| Revision as of 22:42, 6 March 2015 view sourceMarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,220 edits →Explanation of Revert by Strongjam← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:37, 7 March 2015 view source Starship.paint (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,608 edits ThinkProgress is a blog and has won many awards for being a blog.Next edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| |url5=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html | |url5=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html | ||
| |quote5= ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ... | |quote5= ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ... | ||
| |autho6=Lauren C. Williams | |||
| |title6=The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Misplaced Pages Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims | |||
| |date6=2015-03-06 | |||
| |org6=Think Progress | |||
| |url6=http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/03/06/3629086/wikipedia-gamergate-war/ | |||
| |quote6= It’s interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Copied |from=Draft:Gamergate controversy|from_oldid=638615388 |to=Gamergate controversy |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=638642070&oldid=638639983}} | {{Copied |from=Draft:Gamergate controversy|from_oldid=638615388 |to=Gamergate controversy |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=638642070&oldid=638639983}} | ||
Revision as of 04:37, 7 March 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 | WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. |
 | 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. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
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. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | 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. |
| 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. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | 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 |
|
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. |
|
| 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 discretionary sanctions.
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Potential source material for inclusion
I don't want to extensively edit this article only for it to be reverted. And out of some caution, I'm going to mention the below link: (Redacted)
It extensively talks about the affidavit by Zoe Quinn. I do not feel certain in my ability to include this in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foia req (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Medium is not a reliable source. Redacted link due to BLP concerns. Woodroar (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but this is a talk page. Furthermore, how are reliable sources being defined? I wish to contribute to this article, but I do not know how. Foia req (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- it is the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Reliable sources are defined as sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight. And note that claims about living people require the highest level of reputation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, per BLPTALK. Yes, the link offered likely can never be used, but offering a possible source is a suggestion for improving the article, even if the link is determined to be unusable after review. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually a blanket declaration of "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, " is false as has been proven by editors being banned/blocked for placing inappropriate links in violation of BLP on this very page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- And this point has been brough up at WP:BLP/N and at Arbcom and both agree that BLPTALK does not prevent the good faith inclusion of external links with possible BLP violations on talk pages under BLPTALK. Doing in a non-good faith manner ("We must incriminate this person, here are several links that we must include") is actionable, but this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- We agree that the initial posting by Foia req is probably not actively disruptive in the manner that would result in even a discussion of blocking or banning. However, I will stand by my statement that your blanket assertion that it is always OK to put links on talk pages is 1) factually wrong AND also given the history of this topic 2) a VERY BAD impression to give to a new editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- We assume good faith, and per the links I give, we cannot start with the impression that it is wrong without assuming bad faith. Now, yes, we should be advising new editors via this talk page FAQ that the nature of this page requires higher-than-normal RSes, and that certain sites will never be considered RSes for this topic at the present time so there's no need to discuss links. But the attitude that you suggest, even on a page like this, is unhealthy to an open wiki that encourages discussion and good faith working. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- We agree that the initial posting by Foia req is probably not actively disruptive in the manner that would result in even a discussion of blocking or banning. However, I will stand by my statement that your blanket assertion that it is always OK to put links on talk pages is 1) factually wrong AND also given the history of this topic 2) a VERY BAD impression to give to a new editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- And this point has been brough up at WP:BLP/N and at Arbcom and both agree that BLPTALK does not prevent the good faith inclusion of external links with possible BLP violations on talk pages under BLPTALK. Doing in a non-good faith manner ("We must incriminate this person, here are several links that we must include") is actionable, but this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually a blanket declaration of "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, " is false as has been proven by editors being banned/blocked for placing inappropriate links in violation of BLP on this very page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor, on a talk page, offering a link they think might be helpful, even if the link contains BLP violations and/or the link may be not be a WP reliable source, per BLPTALK. Yes, the link offered likely can never be used, but offering a possible source is a suggestion for improving the article, even if the link is determined to be unusable after review. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- it is the talk page to discuss how to improve the article. Reliable sources are defined as sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight. And note that claims about living people require the highest level of reputation-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but this is a talk page. Furthermore, how are reliable sources being defined? I wish to contribute to this article, but I do not know how. Foia req (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is, I think, correct. Talk pages are not to be used to spread slander, gossip, and rumor that has little chance to impact article space. It’s one thing to link to an inadequate source for an uncontentious fact like a birthdate in order to seek help finding better sourcing, but quite another to link to other material offsite which is both contentious and unusable. Misplaced Pages talk pages are not an open-fire zone where anything goes, and attempts to use them to punish targets should be met with prompt sanctions. New (and “new”) editors should exercise caution when linking to material that might be contentious and/or defamatory if not clearly supported by policy. (I have no idea what the content of the redacted link in this case might have been.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is all about intent of the link addition by the editor adding it, not the content. If an editor who clearly had a chip on their shoulder and wants to make sure to spread claims about a living person posted a number of links that were all BLP violations left and right, that's actionable. Here, because we have a newer editor that we can't judge motivation (per AFG), who feels that the article linked (which wasn't one massive BLP but did include BLP-related claims that would need careful handling) should be included or discussed for inclusion to discuss the nature of one of the person's involved, that's one that we simply go "no, it's not an RS, it's got BLP issues, we aren't going to include it" , but we should not be questioning the motives of the editor based on that single post. I am totally in agreement that all editors should use caution, review past discussion, and our talk page FAQ, so that the number of these links are minimized, but that's the extent that the recently clarifications of BLPTALK go towards, without knowing more about the motiviations of the editor. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW I've appended a part on the FAQ about BLP and sourcing and reviewing the archives before suggesting a new source. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is all about intent of the link addition by the editor adding it, not the content. If an editor who clearly had a chip on their shoulder and wants to make sure to spread claims about a living person posted a number of links that were all BLP violations left and right, that's actionable. Here, because we have a newer editor that we can't judge motivation (per AFG), who feels that the article linked (which wasn't one massive BLP but did include BLP-related claims that would need careful handling) should be included or discussed for inclusion to discuss the nature of one of the person's involved, that's one that we simply go "no, it's not an RS, it's got BLP issues, we aren't going to include it" , but we should not be questioning the motives of the editor based on that single post. I am totally in agreement that all editors should use caution, review past discussion, and our talk page FAQ, so that the number of these links are minimized, but that's the extent that the recently clarifications of BLPTALK go towards, without knowing more about the motiviations of the editor. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is, I think, correct. Talk pages are not to be used to spread slander, gossip, and rumor that has little chance to impact article space. It’s one thing to link to an inadequate source for an uncontentious fact like a birthdate in order to seek help finding better sourcing, but quite another to link to other material offsite which is both contentious and unusable. Misplaced Pages talk pages are not an open-fire zone where anything goes, and attempts to use them to punish targets should be met with prompt sanctions. New (and “new”) editors should exercise caution when linking to material that might be contentious and/or defamatory if not clearly supported by policy. (I have no idea what the content of the redacted link in this case might have been.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just to confirm that we're both on the same page, I trust you agree that even a new user with the best of intentions would be wrong to link to defamatory material in an unreliable source, and that another editor should promptly redact the link. We might then discuss whether the source was in fact unreliable, or discuss some other link; if no reliable source can be found, though, there's not much to discuss unless the fact is uncontentious. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If the link is either to an article that immediately drops a BLP bombshell and is awash in it, or to a site that we have "blacklisted" due to the number of BLP vios on the site irregardless, then redaction is fine, with a comment to indicate why. On the otherhand, lets say an editor links to an article at Breitbart that out of 100 sentences has one small remark that could be taken as BLP, but the editor's reason to include is other points that have zero BLP issues. That should not be redacted though discussed and explained why we'd probably not include it. The point on BLPTALK is that including links to material that contains BLP violations is not necessarily wrong or needs to be dealt with in the same manner BLP on mainspace must be dealt with, but there still can be levels of improper link inclusion if the links are grossly violating or the intent is not in line with BLP. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just to confirm that we're both on the same page, I trust you agree that even a new user with the best of intentions would be wrong to link to defamatory material in an unreliable source, and that another editor should promptly redact the link. We might then discuss whether the source was in fact unreliable, or discuss some other link; if no reliable source can be found, though, there's not much to discuss unless the fact is uncontentious. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Forget it, I'm not contributing to this article, if I can't meet the standards for a talk page, there's no way I can meet the standards for main article. Foia req (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I do not think the link I posted was defamatory, however I have not found a more well known source talking about the affidavit. Foia req (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Weaponize v. Ridicule
I reverted most of the change by @Lawrencekhoo: because 1) weaponize is what Chu uses, and 2) because weaponizing white male guilt is very different than ridiculing it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Full quote from source is "
Gamergate is fully aware of the power of SWPL snark to skewer, deflect and demoralize allies joining social movements. They’ve fully weaponized it, with the #NotYourShield hashtag, whose purpose is to parade around the diversity of voices in Gamergate while accusing “anti-Gamergate” of being homogeneous privileged white guys.
