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.
I definitely understand this quote now. As someone who has loved video games all his life I find this article appalling. Gaming unlike film or television is or was a market largely moved by critical analysis. The success of a game is often still made or broken on its Metacritic score and that's why collusion between media outlets and developers has been seen as especially important in the gaming industry. The first time I remember concerns really being raised was with the firing of Jeff Gerstmann over his low score of Kane and Lynch 2. For years now games have been getting what are often viewed as undeserved scores and heavily sponsored events like the Game Awards where we saw a prominent game journalist seemingly schilling for Doritos and Mountain Dew helped nothing on the question of ethics in gamer's minds. While most of the article states anti-gamer gate opinions as cold fact, the singular section addressing the ethics concerns immediately picks them apart as unfounded and conspiratorial. It makes perfect sense as what actually has happened isn't important so much as what can be cited, and that's what we'll put down in the history books. While many of the people crying victim from this controversy have gone on to meet much more success than before, incentivizing the behaviour further, people 'vitriolic' enough to simply criticize them such as Gregory Elliot are met with lawsuits, but of course you'll find no mention of misbehaviour from the other side in this article. After all, we're too privileged to get the new coverage needed for the citations. As long as you can cite speculation or unfounded claims then I suppose they must be fact after all.
Claim not supported by sources
Quinnspiracy -> Gamergate
The article states, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign. The people behind this campaign initially referred to it as the "quinnspiracy", the original name for their IRC channel, but quickly adopted the Twitter hashtag "Gamergate" after it was coined by actor Adam Baldwin near the end of August.
The web sources cited do not substantiate that anyone who either harassed Quinn or participated in the IRC channel went on to later use the #gamergate hashtag. The only possibility remains Heron and Belford, which is behind a paywall. A quote for verification of this claim would be appreciated. Rhoark (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The relevant bit from Heron, Belford & Goker: Over the months of August and September in 2014, an independent game developer by the name of Zoe Quinn and her friends have found themselves the target of an equally misogynist backlash by a coordinated conspiracy. While originally labelled under the hashtag ‘#quinnspiracy’, it evolved into a collective movement known as ‘gamergate’. — Strongjam (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That passage falls short of describing what people were involved and when, or to whom threats are attributable. Is there more context in the source, or does the wording of the claim need to be more conservative? Rhoark (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark, would you be okay with "This campaign was initially referred to as the 'quinnspiracy', the original name for an associated IRC channel, but quickly became known by the Twitter hashtag 'Gamergate' after it was coined by actor Adam Baldwin near the end of August."? Dumuzid (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but it's not accurate to represent "quinnspiracy" and "gamergate" as *simply two names for the same thing. A sense of expansion or evolution should be connoted in some way. Less critically, "quinnspiracy" more properly refers to what the IRC users believed was going on with Quinn rather to what they themselves were doing. We'd also need a source to directly link the IRC channel with a "campaign of harassment", which is not a close enough paraphrase of "backlash by a coordinated conspiracy". Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The paper goes over the IRC logs, showing how they were used to coordinate harassment, recruitment for #gamergate, astroturfing campaigns and etc... — Strongjam (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, it looks like I'll need to bite the bullet and buy this thing to properly evaluate it. Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The logs involved are exactly those provided by Zoe Quinn to The Escapist. Despite the imprimatur of an academic source, there are two very deep flaws regarding them. First, Quinn is an involved party both as the subject of the chat and a participant in the logged conversation under unknown handles. Secondly, the logs all occur in a span of time preceding the creation of the #gamergate hashtag. They cannot by themselves establish a chain of responsibility from the IRC chat to the hashtag, and indeed the paper does not say more than that the quinnspiracy "evolved into" gamergate. It's quite explicit that participation in gamergate is wider than harassment or the IRC chat. Rhoark (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The logs involved are exactly those provided by Zoe Quinn to The Escapist. Pg 24, fifth paragraph (last one on the left column) address that. The logs they examined were not the ones released by Quinn. Second, they do not all precede the hashtag. One of the quoted bits mentions recruiting for the hashtag. Not sure what you're arguing in the last sentence. — Strongjam (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
They aren't the logs provided by Quinn in the sense of being only her excerpts; what I mean is its the same chat. You're right in that the logs do extend beyond the creation of the hashtag, and include an instance of talking about recruiting to it. This is enough to support the claim that some participants in IRC used the hashtag. Rhoark (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's just dispense with Adam Baldwin entirely; his involvement in coining the name is not, in retrospect, very significant. But nobody doubts the involvement of 4chan and reddit, surely? I mean, we've seen it here with our own eyes, there are dozens of sources, and it's increasingly likely that this will ultimately lead to regulatory or legislative action against the sites used to coordinate harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
At least he's verifiably connected with Gamergate. Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
My viewpoint on this is that one must distinguish between two things: "X was started by people doing Y", and "X included people doing Y". Where X = quinnspiracy and Y = harassment etc. The text as written states the former, the sources (I haven't read the Heron et. al. source) state the latter. Kingsindian♝♚ 13:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Harassment is the only notable accomplishment of Gamergate. Gamergate supporters may also have cooked waffles, but that is uncontroversial. They attempted to launch a terror campaign against women in the software industry, and that did create controversy. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Both the Daily Dot and Ars Technica sources detail how the hashtag was pushed by 4chan and how the IRC channel was central to its initial organizing. You might disagree with their conclusions, but that's what the reliable sources that have examined Gamergate's origins have concluded. --Aquillion (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Who or what is this comment a reply to? Appropriate indentation would be helpful. Kingsindian♝♚ 09:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I was responding to the section as a whole (and to the original post at the top), though it applies to your post, too; the Daily Dot and Ars Technica references are pretty unequivocal. The first paragraph of the Ars Technica ref says "A set of IRC logs released Saturday appear to show that a handful of 4chan users were ultimately behind #GamerGate, the supposedly grass-roots movement aimed at exposing ethical lapses in gaming journalism. The logs show a small group of users orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism." --Aquillion (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Suppression of corrupt behaviour
Some users of the term "Gamergate" accused gaming journalists of an unethical conspiracy to suppress discussion of the corrupt behavior they incorrectly ascribed to Quinn and Grayson. is attributed to IBTimes[1], which does not call the accusations "incorrect" but "unproven" and does not state the Grayson matter as being the principal substance of the alleged journalistic conspiracy. It does, for Dr. Bernstein's benefit, say, "Baldwin continues to be an active participant in the online debate, accusing gaming journalism sites like Kotaku of using collusion tactics and alleged unethical conduct." and include the delightful quote, "Wu attempted to make peace online and reminded her followers that '#gamergate isn’t about attacking women.'" Rhoark (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This feels like a rehash of old talk stuff. I think the answer here isn't to argue "incorrect" v. "unproven", but to include a source (which I know Rhoark knows exists) that supports "incorrect". And/or use "disproven" or "false" instead. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't think it could be fixed, I would have removed it instead of pointing to the talk page. It is a rehash of a question handled elsewhere in the article, and I think the best thing to do would be to stick to what the claim started as - the theory of collusion by journalists. On that point, Heron, Belford, & Goker have something interesting: "While the Zoe Quinn incident may have triggered some genuinely healthy discussions regarding ethics within game development, such discussion is muted and ‘declawed’ by virtue of being so difficult to unpick from a movement that is so deeply associated with its origins in a internet cyber-mob. The effect, paradoxically, is to inoculate journalist outlets against valid criticism – they can simply avoid the discussion by focusing on the misogyny of the trigger incident." Rhoark (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, Rhoark, you're saying it's actually about ethics in games journalism? Dumuzid (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It's about what the reliable sources say. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The reliable source here is speculating about a counterfactual. If certain things had happened or not happened, then a discussion might have taken place. Of course, the authors are entitled to this opinion (though it is not widely shared), but in the nature of counterfactuals it is not subject to proof. In point of fact, the origin was in an internet mob, and therefore it wasn't about ethics -- it was about harassment. We can speculate about a discussion that might have taken place, but we know what did take place: a systematic campaign to drive women out of the software industry by harassing them and by threatening them with rape and murder. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the source as having used the subjunctive mood is a misapprehension, as shown by the use of unalloyed present tense in the rest of the passage. Rhoark (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The bit your quoting is used in the article. It's what is supporting this bit in the "Debate over ethics allegations" section (third paragraph). In "Sexism in the Circuitry", the authors acknowledge that some in the movement are focused on ethics and "genuinely motivated by a desire to uncover these issues and improve the quality of journalism, such as it is, within the game industry", but note that any viable discussion is obscured by the harassment and misogyny. — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As well it should be. While not due the absolute primacy that would be given to peer-reviewed journals in a more empirical topic, this has to be regarded as one of our top-shelf sources. We should generally turn to it in whatever aspects of our coverage intersect what it has to say. The context in this case is on journalists' reticence to cover the early Quinnspiracy, where we are not yet using Heron,Belford,&Goker. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I can just clarify that this was not a peer-reviewed academic article. This was a special ACM SIGCAS issue, which invited manuscripts on broad topics, including fiction and poetry. See this. Kingsindian♝♚ 06:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
good catch Rhoark (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Twitter
Per WP:FORUM et al. The details of individual editors' Twitter experiences are as off-topic & unproductive of improvements to the article as whether they had pie or waffles for breakfast. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 22:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note to mention that I've had 69 separate Twitter messages in the past hour or so, relating to Adam Baldwin’s role on this page. There are also threads on the Gamergate boards. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Baldwin himself has been tweeting you even. I was not particularly concerned with your edit since 1) it removed the inadequately sourced claims I raised the concerns about and 2) the extra material you removed about Baldwin was misplaced at that particular point in the article, and I would eventually be addressing that as part of a separate reorganization effort. Since this has become a "thing" however, I'll state for the record that your edit was WP:POINTY and your edit summary disingenuous in implying it was what I had argued for. You should, as they say, "better conduct yourself" in the future. Rhoark (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
If you wish, Rhoark, WP:AE is thataway. Otherwise, personal attacks are out of place here, thank you kindly. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to update this admittedly frivolous and personal note, we’re now north of 100 Twitter messages, including screeds claiming I’ve got a conflict of interest because I do hypertext research and one of the Gamergate targets wrote a hypertext. Another Twitterer darkly mentions guillotines and French royalty. Several Twitterers see this as a manifestation of Cultural Marxism, others cite Animal Farm and/or 1984. Many call for Jimmy Wales to personally ban me. Quite the event! (Seriously, this sort of off-wiki campaign could be a serious problem for the project. If these were editors, I’d bring this up at AE or AN/I or ARCA, but they aren't -- or at least don’t admit it.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Specific ZQ threat quote from New Yorker
I removed this quote about ZQ from the article a few days ago:
"Next time she shows up at a conference we... give her a crippling injury that's never going to fully heal... a good solid injury to the knees. I'd say a brain damage, but we don't want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us."
