Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:17, 7 January 2015 view sourceStrongjam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,643 editsm →Why are we citing First Things so much?: c/e← Previous edit Revision as of 21:22, 7 January 2015 view source Tarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Why are we citing First Things so much?: - chillaxNext edit →
Line 215: Line 215:
::::I note that ] has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. ] ] 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ::::I note that ] has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. ] ] 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ::::Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


==wikipedia R.I.P.== ==wikipedia R.I.P.==

Revision as of 21:22, 7 January 2015

Skip to table of contents
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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 sourced must 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.
Draft Article

While this article is fully protected until editing disputes are resolved, there is a draft article which can be used to develop the content at Draft:Gamergate controversy. This talk page can be used to make suggestions to the draft article. Please note that the draft article falls within the scope of general sanctions and that edits made to the draft article are subject to sanctions. Please see {{Gamergate sanctions}} for more info.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternet culture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
  • Von Jan Rothenberger (10 October 2014). "Der Gesinnungskrieg der Gamer". Der Bund (in German). Dass sich Gegner und Befürworter auch auf Misplaced Pages bekriegten, rief mit Jimmy Wales auch den Chef der Webenzyklopädie auf den Plan. Er mahnte beide Seiten zur Ruhe.
  • Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity.
  • David Jenkins (20 October 2014). "2014: Video gaming's worst year ever". Metro. The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer's ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you'd find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62


This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 2 days 


Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

I just want to say...