" Using weaponized instead of ridiculing makes sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)- I would suggest including a partial quote since "weaponize" is a rather contentious term (completely fine in the context of a quote, however). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was looking at the article more closely and then the entry, and I'm having a problemwith including male with white guilt. I'm going to add quotes and remove male. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky, I changed that sentence because I couldn't understand what it meant – how do you 'weaponize white guilt' so as to stop people from doing what 'white guilt' would cause them to do. So, I went to read Chu's column to see what he was saying, and he's essentially saying that making fun of white guilt makes people less likely to do what white guilt would otherwise cause them to do. I think the sentence needs to be edited to explain this, otherwise it doesn't make sense. LK (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think you still missed Chu's point. Chu is pointing out that "white guilt"/SWPL is fraught with problems. And those problems can be leveraged to silence allies - and the creation of silence harms less powerful/more marginalized people. The creation of the silence is the attack - leveraging the problems is the weapon. Ridicule is one of the things used as leverage. I dunno if the GGC entry is has the scope to explain all that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's probably no need to explain the whole thing, but what is here should at least make sense to the casual reader. I suggest editing it to something that makes sense. LK (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think you still missed Chu's point. Chu is pointing out that "white guilt"/SWPL is fraught with problems. And those problems can be leveraged to silence allies - and the creation of silence harms less powerful/more marginalized people. The creation of the silence is the attack - leveraging the problems is the weapon. Ridicule is one of the things used as leverage. I dunno if the GGC entry is has the scope to explain all that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- ForbiddenRocky, I changed that sentence because I couldn't understand what it meant – how do you 'weaponize white guilt' so as to stop people from doing what 'white guilt' would cause them to do. So, I went to read Chu's column to see what he was saying, and he's essentially saying that making fun of white guilt makes people less likely to do what white guilt would otherwise cause them to do. I think the sentence needs to be edited to explain this, otherwise it doesn't make sense. LK (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was looking at the article more closely and then the entry, and I'm having a problemwith including male with white guilt. I'm going to add quotes and remove male. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest including a partial quote since "weaponize" is a rather contentious term (completely fine in the context of a quote, however). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
| WP:FORUM and WP:BLP concerns. Our opinion of Arthur Chu is irrelevant; the opinion of the editors of major web magazines that have published his essays is what matters. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please explain why we have Arthur Chu's opinion at all in an already bloated article. As far as I can tell from his bio, he is a game show contestant. He doesn't appear to be a social scientist or having any expertise that would lend weight to his opinion over anyone else. WP is not a indiscriminant collection of information. How is Chu notable for this topic? --DHeyward (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is Arthur Chu. Is he a reliable source about anything but Arthur Chu, other than gameshows? A resounding 'No.' Maybe a fun person to read but ultimately not an authority. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This section has veered into WP:BLP territory. It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not. That is the task of the editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and book publishers. It is not our place to discuss Arthur Chu. It is not our place to deride his abilities or to minimize his publications or to say his viewpoint is fringe: since it's appeared frequently in one of the Web’s largest and most respected publications, it's unlikely that the opinion expressed above (without signature) is pertinent. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
