescient. --DHeyward (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he himself is not a reliable source for anything outside his own opinion. I imagine he's written for reliable sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a random person who has commented on it before; I don't see any reason why he'd be considered "involved" any more than any of the other numerous journalists who have qualified, which certainly isn't enough to let us cite his twitter. There was a time when people seemed weirdly determined to quote him on every aspect of the controversy, but I'm not seeing why we should lend him the degree of weight you're suggesting -- he's not particularly more notable than any other journalist who has commented, his opinions are clearly WP:FRINGE, and I don't see how he's more involved than the dozens of other journalists. Giving his personal opinions more attention than he already gets in the article would clearly be WP:UNDUE. Even in the one case where we do mention him, we're careful to combine it with another source to make it clear that that isn't just one guy's opinion; not seeing that here, especially since this essay is explicitly just his speculation. The fact that he's already mentioned in the article is just another reason not to include this, since repeatedly quoting one journalist with no special relevance to the subject would give the impression that we are giving his personal opinions undue weight... the article used to be a giant quotefarm of people using random editorials like this one to snipe at each other by proxy; that's why we rearranged it to group noteworthy opinions among commentators together under common themes, so we didn't end up with every quote or opinion piece that some random editor things is cutting or incisive dropped in at random (and so we could be sure that no one journalist's opinions is given undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you look at his contributions, I wouldn't consider him uninvolved. He participated in the Gamergate arbitration case so I would considered him more involved than a journalist who hadn't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

His participation in the Arbitration case is no more involved than admins that participated. He defended his name and reputation against misattribution, but did not contribute to the article. He's also responded on his talk page when his education and experience was misstated. This is no different than, say, Gamaliel who was named as a party to the Arbcom case but still has acted as "uninvolved admin" during and after the case (even sanctions proposed by other uninvolved admins didn't deter action). Participation in process doesn't make them "involved." Auerbach's essay lacks editorial oversight that we normally associate with reliable sources and we usually consider both the writer and the editor. Had he written the piece in Salon, it would be reliable and citable. --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much to add here. A self-published essay by a single lone voice does not belong in the article; if there is a biographical article about Auerbach, and if it is a major part of his work, it may conceivably belong there. --TS 21:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

True. It's a place to look for reliable sources that express the same viewpoint or examples of that viewpoint. Particularly I'd look at game journos that write about AAA and E3. It's notable as a place to start looking, not a source to cite just as Sarkeesian's videos are notable but not citable. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not "game journos" who write alphabet soup. --TS 00:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of WP:BLPN discussion

This is a notification that Auerbachkeller has started a WP:BLPN discussion regarding the discussion above, the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gamergate_controversy. Zad68 19:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)