This page has improved a ton. It still could use some work, that's for sure, but it's way better than November. If I could, I would rewrite the lead something like: "GamerGate is a movement of gamers who claim to demand ethics in video game journalism. Misogyny and harassment has supposedly been drawn to the movement and the majority of media focuses on it, but most proponents claim that this is a minority group. Althought the movement began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku in exchange for positive coverage of Quinn's game, these allegations were proven to be false. However, there was much upset in the gaming community before this, including marginalization of gamers and unethical journalism practices. Some have blamed the timing of the situation, claiming that Gamergate would have been better received by the media had the movement started by a verifiable breach in journalistic integrity in gaming journalism." Obviously, it's gonna need citing, but this is just me trying to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarang (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot easily source any of the pre-August complaints to any degree. We know things like the Gerstmann issue and Doritosgate exist as data points but there's no sourcing to connect this up. If anything the only sourceable connections is the prior harassment Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Fish got. And it's not that these sentiments didn't exist, but we simply cannot easily source them, tying our hands in any manner in this way. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Misogyny and harassment have not "supposedly" been drawn to the movement — they are verifiably the most notable part of the movement. It is verifiably and undeniably the case that Gamergate-related misogynistic harassment of notable female figures connected to video games is really the only reason why Gamergate has attracted mainstream media attention, and there hasn't been a single mainstream media article about them which hasn't mentioned what the movement is famous for.
I think everyone would be much happier if Gamergate was actually about ethics in gaming journalism, which means it wouldn't have been launched by false, nonsensical or irrelevant allegations against a female indie developer and wouldn't have devolved into a stream of ugly, violent, anonymous misogynist harassment of that developer and other women who have nothing to do with gaming journalism. A movement for ethics in gaming journalism is something pretty much everyone could get behind. Gamergate is not that, unfortunately. While you and others may fervently wish it was... well, it's not viewed that way by anyone outside the movement. The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources is clear, and only getting clearer. (I have been preparing to suggest an addition to the article based on the wide array of commentary at the end of 2014 which listed Gamergate as part of the "worst" things to happen during that year.) Misplaced Pages is not a time machine and we can't fix what someone else broke. The name and the brand, at this point, are what they are. We reflect what reliable sources say about something, not what supporters of that thing might wish people to say about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguably this is not true. There are ethics issues that have led to where GG starts; the dangers of MetaCritic, IGN's "10/10 it's okay" type reviews, accusations of favoritism, reviews ignoring game-breaking bugs/networking/drm issues, etc. As a avid gamer, I'm fully aware these exist, but its all in the undercurrents of the community and absolutely nothing that can be documented to any real degree, and particularly in connecting to GG. It is true that the methods - even outside of the harassment - that has been used by those claiming to support GG are considered unorthodox, impractical, and not the way to get a message across, but we should not pretend that there are no ethics issues at the core here, we simply are unable to document them to any degree. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no, this is not "arguable." There is effectively no dissent among reliable sources that Gamergate was launched by false, nonsensical and irrelevant allegations against a female indie developer, and there is similarly effectively no dissent that the movement's only relevant "accomplishment" is to bring attention to a seething undercurrent within video gaming culture that promotes sexism, misogyny and vile, violent harassment of women in video gaming and others who have critiqued or opposed this undercurrent. That is the only reason Gamergate even has an article here. We cannot say that Gamergate is what people within Gamergate wish their movement was about — we must say that Gamergate is what reliable sources view it to be. That these two things are entirely divergent is neither here nor there — it simply is. As per the reliable sources, there is no evidence that Gamergate has done or said anything meaningful about the issues you discussed — MetaCritic, IGN, reviews ignoring bugs, etc. — and the only allegations of "favoritism" they've made, which targeted someone's sex life, have been thoroughly demolished, debunked and discredited. Meanwhile, they continue a harassment campaign against a number of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with gaming journalism.