- I'm not going to reopnen the above (I do think it's fine to include Chu), but to comment on Mark's reason: "It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not." That is exactly what we as a tertiary source are supposed to do, to determine what sources are the best to summarize a topic and include those, that's what WP:RS is all about figuring out. We do use how a person is reused in other sources already deemed reliable as part of our decision-making process to determine if someone is an authority, but we as WP editors can take other steps as well (And in fact this already has been done before on this past to remove Christian Hoff Sommers' opinion despite being sourced in RSes, as one example). And to that end, we might have to critically review an author's intentions and role (staying away from direct BLP issues) to figure that out. This happens all the time on WP, and is not a bad thing. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I recall, Sommers was removed as she never actually addressed the topic of this article, speaking instead in obliques- WP:OR on our part to tie her statements to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've added what Chu's point is and how it contradicts the rest of the section. His viewpoint that it was white male journalists and privileged white males that took risks flies directly in the face of misogynistic attacks that were launched at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Chu's view of race as a wedge issue or that white males were victimized by NotYourShield is unsupported by any other references. If anything, it's the exact opposite as white, male defenders of Sarkheesian, Quinn, Wu et al, didn't flee their homes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've replied below, but you mis-quoted Chu. He did not say white journalist took risks. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've added what Chu's point is and how it contradicts the rest of the section. His viewpoint that it was white male journalists and privileged white males that took risks flies directly in the face of misogynistic attacks that were launched at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Chu's view of race as a wedge issue or that white males were victimized by NotYourShield is unsupported by any other references. If anything, it's the exact opposite as white, male defenders of Sarkheesian, Quinn, Wu et al, didn't flee their homes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Strongjam. See also the new ThinkProgress article which quotes Wikipedian Sarah Stierch “It’s interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Misplaced Pages.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Cinema Blend
Hey. To my knowledge, Cinema Blend was removed as a source a month(?) or so ago because they can't be used to reliably source statements about things other than itself- A specific quotation from the editor who removed it last time: "they describe themselves in their FAQ as "primarily an opinion site" and are therefore not usable as a citation for statements of fact". This still holds true, so I'm removing it again and cutting down on what it was used to insert into the article (per WP:UNDUE), and rewording some of it to better represent the articles cited (most relevantly, the Destructoid one, which is not about 'updating policies in light of gamergate' as much as it is condemning harassment and reminding readers of the already in place policies.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- That looks good, except I think the last sentence was okay to keep, as it is in the Escapist source, unless you think it's too tangential? —Torchiest edits 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I shortened it a bit by rephrasing an earlier sentence as "The Escapist and parent company Defy Media updated their ethics policies". Is this suitable, or should we have it in its own sentence? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- That works for me. —Torchiest edits 14:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I like your rephrasing but I think we lost something by shortening the Macris quote. His previous quote had two parts: (1) why disclosure is important (2) how we intend to pursue it. Shortening the quote removed the "why" which is relevant. I've restored it. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. The entire paragraph is about avoiding "perceived conflicts of interest". Do we need an extra sentence about the rationale behind disclosure? And beyond that, the (now) first quoted sentence references "that obligation", which is inferred but not explained, and almost requires that we restore yet more of the quotation. I say cut it back. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's exactly why it's relevant; the entire paragraph is about avoiding conflict of interest but we say nothing about why it's important to avoid. If anything the first sentence in his quote is more useful than the second, which could be summarized more succinctly. I agree that "that obligation" isn't ideal, maybe there's a good solution. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- In cases such as this, it might be wise to add context in square brackets i.e. "with that obligation ." I'm not really in favour of the longer quote, however- not sure it adds that much information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bracketed text (or something similar) works. Good. Is your objection that you don't think the sentence in question adds the "why" or that you don't think adding the "why" is important? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily think the 'why' is that important- the section is about responses to Gamergate from the games industry (and, I suppose, attached media outlets.) The 'why' is understood to be a reaction to the actions from those who associate themselves with Gamergate. If the 'why' isn't Gamergate, it... doesn't pertain so much to the article? Not sure if I'm explaining well. It's not a strong objection in any case, I'm just against needless bloat (especially with all these quotes.