@Artw: reverted my edit twice, violating 1RR in the process, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. What this essentially boils down to is a tabloid-style approach to the content. The article is already loaded top to bottom with descriptions of how GG supporters have made threats of violence and rape against various women in the industry, and focuses on that issue again and again. Including a specific quote from one random, anonymous person, I believe, violates WP:NOT, specifically, WP:NOTDIARY. If this is to be an encyclopedia entry, it doesn't need to cover tiny specific details like this, when the essential point is made over and over. It should be an overview of the topic. —Torchiesttalkedits 15:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There is already a thread about this above. Kingsindian♝♚ 15:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Article out of date
I tagged the article as out of date as I've noticed there are several recent events it doesn't cover. The two most notable that come to mind are the Gamergate movie/memoir by Zoe Quinn and the whole thing with SXSW. I'm suspect there are some other recent developments we've failed to add too. Would update it myself, but I've haven't had much free time recently. Brustopher (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that that's enough to require the update tag; while those are probably worth mentioning, they're not huge deals relative to the topic as a whole. They're likely to get a sentence or two in the corresponding sections at most. (It's important not to let recentism give them too much weight -- if you picture someone writing about the topic a year from now, I doubt either of those would get more than a passing mention at best, and likely not even that..) --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The SXSW deal had more attention from RS's than anything else in the controversy since last September. The page is certainly out of date without that covered. It's also significantly out of tune with the breadth or consensus of reliable sources, partly because of datedness, though also from the non-neutral presentation that's always been there. The movie could be a big deal if it happens, but things like that get lost all the time in the byzantine backlots of Hollywood. Rhoark (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Chronological order?
I just realized what is bothering me about this article, and why it makes so little sense. It jumps around forwards and backwards in time in an effort to maintain some coherent "thematic" order - which actually it doesn't manage to do. The "History" section is confusingly named, because it is not a "history" - it is divorced from "Gamergate activities" section, with no idea how they impact each other. Similarly with the "further harassment" section which goes into October, then the article jumps back to September in the "coordinated harassment section", then back to August (!) in the "Gamer identity" section. WTF?
The article should discuss the relevant themes - perhaps in a separate big section. But one can only understand the themes if one understand what the hell the flap was about. For that, we need to say what happened and how things fed into one another. This article would be much better if it maintained a chronological order. Kingsindian♝♚ 09:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I searched for "chronological" in the archives and it seems the proposal has been mooted many times, by many different people. It is rather complicated because people don't seem to agree on a good organization, while agreeing the current organization is bad. Kingsindian♝♚ 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Reading the most recent of the proposals by Rhoark, I have a suggestion. A lot of the objections seem to say that the article would be UNDUE without actually seeing how big all the of the bullet points would be. My suggestion is to make a WP:Draft, arranged according to the bullet structure proposed - I think one could even argue about whether the structure there is good or should it be changed. When one actually looks at an alternative structure, one can decide more intelligently whether it is better or worse than the current article. If needed, one could simply have an RfC asking people whether they prefer the draft or the current article. This would require a lot of work, but it is better than endlessly quibbling over the thing. It will take several weeks at the very least. Shorter version: "If you build it, he will come". Kingsindian♝♚ 09:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like anyone's disagreeing with you. Go ahead and make a draft of the version you'd prefer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My main issue, as I mentioned before, is that I don't feel that that chronological ordering would weight things according to the weight and tone they've received in reliable sources; this is a topic where there's a huge difference in the amount of coverage different aspects have received. I don't agree that there's a problem with the current order (I think it accurately expresses what you would see in most mainstream coverage, leading with the core events and mentioning more tangential disputes further down in the appropriate places), and strongly oppose any sort of overarching change to the article structure, at least based on the logic you provided above. In particular, I feel that a raw timeline with everything dumped into it at once would be a terrible way to structure the article and (issues with WP:DUE weight aside) would be far more confusing than what we have now. --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Aquillion. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think chronological order is going to be illuminating. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Salvaging CoS's suggestions from shitpost hell (Overly cited opinion pieces)
@ColorOfSuffering:I've decided to create a separate section for your suggestions, because it's going to end up getting lost in fracas of a section it's currently contained in. From what I'm getting (correct me if I'm wrong) there are two issues you've brought forward: 1. Some opinion pieces are overly cited 2. Article from a top quality source has been ignored (CJR). As soon as I save this I'm adding the CJR source to the article so that's that problem solved. The opinion piece problem is a lot more complicated. Below is a list of the most cited sources in the article:
Heron, Michael James; Belford, Pauline; Goker, Ayse (2014). "Sexism in the circuitry". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. Cited 10 times Non peer reviewed piece by academics, but they analyse data and all that jazz, and their specialty areas are relevant, so its still better than most of the sources we've got.
Singal, Jesse (October 20, 2014). "Gamergate Should Stop Lying to Itself". Cited 7 times. Opinion piece? It's not marked as an opinion piece, and there is some proper research that's been done for it. Half the times it's cited, it's cited alongside other sources (in one case along 4 other sources) So its high cite count may be a bit of an illusion.
VanDerWerff, Todd (October 13, 2014). "#GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting". Vox. Cited 7 times. Similar case to Singal. Was one of the earliest sources added to the article, and it's kinda just hung around smacked alongside multiple other sources at the end of sentences.
Diver, Mike (October 20, 2014). "GamerGate Hate Affects Both Sides, So How About We End It?". Cited 6 times. One case of citation overkill at the end of a sentence. This one may partially be my fault, as it's a source I remember the contents of quite well so I tend to just go to it as a quick reference sometimes.
Tsukayama, Hayley (October 24, 2014). "How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop 'in one week'". Cited 5 timesWaPo is good stuff. Is mostly used to cite facts instead of opinions so I'm ok with this.
Johnston, Casey (September 9, 2014). "Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy". Cited 5 times. Got bored while writing these summaries, can't be arsed to do this one. Come up with your own conclusion.
I'm going to remove these sources from obvious cite overkill clusters (3+ cites given). And I'll leave it to everyone to discuss whether or not these sources are being used appropriately. Brustopher (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I changed my mind about inserting the CJR thing right now. I didn't realise how long and rich in detail the article was, (this is going to be a very useful source). But I promise I'll do it at some time in the near future, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Feel free to add it yourself. It's by a pretty reputable press outlet, so I highly doubt anyone will revert you (or anyone else) for doing it. Brustopher (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding PtF's changes to the lede
@PeterTheFourth: I chose "largely" negative, because game developers such as Brad Wardell, Mark Kern and Derek Smart have been noted to support Gamergate.[2][3][4] Also Intel initial withdrawal of their support from Gamasutra could be considered as a positive reaction, if you count Intel as part of the games industry. The "anti-gamer" thing came from the sections on Gamer identity and Gamergate_controversy#Targeting_advertisers in the article. Would you prefer "anti-hardcore gamer" or "alienating traditional gaming audiences?" Brustopher (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Intel withdrawing their support from Gamasutra can be considered a positive reaction, given their behaviour immediately following their discovery of what Gamergate was actually about. I'll self-revert on 'largely', but it'd be neat to see Mark Kern and Derek Smart discussed more in the body, and I'll put in 'alienating traditional gaming audiences'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes. I don't know if there's enough coverage to warrant mentioning Smart and Co. in the article, as they're usually just mentioned in passing. But their mentioning shows that it's not universally negative. Brustopher (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
See, I'm not always an asshole. The thing is, we don't actually mention Smart etc. I don't think they're that noteworthy (people who brag about how many google hits they get rarely are), but we should probably mention them somewhere in the article as they're currently nonexistent. I'm uncomfortable placing a qualifier on the gaming industry response thing if we don't explain in the article how some in the gaming industry have used Gamergate's notoriety to boost their own profiles. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Change
There are a variety of severe problems with this article, mostly traceable to sometimes accidental and sometimes willful misreadings of NPOV policies. Although editors like Strongjam and Brustopher have put a lot of valuable effort into polishing and improving what is there, the article's structure and substance still has not substantially evolved from what was written by banned, partisan editors. Putting it straight to you, the reliable sources present Gamergate as a debate in which there are multiple valid, sincere, worthwhile, and noteworthy perspectives. They also present this debate as being greatly overshadowed by threats and harassment. True enough - but also where the first and greatest misreading of NPOV enters in. WP:NPOV reads, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is the reliable sources that matter, not what the reliable source say is happening in other, unspecified public discourse.
Top-shelf sources like NPR, CJR, New York Times, The Guardian, and the few academic papers all recognize there is a sincere debate about ethics in journalism. While these sources are all cited in the article, they are either cherrypicked against their intentions or given insufficient weight. Keep in mind that it is not the views of Gamergate or its detractors that must be balanced, but the views of the sources. When the New York Times says the gamers with ethics concerns are distinct from those making threats, that is a point of view coming from the New York Times - not the gamers that it describes. The idea certainly exists that there is no validity in Gamergate whatsoever, and it gets its say under NPOV as well, but this is an idea mostly found in the Breitbarts of the left.
These issues can not be resolved with only incremental edits. The narrative that issues are overshadowed by threats is used to banish those issues to WP:POVTRAP sections and further harangue them with WP:HOWEVER. Reliable sources do place a lot of weight on threats and harassment, and - all else being equal - that is important consider; but show me where a high-quality source exhaustively lists and details every instance of harassment before intimating there's more to the controversy. That does not, by and large, represent the sources. Being WP:UNDUE consists mainly in misleading the reader about the range of views on a topic, and that is precisely what is happening. The framing and structure is wrong, so even as individual claims are improved, they will be presented in misleading context.
There is no single all-encompassing principle, whether in policy or the manual of style, to govern high-level article structure except in WP:STRUCTURE: Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. This is what I've taken most to heart in preparing my draft: ensure opposing views do not hide from one another. Chronology and prominence are both given consideration, but not to a fault. I begin with chronology, and then ask what the sources consider prominent at that point in time. From there, I follow the debate, even though that may require some violation of chronology. For example, what I present today began with the intention to cover events up to but not including the creation of the hashtag. It pulls in later debates on things like Patreon and 4chan culture however, because the shadow of Quinn's harassment falls heavily on those topics.