Your claim that there is something "we can't document" about Gamergate that would make it look good is precisely the issue — if we can't document something, it doesn't exist for Misplaced Pages's purposes. That is entirely the purpose and meaning of the verifiability policy. Gamergate's legacy is this: mentions in Bloomberg as an example of how "the year just ended was a banner year for misogyny." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to document it - without any sourcing we can't. But it is very unhelpful to bury our heads in the sands to anything outside of what reliable sources says in terms of discussing how this article can be improved. That is, knowing the overall circumstances means that we can stay on the lookout for RSes that start to develop those arguments better. Yes, until they do, we're not going to add anything new to the article, but a good researcher will know all the angles including the ones that cannot be included at the time, instead of acting ignorant that these other angles exist. For myself, knowing what they say on KIA and other places means that I know what to look for in RSes that might be able to document their side to some degree, even if I know that the press will never take some of those arguments seriously. We cannot prejudge any side of this issue like the press has chosen. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As the sources below make very clear, we know exactly what Gamergate is at this point, and what its legacy will be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We absolutely cannot take that attitude as impartial WP editors. GG is still for the most part unknown. We know what part of its legacy will be regarding harassment but that's it. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As the declarative statements in nearly every Misplaced Pages article lede suggest, one thing we do consider ourselves experts on is saying what things are. Earth is a rocky planet orbiting a star, lead is an element with the atomic number 82, the Bay of Pigs debacle was a CIA-backed attempt to overthrow the Cuban revolutionary government with John F Kennedy's assent, and Gamergate was a terrible blemish on the human race. We don't say maybe women in gaming were threatened with rape and death and maybe they weren't. That wouldn't be impartial, it would be lying. --TS 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
While I personally would agree that GG is a blemish, that's an opinion still. The most popular opinion, yes, but key is that it is not fact, and we can't edit as if it was fact. The lede and 90% of the article and draft does the proper job acknowledging that GG being a bad thing is the popular opinion, so this itself is not an issue on the current draft. But when attitudes are in place that want to turn opinion into fact (and that's an issue in both ways, including GG that want to factually state that the journalism side is corrupt), we have to be careful that is not reflected in the article. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That it is a blemish is an opinion; that it is viewed as being responsible for the vile and misogynistic harassment of a number of women in gaming and that its "ethics" claims have been widely debunked and are viewed by the overwhelming majority of commentators as little more than thin pretexts for said harassment are both verifiable facts. It is not my "opinion" that Gamergate is among the worst things to happen in 2014 — it is the viewpoint of a large number of reliable sources. Misplaced Pages content is, as Tony Sidaway said, precisely made up of the viewpoints expressed by reliable sources. That some people who support Gamergate disagree with those viewpoints is worthy of note, but it is not worthy of being treated as if it has equal validity with mainstream viewpoints within the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point - the difference between what is considered fact for an encyclopedia, and what is opinion. For example, when you write "the vile and misogynistic harassment", that's based on opinion. We cannot write the article in WP's voice in that tone. We can factually state there was harassment, it was ongoing, it forced women to flee their homes and call police for their safety. But we cannot describe that in WP's voice, in any way, as "vile and misogynistic"; attributing the attack described like that to the sources that said that, sure, that's fine, that reflects that it is opinion, but we cannot state it as a bare fact. It is absolutely necessary to discuss and edit this article with this clear distinction in mind, and that line is being toes or overstepped alot in the last few months. The article, draft or otherwise, is not grossly over this line, but one we have a stable situation when it comes to GG (such that the draft is not changing that fast with new sourcing/information) then we need to re-review to make sure that the article does not express any opinion on the GG matter in WP's voice. We'll let the predominate press sources explain their feelings in depth, for certain, but all as opinions, not fact. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate's legacy

With the end of the year, a number of reliable sources have mentioned or discussed Gamergate in post-mortems on the year that was. With critical distance from the main media explosion, these sources are analyzing what Gamergate ultimately meant or demonstrated.

