Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 49
 | 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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
A big fat lede proposal
Ok finally have enough time to write a proper suggestion! Here we go! Apologies for my terrible sentence structuring skills:
The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most widely known for a harassment campaign against several feminists in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian. Gamergate began when a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy disparaging blog post about her, leading others to falsely accuse her of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage. Those endorsing the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organized themselves under the Twitter hashtag Gamergate, as well as on IRC channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan and 8chan. Harassment against Quinn and others was coordinated through these discussion forums, including doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry. Most commentators dismissed Gamergate's ethics concerns, and condemned misogynistic behavior within it.
Gamergate's supporters are largely anonymous, having no official leaders or spokespeople and no single united manifesto. Statements coming out of Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory making it difficult for commentators to identify any set goals and motives. As a result of this Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters have committed. Gamergate supporters have attempted to publicly dissociate themselves from misogyny and harassment. Such attempts have often been dismissed as insincere and being for the purpose of improving the group's public image.
The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition, social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism and social justice ideologies on video game culture. As a result Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics. They argue that this has resulted in a press which is overly feminist and anti-gamer. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Such concerns led users of the hashtag to launch email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.
Responses within the games industry to Gamergate have largely been negative. The heads of groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Entertainment Software Association, Electronic Arts and Sony Computer Entertainment have strongly condemned Gamergate harassment. Intel, who temporarily withdrew their adverts from gaming news site Gamasutra as the result of a Gamergate email campaign, later pledged $300 million to support a "Diversity in Technology" program. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside to industry to focus more on better methods of tackling online harassment. U.S. Representative ;;Katherine Clark from Massachusetts has campaigned for a stronger government response to online harassment, gaining the support of Congress. Within the industry organizations such as the Crash Override Network and the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative have been founded to provide support to those facing online harassment.
Isn't it just beautiful? Brustopher (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is quite good! There are a few problems, but that is only to be expected. The characterization of the invidious Zoepost as merely "negative" is insufficient, and "those opposed to Quinn" doesn't make sense: Quinn, a grown woman, may conduct her romantic life as she thinks best, and I can’t see that it calls for anyone’s approval or that anyone is entitled to oppose her. "A right-wing backlash against Progressivism" might be preferable to your wording. I suspect Gamergate thinks that "press coverage" is overly feminist (not pro-feminist), rather than "a press." Characterizing Gamergaters as "largely anonymous" won't work; could they instead be "slightly anonymous"? Instead, what you mean to say is that "Few individuals have admitted to supporting Gamergate, and Gamergate has no official leaders or manifesto." Finally, I think we have to be very careful when talking about portions of Gamergate; it's quite possible that Gamergate per se is basically ten boys in ten basements. Still, this is really good; thanks for the work! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've changed "negative" to "disparaging," and taken ForbiddenRocky's suggestion wrt "opposed to Quinn." As for the anonymity issue, I took that from the second sentence of the "Gamergate activities" section. Given that Gamergate started on 4chan, and moved to 8chan, I don't see why "largely anonymous" doesn't work. Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paragraph 1 comments:
- "opposed to Quinn" -> "critical of Quinn"
- Done. Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- " Many of those organising [...] campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry. [...] dismissed Gamergate's ethics concerns, and condemned sexist and misogynistic behavior within it." needs parallel construction e.g campaign against PC & poor ethics [...] condemned misogynistic & dismissed ethics concerns
- Done. --Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- "sexist and misogynistic" redundant?
- Reduced to just "misogynistic"--Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- "IRC channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan and 8chan" -> "IRC channels and websites" I don't think the extra detail is needed here.
- Have to disagree here. There's a huge difference between organising a campaign on facebook and organising a campaign on 4chan, despite both being websites. The names of the websites in question are important.--Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paragraph 2 comments: none ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3 comments:
- "The controversy has been described as [...]" seems long, but I don't see a way to shorten it.
- Paragraph 3 comments:
- Paragraph 2 comments: none ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's an artifact from the current lede. Damned if I can think of a solution either. Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with Mark (I think he's talking about this) re: "As a result Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing anti-progressive backlash." I think this is fine.
- Not convinced the email campaign is lede worthy
- It's an important part of the whole Intel story which is continued later in the lede and we do have a significant part of the article dedicated to it.--Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Paragraph 4: I think the outside game industry response should be summarized also. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (U'C)
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph contains Clark's campaign, which seems to be the biggest response outside the industry. I would have perhaps included something about the UN only our current article is slightly out of date and doesn't mention it. Are there any responses/aspects in particular you feel need to be in the lede?--Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think stylistically we differ on what level of detail to include, but I think the variety of outside responses is more important here than detailing them all, if that makes sense to you. SVU (tv), twitter (social media), GTFO (film), Time (social commentary), etc. And things like SVU doesn't fall under "has led figures both inside and outside to industry to focus more on better methods of tackling online harassment" so much. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Brustopher:Great job. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics". If we're focusing on this one, I'd only go with "some" as most of their concerns have been about conflicts of interest, not necessarily specifically collusion (they tend to overlap, but COI doesn't entail collusion). - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Some of Gamergate's [...]" ? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Changed to "Many." I'm guessing COI stuff can be worked into the lede somehow. --Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Still not really happy with "many" or, perhaps, any attempt to quantify this. The problem is that this is making two claims - that Gamergate sees a collusion between feminists, journalists and others (true) and that this is necessarily an ethical problem (not true). Some tie the ethics and the collusion claims together, but not all do. Sources we're using talk about the both issues, but don't necessarily tie them into one thing. Perhaps if we dropped the ethics? "Many of Gamergate's journalistic concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics". - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Bilby's concerns w.r.t this section; though not with their proposed solution.
Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics
is not verified, and likely not verifiable. Reading broadly, and with a focus on pro-Gamergate sources, it appears that the ethics concerns are multiple - but if I had to attempt to categorise them it would be a) COI / nepotism (journalists covering friends, etc without disclosure), b) collusion (as outlined above), c) progressive advocacy journalism (gaming journalists focusing largely or exclusively on content pursuing a progressive agenda). The third of these does not require collusion, COI or other corruption, but is still firmly a journalism ethics issue - as previously detailed eloquently and at length by MarkBernstein on this Talk page. I am not sure how to best work that into what you have provided, Brustopher, but I do feel that where we should be careful that we do not inadvertently "straw man" the claims by casting them too narrowly. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Bilby's concerns w.r.t this section; though not with their proposed solution.
- Still not really happy with "many" or, perhaps, any attempt to quantify this. The problem is that this is making two claims - that Gamergate sees a collusion between feminists, journalists and others (true) and that this is necessarily an ethical problem (not true). Some tie the ethics and the collusion claims together, but not all do. Sources we're using talk about the both issues, but don't necessarily tie them into one thing. Perhaps if we dropped the ethics? "Many of Gamergate's journalistic concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics". - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Changed to "Many." I'm guessing COI stuff can be worked into the lede somehow. --Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Some of Gamergate's [...]" ? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Most of Gamergate's journalistic ethics concerns center around perceived collusion of the press with feminists, progressives and social critics". If we're focusing on this one, I'd only go with "some" as most of their concerns have been about conflicts of interest, not necessarily specifically collusion (they tend to overlap, but COI doesn't entail collusion). - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reflective of the current state of the article Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Brustopher -- while it still seems a bit verbose to me (who could have guessed?), very nice work. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- "these forums of discussion" seems a bit clunky to me; I would suggest "these forums" or "these discussion forums." --Aquillion (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Implementation
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback above, I've tried to integrate most of it into the lede. From what I can see while there are issues with specific sentences and phrases, nobody seems to be opposed to the lede in general. With this in mind, would anyone oppose implementing this as the new lede? I think it will be easier to solve the smaller problems once the lede's in the article and other people can edit it. Brustopher (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support implementation ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks for the work. Dumuzid (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot support the change at present, but some changes could bring me around. Most crucially, the reference to "those critical of Quinn" is not acceptable. What possible reason could these anonymous trolls have to criticize Quinn’s romantic life, much less to organize themselves in response to it? In addition, iIt's not just "press commentators" who dismiss the purported ethics concerns, but pretty much all commentators. "Largely anonymous" is silly and really ought be corrected, and what is the precise difference between a "set goal" and a plain old "goal"? It's not just that Gamergate has often been defined by harassment: it’s always and exclusively defined by harassment, as there is no other notable action of this conspiracy. Whether "Gamergate supporters" have actually attempted to disassociate themselves from harassment is very much open to doubt, because Gamergate supporters are anonymous: "Purported Gamergate supporters" or some similar construction would be accurate. A number of other changes are needed to accord with conventions in style and grammar, but these could be retrofitted. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- My concern with using "Purported Gamergate supporters" on the grounds that they are anonymous is that, by extension, we would have to describe all actions from Gamergate as being by purported supporters. I'm very uncomfortable with this, as the sources have been very willing to ascribe the harassment in stronger terms, unquestionably to Gamergate supporters. Although there has been a tendency for those supporting Gamergate to go down the "one true Gamergater" line and argue that all the harassment was by people who weren't really Gamergaters, I'd prefer to see us follow the sources on this.
