Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:06, 6 September 2014

This article will get afd, most of what has been posted are not reliably sourced, you have no lead, and it just overall, poorly written. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Improve the article! It is certainly notable at this point, and I think getting more help on it would help. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. You have to start somewhere, and given the messy nature of the situation I couldn't write an initial entry which was full-grown as Athena was from the brow of Zeus, so have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP was referring to the previous version of this article, which was nothing but a list of links to Twitter posts and was definitely not a Misplaced Pages article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Lots of activity, suddenly. kencf0618 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

RSs

I think that this is probably notable - there are hundreds of articles about this now. Some suggestions:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn

http://www.modvive.com/2014/09/01/gamergate-accountability-problem-sexism-one/

Not a reliable source. No masthead, no visible editorial structure, appears to be open to just about anyone, no widely-known reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

http://www.gamespresso.com/the-reason-gamers-are-angry-with-zoe-quinn/26127

Not a reliable source for derogatory claims about living people; it's been around for less than one year, it has no established reputation for reliability and fact-checking and it offers no evidence that it conducted any independent reporting into the otherwise-anonymous claims about Quinn and her relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Really, I'd suggest finding a whole bunch of sources and going through and looking for the best, least biased sources, as well as trying to find recurring themes. A lot of sources on this suffer from extreme bias, and while it is possible to use biased sources, if we can find unbiased sources, that would be preferable, as they're much easier to use and more reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a protean story with a lot of facets. (Narratives about narratives, anyone?) I only put it up because it blew up on my Twitter feed, knowing full well that it'll take time to gel. Quite frankly, I hadn't expected coverage in TIME magazine. kencf0618 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had been involved with the Zoe Quinn article but hadn't been convinced that it was going to be notable as a thing on its own, but then it blew up and got hundreds of sources and now is far more notable than she is (and TBH I'm not sure if she's really notable, but that's another subject). I probably should have made this a few days ago after the explosion, but was trying to make sure it would stick, but with another 30-odd articles showing up on it, I think we're past the point where we are predicting notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Interesting, too, that the article on her is admin protected, and not the one on Sarkeesian, who had received death threats. Interesting differential. kencf0618 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, there were 32 revdels within a very short period of time, and even more edit and reversion wars. The present state of the article is quite poor, and there are some very angry people on the talk page. It wasn't protected for any weird reasons; it was protected because people were getting in fights. The talk page probably doesn't need to be protected, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be in this article

We need to work on getting this article into shape. As noted, this is a very complicated issue, and there are a LOT of biased sources (as well as a lot of vitriol) being thrown around over this topic.

Background

Zoe Quinn's past incidence of harassment and press, and questions of the legitimacy of the claims and the anger about her which existed prior to this whole thing.

I'm not super familiar with Sarkeesian's past; I know some folks got very upset about her in the past, but I'm not sure how directly related it is. Possibly worth mentioning if there are RSs on it.

Past of anger over the perception of social justice issues being pushed by some journalists and backlash against that.

Past of industry corruption.

Past of harassment of women in gaming.

Zoe Quinn incident

This was sparked by Zoe Quinn's ex's blog post. We need to note what is salient here and not go into the lurid details excessively. Seeing as this is what set the whole thing off, it needs to be noted, and it is impossible to cover this incident without noting what set it off. Please stop trying to delete this; as has been noted, something in multiple RSs is not a violation of BLP, and given that this whole thing is notable, we can't not include this information. We report on scandals involving living people all the time. The third guy mentioned in the ex's blog post does not seem to be a major thing in the RSs (I haven't found any mention of him), so we shouldn't mention him.

Some folks have gotten upset over this and don't understand BLPName. To be clear: BLP DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE USE OF PEOPLE'S NAMES, and we don't need to delete them from the talk pages if we're dealing with sourced material; whether or not they need to be mentioned in the article should be decided on, and trying to redact all mentions of their names from this page is unhelpful. Please see WP:BLPNAME. However, the names of insignificant individuals may or may not be specifically noted. Grayson and Zoe Quinn's names appear in a large number of articles; Quinn's name 100% needs to be mentioned. Grayson's name probably needs to be mentioned, as he is referenced by a large number of sources. The owner of Loveshack Entertainment has been mentioned in fewer sources, and thus maybe his name doesn't need to be mentioned; he should be mentioned, but he may or may not need to be named. Her ex's name has been mentioned in some sources as well; not sure if he needs to be mentioned or not by name. If you see someone's name mentioned in a manner which is inappropriate, you should not remove everything, just it; mass reversion is not helpful for moving the article forward. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Zoe Quinn's other, non-romantic associates worth noting here? Phil Fish seems like the most noteworthy, but might be better in reactions? Who else has been attacked in conjunction with the corruption issue?

Reaction

Harassment of Zoe Quinn.

By far the most notable part of this, as discussed in a wide variety of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably was at one point, during the early media blackout when it was mostly social justice types accusing gamers of being bigots, though they weren't mostly very RSs. At this point, GamerGate has more results than Zoe Quinn's harassment on Google News. It is definitely important to note, though the actual reason for it was, as noted, accusations of corruption, though the point of view that it was misogyny obviously needs to be mentioned. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, "media blackout" and "social justice types." Quite.

And no, the harassment of Zoe Quinn and others continues to be the main thread of the reliable sources discussing the issue. etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of several of Zoe Quinn's detractors (John Bain most notably).

Phil Fish's attacks, harassment, and claims of quitting forever again.

Censorship on various sites, which lead to further anger by gamers.

Media blackout in mainstream gaming press, which lead to allegations of corruption and coverup.

Kotaku's response re: Grayson.

Ethics policy changes at gaming websites which resulted from this.

The Guardian writer who ended up quitting after being accused of corruption after writing a piece supporting Quinn while supporting her financially on Patreon?

Accused of corruption by whom and to whom do you attribute the allegation that she quit after this, as opposed to quit due to public harassment as reported in these sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was mentioned on Al-Jezeera, among other places - she herself noted this. It was, as per usual, random people on the internet. And the harassment was precisely due to the accusations of corruption, as she herself noted. Indeed, that's what sparked most of the harassment, and indeed, a great deal of it wasn't really harassment so much as accusations of corruption. The Guardian even edited her article because of the lack of initial disclosure; apparently she originally wanted to disclose it, but apparently The Guardian's editors thought "hey, its about someone getting harassed on the internet, why bother?" Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

FBI looking into online harassment of game devs thing? It happened at the same time, but is reportedly coincidental and unrelated, because it was already being discussed. Still potentially noteworthy?

Social justice/misogyny controversy

There were a bunch of articles about this, but a lot of them are probably not RSs or at least are far from ideal RSs; many of them are terribly biased and it was, fundamentally, a fight on the internet. Probably notable, as it is touched on in some RSs, but I'm not sure how much attention to pay to this issue. Possibly should be integrated with the conflicts between gamers and the press?

Conflicts between gamers and the press

This got a lot of attention, as the gamers basically rebelled against the gaming press while the gaming press insulted them. Honestly this was probably what brought the attention of the mainstream media, so we need to talk about this, but I'm not sure what should be said exactly.

Anita Sarkeesian

Anita was both connected to all this and not, and I'm not sure how to properly integrate her criticism and harassment in with the rest of this. Honestly I'm not super sure what is going on with her thing; I mostly haven't been paying attention to it.

What else?

What else about this whole thing is notable and noteworthy and has some good RSs for it? What am I missing? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted unsupported speculative claims about a living person which are inappropriate per WP:BLP. This is a reminder that the policy applies everywhere on the encyclopedia and just because this is a different article than Zoe Quinn does not mean different rules apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, the material you are attempting to reinsert has been revdel'd multiple times by administrators from this article and Zoe Quinn on the grounds that it violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy. I suggest to you that if you persist in reinserting it, you may well end up blocked for violating that policy.

We need impeccable reliable sources for derogatory claims about living people, and the ones you have provided are not them, not remotely. Once again, this article is not going to be a place to repeat scurrilous rumormongering and veiled slut-shaming of living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)