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bracketed text (or something similar) works. Good. Is your objection that you don't think the sentence in question adds the "why" or that you don't think adding the "why" is important? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- In cases such as this, it might be wise to add context in square brackets i.e. "with that obligation ." I'm not really in favour of the longer quote, however- not sure it adds that much information. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's exactly why it's relevant; the entire paragraph is about avoiding conflict of interest but we say nothing about why it's important to avoid. If anything the first sentence in his quote is more useful than the second, which could be summarized more succinctly. I agree that "that obligation" isn't ideal, maybe there's a good solution. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. The entire paragraph is about avoiding "perceived conflicts of interest". Do we need an extra sentence about the rationale behind disclosure? And beyond that, the (now) first quoted sentence references "that obligation", which is inferred but not explained, and almost requires that we restore yet more of the quotation. I say cut it back. Woodroar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I shortened it a bit by rephrasing an earlier sentence as "The Escapist and parent company Defy Media updated their ethics policies". Is this suitable, or should we have it in its own sentence? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Tim Schaefer mocks #NotYourShield
| Consensus (!) that this discussion should wait to see whether new developments arise in the coming days |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm pro-GamerGate as such I'll not write anything in the article but I'll be still searching for any controversy related to GamerGate.TheRealVordox (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Explanation of Revert by Strongjam
Regarding this revert of DHeyward.
- "
In contrast to the Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde that argue the hashtag was intended to be critical of Sarkheesian and Quinn
" This needs to be sourced, and it's dangerously close to WP:OR with "In contrast to". - "
game show contestant turned commentator
" Seems like an attempt to discredit the writer before we quote them. - "
Chu goes on and says that it's "white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out...."
. I can't find this in the cited source. Is there another source you meant to cite?
— Strongjam (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article. Found the risk quote, but the elided bits seem like important context to me "it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it." By elliding the quote you change the meaning of it. He didn't say it is white male journalists who take the risk of speaking out. He's saying that women and people of color who, if they speak out, take the risk of being attacked. — Strongjam (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- He is absolutely saying that it's white male journalists that are taking the risk - and that the hashtag was to silence white men. The entire paragraph starts with "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who...." --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- He's saying they slowly, imperfectly and infrequently act as a shield for women and minorities, "
who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it.
" You change the meaning by cutting out significant parts of the sentence. — Strongjam (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- He's saying they slowly, imperfectly and infrequently act as a shield for women and minorities, "
- He is absolutely saying that it's white male journalists that are taking the risk - and that the hashtag was to silence white men. The entire paragraph starts with "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who...." --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your first issue is the first sentence of that section that explicitly say it is Quinn and Sarkheesian that were targeted by NotYourShield. The source are Washington Post, The Telegraph and Le Monde . read the firs paragraph of that section.
- That's his own self-description of what he is. He is not an academic or expert. He's a blogger that gained fame through a game show. Those are his words.
−:* You found the quote, yet after reading the entire article about his theory that the NotYourShield hashtag was direceted at silencing white males, you have a problem attributing a pronoun? The active part of the sentence is it it's white male journalists doing the acting. Basic reading comprehension is that they are also the ones taking the risk by speaking out. The rest of the article is about how bad it is to silence "white males." What meaning did you think changed? --DHeyward (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Then cite them in-line and then find a source that says Chu is in contrast to them.
- Where is it his own self-description, and why is it important to describe him that way?