I will be accused of whitewashing and Gamergate propaganda, but this is simply what the most reliable sources say and the weight they say it with. I would disagree that what I have written is pro-Gamergate, but if it is, the closing of the syllogism is that the reliable sources are pro-Gamergate. I think it more apt to say this is simply a tale of humans, not angels nor devils. This is how you do NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark, I have been looking forward to seeing this draft. While I honestly appreciate the effort involved, I would not support its inclusion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Dumuzid; I cannot support this inclusion.--Jorm (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark: I think it is an interesting draft, though I feel the emphasis on some things might be misplaced. Should I give comments here or on the draft talk page? Perhaps the talk page could be transcluded in a section here, hatted, so that people can follow the discussion if they wish? Kingsindian♝♚ 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Suggestions on revisions would probably flow better at the draft talk, while more general issues are discussed here. Transclusion seems like a good idea if things pick up there. Rhoark (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have given my suggestions on the draft on the talk page. As I said there, it is a very good attempt, but it needs a lot of work before it is acceptable, in my opinion. It would likely be a very different text in the end. Kingsindian♝♚ 20:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt that what finally reaches mainspace will be very different. Rhoark (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Roark. This was doubtless a lot of work. Unfortunately, this blatantly POV effort at whitewashing is contradicted in tone and tenor by dozens if not hundreds of superb sources. It begins by deniably blaming the victim for attracting rape threats and gets worse from there. This may in fact be what the outgoing ArbCom was expecting when they agreed to Gamergate’s demands to ban “the five horsemen of wikibias”, but it’s flatly contrary to consensus. If it were to be published by Wikipedia -- even briefly -- the project would be reviled. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion that a woman getting threats means she is responsible is cynical and reprehensible. Neither I nor NPR state nor imply this; it is your imagining. I can't speak for NPR, but I thought it worthy of mention to establish this is a problem stretching beyond what is generally recognized as the present controversy. It's also part of the harassment reliable sources consider important, and I have tried to follow them on that so far as possible within the bounds of encyclopedic interest and tone. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Roark, I strongly disagree with your assertions about the sources above (in fact, I believe we've discussed this before, and my feeling -- and what I feel was the consensus at the time -- was that you weren't really able to back your assertions about the sources up.) The vast majority of sources have covered Gamergate primarily as a campaign of harassment. Just from the ones you mentioned, see the New York Times ("Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign"); see the CJR summary ("But what has been clear to the media is its effect. Last week, Anita Sarkeesian, a gaming critic, cancelled a speech at Utah State University after being warned by email that “the deadliest school shooting in American history” would follow.") Look at the overarching coverage in The Guardian and how it's weighted and structured. ("Zoe Quinn: 'All Gamergate has done is ruin people's lives'", Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat, Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics, Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears, etc.) Read the actual content of the NPR piece, and notice what it devotes most of its focus to. Heron, Belford, and Goker note that not everyone in involved is driven by a desire for misogynistic harassment, but only as part of summarizing that the controversy is one of two "...incidents in which cyber-mobs have, under a façade of moral justification, flooded female individuals within the spheres of video game creation and commentary with explicitly sexualised violent threats that have extended beyond the virtual world." This is the tone and weighting that most reliable sources have taken on the subject; therefore, it's the tone that WP:NPOV requires that we take in the article. In any case, this is a highly-controversial article that has been the subject of numerous debates and lots of extended discussion; I strongly recommend you break any proposed changes up into smaller suggestions which we can discuss individually. Beyond my fundamental and complete disagreement that the problem you say you're trying to fix here is genuine, I can see a huge number of individual smaller issues in your proposed rewrite just at a glance (you cite an interview with a third party for a statement of fact about Quinn; you take statements of fact from a source ("Quinn was soon flooded with death threats and rape threats") and report it as just something "she reports". You also reverse several changes that were the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building or which are currently under discussion (eg. restoring the assertion that the restraining order was unconstitutional, removing the quote we're discussing above); while we can discuss those things if you have new arguments, lumping a bunch of changes you know are controversial (and which have often repeatedly failed to gain consensus before) into a single huge sweeping rewrite strikes me as not really conductive to useful discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the tone and weighting that most reliable sources have taken on the subject; therefore, it's the tone that WP:NPOV requires that we take in the article. - As above, I am not able to reconcile this with either the explicit impartial tone section of WP:NPOV, which states in part The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.; nor that policy as a whole - - Which parts of WP:NPOV are the basis for this statement? - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
From WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Likewise, this is referenced in the section on tone when it says that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." (Emphasis mine.) This proposal essentially suggests that we ignore those requirement and give WP:UNDUE weight to aspects of the controversy that are marginal within most reliable sources; therefore, it would violate WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I must not have been watching the page when any consensus formed about Gjoni's constitutional claims. It is utterly representative of the state of this page, however, that people will defend to the hilt the claim Gjoni's essay was "rambling", yet consider it dispensable that his constitutional rights may have been violated. Suffice it to say that there is very little cause for confidence that the normal process of consensus will work well on this page. I will say to everyone and at once though that consensus is not a vote, and those who offer substantive positions are the ones who will influence the article's content going forward.
What I have offered is but a fragment, and so can hardly be answerable for not yet covering Sarkeesian or Day in all due detail. That will come. If you doubt that what I have written so far reflects the reliable sources, you can follow the citations, which are mostly to the sources I have named. In comparison, the present article leans heavily on Daily Dot and PC Magazine in these areas. You also allude at specific problems, and I am very interested in fixing those to your satisfaction. More detail will need to be offered, and I suggest using the draft Talk. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I firmly believe that Mr. Gjoni's First Amendment rights were violated by an overbroad order of protection. I also firmly believe that this is tangential at best to the "Gamergate controversy" and does not merit inclusion in this page, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Make of that what you will. Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you believe the number of words in the Zoepost or whether or not it is "rambling" is tangential? Rhoark (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The "Zoepost" is generally agreed to be the spark that began the "Gamergate controversy," and therefore is not tangential in my view, nor are basic descriptions thereof. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Related though they may be, the descriptions are not of the same level of encyclopedic interest as a first amendment legal challenge. Volokh's is a "significant view" and ultimately not optional under NPOV. Maybe you would be more content though if this episode were more closely with what you consider to be the important aspects? It can be sourced to Ars that Quinn receives renewed harassment when responding to Gjoni's legal complaints. Rhoark (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
First Amendment legal challenges are indeed fascinating! However, this is the "Gamergate controversy" article. Not all aspects of Mr. Gjoni's life, Ms. Quinn's life, or, indeed, their relationship are relevant thereto. The order of protection is totally irrelevant to 'gamergate,' so far as I am concerned, and thus the challenge thereto, while admittedly of great academic interest, does not belong in this article by my lights. The "Zoepost" is of interest inasmuch as it sparked gamergate. Just because other interesting things have the "Zoepost" as a proximate cause does not mean they must be included in this article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I gave my own similar opinion on the draft talkpage. I basically agree with Dumuzid's position here, that the restraining order/constitutionality is off-topic. Kingsindian♝♚ 02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you have anything usable or actionable here. Further more you seem to be using this discussion as a toehold for disruptive behavior (see your comments re:tags) and so I suggest it be hatted as soon as possible. Artw (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason for us to speculate or WP:FORUM about Gjoni’s claims. Those will be assessed by courts, and when those courts have ruled, those ruling may be covered by reliable sources. If you wish to create a Wikipedia page for Mr. Gjoni, that might be a suitable place to discuss his claims. Conceivably, Wikipedia articles about the first amendment, or about restraining orders and domestic abuse, might be suitable places. This page is not. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This is satire right? People have complaining for months about sourcing to buzzfeed and The Mary Sue, and in the second paragraph an accusation of abuse by a living person sourced to buzzfeed and the blog of a think tank? — Strongjam (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
BuzzFeed is not cited in the draft. The Mary Sue uses it, but standard operating procedure is to trust RS's evaluation of their own sources. Consensus was that The Mary Sue is a reliable source.Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_45#The_Mary_Sue_should_probably_not_be_cited_as_a_reliable_source I'm open to revisiting that, but it is my impression that it is usually reliable. On some claims it betrays an obvious bias, but in this case it swings opposite its usual bias, which is cause to be even more confident in this particular article. The Adam Smith Institute does publish a blog which has written on Gamergate, but this citation is to an article in their separate research and analysis section. While not a household name, the institute is influential in British public policy, and WP:USEBYOTHERS regards it as authoritative.[5][6] In short, the Adam Smith Institute is a top-shelf source. Rhoark (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark:BuzzFeed is not cited in the draft. Cite #4. The Adam Smith Insitute would likely fail WP:BLPSPS, and doesn't support the statement, the Mary Sue source doesn't support it, and the BuzzFeed source doesn't not support "individuals", and it fails WP:BLPGOSSIP anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: You are right on BuzzFeed. It was an oversight on my part. I agree it should not be used here, and thought I had already taken it out. Rhoark (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I find the draft unconscionably treading close to BLP, if not over it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I also feel this way, but I wasn't feeling the need to push it.--Jorm (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The “draft” is embarrassing, unconscionable and wildly inappropriate. It has no chance of being accepted; if it were accepted, even briefly, it would make Wikipedia a laughing-stock with its obsession with Zoë Quinn’s sexual fidelity. Quinn is an adult, and her private life is her private concern. The apparent goal here is to establish the “draft” as a permanent content fork, advertised on the Wikipedia page through a prominent tag. That’s flatly contradicted by policy. This “draft” should be sent to MfD without delay; if Rhoark wishes to compile a dossier on Zoë Quinn’s sex life, he may do so on his private hard drive. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What is preventing you from opening the MfD yourself? Kingsindian♝♚ 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources establish that this lovers' spat is an important part of this article topic. Nothing I have said or written makes me any more invested in that that every other editor who has touched this page. I will be quite happy to move on into happier sections of the article, like how the controversy prompted an initiative to hire more women at EA. Some people with more regressive views on sexuality may consider it deeply harmful for a person, or especially a woman, to be acknowledged as a sexual being, but
Rhoark recently added NPOV and structure tags to the article, which were subsequently removed by ArtW and then reinstated by Rhoark. Doing this basically simultaneously with proposing a drastic revision feels to me both unseemly and WP:POINTy. I believe those tags should be removed. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Rhoark is and has been a POV warrior on this page; the entire thing is pointy. I'm going to be removing the tags. We can go to AE or whatever if he wants to add them back.--Jorm (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The tags are disruptive and unhelpful and should go. The article is never going to reflect that users preferred POV since mainstream sources do not, and so the tag is unactionable. Artw (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into who's right and wrong, tags are left until discussion on the talk page results in a consensus or becomes dormant. See Template:POV I don't see what is disruptive about them. Let it stay for a while, what's the hurry? Kingsindian♝♚ 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
See the talk page archives for the previous year plus. The discussion has happened, Rgoark just dislikes the result. Artw (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussions is that I would write a draft. That happened. The next step is collaborative discussion of said draft. Rhoark (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
My reading of discussions at the time was definitely that there was no consensus behind your positions. Writing a draft was your attempt to change people's minds (by trying to show a version you'd claim was better than the current one), but it's pretty clear at this point that that hasn't worked, not in the least because you continue to base your justification for the draft on those same failed arguments. Your reading of the sources simply isn't accurate, has never enjoyed consensus, and (as far as I can tell) hasn't convinced anyone on this page in the numerous months you've been trying to convince people; constantly bringing that reading up over and over isn't constructive editing. You need to accept at this point that you're beating a WP:DEADHORSE and move on to other aspects of the article or to other articles. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding NPOV and rewrite tags concurrently with raising NPOV problems and suggesting a rewrite is precisely the manner in which the tags are meant to be used. No reason has been articulated against the tag, and no objection yet raised to the underlying changes that are fatal to the idea as a whole. It is opposition to the tag that is pushing a POV. Rhoark (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Drop the stick, Rhoark. You've pushed this issue so many times, and consensus has gone against you numerous times. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
With respect, over the course of the previous months, a significant number of uninvolved editors with no previous involvement and no particular axe to grid™ have concurred that there are issues with the current state of the article. Editors with significant previous involvement; some with no significant activity outside this topic area, have disagreed. I would suggest that it is clearly evident that no clear consensus has been formed; clearly no clear agreement. I suggest that we should extend a heartfelt welcome to new editors offering a new perspective; and perhaps all take a step back to allow them voice. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 01:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
there was that "I was just casually reading KiA" guy... That one may count for less than you think though. Artw (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate considers the article NPOV, but the preponderant consensus of the (excellent and numerous) sources, as discussed in many, many pages of archives, holds that it is not. Editors are free to write drafts or anything else they like, for whatever reason. There is no consensus that the article suffers from WP:NPOV and abundant consensus that it does not; tagging the article is simply part of one editor’s campaign to replace the page with their preferred content fork. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
As above, several uninvolved, experienced, editors have identified issues with the article. There is no consensus that the article does not suffer from POV-pushing; claims otherwise strain the assumption of good faith. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 01:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to realize that there are serious ownership issues at play here -- some of the worst I've ever seen. Every attempt at correcting this article by uninvolved editors inevitably leads to howls of "drop the stick" or "this has been discussed before" or the contributor is just hatted and silenced without comment. It's deplorable. My advice -- read the current version of the article top to bottom. So many sources are misrepresented. People, whose only involvement with Gamergate is: "this is a journalist who once wrote an article about Gamergate," are quoted as though they are authorities on the subject. Flimsy, old sources are still being quoted verbatim while new, higher-quality sources are ignored. For example, why isn't this in the article? Why is Jesse Singal's opinion piece from New York Magazine in October 2014 cited 7 times? This article reads more like a sloppily-constructed court case than an informative article. "...and THEN Gamergate did this! And this guy said THIS about it! And everyone agreed! And THEN Gamergate did THIS!" And so on. We've tried to fix it, but every little edit is batted away by a cadre of owners who have camped on this article and believe they have the right to dictate how discussion may take place, and which are approved. We need the tag, and the people who are defending this article from the great unwashed masses need to stop acting like you own it. Stop biting newcomers. Stop stonewalling discussions. Stop soapboxing. If you can't do that, then maybe you ought to just go away for a bit. Believe me, it helps to get a little perspective sometimes. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I generally see little value in POV tag, because this article has been standing tag-free for so long that it doesn't really matter if it stays so. But I do agree with the addition of the tag. I don't really care if it stays or not, but the random removal claiming "no consensus" isn't proper. Kingsindian♝♚ 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"No consensus." is a perfectly cromulent reason not to tag the article, because consensus is how we Wikipedia. Rhoark's section above hasn't gained much traction, but that doesn't justify a tag. ColorOfSuffering raised a couple of sourcing issues that I personally think may have merit (gasp!) but we haven't even started that discussion yet, again no justification for a tag. If an editor can identify a problem with the article they absolutely need to articulate that problem and work to build consensus. Brinksmanship and demands that editors "go away" aren't helping. Woodroar (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if anything can be definitively said about this article, it is that its neutrality is in dispute. The tag is completely appropriate, and frankly all of the alarm about the tags seems a a bit too much protesting, methinks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
the article has been disputed by advocates for a hate group since its creation, that's not really in question. The question is are there any valid or actionable disputes, and since within the bounds of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE we're not going to start reflecting their views r whitewash the article on their behalf any time soon then no, there are no valid disputes. Artw (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Calling editors in good standing, including me I presume, "advocates for a hate group," is a pretty serious WP:ASPERSION, and I'd ask you to strike it. Or don't, since it's a pretty good example of how the editors currently squatting on this article and stifling any attempt to improve it fail to WP:AGF and are often here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be utterly unaware of the history of this article. I invite you to look over the archives and investigate the reasons why we have all that stuff about discretionary sanctions at the top. Artw (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What Rhoark is proposing so far has serious BLP problems. And that's POV pushing. I'm taking the tag off. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Using the tag to repeat the almost clockwork stream of "this article is biased" nonsense has got to stop. Bias has been addressed over and over in the archives. DROP THE STICK. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No, what has to stop is the continued ownership of this article by a bunch of POV-pushing contributors. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This is nonsensical. The fact that people, including long-term editors who have no prior involvement with the article (e.g., Sitush, ColorOfSuffering), keep showing up and expressing concern about the article's bias is a reason for the tag to stay, not a reason for it to be removed. Consensus may have been achieved among the like-minded group of editors owning this article, but that is not a substitute for consensus in the Wikipedia community at large. If there's a stick that needs to be dropped here, it's your constant refrain of DROP THE STICK when editors raise policy-based concerns in good faith. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Both ColorOfSuffering and Sitush have prior experience around here (this is not meant in any negative sense, just a factual correction!). I did not intend to create such a donnybrook with this section. Nor did I intend to accuse Rhoark of anything untoward; it was closer to an 'appearance of impropriety' issue given the timing. That being said, the NPOV tag has a very loaded history around here, what with a long history of drive-by taggings and inane edits prior to the page restrictions. The structure tag bothers me less--I'd be okay with an improved structure, though at this point, I am not sure what that looks like. Perhaps we could restore just that tag and then have a Christmas truce for a day or two? Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
At the time they first raised concerns about the article's bias, both of those users had been here on Wikipedia for years and had little no or prior involvement in the article. And those are just the first two I could think of off the top of my head, since they were already here in this current discussion. There have been more. I don't think much of your suggested truce, and I don't care who has added POV tags in the past-- what matters is that the article, now, is essentially an anti-Gamergate propaganda piece. A group of WP:OWNing editors are determined that it will remain so, at least until the second Gamergate ArbCom case, so at the very least I think the reader ought to be warned that anything like attempted objectivity or editorial distance from the topic area are nowhere to be found here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
the reader ought to be warned that anything like attempted objectivity or editorial distance from the topic area are nowhere to be found here. That is not the point of the {{NPOV}} template. Wikipedia does not have WP:DISCLAIMERS beyond the general one, and the tag is not meant to "warn" readers or to be a badge of shame. — Strongjam (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
That is what the template documentation says, but readers seeking quality encyclopedic coverage of the topic deserve to be warned all the same. Regardless, the purpose of the tag, to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight is served by its inclusion here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
They are warned already. We don't need any other disclaimer or warning. — Strongjam (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Starke Hathaway, you say I don't think much of your suggested truce. To be honest, that's not a big surprise. Merry Christmas anyway! Dumuzid (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The article reflects the preponderant public opinion and the consensus of reliable sources: that’s why Gamergate is so eager to change it. Gamergate’s notable actions are its continuing efforts to threaten women in the software industry with rape or murder if those women do not abandon their careers and seek employment their harassers consider suitable. This is the conclusion of the press, which Gamergate has been unable to change; even in stand-up comedy and TV crime shows, Gamergate is universally known for petty misogynistic terror. Unable to convince the press beyond the right-wing fever swamp, Gamergate has fought bitterly to change Wikipedia, perhaps in the hope that more favorable treatment in Wikipedia might open up opportunities for fund-raising. Their fight goes on, most recently, in the absurd crusade to sanitize the page by excluding the description of Gamergate’s actual threats, culminating in denouncing The New Yorker(!) for tabloid journalism.
Wikipedia has been extraordinarily welcoming to Gamergate's efforts, wasting thousands of volunteer hours as Gamergate fans clogged this page with hundreds of thousands of futile words intended to drive away editors outside the movement. Gamergate used Wikipedia to publicize the sex lives of the women they chose as their victims and to deliver death threats. Daring to oppose Gamergate’s whims on Wikipedia exposes Wikipedia editors to a barrage of unsavory harassment off-wiki. When Gamergate asked Wikipedia to ban their opponents en bloc, a credulous Arbitration Committee complied. That committee has now been repudiated, first by the world and now by Wikipedia itself. Yet, we are told here that adherence to the overwhelming consensus is WP:OWNership and (surprise!) that Gamergate opponents should be banned if they cannot be intimidated into complying with Gamergate's perfervid, failed dream to write its own Wikipedia page. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's save our breath and not argue with people who are not going to change their mind. I see people in favour of the tag as Starke Hathaway, me, Rhoark, Sitush, Ryk72, ColorofSuffering. Opposed are Dumuzid, Strongjam, Peterthefourth, MarkBernstein, Aquillon, Jorm, ForbiddenRocky, Woodroar, Artw. People who have not weighed in, and have edited the article recently, are Torchiest, Brustopher and Koncorde. Let me know if I've missed someone. One could have a formal RfC for this, but it is rather overkill to have a RfC about a tag so we can have discussion. Kingsindian♝♚ 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Just to note, I'm opposed to using the tag to "warn" readers. Rhoark's original use of the tag I think was in good faith, although over-done with the number of tags added. One tag would have sufficed. However I don't think their suggestion is actionable as-is. It's basically a WP:TNT argument. I think it would be better served by an WP:RFC or by going to WP:NPOVN. — Strongjam (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The tag will be used to point readers to the discussion section marked "Changes". Of course if it was purely used to "warn" readers I would be opposed too - but that's not what it's for. It's not a WP:TNT argument either. The draft uses most of the same sources as the article. It is basically a rearrangement and change of emphasis together with elaboration on certain points and diminution of certain others. Kingsindian♝♚ 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It’s WP:TNT, as demanded by Gamergate spokesmen daily on Twitter. There is no consensus to change the article to whitewash Gamergate: as always, some Gamergate supporters -- coordinated in their usual off-wiki haunts and on Twitter -- want to excuse Gamergate's terrorism while directing as much traffic as possible to discussion of the sex lives of Gamergate’s targets. There's nothing new here, and there's no controversy over the neutrality of the article outside Gamergate itself. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to having anything on the main page point to the draft. That draft has treads way too close to BLP issues. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
move it to meta page. and way past 3RR ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And I am strongly opposed to what are effectively SPAs continuing to control the nature of this article, regardless of which "side" they prefer. You're one of them, obviously. If pretty much all you do here is contribute to matters connected directly or indirectly with Gamergate then you simply do not have the demonstrated capability to edit neutrally. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) struck the bit I think people have a probnlem with. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Well then, Sitush, I guess it's a good thing you have no more or less say than anyone else! Happy holidays from the madding crowd. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Support your positions with RS There isn't an ownership problem here. There are plenty of people pushing various non-consensus POV here that it's ridiculous to think there's an ownership problem here - just now there 4 or 5 editors all doing some version of the "article is biased" things right now. The 4 or 5 of them should be able to present RS that support their position. The "there is ownership" claim is nonsense. What there is are editors that can't drop the stick when consensus doesn't go their way - especially when their proposed edits violate BLP or have no RS support. The reasons these edits never gain consensus is that there isn't RS to back them up, or they violate BLP. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is proposing to point to the draft on the main page. The Template:POV has a parameter for the talk page section name, where people discuss the claims and counterclaims. The pointer would be to the "Change" section. Kingsindian♝♚ 20:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sensationalist material