Others forthcoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need every one of these as a quote (we've already got more than enough quotes and we're still working on quote farm reduction), but a line or two noting that numerous sourced named GG as one of the worse incidents of 2014, with one good summarizing quote, is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe a number of these are usable to support some significant postmortem analysis of why the movement has been a catastrophic failure. We can, at this point, write a section examining Gamergate's legacy and impact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I see a number of these also point out that the movement had ethical components. I assume you'll be looking to include those points of view as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they generally point out that initial claims were ostensibly about ethics, but that those claims were all debunked and discredited, and the response to these claims being debunked and discredited was not a heartfelt apology for making false accusations, but rather a torrent of misogynistic harassment and abuse directed at basically anyone who dared to point out how wrong they were. That's pretty much what our article says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
So that's a no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Clinging to debunked and proven-false "ethics" claims, and then harassing anyone who points out that your claims are false and harmful, means you aren't really about ethics at all — as the reliable sources above (and others) amply point out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
So a no it is, I guess. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Do any of the above reliable sources treat the ethics claims as valid or meaningful, as you apparently would like us to do? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just patiently waiting for the article to reflect the information that's out there. Hopefully it can get sorted soon. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they treat them as valid or not, they mention the claims, mention we can mention the claims too. We don't have to justify if they are right or wrong, but these RS give us the ability to discuss the nature of the ethics claims in more context. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It certainly does matter. The reliable sources here treat the ethics claims as all the other reliable sources have: as debunked, false, thinly-veiled excuses for a harassment campaign targeting women in video gaming. That's how our article treats the ethics claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. We are impartial, we do not judge from opinion sources. Because ethics claims - even if mostly debunked by the press - are discussed by highly reliable sources for this article, we can include discussion of them, as well as later the statements that they are debunked, because we as WPian must stay impartial and non-prejudgemential. We cannot take any side on this article, and failure to do so is failing the impartiality required by NPOV. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. Every reliable source says the claims are false. Therefore, we discuss them as false. Given that the claims involve highly-sensitive statements about living people, this is just so, per WP:BLP and other policies. Claiming that "we cannot take any side on this article" is a non sequitur — our article content is based on what reliable sources say, and policy dictates that fringe theories which are given no credence in reliable sources are only discussed in the context of mainstream viewpoints of those theories. Gamergate's "ethics" claims are a fringe theory, as amply demonstrated by the way in which reliable sources discuss them — "discredited," "proven to have never happened," "planned in plain sight by a vengeful ex-boyfriend", "the mask of ethics in video game journalism was meant to shield GamerGate from accusations of misogyny, rape threats, and sexism," etc.
I'm actively laughing at the fact that you're trying to use an avalanche of incredibly negative stories about Gamergate — demonstrating the clear and unambiguous consensus conclusion of reliable sources that the movement, such as it is, is a disingenuous tool of revanchist misogyny attempting to hide behind a shield of "but ethics" which has long since been stripped away to reveal the true seething heart of anonymous harassment — to somehow twist around and support your claims that "it's really about ethics!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, you are still very wrong. Impartialness is a factor of WP:NPOV, and we have to be able to distinguish between opinion and fact. Again, there remain very few facts that we can associate with GG overall short of what's in the current History section - it is a war of opinions here, that's why its a controversy. Further FRINGE states we give fringe views a neutral, fair treatment with the associated weight of ink they get from RS. So because ethics claims have been discussed, if not then debunked by the authors in the next breath, in these highly reliable sources, we can discuss them in a non-prejudging way and then later include the criticism of them; that's how we meet all content policies. End of the day we cannot appear to take a side in the GG issue, and everything you have said above is against that point. And that I'm "trying to use an avalanche of incredibly negative stories" to say its about ethics is 100% wrong. I'm trying to introduce the required impartiality into the article per NPOV. I don't necessarily believe at the end of the day GG is about ethics, but they have presented that as their case, and as we are an impartial encyclopedia, we should include any facets of their case that have been appropriately documented in highly reliable sources. Failure to do so is showing a partial view of the story. The fact that these claims are made in negatively-charged stories doesn't matter, they are stated in what everyone here is considering as highly reliable sources; most of what we know about Westboro Baptist Church, for example, comes from highly-negative sources about the congretation, but we still can document what the church claims about itself from them. That's exactly what we must do here. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No. We cannot discuss false claims about living people "in a non-prejudging way." That is fundamentally impossible and wholly unethical. Gamergate's claims of unethical behavior by specific living people have been debunked and proven to be false, and our article must so state. Period, the end. Your mistake is to conflate some religious debate over tenets of a holy book with anonymous Internet trolls making false and highly-defamatory allegations against named living people. Policy demands that we not present living people in a false light and that is non-negotiable — we must and shall present claims against those people as false, period, the end. Gamergate's founding mistake was to make false and highly-defamatory claims against specific people, and then cling to those allegations long after they were proven false. You cannot go back and undo that post-facto. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But the ethics claims mentioned in these RSes include non-BLP related claims that can be discussed without issue. Further, as per the initial Quinn incident, if there is an ethics claim that includes a BLP statement that is significant discussed and debunked in highly reliable sources (note, I do not think there is any claim that meets this level at this point, I'm just postulating here), there is no reason we cannot cover it as we, though with the same care we took with the Quinn accusation. Most of the ethics claims in the given sources are towards the industry as a whole, and not targeting any specific persons. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
These RSes don't mention any other such claims, actually. "A fear that criticizing games for misogyny or a lack of social awareness will result in a politically correct makeover of the medium" is not an ethics claim — it's a conflicting opinion about culture. That is to say, a culture war. Which is the point that many reliable sources make.
You're right that Gamergate has "presented (ethics) as their case," but that "case" has been tested by reliable sources and entirely rejected as disingenuous if not fabricated from whole cloth. It's not a matter of substantive debate anymore. As our article states, I'm sure Gamergate supporters believe their movement is about ethics. Everyone else says it's not, and that means, giving due weight to reliable sources, that our article will present the overwhelming majority viewpoint as predominant while noting that those within the movement disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between the balance/weight and impartialness, which keeps getting lost here, and keeping in mind both facets are equal components of WP:NPOV. The predominate number of sources says that we will present the press's view that GG is really not about ethics as a major point, that is true. But because we are impartial and non-judgemental, we cannot present the press's view, that GG is really not about ethics, as a fact. It remains their opinion even if 99% of the sources state it. The GG view that it is about ethics is also an opinion, but we will impartially present both opinions as an impartial, non-judging entity documenting the situation, with weight appropriate to both sides (meaning very little but at least some for the GG side). And yes, some of the GG points they say are "ethics" are really about the culture but its still their arguments, even if misnamed/misguided. As long as high quality RS document them, we should be including them to be an impartial source. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep making this claim and yet never identifying any actual issues in the article where we are not impartially transmitting what the sources say. Please begin identifying where these issues are occurring or drop your stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's happening in these discussions, that's the problem. The draft article is moving too fast to state what the issues are, but its also something better to fix once the situation of GG is mostly stable (it's not yet). But attitudes on this page in the past have persisted to the article in the past (the past points have been changed enough), and so we have to temper the attitudes here. We're here to edit an impartial, neutral article on GG, not to comment on the GG situation ourselves, and when discussion here is not towards an impartial treatment, that is a problem. You're free to talk whatever smack you want personally about GG elsewhere in the Internet, but here we must stay neutral, regardless of any personal feelings on the matter. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