- In regard to the ethics issues, not all sources have dismissed their ethics claims. Some have acknowledged that there may be some validity, but argue that the well is poisoned. Accordingly, I'd be wary of broadening "most press commentators", as it is difficult to quantify the numbers. - Bilby (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MarkBernstein: I think I read "critical of Quinn" as metonymic of "critical of Quinn's work" (ie. Depression Quest) not her personal life - that might fix the problem for that one. I think perhaps you need to step back and think about the use of hedge language relative to precision v. minimizing. Your concerns seem to circle around GG's attempt to minimize culpability - but hedge language also goes toward precision, and you're arguments actually reduce precision and readability. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- If precision were the goal, "those critical of Quinn's Depression Quest would be OK. But they aren't critical of her game, in fact, they're critical of her sex life, about which they are not entitled to an opinion. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- They are more generally attacking her because they are misogynistic gits; the article does point out the misogyny. In context, the fig-leaf of criticism is what's being talked about as the nominal cause of their attacks. However, this is stuff that the RS don't clearly state, and neither can we. Please step back and consider the level of imprecision you're willing to put with in an effort not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Shorter: This lede proposal is a vast improvement. The further improvements can be made after/if it is implemented. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
An action that claims to be performed by Gamergate, such as a Twitter threat that uses Gamergate hashtags or otherwise claims to be from Gamergate, may safely be attributed to Gamergate unless we have reason to think it a forgery. But self-serving statements do give us every reason to doubt them, and these statements have no other purpose than to improve Gamergate's public relations. We can ascribe specific opinions to specific people, of course: "John Smith, writing in the Gotham Herald, interviews a source who said he supported Gamergate and liked waffles." It is not hard to judge the preponderant consensus of the reliable sources, which overwhelmingly dismiss Gamergate's fig-leaf claims of concerns over ethics as spurious. An isolated source or two have argued sensibly as you say that, while Gamergate's accusations were spurious, actual problems might exist. I myself have been strongly critical of software criticism in writing that started at least a year before Gamergate. None of this validates any of Gamergate's spurious arguments, to which we must not afford WP:UNDUE weight. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Forgive me Dr. Bernstein, but I don't quite follow your initial sentence. Why may we safely attribute threats and the like to Gamergate? Is this reasoning akin to a Statement against interest versus a self-serving statement? I ask because I sometimes feel we are begging the question when it comes to the existence of an entity called "Gamergate." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MarkBernstein: Lots of posts have happened in between, so I'm responding at the bottom. Regarding the "oppose to/critical of Quinn" point, I can't think of a better term to use in this situation. Harassment can't be used, as it would ultimately be implying that living people like Baldwin were harassing Quinn. What would you suggest as a replacement term? I've changed "press commentators" to just commentators." As for set goals, I thought it implied a sense of unity and purpose that plain old "goals" didn't. Would "cohesive goals" be better? There have been multiple sources that have looked at non-harassment aspects of GG, so I don't think it's accurate to say it's always defined by harassment. As for "purported Gamergate supporters," purporting to be a Gamergate supporter makes one a Gamergate supporter as there are no strict membership rules or anything. The press have also taken all claims that these people are Gamergate supporters at face value. Also I don't understand why you're opposed to "largely anonymous," is it the phrasing or the claim itself? Brustopher (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MarkBernstein: Suggestions (re: oppose/criticize)? Also, would you reconsider your objections per not let letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a big improvement to the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The minor questions
- I believe that set goals are goals that have been announced, assigned, or determined; here, the adjective adds nothing.
- A person who claims to be a Gamergate supporter, as you say, may not represent Gamergate in any way. All you can say is that they claim to be representative of other, unnamed persons, who undertake Gamergate’s notable activities -- threatening to rape and murder women in the software industry. If these people claim that they like waffles, all we know is that people claiming or purporting to represent or to know something about Gamergate like waffles; we can't claim that the actual Gamergaters like waffles.
- "Largely anonymous" is simply a poor choice of words, an illiteracy like "slightly pregnant" or "very unique".
The show stopper Has Adam Baldwin criticized Quinn? I recall (Redacted), but that’s not criticism. I don’t recall Baldwin writing criticism, and his American Spectator article doesn't criticize Quinn. In the context of the Zoepost, which is the context we're discussing, I see no grounds on which criticism would be appropriate or defensible. But if someone specific can be shown to have criticized Quinn, I would not object to specifically reporting that. However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In that case set goals seems to work. Announced, assigned and determined goals are the type I was referring to here.
- They may not represent Gamergate (as nobody represents Gamergate), but they are still a Gamergate supporter if they say they support Gamergate. There is no such thing as an "actual Gamergater," because there are no entry requirements. These are people the press have talked to and discussed and labelled as Gamergate supporters. If there was a lot of coverage about pro-waffle activism by Gamergaters I'd support including it in the article.
- How would you phrase the sentence to convey that a large proportion of Gamergate supporters contribute anonymously?
- The post in which Baldwin coined the phrase contained a link to a video critical of Quinn.[1] Even if there are no acceptable grounds to criticise someone based on their private life, it's still the case that this is what people did. I don't see describing an unacceptable practice to be the same as condoning an unacceptable practice. Brustopher (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- redaction: ew reason.com themarysue: http://www.themarysue.com/video-game-harassment-zoe-quinn-anita-sarkeesian/ . Anyhow not worth the effort to undo the edit. But really, selective BLP concerns ... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi ForbiddenRocky & PeterTheFourth, I have no issue with
Adam Baldwin ... tweeted links to some YouTube videos critical of Quinn
per Reason, but the categorisation of the videos in the redacted material was not supported by reliable sourcing. I stand by my redactions of WP:BLP violating material throughout multiple articles and my work at WP:BLPN, and suggest that my edit history shows that they have been made without fear, favour or interest. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi ForbiddenRocky & PeterTheFourth, I have no issue with
- If it were made clear on what ground Baldwin criticized Quinn, this might be acceptable. For example, "Henderson Roe criticized Amy Doe because, according to his religious beliefs, he felt Roe should have remained a virgin." Or, "Henderson Roe criticized Amy Doe because she dated a a man from Mars, and Roe considers mixed-race relationships immoral." We must not normalize such objections. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I love a good tale of interplanetary romance, but you should probably be more specific about the edit you want. On the general theme of the section, I do not think Adam Baldwin has himself criticized Zoe Quinn in any substantial way. His original tweet linked to two videos, whose content I have not found a reliable source on. I have heard it said that one was about Quinn's alleged liasons, while the other concerned leaked Polytron financial information. In interviews, Baldwin mostly holds forth on the subject of political correctness and social justice warriors. Rhoark (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think this highlights part of the issue quite well; all 3 of us have very different versions of the content of the videos - from various sources of varying quality, but none that I would say are definitively reliable for a statement of fact. Rhoark & I seem in rough agreement though, that we do not have a source identified here, for "Baldwin criticised Quinn". If any editors feel that they would like to include this information, and have a reliable source, then please step forward. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I love a good tale of interplanetary romance, but you should probably be more specific about the edit you want. On the general theme of the section, I do not think Adam Baldwin has himself criticized Zoe Quinn in any substantial way. His original tweet linked to two videos, whose content I have not found a reliable source on. I have heard it said that one was about Quinn's alleged liasons, while the other concerned leaked Polytron financial information. In interviews, Baldwin mostly holds forth on the subject of political correctness and social justice warriors. Rhoark (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the showstopper above raised a very important question, which is as yet, unaddressed. Is there actually a reliable source for "Baldwin criticized Quinn"? I think the Reason article linked by Brustopher above is sufficient for "Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos", but I'm not seeing that we have sufficient for an assertion that direct criticism was made.
The MarySue article linked by ForbiddenRocky above has a number of issues: i) the support for the categorisation previously redacted is provided by a tweet by an aggrieved party, which is uncommented upon in the article itself; ii) the article has been updated (modified?) at least twice, particularly w.r.t its coverage of Baldwin. Having just seen how inaccurate journalism can be, even in the best of published sources, I'm not sure that this rises to the standards that would be acceptable for BLP material.
If one were to make an attempt at a categorisation along the lines made by MarkBernstein directly above, then perhaps:"Alan Boe, a self-described "small government conservative libertarian" tweeted links to videos critical of the use of the DMCA to takedown YouTube videos, and of associated media blackouts; likening this to the cover-up associated with the Watergate Affair."
- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the showstopper above raised a very important question, which is as yet, unaddressed. Is there actually a reliable source for "Baldwin criticized Quinn"? I think the Reason article linked by Brustopher above is sufficient for "Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos", but I'm not seeing that we have sufficient for an assertion that direct criticism was made.
