The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Draft:Impact of Gamergate was created 19:32, 14 January 2024 as a result of this discussion at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) about possibly splitting off section Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) § Legacy from the main article. (Any discussion about whether to split should occur at the talk page of that article, not here.) As of rev. 1195681697 of 21:36, 14 January 2024, readable content of the draft is still a copy of the Legacy section of the article; the only changes are to pre-content matter, end matter, reference naming, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this Draft (as of rev. 1195681697 of 21:36, 14 January 2024) is just the four paragraphs of content at the top of section § Legacy before the first subsection heading. At 11kb, it represents one third of all the readable content of this draft—that's way too long. Also, there is plenty of material in it that is not a summary of the article and contains unique information not present in the body. One possibility, would be to simply stick a section heading above it, such as == Overview ==, which would solve both problems but leave the article with no lead. Still, that may be the best path forward, as a new lead could be written based on the entire content. Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved, with a § Overview section heading, and new lead based on a summary of the body. Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current naming and organization of the sections is chronological by years or range of years. This very likely stems from the organization of the main article, which grew organically over time, and updates were placed in new sections at the bottom, named after the year. However in this article, we now have enough perspective to look back and organize it differently, if we wish. As the impact has divided into several directions, I think it would now be best to organize it thematically rather than chronologically, but that would be a big change, and if attempted, should wait for resolution of the split proposal. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Social, cultural, and political impact" section in the current main article in theory describes the impacts Gamergate has had on three separate fields. A format like that could work well. But this article is largely about the evolution of the alt-right, conspiracy theories, and online harassment campaigns from 2015 to present. There's a lot of retrospectives to draw from, but I find it hard to say what section headers would be optimal. QAnon, Men's Rights Movement, impact on the Republican Party, white nationalism, it all feels very closely tied together so I do find it hard to section apart... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What is clear, is that the current, chronological structure serves the article poorly, and isn't the best approach for the reader. Whatever restructuring we come up with now will no doubt grow and morph over time with the contributions of other editors and discovery of more good sourcing, but anything is better than what we have now. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