Regarding this near edit-war[7], if your best reason to revert is the anticipation of future stonewalling, you might want to reconsider. Repeating threats verbatim is contrary to WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and the use of unencyclopedic tone is not an area in which we need to follow the preponderance of sources. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Documenting specifics, as reported by in reliable sources, is not unencyclopedic. It helps the reader better understand the what Quinn was subjected to, these were not vague threats, but very explicit, suggesting where and how they might harm her. I also don't see how this is falling afoul of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. We're not pulling a threat out of a primary source and giving it a wider platform, but quoting a highly respected reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Applying WP:AVOIDVICTIM in this way would give carte blanche to harassment, since any effort to describe the harassment and its consequences could be whitewashed under that (mis)interpretation of the policy. WP:AVOIDVICTIM protects the privacy of people not otherwise notable; we've had endless discussion of the (false) allegation that this specific woman prostituted herself, but now develop scruples over describing the heinous and widely-reported threats against her? The material is not in any way sensationalist; it accurately describes precisely the nature of the threats. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
AVOIDVICTIM addresses people not otherwise notable, but separately advises against "participating in or prolonging" victimization. Repeating a threat verbatim certainly seems like participation. A full quote will always be more complete and nuanced than a summary, but what information of encyclopedic interest is this quote expected to impart, apart from the knowledge that someone on 4chan wished Ms. Quinn harm? BLP considerations aside, it also seems like undue weight for a peripheral element of the controversy. I've been thinking lately the Quinn-related preamble to Gamergate could use a WP:SPINOUT to fully explore questions about matters that have been raised in talk, like Gjoni's motives or the literary stylings of 4chan trolls, without "burying the lede" when it comes to the cultural controversy. Rhoark (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to get much pull, Rhoark. Your argument that covering a highly public and already notable threat is somehow violating somebody's privacy doesn't make much sense. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
My own viewpoint is that WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply, or if it does, the case is pretty weak. But I think the explicit description of this threat is gratuitous and WP:UNDUE. There is already plenty of discussion in the section about the many threats which she received; one does not need to repeat the most crass ones explicitly in an encyclopedia. This almost seems like clickbait. I am in partial agreement with Rhoark's point that there is no indication that this led anywhere; this is just some disgusting guy on 4chan making a disgusting comment. Kingsindian♝♚ 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll just add my own thoughts here, not that they're worth very much! I agree that WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not at issue here. I tend to fall the other way from Kingsindian, but just. I think there is merit to including the threat as a qualitative matter. Consider the following threats: (1) "I am going to kill you." (2) "I am going to wait outside your address at xxx First Street and shoot you in the head with my rifle." (3) "I am going to encase your head in bubblegum and laugh as you suffocate." All of the foregoing are, strictly speaking 'death threats,' but to me, there's a large variance in quality, gravity, etc. As such, I think an exemplar of the kind of threats at issue here is not undue, and lean towards some sort of inclusion, but I also don't think it is strictly necessary. Part of my leaning certainly is that a quality RS chose to lead an article with the quoted threat--which is really neither here nor there. Make of that what you will! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As it would happen, someone in one of today's threads about everyone's favorite hypertext researcher happened to link the original source of this threat. Now, its an archive.is link of a 4chan thread containing a threat, so I'm not going to link it here myself. While it would be 100% permissible per WP:BLPTALK to post it for the purpose of evaluating the New Yorker source, I don't doubt some mook would try to get it revdelled or bring it to AE anyway, and I don't have time for that. So I'll just give you the highlights.
The root post of the thread links some general FAQ's about the situation at that point in time, encourages donations to TFYC, and encourages signing Boogie's anti-harassment change.org petition
Most of the thread consists of short low-content posts that don't even make an effort to be vulgar. (What, in the lingo, they call "shitposting".)
There's some morale building statements, Vivian James fanboyism, and discussions about whether #NotYourShield encourages unwanted identity politics.
Only mentions of Quinn initially are: someone with an FYI there was a false rumor regarding her tattoos, and someone called her fat.
The only mention of feminism initially is in the context of donating to TFYC.
The threat quoted in the New Yorker can be found in the 82nd reply to the thread. It's a bit longer than what was quoted, starting off with some complaints about feminists. All in all, it's unlike anything else in the thread in terms of content and writing style: It's long, with complete sentences, no ALLCAPS, and no chan vernacular.
The post with the threats gets 16 replies. All are negative. a few:
fuck off shill she's not even important anymore. no one cares.
No one cares about you anymore Zoe.
epic fails in shilling: the post
I have a feeling you're a shill making a huge archive of samefag false flags.
I know you are astroturfing these responses and preparing them for a compilation. Be aware that I've capped every single one of your shill posts and have prepared a series of compilation responses that prove they are garbage.
The thread continues encompassing probably more than 1000 messages in all. Scanning them, I found two more similar cases of a post written in markedly different style and proposing violent acts. Again they got a dozen or so short replies referencing shilling, astroturfing, false flags, etc.
Now, this is just my analysis, and I am not a reliable source, but its plain to see that any reliable sources seriously reporting on this as a credible threat of violence, especially to say it was "organized" at 4chan simply has no idea what they are looking at when it comes to 4chan. That's, in all honesty, not an uncommon state for journalists to be in. This is a hoax, and we are empowered to deal with that by editorial discretion. Rhoark (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark's work is good. However, I wish to emphasize the main point. Unless someone demonstrates that this was a credible threat of violence rather than some anonymous jerk saying stuff which happens a thousand times a day on the internet, this would be undue. Just because some news outlet quoted it does not mean we have to. Nothing major would be lost from the article if we just remove the explicit threat. Kingsindian♝♚ 07:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree heavily with your interpretation of this as harmless and nonthreatening. Or funny. Or not basically disgusting. In fact I would go as far as to say you've probably been rolling around in the worst parts of Internet culture if you think any of those things. Artw (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps slightly off topic, but the Samberg article hits the nail on the head regarding the phenomenon Artw mentioned.[8] Spending your teenage years on 4chan makes you view things in a completely different way to your average journalist who ends up writing about GG. If we're going into the realm of OR, I'd like to ask Rhoark and Kingsindian this: Imagine 4chan suddenly really disliking you and having threads about you reach the bump limit by the hour. You're personal info and life history also starts being spread around the net, so you decide to check these out. In one of those threads someone claims they plan to beat you senseless at the next convention you go to. Even if 9 other people oppose the threat (by claiming it's some kind of conspiracy of capitalist wreckers and nobody supporting GG did anything wrong ever), would you still not be scared shitless? But this was mostly a tangent. I offer no opinion on whether this quote should actually be added to the article. Brustopher (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If you offer no opinion on whether the quote should be added, I don't want to reply here. You are free to write this on my talkpage and I will reply. Kingsindian♝♚ 11:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark, the context you point out is certainly a repudiation to the idea that all of that 4chan thread openly wished Ms. Quinn harm, or even to the concept of organization, insofar as that particular threat was concerned. That's not what that paragraph is about, however. Ms. Quinn felt threatened; that is abundantly represented in the reliable sources, and I happen to believe it myself. As such, it's easy to see why a comment like the one at issue would catch her eye. Now, given the nature of 4chan, there was vehement disagreement about the threat (as there is with almost any post). This may make it unlikely that the denizens of that particular thread were likely to rise up as one to do evil, but I would say it has little to nothing to do with the credibility of the quoted threat. Violent acts have been threatened and evidenced on 4chan, and community approbation is not required (I am given to understand that this is sort of the point of the place). So yes, you've put a dagger in the heart of the idea that the threat represents all of the Quinnspiracy/Gamergate/4chan, but I stand by the notion that this is not, actually, what is being communicated. I am somewhat troubled, however, by the repeated "we" in the quote, and if it's to be kept in, it might be a good idea to add an explanatory gloss (something to the effect of "...though this threat met with much disagreement"). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There are no right or wrong answers to this question, it's a matter of judgement. Let me try to give an argument. To understand 4chan, I found this useful. The main thing is that 4chan content is not archived: it expires extremely quickly. Assuming that the threat originated in /b/, the median time before it expires is 3.9 minutes (it can go as low as 26 seconds). There are various ways to manipulate expiry time by the 4chan "community" to make it expire faster or slower. Now consider an analogous scenario on Wikipedia. Suppose some user (for example, a sockpuppet of this) makes a threat on some page against some real life person A. People shout abuse at the sock, till one admin comes along and rev-dels the threat. Suppose A saw the threat before it was rev-deled. Of course A would feel threatened. Would one then write on the Wikipedia entry that Wikipedia was used to "organize harassment against A", giving lurid details of the threat? To write a statement like this, there needs to be (a) a credible threat of violence (b) a causal way of doing said violence. (c) some kind of evidence that said violence occurred or was planned (d) some kind of evidence that the people in the board were involved in organizing said thret. Note that not only are all of the conditions not satisfied, none of the conditions are satisfied. Kingsindian♝♚ 14:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, I still think you are conflating two distinct issues. The quoted threat, as I see it in the article, is not evidence of coordination, but rather evidence of the general threatening atmosphere towards Ms. Quinn and the idea that she actually felt endangered. Your argument seems to me a non sequitur: because the threat does not seem credible, there could have been no coordination. The "harassment" referenced includes more than death threats, as I understand it. Moreover, I disagree that one needs evidence that violence "occurred or was planned." Threats can be, in and of themselves, harassment, even if the aggressor has no plans to carry through with them. People can have their entire lives disrupted by threats which are complete fantasy: witness the recent closing of Los Angeles area schools. You can certainly reject that there was coordination in the subject places, and/or deem the threat not credible, but neither conclusion leads ineluctably to the other. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
it was on /v/ where threads remain up for around an hour or two if they're active. Also while 4chan does not have its own archival service, third party services like archive.foolz.us archive everything (including deleted comments and threads) on major boards like /v/. Unlike JA who is to my knowledge a lone actor there is also evidence of people collaborating to dig up Quinn's entire life story including phone number and home location. Please note that the reason gg was eventually banned from 4chan was for violation of the sites doxing and raiding policies.Brustopher (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
JA is of course a lone actor, but there are copycats (you can email me for evidence on WP:ANI about this, I don't want to needlessly distress a third party for no reason). As to the rest, I am not conflating anything - I am giving an analogous example on Wikipedia. Of course, no analogy is perfect. Neither did I say that all of the conditions I listed should be met: I said, to the contrary, none of them were met. However, decently long experience in the Israel-Palestine area has shown me that no matter how eloquently or badly one argues on some topics, consensus is impossible. If one really wants to pursue the question of whether this quote should stay or be gone, it is best to open an RfC and not waste any more time. Kingsindian♝♚ 14:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We have to stay within the confines of WP:V, and as far as I know there is no RS to attest what the reaction to the threat was on 4chan. What we can do with editorial discretion is avoid presenting anything in such a way as to mislead. As you've noted, the threat's use of "we" gives the mistaken impression it was part of a conversation with engaged co-conspirators. Added to the other objections about this quote, it simply has to go. Now, regardless of the fact the threat was bunk, it's important that we not soft-peddle the impact it had on Quinn. She's done a lot of interviews, so there's plenty of RS's that say how it affected her, as well as quotes from Quinn herself.