- This bit
However, we cannot condone the notion that Quinn’s actions can reasonably be considered censurable in this matter, because in our society adults are free to arrange their private affairs as they please. Some fringe voices (who have been very amply represented on this page) do believe that women ought not to be permitted to arrange their private affairs, and those fringe sentiments have excused endless speculation and idle gossip here about Ms. Quinn’s sex life and various Wikipedians’ opinions thereon. We must cease to tolerate this, now and forever.
seems to be shadowboxing. I've expressed several times that I think Quinn and especially the Zoe Post are given excessive weight compared to issues of more enduring encyclopedic interest, and in return been accused of trying to whitewash. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with the "excessive weight" concerns. This aspect is obviously & clearly an important one, and clearly merits inclusion, but it is not the only aspect which is due inclusion, and not an aspect which should receive undue focus to the exclusion of other aspects of encyclopedic interest. I agree that we currently place too much emphasis, with the result that we do not effectively communicate the totality of the subject. I am also inclined to the thought that doing so perpetuates the prurient persecution of the person involved; (perhaps that is the purpose?) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So where are we? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Soz been busy past few days. Should we RfC the implementation of the lede or something? Brustopher (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm hoping some of the more recent active editors would !vote. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think we really need an RFC. We need some language tweaks -- one in particular. The showstopper is Those critical of Quinn organised themselves under the twitter hashtag Gamergate.
My objection, which I believe is cogent, is that this phrase assumes that such criticism of Quinn was sane and reasonable. To "criticize" an adult for their romantic choices is absurd and was despicable, and the continued effort to do exactly this in Wikipedia is absurd and despicable when it is intentional, and is at best very unfortunate when accidental. Others will compose formulations more satisfactory to our friends from Gamergate than I, but let me show some general approaches:
- Clarify that people expressed opinions, though they had no business to do so. "Some of Gjoni’s fans expressed their opinion of Quinn’s relationships under the Twitter hashtag Gamergate...."
- Clarify precisely what those people criticized. "A number of persons denounced Quinn’s decision to end her relationship with Gjoni, organizing under the hashtag Gamergate and sending her, and other women in the software industry, thousands of threats...."
- Focus on the phenomenon, not the actors. "After this diatribe, a group used the Twitter hashtag Gamergate to deluge Gjoni’s former girlfriend with bitter invective, threatening to cripple her if she attended a professional conference and suggesting rape and murder would be appropriate responses."
I think RfC at this particular moment is not in the interests of the project. I think you may agree if you consider the newly-opened and bitterly-divisive ArbCom case, the Atlantic and Signpost articles, and all the resurgent activity at Gamergate’s various headquarters; this is not the ideal atmosphere. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're right an RfC is over the top and needless. I like the approaches you've suggested, thanks. We have the threats and harassment in the following sentence, so I'm going to try something along the lines of the first one. How about this: "Those endorsing[better replacement word?] the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organised themselves under..." I chose to frame it in terms of their endorsement of the blogpost rather than their endorsement of Gjoni. The sources don't really touch on the extent to which GGers actually like Gjoni as a person, rather than as a source for information about Quinn. Brustopher (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Better, but still not right. "Blog post" is a term of opprobrium here at Wikipedia but this is not a conventional blog post, as the reliable sources (NY Times, Boston Magazine) are at pains to emphasize. "Such accusations" have no antecedent, and of what was Zoe Quinn accused, precisely? As far as I know, she ended a relationship with a fellow she was formerly dating; saying this is an accusation is like saying MarkBernstein is accused of having a cheese sandwich for lunch. Similarly, the "source of information about Quinn" only makes sense if the information is the sort of thing one might need (e.g. if she were asking you for employment or office) or expect (e.g. name, title, occupation, residence). We could explain this demand for private information by explaining its motivation, of course: "A group organized themselves on Twitter to use the lengthy and rambling rant of Quinn’s former boyfriend in support of their continuing goal: to silence women working in the computer industry." (See Elle article, cited below). MarkBernstein (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- We already mention in the preceding sentence that the blogpost is lengthy an disparaging. "Such accusations" refers to the debunked claims of positive coverage from a relationship. Brustopher (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Better, but still not right. "Blog post" is a term of opprobrium here at Wikipedia but this is not a conventional blog post, as the reliable sources (NY Times, Boston Magazine) are at pains to emphasize. "Such accusations" have no antecedent, and of what was Zoe Quinn accused, precisely? As far as I know, she ended a relationship with a fellow she was formerly dating; saying this is an accusation is like saying MarkBernstein is accused of having a cheese sandwich for lunch. Similarly, the "source of information about Quinn" only makes sense if the information is the sort of thing one might need (e.g. if she were asking you for employment or office) or expect (e.g. name, title, occupation, residence). We could explain this demand for private information by explaining its motivation, of course: "A group organized themselves on Twitter to use the lengthy and rambling rant of Quinn’s former boyfriend in support of their continuing goal: to silence women working in the computer industry." (See Elle article, cited below). MarkBernstein (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Most of these suggestions are entirely off the mark about the hashtag. Look back at the reliable sources. Criticizing journalists and feminists are commonly cited as rallying cries for the tag. Quinn, not so much. Rhoark (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which explains why Gamergate is universally known for its harassment of women in computing? Gamergate is not known for its research into journalism, because it has done none, nor does any concern with journalism explain why Gamergate attacked Quinn, Wu, Sarkeesian, Day, and Harper, as opposed to journalists. In any case, we're discussing a sentence that bridged Gjoni’s rant to Gamergate; if that bridge is to remain (and it's very frequently cited by our sources) we cannot refer to Quinn’s “critics“ as if her private affairs were a novel. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I like it with two exceptions: (1) we'll want to change it back to American English ("organized"/"organizing"), and (2) "progressivism" is correct but it sounds clunky and may be unclear to some readers. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Partial oppose - A couple points... Like others, I oppose the use of the term progressivism in the lead sentence. This is definitely UNDUE for the lead sentence. (Also it is just incorrect. Criticism of misogyny and sexism isn't exactly "progressivism". It's more like catching up to the normal standards of the 20th century.) Also, I oppose referring to everyone targeted by Gamergate as "feminists". Zoë Quinn was not targeted for being a feminist (whether she is or not). Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd dispute that use of the word progressivism is factually incorrect. See the sections in the article on a culture war (as well as latter paragraphs of the lede) for more information on this issue. Note also that other who oppose the use of progressivism agree it's factually accurate but clunky. (I'm not sure what kind of 20th century you lived in where sexism and misogyny were vanquished for good) Also I'd disagree with your claim that Zoe Quinn was not targeted for being a feminist, but the sources don't really talk about it from that perspective so I'll change it to women like it is in the article. At this point the remaining issues are ones which were already present in the previous lede, so I'm adding it to the article. Brustopher (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that Ms. Quinn (who is now apparently going to be the subject of a movie?) was not targeted for being a feminist, but rather for alleged actions in her personal life. I also agree that "progressivism" is clunky, but I think we need some sort of term that encompasses those topics which sexism and misogyny do not. Nothing springs to my mind, but I'll be brainstorming! Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate: The Movie
Amy Pascal Wins Zoe Quinn’s Gamergate Memoir ‘Crash Override’. So We're getting GamerGate: The Movie in the future… I got nothing. GamerPro64 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, don't worry man, the narrative is crumbling right? Keep your head up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I'm just surprised that they're making this. Scarlett Johansson in interested in this its baffling. GamerPro64 01:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Bias?
| The talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In reading the article, it came off to me as bias, in the favour of the feminism viewpoint. A friend of mine agreed. Please discuss here. Spilia4 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Possible topic discussion: roots of Gamergate
One thing I'm interested in adding to the article is material on forerunners to the Gamergate activists. My impression is that many of the talking points used by Gamergate activists are not new - a lot were used when conventions started to move against booth babes wearing skimpy clothes and other demeaning treatment of women, and my feeling is that in retrospect that controversy can be very much seen as a forerunner of the Gamergate movement even though it got much less publicity at the time.
So does anybody know about any reputable sources that do link Gamergate with preceding sexism controversies among gamers? (Veteran readers may recall that I made additions to the article on this topic but they got deleted, I think not altogether unfairly, with the argument used that while the sources I used were reputable the relevance was debatable since none of them actually mentioned Gamergate.) Blythwood (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- There might be RS for this, but the trick here is not going into OR and SYNTH. Some of the information you want may be in the sexism in gaming article.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto what ForbiddenRocky said. While I share your academic interest, this sounds like better fodder for a research paper (which would hopefully be RS for us) than something that should be added to the article right now -- but I am wrong plenty! Maybe it's already out there. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
American vs. British English
In the discussion on the lede above, I had mentioned that the article is supposed to be written in American English, but I'm now not sure that's the case. We seem to have a mixture of both American and British English (and perhaps others?). As far as I can tell, the article was fixed at British English by this edit by User:Koncorde, but I welcome others to double check. While it seems that most of the individuals and publications involved are American, I'm not sure there's a strong national tie to justify switching to American English. I'm indifferent, really, but the article should be consistent throughout. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I just wrote some stuff, and I'm English, so that's my only dog in this fight. I still think my version of this article was far superior to this current monstrosity. So long as the article chooses one or the other then we're good. Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- While I prefer Actual English, I think it's best to stick to American English given that most of the people involved are American. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I vote for Canadian English. Not really, I don't care as long as we're consistent about it, we should probably just stick with what requires the least amount of change. — Strongjam (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Moose poutine hockey maple house hippo timbits, eh? Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is that one of Neelix's redirects? --Jorm (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (too soon?)
- No, Jorm, your timing is perfect. It seems clear to me that American English should be the variation for this article, since almost all the prominent people involved are Americans. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is that one of Neelix's redirects? --Jorm (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC) (too soon?)