- I have a problem with the cutting the quote up so much to change the meaning. It's putting words in his mouth he did not say. Which we've already established in an earlier case is a BLP issue.
- — Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't see this edit by DHeyward (which was thankfully reverted) as anything but WP:POINT making behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another quote from the same article
So what’s a really, really effective way to strangle any movement for change in the crib? The two-pronged approach of mocking privileged people for their pious hypocrisy in joining it and then letting marginalized people, once they have to stand alone, sink under the weight of being marginalized.
This is the setting he is using for "white male journalists" being attacked. It's the whole point of his column and the fact that you need to change it's point to fit reality is the reason it should be gone as fringe view. He's claiming that the privileged white males are being mocked and attacked and that's his view of white male journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)- I'm sorry you feel this way about the article, but that doesn't change my mind about your edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another quote from the same article
- DHeyward: the point of the article is not that white male journalists take a risk by speaking out, it's that women and people of color take a great risk by speaking out and that #NotYourShield was a cynical (though unsuccessful) ploy to silence their allies. “And in the aggregate it makes it easier for women to get disproportionate harassment without resistance, and forces women to bear more of the burden of speaking out. And silencing women in the industry gets that much easier.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- And that's pretty much mainstream view not fringe. See also, "White Knight" and "SJW", phrases used to try and mock "privileged people for their pious hypocrisy". — Strongjam (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- DHeyward: the point of the article is not that white male journalists take a risk by speaking out, it's that women and people of color take a great risk by speaking out and that #NotYourShield was a cynical (though unsuccessful) ploy to silence their allies. “And in the aggregate it makes it easier for women to get disproportionate harassment without resistance, and forces women to bear more of the burden of speaking out. And silencing women in the industry gets that much easier.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The importance of speaking up in support for people who are unjustly attacked is proverbial and widely shared outside the caves of GamerGate; it's hardly fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- However, we cannot do that on Misplaced Pages. Personally as individual editors that the attacks they've gotten are an afront to moral code, but Misplaced Pages is amoral and neutral, neither sympathetic for victims or condemining those that harassed. It is not our place to speak up in support in WP's voice, though we certainly can use the press's responses that in their words speak to their defense. We're trying to be objective here. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that it's not a fringe view that Chu holds. Nothing more. — Strongjam (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- However, we cannot do that on Misplaced Pages. Personally as individual editors that the attacks they've gotten are an afront to moral code, but Misplaced Pages is amoral and neutral, neither sympathetic for victims or condemining those that harassed. It is not our place to speak up in support in WP's voice, though we certainly can use the press's responses that in their words speak to their defense. We're trying to be objective here. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The importance of speaking up in support for people who are unjustly attacked is proverbial and widely shared outside the caves of GamerGate; it's hardly fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph starts with
To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism.
How are you reconciling that sourced statement with Chu's view that NotYourShield was really about silencing white men? Why are there no other sources saying NotYourShield was designed to silence privileged white men? --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)- A) They're not mutually exclusive. B) The Telegraph talks about this exact thing. — Strongjam (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph starts with
- All sources (including Chu) agree that #NotYourShield was intended to deter allies of Gamergate victims from speaking out. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Telegraph doesn't mention white men (except as gamers) and certainly doesn't say the #NotYourShield is silencing white me (or anyone) - Quinn, in the article, takes the position that it silences minorities, but that's not Chu's view as he specifically laments privileged people being silenced. Again, what other sources besides Chu think that the #NotYourShield campaign was created to silence privileged white males? No source that I've seen says anything other than #NotYourShield was created as a counter to the "misogynist" label. That's in every source except Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Chu assumes that his readers understand the premise that racism and sexism are deeply related -- that the misogyny of Gamergate reflects a hostility to the Other, one altogether too familiar in matters of race as well as gender. This has been widely understood since the 1970s. To silence one minority is to silence other minorities; to try to drive one group -- women -- out of the computer industry is to target other minorities as well. “First they came for the socialists...“ MarkBernstein (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class video game articles
- High-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Mid-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press