This is also part of a bigger picture about how to cover threats generally, and especially 4chan threats. Their credibility and context needs to be scrutinized carefully, both by editors and in the article text. We have CJR about how 4chan is difficult to interpret, Sanberg about how statements there are often insincere, Cathy Young and Allum Bokhari going in detail about false threats being used to discredit the movement, with BBC and I think The Guardian having mentioned that idea in a way that wasn't dismissive. Finally, we have Quinn saying herself to the escapist that she exploits these facets to her benefit. @Brustopher: that seems like a perfectly reasonable tactical response, and one I might follow in her shoes. I don't mean to imply at all it diminishes the seriousness of the disruption in her life. Once again, it's not a reason to soft-pedal what happened to her in the article. However, when the subject of a claim is not Quinn, about but 4chan et al. it must be acknowledged that the sourcing is tainted. All the reliable sourcing we have about the existence of these problems needs to be placed in close proximity and equal prominence to any claims about things being "organized" by 4chan. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It was undeniably organized BY 4channers ON 4chan, so the contention that it wasn't organized BY 4chan seems like a semantic quibble more than anything. Artw (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you would find it hard to get people to accept your contention that the quote should go. I agree with the rest of your comment in many respects, however the implementation of such an thing is as important as the idea itself. One needs to emphasize the various things in the right proportion without missing or minimizing any crucial part. It will need some kind of draft on which people can give comments. Kingsindian♝♚ 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kingsindian here, but I feel the need to beat my same sad drum (with due apologies). I find the idea that the threat was likely 'bunk' and that there were no 'engaged co-conspirators' (how do we know this?) means that "the quote must go" does not logically follow. In my line of work we sometimes refer to 'verbal acts,' which carry a certain import no matter of the subjective intention of the speaker. If you say "I do" at a wedding ceremony, it doesn't matter if you mean it as a prank and your fingers are crossed--you're married (lots of other conditions to be met, but you get the idea!). Threats are, to some degree, this way. It doesn't matter that if this posed no actual physical danger, so long as Ms. Quinn was actually scared and was reasonable in her fear--two assertions that I find to be backed up by the reliable sources, and which I believe. I don't think there is an obvious procedural answer here either way. Rather the question is whether it improves the article, and I believe it does so to have some sort of exemplar of the things being bandied about. Again, I am not overly passionate about this one. The article can survive without the quote, but I think some sort of granular information there helps both substantively and stylistically. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your basic premise that, "It doesn't matter that if this posed no actual physical danger, so long as Ms. Quinn was actually scared and was reasonable in her fear", but that cuts against including the quote. There are reliable sources that can be used to directly say how events have affected Quinn.[9][10][11][12]. In contrast, the quote says very little about Quinn. It mostly serves to insinuate something about Gamergate (and what it insinuates is misleading.) Rhoark (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, these are complaints you should email to the editorial board of the New Yorker, not post here; they clearly highlighted the quote as emblematic of the harassment against Quinn, and several other sources have followed their lead. Our role as an encyclopedia isn't to second-guess the weighting or conclusions of the sources; our role is to reflect them. You're essentially saying that you don't think the New Yorker was right to use this quote so prominently, which isn't a valid objection -- you've said above that you personally feel that this is a hoax; but that's your personal feeling (or, at best, original research on your part), not something we can use to structure the article. If you feel that the New Yorker made a mistake, or disagree with what they said, then contact them and try to get them to issue a retraction; but as far as I can tell, it's one of the better sources, and its weighting is entirely reflective of the tone of most mainstream coverage on the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark writes of The New Yorker quote that “What it insinuates is misleading.” I’d like to see the multiple reliable sources on which Rhoark bases that conclusion -- sources so reliable that the legendary fact-checking of The New Yorker should be disregarded. Or, are we returning to that old custom of this page in which editors would assert that, despite the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, they have super-secret inside knowledge of what Gamergate is really about? 20:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This is about the impression a reader would form from the quote itself, and within the remit of editorial discretion. Now, find a reliable source that says explicitly that there actually were multiple people planning this attack together, then it will be different. Until then, we know as editors that is false and should avoid giving the impression it is true. Rhoark (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark is correct here - screenshots of the 4chan discussion in which the quote was posted are available, and verify that it was shouted down as a "shill"; there is no evidence that there actually were multiple people planning this attack, nor that it is indicative of the general tenor of the discussion in which is occurred. Giving the impression otherwise is firmly in the realm of WP:SYNTH; appeals to the authority of the New Yorker notwithstanding. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 01:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a quote from the first paragraph of one of the highest-profile sources to cover the topic, used (in that context) to highlight the nature of the harassment that Quinn was receiving at that point in the timeline. I think it clearly belongs in the article; as far as I can tell, most of the objections above ('was it credible', 'is it representitive', etc) are irrelevant -- if you feel that way, send notes to the New Yorker complaining and asking them to issue a retraction. Our duty as an encyclopedia, though, is to report what reliable sources like them say with the tone and weight reflected in those sources; and it's pretty clear that one of the highest-quality, in-depth sources on the harassment of Quinn at that point in the timeline feels that it is representative, relevant, and worth attention. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Our duty as an encyclopedia, though, is to report what reliable sources like them say with the tone and weight reflected in those sources;. That is seriously incomplete, but ok, let's apply this test. Look at all the reliable sources on this topic and weigh them based on their original reporting, depth of coverage, reputation for fact checking etc. Would such a sample contain a random, detailed, lurid quote from a single source? Let me make a prediction: nothing I said above will change anyone's mind. Kingsindian♝♚ 07:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It's also highlighted in Vice, as well as in two books on the subject; beyond that, I think it's reasonable to say that the quote is representative of the way reliable sources describe the harassment campaign against her. (That is to say, I feel that nothing about it contradicts the overall tone or emphasis seen in the majority of mainstream sources.) It certainly isn't random in any sense; again, the New Yorker is one of the most in-depth and high-profile sources on that aspect of the controversy, and it uses that quote for the lead. The idea that devoting a single sentence to a quote that the New Yorker used as its lead on that aspect of the controversy is somehow undue or random simply doesn't make sense to me. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Per previous comments I have made - the content is not wrong, it's just poorly written. That quotation for instance is just floating at the end of a paragraph. We could easily summarise it for clarity and brevity. But that goes for 90% of the article. Koncorde (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Our duty as an encyclopedia, though, is to report what reliable sources like them say with the tone and weight reflected in those sources; - I am unable to reconcile this with either the explicit impartial tone section of WP:NPOV, nor that policy as a whole - The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 01:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeating my comment from below: What this essentially boils down to is a tabloid-style approach to the content. The article is already loaded top to bottom with descriptions of how GG supporters have made threats of violence and rape against various women in the industry, and focuses on that issue again and again. Including a specific quote from one random, anonymous person, I believe, violates WP:NOT, specifically, WP:NOTDIARY. If this is to be an encyclopedia entry, it doesn't need to cover tiny specific details like this, when the essential point is made over and over. It should be an overview of the topic. —Torchiesttalkedits 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
1) Quinn isn't a random anonynous person in this case. 2) "If this is to be an encyclopedia entry, it doesn't need to cover tiny specific details like this, when the essential point is made over and over." In this case a sample of the threats is informative. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you're confused about who I was referring to. Quinn is obviously not a random person, and I'm fine with keeping her quote. But the specific item from the New Yorker article is tabloidy and shouldn't be included, as we really have no idea who said it or what the context was. —Torchiesttalkedits 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
To see a Wikipedian dismiss a New Yorker profile "tabloidy" is a moderately remarkable experience. I recommend it as a Monday morning pick-me-up for jaded editors, though they should be careful to put down their coffee cup first. However, we have a very good idea what the context of the statement was: the context of the statement was either an interview for a New Yorker profile or an authentic document obtained by The New Yorker. The example of the threat is indeed indispensable. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It is at least an unusual way to criticize it. If people think that the New Yorker isn't a good enough source for the quote, they can take it to WP:RSN, but I wouldn't expect much. If they think it's undue, they could take it to WP:NPOVN, but again, it's the lead quote of one of the main articles on the subject by one of the highest-profile sources to cover that aspect of the controversy, so I don't see how devoting a single sentence to it could be undue. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Argument from personal incredulity is not a counter argument. The New Yorker can be "tabloidy" whether we believe it or not. In this case, I am inclined to concur that the inclusion of the quote in the New Yorker article lede was fantastic, attention getting, journalism; but that is no reason to support inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 01:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The New Yorker is obviously reliable for the quote; that's not the issue. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is. If God himself reported the quote, it still wouldn't be of encyclopedic interest or tone. Rhoark (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
We determine encyclopedic interest and whether something is WP:DUE weight in the article based on the coverage of reliable sources. To me, the fact that the New Yorker highlighted that quote so prominently clearly indicates that it is of encyclopedic interest; your arguments otherwise, as far as I can tell, amount to WP:OR -- claiming that you don't feel that it's accurate or representative based on your personal understanding of the subject. That is a violation of WP:NPOV; you're asking that we omit a quote that one of the highest-quality sources in the article has highlighted as relevant to this aspect because (essentially) you disagree with the New Yorker's decision to using it so prominently. Again, that's an argument you should send in a complaint letter to the New Yorker in hopes that they'll issue a retraction; but it's not a valid argument here. We have to go by their weight. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Attention, yes. We should absolutely report that there was a threat to harm Quinn at an industry gathering. No matter how prominent the source though, it's a different kind of medium than Wikipedia. It's entirely appropriate for a cultural magazine to open with an arresting quote to grab the reader with emotional impact. No matter how reliable the source though, its not appropriate for Wikipedia to replicate that stylistic choice. If someone cares to examine it, they can follow the link. Rhoark (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that the section be rewritten to get the emphasis on various things right. That would require more work than I am currently willing to do. If nobody is willing to do that, I think a simple RfC, asking whether the quote should remain or not, should be started. It would bring comments from a wider population than the ones watching this page. In my experience in RfCs in the Israel-Palestine area, I have discovered that outsiders are often the ones who make the most sense, and help to break deadlocks. People entrenched in an area (myself included) often can't see the big picture. Kingsindian♝♚ 07:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My draft is shaping up. I will put what I have on WP (in userspace) today or tomorrow. The changes are wider than just this claim, and It will describe the threat but not quote it. This should not be regarded as an attempt at fait accompli, just that I find so many polcy-based reasons against it, I will not make any edit effectively taking responsibility for that quote. Rhoark (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
NPOV tag
This article is written to use sources that are currently "at war" (for lack of a better term) with the subject. Sites like Kotaku are naturally going to have a huge conflict of interest for us with the ability to write a neutral article. I suggest that the sources be trimmed and that any information that comes from a biased site be removed or refactored in such a way that it is written with a WP:NPOV rather than just being allowed to stand as an attack page. Lithorien (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Lithorien: Any specific statements you have an issue with? If you don't have anything specific and actionable the tag will be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: It's not a specific statement, I suppose. It just seems like this article is giving undue weight to one side of the controversy, which just happens to be the side that is being criticized. It makes it difficult to point out problematic phrasing when there doesn't appear to be a direct policy on how to handle biased sources... I suppose I should have thought it through more before tagging. Just doesn't sit right with me to have an untagged article that has obvious problems giving one side extra coverage. Lithorien (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Link to previous discussion about Kotaku in particular. I think Masem explained it best about the reason for citing Kotaku, I don't think anything as changed significantly about how we handle Kotaku. — Strongjam (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you for the link. I'll work on a draft on my own time and see if I can fix the issues I see, and then present it here for review. Thanks for not being bitey about it! Lithorien (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If Gamergate wants to be "at war" with people that's their own business and shouldn't affect our selection of sources here. See also any nonsense about an imaginary anti-Gamergate faction. Artw (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that sites like Kotaku have a "huge" conflict of interest that makes them unable to write reliably. Reliable sources are frequently attacked by groups they cover, and we expect them to continue to write reliably even if those groups have said mean things about them. The Chicago Tribune, for example, has been a right-leaning Republican paper since its inception, but it adhere to the accepted standards of journalism and remains a reliable paper. In any case, The New Yorker and Boston Magazine are not Gamergate targets. Or are we to regard everyone who reports on Gamergate as "at war" unless they're card-carrying members? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
...You mind doing a bit less attacking there? The New Yorker and Boston Magazine aren't gaming magazines and wouldn't be the target of any Gamergate-related bile, and would have no reason to become hostile and report biased journalism. I'm sorry you have an issue with my choice of wording, but it would be nice to actually hear your reasoning on why we should just assume that published rags like Kotaku wouldn't have a vested interest in smearing a group that is working actively against them.Lithorien (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I just checked your user page. Now I see why the response was so harsh. Forgive me if I retract my statement about wanting to know your reasoning - I think your feelings behind your statement are clear enough. Lithorien (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
That's like saying Nintendo Power should be used as a reliable source for feedback on Nintendo based games because 'they won't have a huge conflict of interest', Bernstein. Kotaku has been a primary focus for many of GamerGate's ethics concerns, even noted by references in this article. Even ignoring the fact that primary involved individual's statements are still being presented as absolute fact in here such as Quinn's or Wu's rather than their own statements, presenting that argument *alone* that there isn't a "conflict of interest" with Kotaku articles when their editor in chief has been personally involved in the ethics debate himself seems to not invoke common sense of any sort.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Kotaku is used as a source only three times, and each time alongside other sources. Which use(s) do you object to? Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Facts, as reported by gold-plated reliable sources, are used in the article. Some facts, describing the invidious and disgusting threats leveled by Gamergate against their chosen targets, are sourced by some of the world’s great newspapers and magazines to those who received them and reported them to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Far from being exceptional, this is precisely what responsible journalism does: report confirmed facts, sourced to those best able to report them. If Gamergate has declared kanly on The New Yorker,The Washington Post.The New York Times, and The Guardian -- as well as all as the other sources cited in the article -- that’s not been reported in many (or any) reliable sources. It's not clear to me that anything Gamergate has done or is likely able to do would represent a credible threat to The New York Times or The New Yorker; what Richard Nixon couldn't accomplish with all the power of the Presidency behind him, Gamergate seems unlikely to attempt. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dr. Bernstein. The melange of reliable sources used to spice up the article is appropriate. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that their main objection is to Kotaku, not to those. But as Woodroar said above, it's used only three times, and every time it's backed by multiple independent sources; those cites are only to illustrate its response in situations where it's specifically under discussion, and the one time we describe that as fact, it's because there's multiple independent sources backing it up -- that is to say, we provide Kotaku as the WP:PRIMARY source for its statements and opinions, when they are relevant, but only in situations where we also have WP:SECONDARY sources to provide interpretation and to establish that relevance. That's the appropriate way to use a primary source. Notice that we also, for instance, cite Adam Baldwin, who coined the hashtag and is therefore obviously not a neutral source, for similar reasons; he's central to the controversy and therefore it makes sense to cover his views. --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
false claims, npov, and hostility
This article is covered in NPOV and the discussions on the talk page above are openly hostile. As a result, I felt it might be better to raise a few concerns here than just editing the page directly. I've picked quote from the article that I think is representative of some of the problems with it. Quote:
> Journalists who did not cover the examination into Quinn's private life were accused of conspiracy, and a blacklist circulated by Gamergate supporters.[24] Similar accusations and coordinated attacks occurred on imageboards and forums like 4chan and Reddit.[18][25][26]
The claim in the second sentence "similar accusations [...]" does not appear to match it's source material. Though I don't have source 18 (Heron), 25 (gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting) mentions 4chan once saying:
> The #Gamergate arguments, particularly on 4chan, reference the term "social justice warrior" frequently and often. What this means, usually, is someone — often a woman like Sarkeesian — who is pushing for games to become more diverse or representative of viewpoints other than that of a young white guy.
and a second time mentions 4chan and reddit together saying:
> Thousands of comments on the matter were expunged from normally freewheeling 4chan and Reddit for reasons that weren't immediately clear, and a DMCA takedown notice was filed against a YouTube video using footage from one of Quinn's games.
These are the only mentions of reddit and 4chan in the source. Looking at 26 (Zoe Quinn claims 4chan was behind GamerGate the whole time), the problem is obvious from the title - the article reports on the claims of somebody involved in the controversy rather than making the claim itself. Reddit is never mentioned explicitly in the article, but subreddits are mentioned twice. First, to define internet slang:
> The screencaps show the IRC channel users discussing how "to cause infighting and doubt" within the ranks of feminists and "social justice warriors" (SJW)—a phrase that men in the men's rights movement, anti-feminist subreddits, gaming communities, and 4chan forums have turned into a shorthand for feminists and their supporters.
And second, incorrectly (adding questions about the value of the source). For editors who may not be familiar, 4chans different boards are not called subreddits (any more than facebook's groups are).
> In reality, #notyourshield began as yet another tactic for gamers and members of certain 4chan subreddits, namely /v/ and /pol/, to harass and silence women and other feminists in the gaming community who attempted to talk about the harassment Quinn and other women were receiving over GamerGate.
Such misleading claims and poor sources are the bulk of the content of the article. Is this something where I can be WP:BOLD and edit freely or is that a quick way to be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Perpetualization, and welcome. Making changes to this page won't get you banned, but be prepared for quick reverts/edits. As for your issues with the Heron source, you do realize that there are two other sources quoted alongside it? Perhaps you can find the missing references there? Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dumuzid, I must have been unclear. I don't have the Heron source and so can't verify what it says. My issue is that the other two sources alongside it do not support the claim. 17:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Perpetualization: I had updated the statement to include sources that do support the statement, and have undone your edit. The Telegraph article says Users from the messageboards Reddit – a sprawling series of communities – and 4chan – ... – hurled false accusations. ... They proceeded to dox Quinn ... If you asked a GamerGate supporter what was happening, they would tell you it was about ethics in journalism. Instead, it became a war against Zoe Quinn.. Heron, Belford and Goker goes into great detail about 4chan, while Massanari focuses mainly on reddit, but does mention chan boards as well. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Perpetualization, my apologies. I believe I read too quickly regarding your complaint. That being said, I believe Strongjam has responded regarding the substance. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
From what I understand Perpet is saying that the Vox source doesn't support the sentence and the Daily Dot source is simply reporting Quinn's claims. One major problem is that it is very hard to connect specific acts of harassment/threats directly to posts on 4chan/Reddit. We know that people discussed various things (including but not limited to harassment) in these venues and harassment did occur. Many people not unreasonably have concluded that they were linked. It is impossible to know for sure but we should report this. Perhaps Perpet can suggest some alternate phrasing? Kingsindian♝♚ 14:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to mentioned Reddit and 4chan far more times than is necessary, in general. Perpetualization (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
All of their organization occurs on Chans or amongst Chan members, and their primary publicity front is on Reddit, so no. Artw (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ars Technica's analysis also talks a lot about how the early waves of harassment were coordinated by 4chan users over IRC (and by my reading, it relies on multiple sources for this conclusion.) Heron, Belford, and Goker go into a lot of detail on it, too. You can find their paper here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Move request on a related page
I've started a request at Talk:Gamergate#Requested move 28 December 2015. I understand that there is a moratorium on move requests for this article. My request does not propose moving this article, nor would it even if this were allowed. Thank you. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In which entomologists insist that their obscure ant job category is primary over what everyone else in the world knows as "gamergate". Pretty funny, really. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, "everyone...in the world" might be slightly overstating the mindshare of an internet to-do. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I do overstate. I never heard about it on the Internet myself, but on NPR radio. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Possibly the other page would be a better place to have this conversation? Artw (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That's where the move discussion happens. The point of this section is to notify a set of editors who are likely to have an interest in that conversation. They seem to be absent, which is why it is so amusing, appearing that a lot of editors actually think the ant is primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. I saw lotsa people who posted on this talk page comment on that page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Intel is taking its fight against GamerGate even further
The lead currently doesn't explain what "Gamergate" actually is. From the title "Gamergate controversy" I'm implying that this is either about a controversy named Gamergate (like "Watergate" etc.) or a controversy around Gamergate, whatever that may be. Now reading the first paragraph to find out what Gamergate actually means, I'm told, it (= the controversy?) is "most widely known for a harrassment campaign…", so I'm implying "Gamergate" is not a controversy named Gamergate but might be a controversy around Gamergate – again: whatever that may be. In the following sentences I'm told how everything began and so on, but still it remains unclear what "Gamergate" is. Might it be a "who" – people gathering around the hastag #Gamergate? Next paragraph I'm reading "Gamergate's supporters" – so is it actually an entity, like a company or organization? The next sentence "Statements coming out of Gamergate" supports my assumption: It has to be a clearly defined entity that issues statements. OK, now I got it. But wait, do I really, or am I on the wrong track? I'm reaching the conclusion that the lead definitely needs to be completely rewritten – it is horrribly long, but also incredibly inaccurate, failing to answer an uninformed reader's most basic questions about the topic. --PanchoS (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem with the lead is that Gamergate really is an ill-defined grouping of subjects. In a paradoxical way, your confusion over the lead makes me believe you have a good grasp of what's going on. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Gamergate may be a confusing mob, and the fuzzy title "Gamergate controversy" might add further to the confusiion, but it should still be possible to find a few (!) clear and concise sentences that describe what this article is all about. --PanchoS (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've put in an incredibly bold edit, which I don't expect to survive intact. Let me know if it's an improvement! Hopefully some of the directness of it can be salvaged. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the comment about "Gamergate's supporters" lacking proper prior explanation has merit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Would we move to something like "Users of the gamergate hashtag", "supporters of the harassment campaign", or something else? I'm honestly kinda stumped as to how to refer to them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The idea of SPAs making incredibly bold edits here doesn't surprise in the slightest, although of course they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the article anyway. The reason you are all struggling to define is because the entire premise is nebulous and various people (both sides) are trying to massage things to fit the bits that can be ascertained into their pre-conceived framework. This will carry on until the article is deleted, as will the fallout across huge swathes of the rest of the en-WP project. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The solution in this specific case, as so often, is to ignore news stories, op-eds and the like. We should rely on what truly academic sources define the thing to be. And if there are none then we should just bin it. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Welp, that's not happening. Artw (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