- Moose poutine hockey maple house hippo timbits, eh? Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'm glad everyone is having a laugh over this. Seriously, it brings me great joy. Carry on! Woodroar (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
sxsw more info (for later I guess) & sorta spj
- http://www.themarysue.com/sxsw-gamergate-panel-still-on/
- http://recode.net/2015/11/13/anti-abuse-panel-to-appear-at-sxsw-online-harassment-summit-gamergaters-moved-elsewhere/
- http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2015/11/11/express-wins-journalism-excellence-award
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- one more
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate is a movement
| This topic cannot make any contribution to the encyclopedia until the end of March, 2016. It has been discussed at great length, and the freeze was intended to end re-raising the question. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Lord knows I don't support gamergate ideas in any way, and I think that doxing, harrasment, etc is despicable. But Gamergate is clearly a social movement and not a 'controversy'. This page should start describing it as such. Apologies if this is re-arguing old debates, but really, for WP:NPV's sake, it must change. LK (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Interesting Article re: Gamergate Photoshopping
Here: [2]
Not sure there's anything to be done about it just now, but the fact that it involved some fairly big European media indicated to me it's worth some awareness. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- If nothing else, this shows the pointlessness of trying to argue that any specific individual represents, typifies, speaks for, or supports Gamergate. However extensive their connections may be, other Gamergaters will disavow them whenever that proves convenient. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/when_trolling_crosses_dangerous_lines_this_writers_selfie_transformed_into_a_terrorist_portrait_shows_how_far_online_abuse_can_go/ citing the Vice article ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
table with quotes of what many current sources say GG is about
Here is a table with what many recent sources say GG is about. "no clear quote" = no description, nothing concise, whole article, or something else that makes a quote difficult.
Most of this is from the SXSW set of articles.
ugly long table is ugly
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good list, we should really collate all these big survey thingies that have accumulated in the talk page archives somewhere.Brustopher (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
lazygamer RS status?
http://www.lazygamer.net/features/editorial-features/kotaku-calls-out-blacklisting-gamergate-goes-insane/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing about its organization or processes. It looks like one of innumerable blogs with ambitions. Rhoark (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- This may be a first, but I agree with Rhoark.
(Sorry, had to!) No masthead or even an About Us page. Neither the publisher nor the author appear to be cited by other reliable sources, which is an indication that they lack the required "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (The site is cited by N4G, which we consider unreliable. I'm not sure this means anything, really, but I found it ironic.) Even beyond this, it was published as an opinion piece and has a bit to say about living persons, which I would consider a quick-fail condition. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't think so, but I check with y'all when I run into a source I don't recognize. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- This may be a first, but I agree with Rhoark.
Difficult to read lead, for the uninitiated
The first paragraph says Gamergate is a controversy without defining the pro- and anti- sides. Then suddenly the article refers to "Gamergate's ethics concerns" and "Gamergate's supporters", implying that gamergate is one of the sides of the controversy. This contradicts that the term "gamergate" refers to the whole controversy of the pro- and anti- sides. This is confusing.
To put neutral labels, you can't start out as "The XYZ controversy concerns skub and skad." then talk about pro-XYZ and anti-XYZ. It's not clear whether pro-XYZ means pro-skub or anti-skub.
Compare to the from abortion controversy article, which has a very clear lead. To borrow from that article, it should be immediately defined in the second sentence what are pro-gamergate and anti-gamergate. It is optional whether to use loaded terms like pro-life or pro-choice but if there is a real controversy then there needs to be a clear definition of what are the goals of the two sides, preferably in their own words.
(An aside: Also taking the example of the abortion controversy article, a lead is much more informative if it is shorter. If the millenia-long abortion debate can be summarized in two consise paragraphs, I highly doubt that gamergate is so intricate and deep that it requires four.) --Nanite (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The lede is the product of protracted discussion, consuming a quarter of a million words, 40 pages of archives, countless RFCs and AN/Is, and an infamous ArbCom case. The question is made more difficult because one of Gamergate’s goals is to rewrite this page in a manner favorable to Gamergate and damaging to Gamergate’s victims; in consequence, we've had a parade of BLP issues here and an enormous quantity of bans and blocks. A further complication, discussed immediately above, is that Gamergate has no spokesperson, no leadership, and no manifesto; because their reliably-sourced accomplishments are criminal, we don’t know who Gamergate supporters actually are or what they claim they want. “Controversy” is a poor compromise: Gamergate’s fans here would prefer “movement” and its detractors would prefer “conspiracy”; all agree that controversy surrounds Gamergate, but the grounds of that controversy are contested. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is a specious argument for not shortening the lead. It is absolutely possible to shorten the lead without re-writing it in a manner more favorable to Gamergaters. Like Dumuzid, I too have come here asking for the lead to be more concise, and it appears that the editors that have worked on this page forever feel that they need to protect the work they have done, at the expense of a lead that would actually inform their readers. Every proposal gets shot down with a healthy helping of wikilawyering, and nothing gets done. The lead is this article's biggest (and maybe only significant) weakness, and ironically, those that have worked the hardest on this article will never see it become a quality article because of their own defense of their fiefdom. There, I said it. I'm tired of tiptoeing around the issue that is obvious to every other editor that visits this page. Take a step back, all of you Gamergate-article-"regulars", and ask yourself, can I give up my ego in the interest of making the page better? I think you can. But will you? Rockypedia (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The current lede isn't an old lede being held onto but was instead the result of a recent proposal I spent 2-3 weeks adjusting. During that period you raised no objections to it. Brustopher (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't have any objections to your edits. The lead was overly long before your work, and it's still overly long now. I've mostly given up on trying to advance any trimming of the lead because there's a core of editors dead set against doing that. Rockypedia (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- The current lede isn't an old lede being held onto but was instead the result of a recent proposal I spent 2-3 weeks adjusting. During that period you raised no objections to it. Brustopher (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is a specious argument for not shortening the lead. It is absolutely possible to shorten the lead without re-writing it in a manner more favorable to Gamergaters. Like Dumuzid, I too have come here asking for the lead to be more concise, and it appears that the editors that have worked on this page forever feel that they need to protect the work they have done, at the expense of a lead that would actually inform their readers. Every proposal gets shot down with a healthy helping of wikilawyering, and nothing gets done. The lead is this article's biggest (and maybe only significant) weakness, and ironically, those that have worked the hardest on this article will never see it become a quality article because of their own defense of their fiefdom. There, I said it. I'm tired of tiptoeing around the issue that is obvious to every other editor that visits this page. Take a step back, all of you Gamergate-article-"regulars", and ask yourself, can I give up my ego in the interest of making the page better? I think you can. But will you? Rockypedia (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have long been beating the drum for a shorter lead, but it's not looking like we'll be seeing victory on that front anytime soon. And, as Dr. Bernstein notes, the problem with Gamergate is that it's the controversy which dare not define its goals--the closest we've got is the now widely derided "it's about ethics in games journalism." While I think the moral morass is certainly greater with abortion, it is a simpler topic in terms of defining the sides, and it is a true dichotomy. This is not the case here. Moreover, as gamergate settles into what I think is to be a sort of permanent background hum in the games landscape, it becomes more and more difficult to limn the idea of "anti-gamergate." If you have some thoughts to put down in words, we're all ears, but I suspect you might find it more difficult than you first expect. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- 😢Brustopher (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would very much support a shorter, more concise lead. I would be very much be against sliding into a "sides" based rhetoric - gamergate itself is a pretty nebulous entity and hard to pin down the edge of, whereas "antiGG" simply doesn't exist. Artw (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, to summarize what I saw of gamergate (at least since I became aware of it), I politely disagree that it is a controversy. Gamergate started out referring to a scandal in the computer gaming subculture (in many senses of the word "scandal"), however by now it has become, roughly, some sort of general hashtag/symbol/flag for online misogyny or antifeminist sentiment (again, in both senses of the word: against specific feminists, and against feminism in general).
I've seen it described somewhere as only a misogynist movement but I doubt it's so simple. Actually I don't think it's even possible to call gamergate a movement at all, i.e., I don't think you can say "gamergate supporters believed X" or "statements out of gamergate" or even imply "gamergate led a harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn". It was just a big scandal involving huge anonymous angry mobs and a few high-profile people, involving the usual shit flying everywhere that goes with any internet fight. Most of the shit was directed at women.
My suggestion would be to first define gamergate concretely, in past tense (Gamergate WAS a scandal in 2014... ). The second sentence would then state concisely the trigger of the scandal, i.e., whatever was alleged about Zoe Quinn; possibly the scandal can be extended to include early responses to the Zoe Post as the early responses seem to be part of the lore (it seemed to have become famous from Streisand effect, do I remember wrong?). Third sentence would note the greater hubbub around the scandal and the major consequences, which make gamergate notable: harassment, people losing jobs, other serious consequences and transformations, etc.