From Doxxing to Swatting

I've just added the below to https://en.wikipedia.org/Swatting. The escalation from doxxing to swatting is definitely noteworthy:

On January 3, 2015, twenty Portland, Oregon police officers were sent to the former home of transwoman and former GamerGater Grace Lynn following four months of on-line harassment. Her tweets deescalated the situation, inasmuch as she proactively checks for on-line harassment daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencf0618 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not saying this isn't something serious, but there's no evidence in the sources of this being tied to Gamergate. One of the sources cites an anonymous 8chan /baphomet/ (?) sub board post which appears to be about satanic goat worshippers who like to raid people. I know quite a lot of people were upset with this person when she didn't deliver on a kickstarter project. No qualms with its inclusion on the swatting article, though I think the language could use some clean-up. Concerns about how this would be included in this article as it would seem circumstantial. Weedwacker (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The oregonlive ref connects it directly to GamerGate; since they're a reliable source, that's sufficient to include it here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Earlier this month, she began proactively searching for her name. On Friday, she found an 8chan thread showing that users were planning to send a police SWAT team to her house. They said they weren't members of Gamergate, but Lynn said they are supporters of the movement. The source is reporting on her opinions, so if it's included it should be stated as that. Weedwacker (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct, and given that the source took those opinions seriously enough to include them, and to headline the article "Gamergate," we can similarly report that Lynn stated her belief that the attackers were linked to Gamergate. Also, please don't insert unreliably-sourced claims into the encyclopedia. TechRaptor and Misplaced Pages are obviously not reliable sources, and I'm not sure there's any consensus about CrowdfundInsider — at any rate, the fact that it cites RooshV's "Reaxxion" brings the article into serious question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you object to a direct citation of the kickstarter stating it failed, and me merely mentioning that? That seems to be good enough for Misplaced Pages's article on it. I agree techraptor is not a reliable source, there's no consensus on crowdfundinsider but it has been used on other articles here. Weedwacker (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Stating here that the Kickstarter failed is fine, but relating it to the swatting issue anywhere in articlespace would be original research unless there's a reliable source which has done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have stated it as such, and since original research does not apply to talk pages, I am not arguing for the mention of such in articlespace just stating it here. Weedwacker (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
A single local news source about something concerning someone from the area hardly warrants inclusion on this article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure it does. It's published in The Oregonian, the largest newspaper in the state of Oregon. That's hardly a minor source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No it does not. This story is just "something happened here possibly connected to something else that has gotten national media attention!" A very weak connection made by an "in our area" story just does not cut it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Made the NY Daily News as well. — Strongjam (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Also now in The Verge: 'About 20' police officers sent to Gamergate critic's former home after fake hostage threat and KOIN: Portland Police respond to ‘swatting’ incident. The reliable sources reporting on this are multiplying. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The Verge states "It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out." While the Daily News garbles it a bit, they basically say this is Lynn's claim that it has anything to do with GamerGate. It should be understood that 8chan had posters well before GamerGate and people have recently flocked to 8chan for reasons only loosely connected with GamerGate such as the recent /pol/ shenanigans. Lynn, while being against GamerGate had also been campaigning against 8chan in general that had some success with removal of the site from Patreon. Another thing to keep in mind is that the old GamerGate board on 8chan is under the control of a GNAA troll who openly admits to inciting threats against prominent opponents of GamerGate to make GamerGate look bad. If we use two reports in non-local news as a basis for including this then it should be in the context of sources strongly pointing to it being unrelated trolls.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But the actual swatting took place on a separate board for general anti-social mayhem, and users joked about Gamergate supporters "taking the fall" for the attack. It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out. I do think that this is notable for inclusion though, as the victim is a former GG supporter turned critic.starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This story now has several references in reliable sources including The Oregonian and the New York Daily News, as we can see. --TS 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent source: ibtimes.co.uk: GamerGate trolls send police to wrong address in botched swatting attack. --TS 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. GamerGate swatting of transwoman and former member.
  2. /2015/01/prank_call_sends_several_polic.html
  3. Silverstein, Jason (January 4, 2015). "'I am afraid for my safety': California woman has 20 police sent to former home in Portland as part of Gamergate harassment campaign". Daily News. New York.

POV

I'm sure this has been talked about, but seriously, I don't know much about Gamergate and thought this article would help me understand it. It hasn't, because it presents a confused, one-sided picture. The opening paragraphs barely explain what the movement's actual stated goals are at all, and instead, they mostly just focus on the harassment of women. Since harassment and misogyny are obviously bad, it seems clear that the intended effect of these paragraphs is to discredit Gamergate and show it in a negative light. Maybe it deserves that, I don't know, but it seems quite POV, and that's against Misplaced Pages policy. This website's job is to explain, not to tell people what opinion to have. GranChi (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the draft opening is trying to say, it's genuinely awful. Koncorde (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I too am left confused about the topic and puzzled at the article's clearly biased approach. GeiwTeol 12:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes many editors are holding off on even bothering trying to improve the article until after the ArbCom case has concluded. Weedwacker (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Grace Lynn swatting incident

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

The senseless tragedy continues:


This article cites both The Oregonian and the New York Daily News.