So there are no academic sources, not even from feninist journals etc? In that case, we're basically knitting fog here. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, it will be written using Wikipedia policies. Take your weird deck stacking elsewhere. Artw (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you think of my latest changes to the lede in the hope of making things easier to understand, Sitush? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the latest, not even overly bold edits are a major improvement. Thank you! However, the lead is still too long and too weasly. Not everything about this topic is sufficiently important to be described in the article lead. We need to focus even more on giving the casual reader an overview about what this is all about, mentioning most important aspects of the controversy but not necessarily spelling them out in detail. I might have grasped what this actually is all about (I really didn't knew), but other readers may still be confused. From a gamers' perspective, particularly in the U.S., this might seem like the major news topic of the last years. Some feminists or feminism-haters might know about it, too. But the rest of the world still has never heard about this controversy. --PanchoS (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have begun to reduce some of the weaseling. I agree that the lede could be shortened by focusing on Gamergate's criminal actions, which are widely discussed, while reducing or eliminating the excuses and defensive prevarications, none of which is given credence by the reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, unless these "criminal actions" have been fully investigated and sanctioned by an authoritative legal court, we have to give both perspectives some coverage, of course according to how reliable sources cover the issue. I'm not trying to play down the actions, but I think that all contributors have to calm down a bit and focus more on the article quality and slightly less on their particular perspective. Probably it would be best to remove larger parts of the lead, and work through the text section by section, tagging unsourced or unreliably sourced statements as such, and replacing weasel language by a more concise wording as backed by the sources. --PanchoS (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It is highly improbable that you will find any substantial phrase in the original lede that is not thoroughly and reliable sources in the body. Numerous editors have pored over this at great length -- you ought, if you have not already done so, to review the talk page archives. You’ll find the last year’s discussions instructive. With regard to your first point, one can easily that a crime has been committed even though the criminal remains unknown; for example, we know someone used Wikipedia to threaten to murder Zoë Quinn, we have impeccable sources for the widely-reported threat, and no one will contest that threatening to kill someone because they're a female software developer is criminal. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My fault, MarkBernstein. I certainly didn't intend to downplay or whitewash Gamergate altogether, finally I still don't know much about it, partly because the article doesn't give me a good overview about the topic. I don't even harbour any sympathy for that mob, and what you're referring to are clearly criminal acts. All I wanted to say is that your post sounded a bit too furious to achieve an NPOV article that is informative for outsiders. But maybe, as an outsider, I should better leave this poisoned terrain here. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Seeing my edits described by an outsider as 'not even overly bold' is a bit of a shock. I think I'm too used to the regular reaction. Thank you for your perspective! I'm glad you think I've improved the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It is quite telling that you consider your clarifying rephrase "a WP:BOLD edit", but yeah, the atmosphere seems to be poisoned around this article. Nevertheless, a good encyclopedic solution has to be found and can be found. Finally, Wikipedia is where IS and AKP supporters, Assadists and Apoci go at lengths finding compromise solutions on articles around the Syrian Civil War, so it should be possible to handle this medium-scale controversy as grown-ups writing an encyclopedia… Cheers, PanchoS (talk)
I think it might be helpful if we refer to gamergate as a "blanket term," since it has no single specific referent. This would help PanchoS's (and others') complaint about what Gamergate "is," I think. But I am having trouble crafting even that phrase, as I am not sure how to describe the constituent parts. Harassment is obviously the most notable, but I think even that is a bit reductive. "Reaction to progressive forces within video game culture?" That's clunky and awful. But I think we should make the multifarious and nebulous nature of the term more apparent right away. Just my barely coherent thought on a Friday morning. Dumuzid (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the first paragraph of the lead to the earlier version. I have kept the rest of the changes by MarkBernstein, which were mostly copyedits. The earliest bold edit wasn't helpful, in my view. Firstly, it is repetitive ("harassment campaign" is repeated in the first and third sentence). Secondly, "discussion of it" is awkward writing. Thirdly, it changes the meaning: the earlier text referred to definition as the discussion around sexism and progressivism, while the later one defines it as the harassment campaign. The latter is a subset of the former. I am not opposed to rewriting the lead, but this was not an improvement. Kingsindian♝♚ 11:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed the first two issues you've brought up. Seeing as PanchoS finds the directness of my edits to the lede an improvement, and I don't see anybody else objecting, I've retained the more direct and descriptive first sentence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, by my reading, the current copyedit fixes most of the issues raised at the top of this section, and (while almost everyone has preferred tweaks one way or the other) PanchoS seems to be the only person saying that a total rewrite of the lead is necessary, so I've removed the tag again for now. There's probably still room for improvement, of course, but if we tagged every time anyone had an issue with any part of this article, it would never be untagged. PanchoS, I suggest identifying specific issues with the current lead which we can discuss fixes for, and specific proposals for changes; as you can probably see, people have very different views on even small details of the topic, making it hard to discuss sweeping rewrites productively. Incremental changes let us go over points of disagreement one by one until we reach a point where everyone is satisfied. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
From what it looks like, at least PeterTheFourth seems to agree that the lead in its current state still isn't really good, though the latest rewordings are an improvement. I also can't imagine anyone being really happy with the lead, but understand that the terrain is sufficiently poisoned that raising issues one by one might be the better approach. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead also lacks proper citation and sources. Saying that Gamergate is a "Campaign of Harassment" without sources that aren't just editorials from web blogs one way or another will be difficult, but I definitely think the lead should be changed to something less vitriolic, and something more explanatory of what Gamergate actually is, because to say that Gamergate is a 'Harassment Campaign' doesn't even seem encyclopedic to begin with. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The lede, adhering to Wikipedia style, summarizes the body of the article. Citations for the facts mentioned in the lede will be found in the body. None of those citations are based solely, or primarily, on editorials or weblogs. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources holds that Gamergate’s only notable accomplishments are harassment; hence, Wikipedia characterizes Gamergate’s activities as a harassment campaign. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Jenn Frank Quit Games Journalism
The article currently states "[Jenn] Frank herself received significant harassment for writing this article, and quit games journalism as a result." However in December Frank wrote this article about video games, and she is listed as a being employed as a freelance writer for Paste magazine. The only time this woman was mentioned by reliable sources (herehere, and here) was to state that the harassment of Gamergate caused her to leave video games journalism, but obviously she is still writing about video games. Her apparent return to video game journalism was not widely covered, but was mentioned in this blog entry where she calls her quitting more akin to a temporary retirement. So what is to be done? Do we continue to claim in the article that she has quit video game journalism in spite of the evidence to the contrary? Or do we rephrase the sentence to state that she only "stepped back" for a bit in spite of what the reliable sources state? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to this concern, ColorOfSuffering, as the ebb and flow of notability can sometimes lead to what seem like obviously untrue statements in Wikipedia articles. That being said, however, this one doesn't bother me that much -- in the sense that it is correct to say that Brett Favre retired from football in 2008 and also played professionally in 2010. Perhaps instead of phrasing it that she "quit" in an absolute sense we can say she 'announced that she was quitting/leaving the field/retiring,' or some such? It strikes me as being in line with the sources cited. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree it's not wrong currently, although not the whole picture. The blog post though would be fine as an WP:ABOUTSELF source though. — Strongjam (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, PeterTheFourth, read WP:OR. "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Honestly, if you have nothing useful to contribute here, do us a favor keep it to yourself. I personally like CombatWombat42's edit. I also like his username. If you all are satisfied, there's no need for further discussion on the edit. One parting point -- Frank discusses Gamergate post-retirement in this Slate article. I find it interesting that at no point does she mention harassment, sexism, or misogyny in spite of the fact that she was a "primary target." She also does a very capable job of defining Gamergate, which I'd been led to believe was impossible. This may be a useful source to include, or not. Anyway, thanks again. This has been very productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it interesting that at no point does she mention harassment ... Only if you ignore the bit about her being the target of hacking attempts. — Strongjam (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposing a change based on WP:OR is not purely a talk page thing as you are intending to change the actual page. If you weren't proposing a change to the actual page, then this section should be hatted as non-constructive. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what this means. I pointed out an issue with the article and it has been corrected. That's how this works. You really need stop trying to shut down talk page discussions. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead itself is original research. Where is the (proper) citation for Gamergame being a "harassment campaign"? Solntsa90 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This probably belongs in its own section, but for starters, you could look at this Newsweek article: [13]. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Also from Massanari 2015: "a campaign of systematic harassment of female and minority game developers, journalists, and critics and their allies." — Strongjam (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
These sources don't exactly exude a sense of impartiality. Newsweek is a *better* start, but it still is an article written by someone with an ax to grind (Would an article from Breitbart be as easily accepted? I hope not) but that page from that Massanari woman seems a bit lacking, especially considering it uses such an inflammatory, biased word as "toxic" in its own abstract.
I doubt my words will have much effect since the consensus by wiki admins (the only ones who really matter around here) seems to be stuck-in-place, but for anyone else reading this, consider the damn sources. Single studies, politicos writting polemics, etc. etc. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Solntsa90, just to be clear, the Massanari citation is from New Media & Society, a peer-reviewed academic journal, which is generally considered a good sort of source to have. If you have better sources, by all means, present them. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, yes, it's the admins. It's always the admins. --Jorm (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The Institute for Historical Review is a peer-reviewed journal as well, and that doesn't stop it from attracting massive criticism for Holocaust Revisionism. Just because its peer-reviewed, doesn't mean it is infallible. That is an argument that appeals to authority.
Is there any organisation that takes an impartial view in things, that did a mass study on gamergate and come to any solid conclusions about the nature of GamerGate? I'd love to see it. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that New Media & Society is anything like infallible, and I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of what I said. I said peer-reviewed journals are typically considered good sources to cite, which I think is true. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other peer-reviewed journals that reach different conclusions, but I haven't seen any. As for the Journal of Historical Review, which was published by The Institute for Historical Review, it is, so far as I can tell, no longer published, and unsurprisingly, was not peer-reviewed. I promise that I am perfectly willing to reconsider my positions and my stances with regard to this article. It's just that I won't do so based on Ipse dixit. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
'Hashtag Activism'
Hey. Me and Ryk72 are having trouble agreeing on how to summarise the GGC page for the Hashtag activism page. Honestly, I don't even think it should be there as I don't believe a harassment campaign is an example of hashtag activism, but in the interest of compromise have proposed my own summary which Ryk72 has deleted from the page. Any help in coming to a consensus would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Alt-right
I removed this claim that the alt-right "engineered" Gamergate, as the sources do not make say this. Do we have sources that actually make that claim? Woodroar (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I just removed the same paragraph frpm the alt-right page. That article is a mess even compared with this one. Artw (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