Perhaps there can be a second paragraph saying something like "Nowadays, the gamergate label is linked to XYZ." where XYZ is whatever is the current usage. No third paragraph. To be honest I am not sure what is precisely the current usage as I'm never been active on twitter and I just see bits and bops coming out. --Nanite (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- One difficulty here is that Gamergate's harassment campaign continues to be active here on Wikipedia, as elsewhere. That makes past tense more difficult. A second problem is that so much of what Gamergaters claim to have believed was untrue; explaining this takes space, but failing to explain it simply repeats harassment -- which is precisely how Gamergate wants to employ Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I actually think it would do a world of good to start describing gamergate as something that is in the past, but I have my suspicions that we couldn't get consensus on that. I'd love to know what other editors think. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- In Gamergate lore, one of the major grievances appears to be last year’s wave of articles about the End Of The Gamer Identity, which Gamergate conspirators view as a nefarious conspiracy on the part of mainstream media. Our deciding that Gamergate is over won’t be popular with the Gamergate fans. Moreover, since Gamergate continues to launch various attacks on Wikipedia pages of its targets, and continues to campaign to establish Gamergaters as admins, it might appear silly for us to use past tense on one hand while fending off the assault with the other. If people prefer past tense, though, a ha’penny’s worth of additional silliness is not a high price after this intolerable lot of infamy. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- All claims related to gamergate should of course be discussed, but hopefully not all in the lead. Regarding ongoing harassment, is this still officially done as part of The Gamergate Campaign? I mean, are people still going around saying "I do this in the name of gamergate" or something equivalent. (I am genuinely asking, I have no idea.)
- MarkBernstein, I perceive that you have a very clear idea of what Gamergate is, much clearer than is presented in the article. What do you mean when you say "Gamergate continues to launch..."? What makes someone a Gamergater in your view? --Nanite (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Harassment was never "officially" part of Gamergate, as there isn't an official movement per se. Which supporters tend to use as a "no true Gamergater" defense - no Gamergater would support harassment, so those involved in harassment aren't Gamergaters. This, of course, is garbage, and harassment has always been present. With that said, yes, harassment from supporters continues, and while Gamergate is arguably dying, it remains active. For example, the recent SXSW mess is evidence of the ongoing push to be part of an ethics debate. - Bilby (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for what Gamergaters tend to say, I wasn't around for the earlier debates. Label fallacies (no true scotsman, strawmen, label redefinitions, etc) are of course major logical fallacies and seem to be popular on the internet, so it's good to be on guard against errors like that. But for the very same reason it is crucial to have something concrete to point to when you say "Gamergater". If the label has a clear definition then the fallacies become obvious. The existence of a clear Gamergate article would be very valuable in this role.
- There does seem at least to be a notion about Gamergaters here on this talk page that can be put into words. If these kinds of questions can be answered clearly then the article lead would be very easy to write:
- If Bob comes to this talk page and says "I am a Gamergater" what new information do you have about Bob? Does this make him unfit to be a wikipedia administrator, as MarkBernstein suggests above? Why/why not?
- You mention Gamergate supporters, how do you identify a Gamergate supporter? (synonymous with "Gamergater", I presume)
- Is Gamergater strictly a self-applied label; or, if someone denies being a Gamergater can you prove they are a Gamergater based on some actions?
- If Gamergaters do use the term Gamergater for themselves, how do they define the term?
- (Yes, I am playing a bit dumb, trying to be Socratic. But I honestly don't know the answer to any of these questions. If someone came to me and said "I am a Gamergater" I would have no clue, it would just sound silly like "I am anti-skub" and I wouldn't have any reason to spurn them.) --Nanite (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have no opinion as to whether or not a supporter of Gamergate would be fit to be an administrator. The concern is that there is evidence of a group of Gamergate supporters who are specifically working towards becoming administrators in order to control the content of this article. Other than the inherent problems with such a plan, any editor who tried to become an admin specifically to control an article's content would be unsuitable for the role.
- The term Gamergater is necessarily loose - as there is no formal organisation or membership, being a supporter has generally come down to self identification. When someone has denied being a supporter, the only evidence to counter that are comments and actions they've made online to the contrary. - Bilby (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that the abortion controversy is based on a single issue: to what extent is abortion justified? There is no single issue that defines Gamergate in the eyes of those involved in it. That's why I wrote such a long an fiddly lede. If you can clarify what parts you don't understand I'll try and work on them. Brustopher (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's true, abortion is incomparable as there is a well defined focus and people are able to have a levelheaded debate. (Still, I hope the lead of this article can be as easy to read.) I think though this makes it even more obvious that whatever is ongoing about Gamergate can't be called a controversy. If anything, it is a feud where people have decided to fight "them" rather than talk about individual issues. --Nanite (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's all that bloody ant's fault! If the ant didn't exist we wouldn't have to search so hard for a second word to tack onto Gamergate, and everyone would be far more happy. I think controversy is leaned towards because the only thing everyone seems to agree about when it comes to Gamergate is that it is controversial. While there are some key facts to focus on (the biggest being harassment) most coverage of Gamergate is very interpretation and opinion heavy. It's almost impossible to write about Gamergate without putting an opinion into it, which (amongst other factors) makes writing a Wikipedia article on the topic hell. It's also the case that most of the regulars editing the page know the topic well, and therefore have a hard time noticing if it makes little sense to the uninitiated. Then when the uninitiated do come along, there's always a communication gap of sorts that makes it hard to come to a conclusion on how to make things coherent. I've become very pessimistic regarding hopes for a solution. Brustopher (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. But it is getting better somehow. I remember earlier this year checking out this article and it was like walking into a war zone. Likely in a year from now people will have moved on to the next big thing and this will be a boring old wikipedia article. :) --Nanite (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's all that bloody ant's fault! If the ant didn't exist we wouldn't have to search so hard for a second word to tack onto Gamergate, and everyone would be far more happy. I think controversy is leaned towards because the only thing everyone seems to agree about when it comes to Gamergate is that it is controversial. While there are some key facts to focus on (the biggest being harassment) most coverage of Gamergate is very interpretation and opinion heavy. It's almost impossible to write about Gamergate without putting an opinion into it, which (amongst other factors) makes writing a Wikipedia article on the topic hell. It's also the case that most of the regulars editing the page know the topic well, and therefore have a hard time noticing if it makes little sense to the uninitiated. Then when the uninitiated do come along, there's always a communication gap of sorts that makes it hard to come to a conclusion on how to make things coherent. I've become very pessimistic regarding hopes for a solution. Brustopher (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's true, abortion is incomparable as there is a well defined focus and people are able to have a levelheaded debate. (Still, I hope the lead of this article can be as easy to read.) I think though this makes it even more obvious that whatever is ongoing about Gamergate can't be called a controversy. If anything, it is a feud where people have decided to fight "them" rather than talk about individual issues. --Nanite (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just now reading various recent retrospective articles about gamergate that came out in the last few months (example). If someone asked me to sum it up in an encyclopedic tone, I would say the following:
- Gamergate was a scandal in the video game subculture in late 2014, which ignited an ideological internet flame war centering around a newly toxic relationship between the video gaming hobby press and a part of its readerbase. While discussion about Gamergate has involved a diverse array of topics such as sexism, progressivism, journalism ethics and freedom of the press, and censorship and privacy on social media, these discussions have been overshadowed by concerns over numerous high-profile instances of online and offline harassment which were largely directed at women. </lead>
Artw is completely right, it doesn't make sense to attempt to describe the current "sides" of gamergate in the lead. The only accurate description would be "the two sides of gamergate hate each other" which isn't very informative to the reader. One side is defined by fear of the evil Gamergaters and their secret agenda, and the other side is defined by the fear of the evil social justice warriors and their secret agenda. It's funny in a way, but I would hope that nobody editing this article has strong feelings along these lines. (If you're curious, my feeling about the whole thing is "I'm too old for this shit.") --Nanite (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Editors who make fun of silly people who "fear of the evil Gamergaters and their secret agenda" might perhaps consider the number of Gamergate targets who have been threatened with assault, rape, and murder, forced to flee their homes, and lost their jobs. They might even consider how they themselves would feel if, for example, opinions of the editors’ sex lives were offered on talk pages on a regular basis. They might consider the following message, posted off-wiki, about my own Wikipedia work: “MarkBernstein = Evil Corrupt Jew. He must be stopped. He must be killed.” (The author claims to be a special forces operative in the US Navy, though his inability to spell “guerrilla” suggests that claim might not be entirely reliable.) MarkBernstein (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Mark I'm sorry to hear about that. As you say it probably wasn't a soldier... likely just another one of the many misguided 14 year old kids, though, the soldiers I have known were not good spellers, either. But I hope you aren't letting it get to you, man. If you feel somehow like it is your duty to defend wikipedia from the Gamergater agenda, you might want to take a break from editing on the topic. (Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, no offense intended.) --Nanite (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You were trolled. I honestly find it astounding you took such a hilariously bad and over-the-top meme seriously and are using that as material here in your fight for what you consider right for the article. Marteau (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)The author claims to be a special forces operative in the US Navy, though his inability to spell “guerrilla” suggests that claim might not be entirely reliable.
- I know this is a tricky concept Marteau, but death threats "for the lulz" are still death threats. Feel free to go on defending such people, though. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not defending such trolling, merely pointing out an instance of MarkBernstein treating obvious and juvenile trolling as a genuine terroristic threat. In an article and a subject containing many similar instances occurring to many other people, notable and otherwise, that's a problem. Marteau (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I know this is a tricky concept Marteau, but death threats "for the lulz" are still death threats. Feel free to go on defending such people, though. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marteau: Of course. But the original post isn't an internet meme. Do you think it's funny? Does anyone think that’s the right way to influence Wikipedia? I’ve had correspondence from some of the top researchers in the field who saw that, and they didn't think it was hilarious. But, even if it were sidesplittingly funny, we know for a fact that the threats against Wu, Quinn, Sarkeesian, Chu, Day, Harper and so many others weren't funny, nor is the persistent and continuing effort to discuss their sex lives here terrifically amusing. @Nanite: Of course, it's my duty -- and your duty -- to defend Wikipedia from an attempted takeover; that's Wikipedia policy as well as common sense. It’s also the duty of Wikipedia to protect its editors and to foster a collegial editing atmosphere, which requires taking action against harassment and extortion that have been so prevalent in this area. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh... and @Marteau:? I myself have read just about every word in the archives of this page. Have you? I don’t recall a single instance of an anti-Semitic threat against a Wikipedia editor in any of those 40+ pages of archives. In fact, I don't recall a single instance of a death threat directed at a Wikipedia editor in all those archives. Of course, there have been plenty of threats directed at Gamergate’s targets, starting with the murder threat published on Wikipedia through which Zoë Quinn first learned of Gamergate’s plans. Have a good day! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bernstein, as a Jew and someone that's gotten actual threats for content I've posted here on wikipedia...realistically, idiots online especially anons will aim for anything and all it proves is someone anonymous is mad at you. Please don't try to claim it as proof of anything beyond that. It's not even a tangent to the subject at hand.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh... and @Marteau:? I myself have read just about every word in the archives of this page. Have you? I don’t recall a single instance of an anti-Semitic threat against a Wikipedia editor in any of those 40+ pages of archives. In fact, I don't recall a single instance of a death threat directed at a Wikipedia editor in all those archives. Of course, there have been plenty of threats directed at Gamergate’s targets, starting with the murder threat published on Wikipedia through which Zoë Quinn first learned of Gamergate’s plans. Have a good day! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- When I read that meme (and it's an old one) I instantly hear it in the voice of General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove... it's that over the top. It is, after all, a gamer thing... you are right about that. I have received such "threats" hundreds of times.... I hear that kind of thing all the time in my headset as I drop pixellated ordnance all over my opponents virtual bases. The vocalized wishing that the worst of fates befall myself and my kin. The open questioning of my ancestry in colorful language. Implications that my mother and my opponent have become, or are soon to become, intimately acquainted. I know these things to be, in certain sub cultures, ridiculously hilarious, and take it in the spirit for which it is intended, which is to intimidate me into not so utterly defeating him. I am sorry you take such things seriously. That you see such hyperbole, when it happens to you and others, as the equivalent of actual terroristic threats is not a good thing for this article. Marteau (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some things I would take issue with in the proposed lead:
- Gamergate was a scandal - "Scandal" strongly implies wrongdoing; the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is that the alleged wrongdoing did not occur. Needless to say opening the article with this is a BLP issue - which is why attempts to finagle this canard into various articles have previously been oversighted or revision deleted.
- which ignited an ideological internet flame war - Reliable sources do not support this description. What they do support would be something more like: which ignited a campaign of misogynistic harassment. Pretty much no source reported a "flame war" (The BBC, for example, does not typically cover internet flame wars); they reported the rape threats.
- a newly toxic relationship between the video gaming hobby press and a part of its readerbase - I don't really understand what information this is trying to convey. I get that you're trying to reduce complexity to brevity but the result is a nebulous non-statement. Also, "newly" is not reflected in the sources; many sources characterize gamergate as a manifestation of longstanding issues.
- While discussion about Gamergate has involved....[etc.] - is OK but does tend to give the impression that these topics were given equal weight; for example reliable sources overwhelming focussed on the harassment campaign whilst dismissing the topic of journalistic ethics.
- On the matter of "sides". There are no "sides". Reliable sources don't describe a dispute between pro-GG and anti-GG; they report a campaign of harassment and its condemnation. Earlier you drew an analogy with the abortion debate; sources have not treated gamergate in a comparable fashion. A better analogy would be with pseudoscience topics with which we might draw some striking parallels. CIreland (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- While we're at it, the 'have been overshadowed' language seems to me to get the arrow of causality precisely backward; everyone for the most part agrees that the entire fracas began with the harassment of a single woman over the details of her private life. This is roughly akin to saying "the Watergate scandal was a series of discussions about executive power in the United States, which were later overshadowed by a failed burglary and other illegal activities." That being said, thanks for the draft. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not a serious lead proposal.
- To me scandal is a neutral word, but I understand your point that it might be misconstrued... Replace with whatever is the neutral equivalent, to see what I mean.
- I still think it is worth referring back, past tense, to the events of last year as what defines "Gamergate". The whole reason for the "-gate" suffix.
- Which BBC article do you mean? I took a look at one of them, here. It mentions how discussion about Gamergate has been characterized by "pure toxicity" with misogynist abuse and vitriolic messages on both "sides". Not a flame war by name but it quacks. Regarding journalism ethics, the same article does also mention ethics as a possible topic worth discussing but which is overshadowed by the harassment aspect of Gamergate: Ms Quinn herself suggested that the gaming ethics argument could progress - but only if it distanced itself fully from GamerGate tag. From what I understand there have been some attempts at doing exactly this, perhaps a sane discussion will be had in the end.
- Well, I think I've said all I can, so before I put my foot in my mouth I'll shut up. Hope to see you all in the bright future ahead. --Nanite (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any actionable suggestions in this thread I would support, but I'm glad to see more frank discussion among unconflicted editors like User:Nanite, User:Marteau, and User:CIreland. Rhoark (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just like every other movement, Gamergate has been defined more by its actions and perceptions than its stated goals, which is reflected is most reliable sources. The Columbia Journalism Review just published an analysis that discusses the issue more in-depth. It's worth a read, if you read nothing else about the topic. The CJR article succinctly outlines how Gamergate identifies itself ("Gamergate believers see themselves as consumer watchdogs of a games press that’s too cozy with the industry it covers; many posting under the tag appear to be soldiers in a culture war that extends far offline") the initial controversy ("The hashtag drew mainstream media attention last year for reactionary trolling and mob-like harassment online, aimed mostly at feminist writers and critics") the ongoing coverage ("A number of top journalists in the field declined to speak to CJR on the record because they feared validating Gamergate as something more than a collection of trolls") a quote about the goals ("Some of it is really focused on reforming game journalism, some are very focused on their image in the mainstream media. And then some are very angry with academics, with people like me, who they view as trying to inject feminist critiques into gaming culture") and a quote as to why Gamergate has been so difficult to define ("I think that there is next to zero interest among the press in establishing the facts around Gamergate, and quite a lot of pressure *against* establishing a factual record...It has made any sort of public discussion around Gamergate impossible"). As Rhoark did before me I'll also say thank you to the new editors for wading into this topic. This is an often-hostile talk page, and the current article is a barely readable hyperbolic mess. Hopefully now you have an idea of how it got that way, and maybe the fortitude to try to help us fix it. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Columbia Journalism Review, SPJ, and GG
A rather interesting article on GamerGate being, as the article puts it, "strange bedfellows" with the Society of Professional Journalists. Why some SPJ leaders are engaging Gamergate. Talks a bit more in-depth about "Airplay", the event that got a bomb threat that resulted in a neighborhood evacuation, some quotes from Michael Koretzky, organizer of the event, James Fudge from GamePolitics.com, Mia Consalvo from DiGRA and soon to be president of the SPJ Lynn Walsh. GamerPro64 05:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yet another article, this one from Slate: "How Jessica Jones Absorbed the Anxieties of Gamergate"
Written by Arthur Chu, and located here: [3]
As usual, I don't think this demands any immediate action on the article. Put here more as a general interest note. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
| This has become unproductive. Please confine your comments to article content, not personal comments about other editors or the authors of potential sources. Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The post above is very close to a personal attack on Arthur Chu, and its redactions should be carefully considered. The argument put forward by its author is that a dramatic interpretation in 2015 cannot refer to contemporary events because it is based on a story written in 2001. That argument will surprise students of Shakespeare, but perhaps the author was out sick that day, or busy playing games, or fell asleep. In any case, no one familiar with literary criticism would consider it ludicrous, and no one familiar with Gamergate's place in media discourse would demand "facts" to back it up the notoriety which this criminal conspiracy has gained. U. S. Representatives can refer to Gamergate’s crimes in press releases, confident that all readers will understand the reference; Netflix can certainly do the same. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
|
on the the anticipated demise of the newly entering uninvolved editor
| moved to meta talk page ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry to bump back so soon but I found this amusing reddit thread about me, and couldn't resist. I'm just a regular old dude, and people think I'm going to get whacked from simply commenting on a talk page? Naw, man. But on a serious note, one user said "I'll be surprised if he lasts more than 2 days" and this was perfectly true, I only spent 2 days discussing, when I came here a week and a half ago. Hmm, why is that? I thought about this a lot, and I would like to share my viewpoint as I think some understanding will lead to a better article, in the future. There seems to be a general concern about incoming editors here being discouraged. Yes, that is true in my case. Although I avoided any serious confrontation, I got a clear sense that the battle for this article is not over (and a brief examination of recent talk page archives confirms this). This is not a fun place to edit unless you love bickering all day long. I have no desire to enter wikipedia politics and so there is absolutely no way I am going to try to help here, until the combative editors are gone. I am sure there are many more silent editors who would love to help but feel precisely like I feel. The armies have left but a few determined snipers remain and reign; the city still lay in ruins and the regular folk await the day they can reenter. --Nanite (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
|
"Maximum pain and harm"
This edit is simply wrong. The sentence reads: "But over the course of several months, he described to me how he painstakingly crafted “The Zoe Post,” a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency, for maximum pain and harm."
. The phrase "described to me" refers to the first part of the sentence ("he painstakingly crafted..."), not the second part, which is a rather poetic description of the effects by this particular reporter. I have reverted it. Feel free to rephrase it correctly.
More generally, I would argue against including the Boston Magazine description ("maximum pain and harm") as well as the "rambling" NYT description. Both of these descriptions are simply unflattering comments by individual reporters, not at all typical in sources. Mentioning that the post was a humungous 9,000 words is enoug. And that all shit broke loose after its publication is also described in the section. There is no need to gratuitously and selectively quote unflattering comments about it. Most sources, simply comment on the length and its nature (describing his relationship with Quinn using private text, facebook messages, emails etc.). Then they go on to note that subsequently all hell broke loose etc., without any implication that this guy started it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- This strikes me as probably grammatically incorrect. Let's leave out the introductory clause ("But over the course of several months") and examine the rest of the sentence. We have a complete thought ("he described to me how he painstakingly crafted "The Zoe Post" for maximum pain and harm") which is interrupted by an obvious non-restrictive clause set off by commas ("a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency"). Non-restrictive clauses typically offer new but non-necessary information on the subject, as here. As written, the complete thought must be ""he described to me how he painstakingly crafted "The Zoe Post" for maximum pain and harm" simply because what else could the coordinating conjunction "for" be doing here? I suppose we could read it as a simple reaction to the "detonation," that is "it detonated for maximum pain and harm," but it seems much more natural to read it as a continuation of the first clause "he crafted it for maximum pain and harm." Moreover, given the context in the article, it seems clear to me this reading is to be preferred. The sentence before reads: "Gjoni has sometimes claimed that he simply wanted to warn people about his ex-girlfriend." Interpreted as I think most naturally, the "but" at the beginning of our sentence makes perfect sense: he didn't merely wish to warn, but crafted for maximum pain and harm. Read your way, the "but" at the beginning of our sentence is completely superfluous (if not misleading); there's no contradiction nor comparison if all this sentence is doing is telling us that he painstaking crafted the post for several months. Make what you will of the source, but I think you are parsing this sentence incorrectly. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- My reading is essentially identical to Dumuzid's. Would you be willing to self revert, Kingsindian, or do you believe my edit is incorrect in some other way? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I initially removed because I read it the way Kingsindian did. Dumuzid's interperation seems equally valid, if not more valid, but I'm not certain enough that it's correct to support restoring. Brustopher (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also regarding comments on the blogpost in the press, see this survey I did here Brustopher (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just so the grammar gods don't strike me down, the clause starting "a post...." is really more of an appositive than a non-restrictive clause (hey, it was late). But my parsing is largely unaffected -- if anything, I think it strengthens my proposed reading. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not one reporter; it's the consensus of reliable sources, here including two gold-plated sources-- the New York Times and the reporter with the best access to the subject. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I still believe my reading is correct. I do not think the "but" in the sentence is superfluous. The "but" in the sentence refers to the reporter saying that he doesn't believe that the purpose of the document was to warn people about his ex-girlfriend. The subsequent paragraphs detail the aspects of the post which the reporter believes to be inconsistent with the claim. See, for instance, the later paragraphs and up to the one starting with "Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious..."
. If Gjoni actually said that "he intended the post to cause maximum pain and harm", there would be no need to resort to a "he said/she said" format - we have from the horse's mouth that it was deliberate and malicious. In the sentence itself, the comma, and the switch to a different subject, "a post that..." is a clear indication, in my mind that he is referring to the effect of the post, not an intention by Gjoni. If the statement was meant to read the other way, the reporter would have made Gjoni the subject of the infliction of "maximum pain and harm". Reporters are skilled writers - it's their job after all - they know how to make a sentence ambiguous or clear if they want. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(On another point, I read Brustopher's survey, and "rambling" seems to be decently supported. I have made some changes to my proposed text in the section above.)
- The fact that reporters are skilled writers is precisely why I think you are off-base here. The clear way to convey your meaning would be to leave out the comma after "efficiency," making the second half of the sentence one contiguous clause. "But over the course of several months, he described to me how he painstakingly crafted 'The Zoe Post,' a post that detonated with ruthless force and efficiency for maximum pain and harm" is perfectly grammatical and conveys your meaning. As it stands, the rules of grammar dictate that the clause between the commas is an appositive, essentially renaming "the Zoe post," and that the thought is continued in "for maximum...." As for the he said/she said, that clearly seems to me about reactions to the publishing of the Zoe post, and not necessarily authorial intent. Your response to the "but" seems to me a non-sequitur--I agree the point is that he's saying he doesn't believe Gjoni's claim, but then that sentence becomes irrelevant as the post could be painstakingly crafted either way. Your attachment to later evidence seems odd to me. It would be as if someone wrote "Some people say widgets are dangerous. But some widgets are yellow. The amount of widget related deaths has been declining in recent years." The force of the 'but' (quite a thing to write!) doesn't 'carry over' from one sentiment to the next. Your reading may be correct, but you're asking us to believe either that the writer made a mistake or was unaware of typical grammar usage. My reading proposes that the writer wrote what he meant in accordance with the normal rules of grammar. That doesn't make me right, of course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence is ambiguous, I agree, but that was not my only point. What do you make of the point I made about the "he said/she said" device? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You write "As for the he said/she said, that clearly seems to me about reactions to the publishing of the Zoe post, and not necessarily authorial intent."
. Let me quote the passage in full:
Others who later read the post saw something much more deliberate and malicious. Jesse Singal, an editor at NYMag.com, said it clearly “followed a script” of “these sad, specific ideas that a segment of the gaming community has about women being duplicitous and breaking men’s hearts.” Slate’s Arthur Chu told me, “He’s an articulate, well-spoken guy who knows how to put together something on the Internet. That’s the kind of weapon guys like that have…the ‘crazy bitch’ story. It’s a very potent trope to use…. It’s a very nasty, very calculating train of thought, and it worked.”
I may or may not get all grammatical nuances, but I find it impossible to believe that this passage is not talking about intent. "deliberate and malicious", "followed a script", "knows how to put together", "nasty, very calculating". These all refer to intent. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- They refer to others' view of Gjoni's intent, yes. This is different from the statement by Gjoni himself (as I see it). The reaction from various communities is clearly part of the story, whether accurate or not. The fact that it is in the past tense shades it this way for me: the discussion is about the narrative of reactions rather than any current question of intent (or so I think). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so we agree that the passage refers to others' view of Gjoni's intent. Now, can you give me a plausible reason as to why others are quoted for his intent (and other others quoted in opposition to this view), when there is a supposed statement from the horse's mouth as to his intent to cause maximum pain and harm? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, others' reactions are part of the narrative of the Zoe post, even though some appear to have been incorrect. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid that does not answer my question. Anyway, we have made our points clear, no point in continuing. Others can read the discussion and decide for themselves. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- You do understand my point that reactions from the community are, in fact, separate and distinct from authorial intent, yes? That seems to me a complete answer to your question, even if we disagree. Thanks. 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood your point: no, it is not an answer to my question. The passage is not quoting the "reactions from the community". It is quoting people's opinion of the intent of the blog post. And it quotes Gjoni and his friend for their view of the intent
"I felt it was healthy to get it out there…. What harm would it do to get his feelings out?"
. This is what I said is a "he said/she said" device. But why would anyone resort to this device when Gjoni already said what the intent was? It is definitely not quoting the "reactions of community" because chronologically, the reaction of the community comes after this passage (see the subsequent passages). Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently I misunderstood your point: no, it is not an answer to my question. The passage is not quoting the "reactions from the community". It is quoting people's opinion of the intent of the blog post. And it quotes Gjoni and his friend for their view of the intent
- You do understand my point that reactions from the community are, in fact, separate and distinct from authorial intent, yes? That seems to me a complete answer to your question, even if we disagree. Thanks. 16:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid that does not answer my question. Anyway, we have made our points clear, no point in continuing. Others can read the discussion and decide for themselves. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, others' reactions are part of the narrative of the Zoe post, even though some appear to have been incorrect. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so we agree that the passage refers to others' view of Gjoni's intent. Now, can you give me a plausible reason as to why others are quoted for his intent (and other others quoted in opposition to this view), when there is a supposed statement from the horse's mouth as to his intent to cause maximum pain and harm? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Gjoni's reaction to the Boston Magazine piece[4][5] is essential reading for putting this source in context. When an interview subject says these kinds of things about their own interview, it can't possibly be treated as a reliable source for the interviewee's statements. BuzzFeed of all places is a better source than "gold-plated" Boston Magazine on how Gjoni represents himself,[6] as also commented on by Mary Sue[7]. The Adam Smith Institute[8] also links this surprising perspective on Gjoni[9] from someone who's gained international reputation as an advocate for trigger warnings. This is an area with a variety of perspectives that could perhaps be explored better. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark makes some very good points, but I wish to reiterate the basic point, which should not be lost. Gjoni's intent is manifestly irrelevant: whether or not he intended to cause harm or not is irrelevant to the hell that broke loose afterwards. A single, unflattering and ambiguous judgement about his intent should not be presented in the article as such. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- We need to keep BLP in mind. By ascribing an intent to Gjoni's actions, we're making a fairly strong claim. We're giving him an additional - and highly negative - reason for his actions. If we're making that claim based on a particular interpretation of a statement which is open to alternative interpretations, (unless we're absolutely sure that the interpretation is correct), we have to err on the side of caution, and not assign it as a factual claim about Gjoni. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
“This Page Is Bias”
| moved to meta page ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Another editor returns after an absence of many years to edit war the lede, again leaving an edit summary that this article needs to be a lot less bias and then this article is Bias. Wikipedia has a neutral policy to say Gamergate is only about sexism is presenting only one side especially at the beginning of the article. What is it with Gamergate supporters and participles? Is this a common thing somewhere? Anywhere? A secret code? A dog whistle of some sort? It really doesn’t strike me as a common usage error; there must be an explanation. What am I missing? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Glamour article on GG
http://www.glamour.com/inspired/2015/12/glamour-survey-online-bullying ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
SXSW up to now
Do we still need to wait until SXSW to write about the cancellation/uncancellation/day of/moved panel part of it all? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources so far
list the sources so far (note this is not the same list as in the archive though it includes that list):
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given the vast amount of coverage I think it definitely should be added to the article now. I'd do it myself but I'm swamped. Brustopher (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to work on it. Busy, too. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
pp move indef
{ping|Lightlowemon|Gamaliel} is there a reason to remove the pp-move-indef ? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- @ForbiddenRocky: I think you misread the diff, the {{pp-move-indef}} was just moved onto its own line. — Strongjam (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oops. Thanks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A random minor issue
I will never understand Gamergate, but can I ask why in the "History" section, the relationship between Quinn and Nathan Grayson is called "allegation"? Sure, the newspaper sources at the time use "allegation", but as subsequently made clear by the Kotaku source, the "allegation" is simply a fact and is disputed by no one. The important point to make clear is that the relationship started after the gaming review appeared, so there was no conflict of interest. We are now sufficiently distant from the events that we can write about facts, and not just allegations. I was told one of the tips for good writing is to clothe the naked "this". The sentence starting with "This was quickly proven to be false"
is needlessly unclear and awkward. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here is my attempt to write a better second paragraph of the "History" section:
In August 2014, Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, published the "Zoe Post", a 9,425-word blog post that quoted from personal chat logs, emails, and text messages to describe their relationship. The post, described as "rambling" in the NYT<nyt ref>, complained, among other things, that Quinn entered a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the Gawker Media video game website Kotaku. The post was linked on 4chan, where some claimed that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. This claim was false, as Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games; his piece concerning her was published before their relationship began.
Changes:
- Added 'among other things' to the complaint.
- Added 4chan as the place where the inaccurate claims originated - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- Simply describe the facts, which are indisputed. That the "editor wrote a piece on Kotaku" etc. is irrelevant.
Issues I am not happy about, but probably are not resolvable:
- The characterization of the blog post is quite unsatisfactory. The post was not "detailing their relationship", it was accusing Quinn of infidelity etc.
- The post was not simply "complaining about Quinn entering..." (which makes it sound like this happened in August). The piece point was different: he was complaining that this happened in April.
- The reason I don't feel that this should be included because nobody investigates whether the accusations are true or not, it would be irresponsible to simply write this on Wikipedia, and it would be WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the 'allegation' bit... most of the sources (and, in particular, the one we're using for that section) only describe the relationship as an 'allegation', so I feel we have to limit ourselves to that language, even if it's an allegation that was later supported elsewhere. We can't say "well, this is proven elsewhere, so it's not just an allegation"; we have to cover it the way the sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "we have to cover it the way the sources do." Can't we just add one of the later sources that confirm the allegation and then remove "allegation"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: That is incorrect, the Kotaku source confirms that there was a relationship, starting in April. This isn't disputed by anyone - why should they? It is not wrong to have relationships and there was no conflict of interest. The newspaper sources at the time used "allegation". Things have moved on from there since. We are now more than one and a half years afterwards. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the 'allegation' bit... most of the sources (and, in particular, the one we're using for that section) only describe the relationship as an 'allegation', so I feel we have to limit ourselves to that language, even if it's an allegation that was later supported elsewhere. We can't say "well, this is proven elsewhere, so it's not just an allegation"; we have to cover it the way the sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have implemented my suggestion above. Feel free to revert/discuss. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately PeterTheFourth in their rewrite here has missed the point of my edit. As I tried to explain in detail above, we are now one and a half years from the incidents. It now makes no sense to write a "he said/she said" version of events. The fact that the editor of Kotaku wrote the article is irrelevant, so we don't have to write "according to so and so". We can just state it as a fact, because the fact is important, and nobody doubts it. One can copyedit without changing the meaning of the text. One also does not need to write "erroneously" twice. It is sufficient to describe the claim in one sentence and debunk it in the next. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate blamed for San Bernardino shooting
From Mediaite, NY Times, CNN Fall For Fake Eyewitness Blaming San Bernardino on GamerGate. Gotta love the Mainstream Media. GamerPro64 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Truly the research skills of the mainstream media during a shooting are atrocious. [10] Brustopher (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- At least it was eventually cleared up. [11] GamerPro64 17:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- A good example of why WP:RSBREAKING exists. — Strongjam (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- note that the source for this is, indirectly, Breitbart, and so itself not WP:RS. Artw (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the way RS policy works. A source can cite anything they please, or nothing, so long as their own fact-checking is trustworthy. The managing editor of Mediate described it as "Huffington Post meets Gawker", as if that's a good thing, but I don't see anything that points to automatic disqualification. Rhoark (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Breitbart, who first unveiled the deception, " - this would be the Brietbart that is non-RS due to their habits of exaggeration, misrepresentation, occasional outright lies and most particularly their frequent stage managing of "scandals" to further their goals. Someone sneaking bad info into a vox pop for a hot second is something we should approach with a long stick of it comes from them, even if it didn't neatly coincide with their particular bête noire. Artw (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The main lesson for me, and hopefully others, is that news works on a short timeline, and one shouldn't believe everything that comes out in the first cycle. If such a dramatic assertion is true, I am sure people will follow up and debunk/confirm it. All it tells you (if it was indeed a hoax) that the news was perhaps unprofessional in a particular instance, or that the hoaxer is particularly talented. After all, the Yes Men hoaxed the BBC and Dow Chemicals regarding the Bhopal gas incident, which resulted in a massive (short term) drop in the latter's stock prices. Such things happen. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Breitbart, who first unveiled the deception, " - this would be the Brietbart that is non-RS due to their habits of exaggeration, misrepresentation, occasional outright lies and most particularly their frequent stage managing of "scandals" to further their goals. Someone sneaking bad info into a vox pop for a hot second is something we should approach with a long stick of it comes from them, even if it didn't neatly coincide with their particular bête noire. Artw (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the way RS policy works. A source can cite anything they please, or nothing, so long as their own fact-checking is trustworthy. The managing editor of Mediate described it as "Huffington Post meets Gawker", as if that's a good thing, but I don't see anything that points to automatic disqualification. Rhoark (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- note that the source for this is, indirectly, Breitbart, and so itself not WP:RS. Artw (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Other in the news (maybe)
- http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/06/gamergate-women-video-games-gender-gaming_n_8722640.html
- http://www.themarysue.com/feminist-frequency-joins-fellow-activists-in-creating-a-guide-to-defend-against-online-harassment/ (more related to Crash Override?)
- http://voiceherald.com/2015/12/09/jeff-bezos-just-offered-to-shoot-donald-trump-into-space.html
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- The guide would possibly be useful as an external link, though such sections seem to have fallen out of favor. Artw (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
"[...] new research based on all that Gamergate has wrought/"
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a40504/gender-video-games-research/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think there will be responses to this. Or not. I find the analysis lack depth and insight, but a surface view is useful, too. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
GG as example (some more)
I know I've brought this up, and I'm still looking for RS to support something to add, but here's GG again being used as an example of bad behavior: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-is-the-gamergate-of-republican-politics/ Also, I think the Trump tweet is interesting. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate a bit on the concept or issue you're trying to add? Perhaps the hive mind can help. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- GG is often mentioned in passing, not as the main item of interest, but as a comparison or exemplar of bad behavior (on the internet or general in the case of Trump). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- e.g. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/graphic-novel-on-television-emily-nussbaum ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- GG is often mentioned in passing, not as the main item of interest, but as a comparison or exemplar of bad behavior (on the internet or general in the case of Trump). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
reminder: 1RR
Please remember the main page is under WP:1RR. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)