Just when we thought the seriously nasty stuff was over. --TS 04:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We are already discussing this above and the sources acknowledge that this is likely done by someone with no ties to GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are we citing First Things so much?

I get impression that First Things has inherited the mantle of Erik Kain in the draft article. According to the ref list is now up to five citations. Is it because of the novelty of a conservative view being expressed in a reliable source? --TS 03:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • If it's a reliable source, then what's the problem? The New Yorker is cited at least six times, The Washington Post at least eight, New York at least five, Vox at least seven, Columbia Journalism Review at least eight. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is a first-person opinion column, not a news story, and must be cited as such. I write not because I am a Gamergate partisan—the movement was largely over by the time I had thoroughly investigated it—but because Mary Eberstadt is right: silence emboldens the practitioners of the New Intolerance. Gamergate was not a perfect movement, and neither was the loose coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians who opposed the social justice incursions into science fiction. But someone ought to speak out. If we wait for a perfect victim to emerge, we will be waiting forever. It's an interesting and useful source for a contrary opinion to the predominant one, but must be presented as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've no problem with it being cited, but I worry that we often fall for a kind of recentism, picking up a novel article and giving it rather more weight than it can bear. The article suffers in such circumstances because one voice is being repeatedly juxtaposed to many others, in a way that gives it presentation false balance. It's a bit like altering our article on global warning to insert at length, and repeatedly, the views of the tiny minority of scientists who reject the well established greenhouse effect. --TS 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The greenhouse effect is a scientific phenomenon. GamerGate is a huge mess. Now, on your "tiny minority" argument, if you'd look at the Misogyny and antifeminism section, we quote over ten sources (including The Washington Post / The Week / Iowa Public Radio / Macleans / Develop / GamesIndustry.biz / On the Media / The Daily Beast / Mother Jones / The New Yorker) who express an anti-GG POV, and you're protesting against one source (perhaps the only one) which provides a dissenting POV? You'd rather have 10-0 versus 10-1, that's balance to you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
When talking about weight in articles, we don't just talk about how many sources are used, but how frequently these sources are cited and to what extent Misplaced Pages uses these to display information. I believe Tony Sidaway is talking about how frequently the source is cited, not just it being cited (which he seems to not mind.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As I have pointed out above in my first comment, there are at least four more sources which have been cited more than First Things. Upon further reading, the New York Times has been cited seven times in the article, the Verge eight... get my point? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Those sources should be cited more, as they have each written multiple articles discussing the issue which represent the predominant, mainstream point of view on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
But this is a social issue, not a scientific one. There are multiple ways of interpreting a social issue; there is no need to double down on a single standpoint, especially when one of your principal sources is The Verge, which is a tech blog, not a journal of American society. Shii (tock) 12:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Verge is far more widely read and more respected journalistically than First Things, an explicitly-religious, socially and politically conservative journal. Moreover, there aren't multiple ways of interpreting false allegations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Shii (tock) 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Our article on First Things helpfully describes them. The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society. With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism. Meanwhile, The Verge nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today.
I happen to think First Things is well-written and generally well-argued. But there can be no argument that it's anything but a platform for primarily conservative religious and social views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there something bad about expressing conservative religious views, that makes them not notable or relevant to American social upheaval? In the lead to that same article, we have a Newsweek quote calling First Things "the most important vehicle for exploring the tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking world." I would argue that a religious outlook on social issues is more relevant than The Verge which is basically an industry and product review blog. How exactly do we determine who the most relevant voices are in American society? Shii (tock) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The entire article reeks of recentism, and from one side of the discussion as well. There are more sources like First Things out there, we'd be smarter to find more like it than complain about reliable sources that are more accurate than the ones we currently use. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It does not "reek" of one side of the discussion. The "discussion", such as it is, is the general public looking at gamergate and being rightfully thoroughly appalled at the vicious sexist harassment and essentially ignoring idiotic claims of "but ethical journalism will be just presenting 'objective' reviews of games - ie whether or not they are fun" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've said. It reeks of one side of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is only one side, I'm afraid. The minor, dissenting "but ethics" point-of-view is not equatable, and is given the coverage that it is due, per policy. That is all we can do, is go by the reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As noted before, there are multiple sides and facets to this issue, of which only one gets a hearing here, and it's not due to the lack of coverage. This will be dealt with soon, I'm sure. No established editor wants to go outside of the reliable sources, but many of us do want the reliable sources used appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The best way to make it better is to suggest changes, complete with appropriate sources. If the coverage is there (which I dispute but if it is there) then you should be able to do that.Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Misplaced Pages editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What any outside group wants is not my concern. I'm interested in a neutral article on a controversial topic, and we do not currently have that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually we do have that now, just needs a little quotefarm and bloat cleanup. The focu of the article as the Draft version stands is essentially correct. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The draft article has a very skewed focus that does not reflect the accuracy of the situation, which is a problem that will need resolution eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it does reflect the accuracy of the situation, as per all the reliable sources. Even the movement's supporters (c.f. First Things) admit that Gamergate is effectively dead at this point. The movement has devolved into random swatting, doxing and invective targeting its opponents, and isn't even pretending to be about "journalism ethics" at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is what our article says, yes. The concern is what is actually occurring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You and others have been repeatedly invited to present the reliable sources which say something else is occurring. That you and others have been unable or unwilling to do so suggests the accuracy of the situation is, indeed, well-reflected by our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Many have and continue to do so. That the process has largely been driven by bad acting than fundamental encyclopedia building is why many of us, myself included, are taking a more wait-and-see approach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have all seen the attempts to present anonymous blogs and Breitbart as acceptable sources for salacious and highly defamatory claims about living people. They continue to not count as reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll join you in continuing to not want to include those sources in there, while continuing to criticize the skew of this article and the behavior that has created the failed article we currently have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two of the five times First Things is cited its just a footnote that's been tacked on to something already cited in another source. So it's not really that overrepresented. Bosstopher (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd say that it should just be stripped out. The purpose of the article is not to enumerate every comment anyone has made; the purpose is to give an overarching description of coverage. One blog post by a media commentator does not change that, and it is giving it WP:UNDUE weight to include it without further support that the opinion expressed is significant (eg. similar commentators stating similar things.) Additionally, after looking over it, it was frequently quoted in areas where the quote or opinion it was cited for was tangential to the topic of the paragraph; remember, quotes and cites shouldn't be added simply as a way of indirectly repeating your own opinions in the article, but because they genuinely illuminate noteworthy swaths of the public reaction. I'm not seeing that here. (Remember, we just managed to trim the article down from the QUOTEFARM warning; if people start citing random blogs to argue point / counterpoint against each other by proxy, it'll explode back to there in no time.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh come on. Any pro-GG POV is obviously the minority, so you're raising the bar to "noteworthy swaths", as well as dismissing the source as a "random blog". This plainly increases the partial slant of the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
How long until you get it? You have stated it directly above, as per policy we represent the viewpoints of the subject as they are representative of the mainstream views. Since the mainstream views of the subject are near unanimous in their reception/view, per POLICY, our article will reflect such a view, and ONLY by doing so will the article be/retain its encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says; we don't pick the predominate opinion and only present that. It will get the most details in the article, yes, but we don't simply omit other opinions. We cannot take any view even if it a near unaminous view taken by reliable sources, and we should be looking for reliable sources that cover the other side of the issue or give counterpoints, as long as those sources are strong reliable sources. I don't think this source qualifies as such, but the point is that to be neutral, we should be trying to find ways to be able to cover counter points if they are minority views; if more than singular sources express these points, we should be discussing them here. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Aquillion's comment here goes to the heart of my concerns. The viewpoint expressed in that essay is an extreme outlier, so all bt most cursory references risk unbalancing our article. Indeed we're using it in several places to gainsay the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. --TS 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the viewpoint is different does not change the fact that First Things is one of the most reliable and notable sources when it comes to analysis of American civic life, and is far more noteworthy than the likes of Vox and The Verge. Shii (tock) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I note that User:Tarc has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. Shii (tock) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — Strongjam (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? Tarc (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia R.I.P.

Complaints about policy don't belong here. Try WP:VP instead. — Strongjam (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is a good example of why wikipedia falls apart due to taking verifiability and trusted sources over truth and original research. Many of the sentences in the article come from cited sources which publicly over Twitter support both Quinn and Sarkeesian, believing the entire affair an attack on women. Not surprisingly they are friends with other news writers, who use the original articles as study. The entire internet media report becomes an endless regurgitation of the same talking points over and over with no oversight or counterpoints. For lords sake you are citing people from comments on the article now?

I suppose I should have expected wikipedia to eventually be corrupted. The page will be never viewed as biased, since all your trusted sources are biased. Of course what I say here will never be mentioned in the actual page, because everything I say here is either from an untrusted source or original research. Therefore I am a crazy person who wears a tinfoil hat to bed every night. Have a good day wikipedia, I hope your editors get their kickbacks in the mail soon. Kau-12 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Any real points to make, or does the article just not agree with your own point of view? Neither Quinn or Sarkeesian are 'news writers' so I'm not sure what point you're making.Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kau-12: You mentioned a quote from an article comments section being in the article, could you please state which quote you're talking about? With regards to your comment about public support, pretty much everyone who's written about Gamergate has an opinion on it and supports someone or the other, either publicly or privately. If we took your approach we wouldn't be able to cite anyone. Please note that people who have come out publicly in support of Gamer Gate over twitter, such as Allum Bokhari, William Usher and Cathy Young have also been cited when they have written for a reliable source. Bosstopher (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bund

I found a new source from a liberal swiss newspaper that offers a non partisan view of Gamergate including these interesting tidbits

  1. Misplaced Pages Vandalism
  2. How Gamergate members see every negative press mention in the mainstream media as a conspiracy against them (thus justifying the conspiracy category)
  3. How involved Journalists and Critics see gamersgate as a loud minority.
  4. Jimmy Wales telling both sides to calm down.
  5. A Big Group of gamers distancing themselves from the organised Harassment. A small number of members feeling that the gamergate hashtag is compromised who therefore want to start a new hashtag.

its a start to the recentism issue. Avono (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's from October (not necessarily a problem) and the article consistently misspells Gamergate (also not necessarily a problem, given it's a German language newspaper). What does it add to the topic, in your opinion? --TS 03:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no such misspelling, it's probably your translator. I'd say the five points Avono above are what he thinks it adds? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 2. Die Aktivisten und Unterstützer von Gamergate wähnen sich im Krieg gegen eine mediale Grossverschwörung, die «Gamer» als Sexisten brandmarken wolle und Vorwürfe um Interessenkonflikte der Spielepresse ignoriere.
  • 3. Betroffene Journalisten und Kritiker sehen dagegen eine lautstarke Minderheit von Verschwörungstheoretikern am Werk and Der eigentliche Streit entzündete sich aber an einer Reihe von Artikeln über den Begriff «Gamer»: Verschiedene Onlinemagazine konstatierten, die Gameridentität werde von einer kleinen Gruppe vereinnahmt, die sich durch pubertäres und reaktionäres Männlichkeitsgehabe auszeichne.
  • 5. Ein Grossteil der Spieler distanziert sich allerdings von den organisierten Hassaktionen. Einzelne Vertreter sind sogar der Meinung, man müsse den durch die Hasskampagne kompromittierten Begriff «Gamergate» aufgeben und ein neues, einendes Banner finden.
Yes, it was my translator. Don't we already cover these points in much greater depth, and with due weight, in the article? Some of the major mainstream press commentaries came after that Swiss article was written. --TS 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request - Gamergate hastag

In the draft, under "Gamergate hashtag", we have this line:

"As of October 2014, it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 internet users supporting Gamergate"

This is rather vague - I really don't know what it's referencing. 10,000 people supporting which side? Or 10,000 people talking about it in general? What does "supporting" mean in this context? Can someone clarify?

Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Our article cites CJR on this. CJR is referring to an article in Deadspin which says "By most metrics, Gamergate comprises an insignificant fraction of video game fans. On Reddit, for example, the main staging ground for Gamergate has reached 10,000 readers, representing .17 percent of the more than six million readers on the general gaming subreddit." --TS 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Intel pledging $300M to support diversity following GG

This would be part of a section on the "result" of GG's actions of the industry seeing and trying to fix the problems it has with its own treatment of women as brought out by GG, per some of the above sections. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's big news. Just added NY Times as a source for this, I'm sure more will come. — Strongjam (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Wired If you are still looking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Do I reopen an edit request if it went unanswered and archived?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@DoctorWho42: Yes you do --RetΔrtist (разговор) 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!--DrWho42 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2015

This edit request to Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

wiki-link to Max Read --DrWho42 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until the completion of the AfD process. — Strongjam (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fair.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories: