Revision as of 20:35, 22 November 2014 view sourceMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,147 edits →Arb break← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:32, 18 December 2024 view source Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,179 edits →top: Possible references, full-text link(s) via WP:LIBRARY |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Pp-semi-indef}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 500K |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|gg|1RR=yes|protection=ecp}} |
|
|minthreadsleft = 9 |
|
|
|
{{trolling}} |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
{{tmbox|text=The purpose of this talk page is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the ] article itself. '''This page is not for discussing this talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the '']'' subpage for that.''' The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. Info on changes to the reference list are here: '']''.}} |
|
|algo = old(2d) |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|archive = Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|class=c |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid |Social movements=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{Old moves |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
|
| from1 = Gamergate controversy |
|
}} |
|
|
|
| destination1 = Gamergate movement |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
|
| result1 = Not moved |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
|
| link1 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 28#Requested move 14 February 2015 |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
|
| date1 = February 14, 2014 |
|
{{blp}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|image = none |
|
|
|text = |
|
|
<div style='font-size:medium; text-align:center;'>'''Draft Article'''</div><p><div style='text-align:center;'>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 ].</div> |
|
|
|style = background:#AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B<!--; border-radius: 15px-->; |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{faq|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| author = ] |
|
|
| title = Twitter and the poisoning of online debate |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29642313 |
|
|
| date = 16 October 2014 |
|
|
| quote = "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." |
|
|
| author2 = David Jenkins |
|
|
| title2 = 2014: Video gaming’s worst year ever |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/20/2014-video-gamings-worst-year-ever-4912543/ |
|
|
| date2 = 20 October 2014 |
|
|
| quote2 = "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." }} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Gamergate sanctions}} |
|
|
{{round in circles}} |
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from2 = Gamergate controversy |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=GamerGate|date=6 September 2014|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
|
| destination2 = Gamergate |
|
|
| result2 = Not moved |
|
|
| link2 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 13#Requested moves |
|
|
| date2 = November 12, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from3 = Gamergate controversy |
|
== RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy) == |
|
|
|
| destination3 = Gamergate harassment campaign |
|
|
| result3 = Not moved |
|
|
| link3 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 37#Requested move 15 May 2015 |
|
|
| date3 = May 15, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from4 = Gamergate controversy |
|
See ] |
|
|
|
| destination4 = Gamergate |
|
|
| result4 = Withdrawn |
|
|
| link4 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45#Requested move 30 August 2015 |
|
|
| date4 = August 30, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from5 = Gamergate controversy |
|
==Sanctions enforcement == |
|
|
|
| destination5 = Gamergate (sexist terrorism) |
|
All articles related to the ] |
|
|
|
| result5 = POINT close |
|
|
| link5 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46#Requested move 19 September 2015 |
|
|
| date5 = September 19, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from6 = Gamergate controversy |
|
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ] |
|
|
|
| destination6 = Gamergate (harassment campaign) |
|
|
| result6 = Moved |
|
|
| link6 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021 |
|
|
| date6 = August 12, 2021 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from7 = Gamergate (harassment campaign) |
|
<!--Purposefully not signed to eliminate the auto archiving. TheRedPenOfDoom.--> |
|
|
|
| result7 = Not moved |
|
|
| link7 = Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021 |
|
|
| date7 = August 20, 2021 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old MfD |date=23 June 2017 |result='''redirect''' |page=Draft:Gamergate controversy |altpage=Draft:Gamergate controversy}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = 6 September 2014 | result = '''Keep''' | page = GamerGate | date2 = 23 November 2015 | result2 = '''speedy keep''' | page2 = Gamergate controversy}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Draft:Gamergate controversy |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 638615388 |
|
|
|to1 = Gamergate controversy |
|
|
|to_diff1 = 638642070 |
|
|
|to_oldid1 = 638639983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Draft:Gamergate controversy |
|
== DiGRA conspiracy (Draft) == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 644251654 |
|
|
|to2 = Gamergate controversy |
|
|
|to_diff2 = 644253492 |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 644248467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Arguuing that DiGRA is full of "feminists" not "academics" is not in and of itself a conspiracy theory. You have to say what the conspiracy theory is, it just looks like it's being used as a lazy way to discredit the claim. One source is cited, it mentions conspiracy theory once, and it is just using it in a derogatory fashion, which is fine for a piece like that, but not for Misplaced Pages. ]] 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
:Sorry if messsy, I was checking stuff as I wrote this, I'll be happy to clarify any parts. ]] 11:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author=Alex Hern|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy|title=Misplaced Pages votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles|date=January 23, 2015|org=] |
|
:You are welcome to your own opinions, not your own facts. The reliable source explicitly calls it a "conspiracy theory" and you may not simply offhandedly dismiss that fact because you don't like its implications or because you disagree with that characterization. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what Misplaced Pages editors' opinions are. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author2=]|url2=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/|date2=December 14, 2016|title2=If we took 'Gamergate' harassment seriously, 'Pizzagate' might never have happened|org2=] |
|
::If the only source on (let make a GG "Operation Sweeper") called "Operation Sweeper" a "pile of shit" we wouldn't say "Operation Sweeper is a pile of shit". No it's being used as an insult, when it was referred to as a conspiracy theory once, with no clarification as to what that alleged conspiracy is, it's being used as an insult, that's not what we do. ]] 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author3=]|url3=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html|title3=The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros|org3=Slate|date3=February 5, 2015 |
|
:::Once again, your personal opinion of how it's used is interesting, but not relevant. The reliable source's perspective that it is a conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is indisputably relevant. That you do not like the implications of that is apparent. I'm sorry the reliable sources don't describe Gamergate the way you want them to. That's not Misplaced Pages's fault. You can blame it on some giant secret cabal conspiracy of all the media, or you can consider that, from the outside looking in, claiming that DiGRA is "controlled by feminists" does appear to be a wildly-absurd conspiracy theory. ] (]) 11:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author4=Dabitch|url4=http://adland.tv/adnews/wikipedia-perpetual-native-ad-machine/255028968|title4=Misplaced Pages: the perpetual motion native ad machine|org4=Adland|date4=February 5, 2015 |
|
::::Actually make an argument. This is just "no I'm right". ]] 11:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author5=Lauren C. Williams|url5=https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048#.6imluhnjw|org5=ThinkProgress|title5=Misplaced Pages Wants To Ban Feminists From Editing GamerGate Articles (Updated)|date5=January 26, 2015|archiveurl5=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929000042/https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048/|archivedate5=September 29, 2018 |
|
:::::It's not a matter of who's right — it's a matter of the fact that your personal opinion doesn't change what the ] says. The reliable source says it's a conspiracy theory. Your disagreement with that fact doesn't constitute reasonable grounds to omit the statement, given that it's based on nothing more than a (clearly-biased) personal opinion that it's "lazy" and "derogatory." We don't omit reliably-sourced "derogatory" material just because a member of the aggrieved group disagrees with it. ] (]) 11:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|author6=Daniel Greenfield|url6=http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263914/gawker-editor-gamergate-was-our-most-effective-daniel-greenfield|title6=Gawker Editor: Gamergate Was Our Most Effective Enemy|org6=]|date6=August 20, 2016|archiveurl6=https://archive.ph/1GbLp|archivedate6=21 August 2016 |
|
::::::Where does ] say we should take everything literally? We don't insult things in Misplaced Pages's voice, it's an insult. ]] 11:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::We describe many, many things as ], when reliable sources so describe them. See ], ], ], etc. etc. etc. That you believe it is an insult is of no consequence. You fundamentally misunderstand Misplaced Pages if you believe that a group is entitled to reject or discount the findings of mainstream reliable sources when that group disagrees with its characterization by reliable sources. ]. ] (]) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The difference is these things are claims people made of people conspiring together i.e. a conspiracy theory, this is not the case here. And again it was only called a conspiracy theory once, in the entire article, the draft calls it a conspiracy theory more often. ]] 11:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Umm, yeah. Claiming that "feminists have taken over DiGRA to push their agenda" is, yes, a conspiracy theory claim, as per literally the dictionary: . That's literally what they're arguing, so "not the case here" doesn't seem well-founded. Seems to be entirely the case here. ] (]) 11:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::But that is not what's said. Where does it say the accusation is of a feminist plot to push their agenda? ]] 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Right in the article, that's where. {{tq|“I’d like to show you how the Digital Games Research Association became co-opted by feminists to become a think tank by which gender ideologues can disseminate their ideology to the gaming press and ultimately to gamers,” Sargon says in the video. “This is probably the unseen driving force that ultimately triggered the Gamergate phenomenon.”}} ] (]) 11:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
I'm not even sure how you think the Sargon quote implies conspiracy, he's simply says DiGRA probably caused GG. The first one still doesn't imply collosion or some plot, it's again not a Conspiracy theory, it also appears to be just some random nobody. ]] 12:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not a matter of what I think. What I think doesn't matter. It's what the source thinks. ] (]) 12:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::It was you who quoted quotes not me, I was showing those quoted quoted don't help your case. You haven't shown the source holds that opinion, at all. ]] 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: First of all I'm not sure why you seem to think calling a conspiracy theory automatically counts as a smear and makes it wrong. See ] for an example of a conspiracy theory that was actually true, so I dont get why you care so much about the usage of that word. Secondly, Sargon is arguing that DiGRA is an "unseen driving force" the implication is very much one of a secretive conspiracy. His story is one in which feminists remove academics from DiGRA hijacking it unnoticed to carry out evil. How is this not a conspiracy theory? ] (]) 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It doesn't automatically, that's just how it's being used here. ]] 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're reading things into the quote that aren't there. He never actually says there was any plot or collusion to co-opt DiGRA, only that it had been. ]] 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What matters is not how you personally read his statements, but how reliable sources do. And the reliable sources we have now agree that what he's describing is a conspiracy theory; going into it yourself and saying "well, but as an editor I personally don't think that this is a conspiracy theory because X, Y, and Z" is original research. --] (]) 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Where does he do that? And that's not what I'm doing, I'm pointing out people are reading things into it that aren't there. ]] 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have no problem using the source's opinion it is a "conspiracy theory" within the section, but as the section title, at least until we have more sources, this is about their movement against DiGRA, and it not impartial to title that section "Feminism as a conspiracy theory" as it is now. --] (]) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::If a reliable source dismisses the claims then we should not categorize it as an opinion of that source but simply the fact that the claim has been dismissed. We cannot keep demoting the statements made in reliable sources just because they become involved in Gamergate due to the fact the movement picks new targets every time someone writes something critical.—] (]) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''A single''' RS, which is not enough to classify the DiGRA stuff. And this is not about demoting their stance - the content calling it a conspiracy theory from the standpoint of the DiGRA president is right in line with the sourcing, but we couldn't immediately be picking a side that the DiGRA's stance is the "right" one in terms of naming the header. --] (]) 20:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wrong. The "conspiracy theory" phrase is not "from the standpoint of DiGRA's president," it is stated in the voice of the reliable news source. The journalist is describing it as a conspiracy theory. ] (]) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The reality is that the term "conspiracy theory" has inherently negative connotations and is being used exactly once. Many partisan writers or partisan outlets refer to things as "conspiracy theories" that are actually mainstream views other outlets take as accurate or plausible. In this case we only have one source using this term in exactly one instance. For context here is the preceding paragraph: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|author7 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv |
|
:{{quote|At DiGRA’s annual conference this August, Shaw and Consalvo participated in a roundtable session on “identity and diversity in game culture.” Notes from the roundtable were discovered online, showing how participants discussed the impact of feminist game studies on the video game industry, and whether academics could influence developers. Some interpreted it as proof that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development.}} |
|
|
|
|title7 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research |
|
:A link to the notes is provided and you can see them . Let me lay out some of the comments: |
|
|
|
|date7 = October 17, 2024 |
|
:{{quote|How has feminist game studies influenced developers and games? Where’s the impact outside of academia?}} |
|
|
|
|org7 = ] |
|
:{{quote|Great conversations here, but those conversations do not occur outside of a group like this. What can we do to bridge this? What about when being published on Kotaku is a bad thing, rather than a positive signal boosting thing?}} |
|
|
|
|url7 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/ |
|
:{{quote|How can academics bridge the gap to the industry audience to help them do different work? How can we disrupt the capitalist norms that facilitate this?}} |
|
|
|
|lang7 = |
|
:{{quote|Academia needs to push for more radical positions within the industry to help make things better.}} |
|
|
|
|quote7 = |
|
:{{quote|Staying helps us change things more. Gamasutra will shut down negative conversation at least in part because they’ve had their awareness raised by academics.}} |
|
|
|
|archiveurl7 = |
|
:{{quote|The way the system values peer review is bullshit, as the money accrues in the hands of private corporations. How can we do the work and have it benefit us?}} |
|
|
|
|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
:{{quote|Figure out what you have an how to best use it. How can you exploit the system and use it to your best advantage? Determine the rules and the rules you want and try to bring them together.}} |
|
|
|
|accessdate7 = October 18, 2024 |
|
:{{quote|DiGRA is not "you." It is "us." I've been trying to make change for a long time, and I've discovered that you have to do it yourself, but you don't have to do it by yourself. When we were 10 people in a room being like "Fuck the IGF" – we made it happen. Now we're a thing, and people can rebel against it.}} |
|
|
|
|collapsed=no |
|
:Is it any surprise that people reading these kinds of comments come to the conclusion that "members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development"? How is it even a conspiracy theory to say that when they discuss how to influence the industry and say how they have already influenced the industry?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::Your opinion and original research does not change the reliably-sourced description of the claims as a conspiracy theory. Our articles are not based on an editor's novel interpretation of primary sources, as you apparently wish it to be. ] (]) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 19 2014 (19th)}} |
|
:::They're not based the ''single'' opinion of one person quoted in an article. ''Misplaced Pages cannot call the GG side a "conspiracy theory" in the WP voice''. It's fine as a statement within that section that one person considers their side in regards to DiGRA a conspiracy theory, but those words have no place in a section header. This is not original research, this is straight up NPOV. --] (]) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::Once again, Masem, you are just straight-up wrong about the source and seem keen to demonstrate that you have not actually read it. The cited source is not an opinion column, it is a reported news story from a reliable, neutral news source. The statement is not a quote from a party involved in the dispute - rather, the reporter describes the claims about DiGRA as a conspiracy theory. That you disagree with this perspective is noted. The fact that you disagree does not negate the reliably-sourced description. You are hell-bent on ignoring reliable sources because you don't like the conclusions they draw. Once again, I'm sorry that reliable sources view GamerGate's claims as ridiculous nonsense. That does not permit you to reject that reality and substitute your own. ] (]) 21:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{page views}} |
|
:::::It's an opinion piece, not a factual piece. 90% of the material on the GG article are opinion pieces, expressing opinion based on the limited amount of facts we have. This doesn't make them unreliable when they are reporting facts (eg there was harassment, etc.), but that means that we have to know where the line between fact and opinion is drawn, and '''one writer's''' claim that it is an conspiracy theory cannot set it up as fact that we can state in WP's voice. A lot of this requires looking at context, and not taking one statement out of context. I suspect the writer got the idea of "conspiracy" theory speaking to Consalvo, given where it falls. Note that there's a "bare" sentence here {{green|As a result, the research produced by DiGRA board members has become “sloppy and unprofessional and absolutely overrun by people who have an ideological agenda that they simply cannot leave out of their research.”}} which by the same logic you are using to state "conspiracy theory" as fact, means that this sentence should be fact. Neither of those are the case; the bulk here from this article are useful opinion statements surrounding the DiGRA push. We have to be clear that that is an opinion statement.I'm not saying to ignore RSes, but to make sure we are fully clear that anything that is not clear fact that it is put in the proper "voice" and not WP's. --] (]) 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
This is ''definitely'' a news report in the news section of the website. In the body of the section we actually quote Sargon from the article outlining his highly speculative notion that there is some kind of feminist fifth column being used to force change in gaming. --] 21:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Refideas|state=collapsed |
|
:The bulk of the sources we have already in the that are expressing opinions are also "news" columns; mind you, this is from the VG and tech sources and less from the mainstream sources. We have to be aware that the journalist side across the board is, even unintentionally, going to take a defensive stance towards GG because GG is attacking them. In this particular article, as I've pointed out above, it doesn't make a good line where it is quoting opinion and where it is making a factual statement, and if one reads it, standing back away from the controversy, the article is framed around an interview that the author did with Consalvo, and then by pulling details from the Sargon videos, but that's it.<br/> And to stress this point again - just because they are opinion pieces does not make them unusable as North claims I am stating. Only that what the claim has to be put in a voice that is not Misplaced Pages's voice. It is the author's claim that it is a conspiracy theory. That's fine, but that doesn't make it a fact it is a conspiracy theory, especially if this is the only person that has said that. --] (]) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last=Beyer |first=Jessica L. |chapter=Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities |date=2021 |title=The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology |editor-last=Rohlinger |editor-first=Deana A. |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.47 |isbn=978-0-19-751063-6 |editor2-last=Sobieraj |editor2-first=Sarah |pages=417–442}} |
|
:And to be clear: the section text is fine, '''save for the header''' by calling it a "conspiracy theory" based on one author. The section is about the DiGRA push, nothing else. --] (]) 22:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last=Condis |first=Megan |title=Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture |year=2018 |publisher=University of Iowa Press |isbn=978-1-6093-8566-8 |pages=95–106 |jstor=j.ctv3dnq9f.12 |chapter=From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right}} |
|
::Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is what the reliable source describes it as. -- ] 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |author-link=Caitlin Dewey |date=2016-02-17 |title=In the battle of Internet mobs vs. the law, the Internet mobs have won |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |url-status=live |work=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230710005803/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |archive-date=2023-07-10 |access-date=2024-01-22 |url-access=limited}} |
|
:::No, not when it is only ''one source'' (just like has been asked for most of the claims that have been made from the GG side, like it being a movement, etc.). That's FRINGE/NPOV/IMPARTIAL failures to use that as a section title. The fact the source stated it, sure, that's fine in the prose, I'm not questioning that. --] (]) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Donovan |first1=Joan |last2=Dreyfuss |first2=Emily |last3=Friedberg |first3=Brian |title=Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America |date=2022 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-1-63-557864-5}} |
|
:::: there are no lack of sources to use. we already use several of them. -- ] 22:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last=Jones |first=Bethan |editor=Booth, Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |year=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-1192-3716-7 |pages=415–429 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter=#AskELJames, Ghostbusters, and #Gamergate: Digital Dislike and Damage Control |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
:::::Which is fine if we actually spent time talking about the larger conspiracy theory (beyond DiGRA) and claims made by the GG side and turning to the strong criticism and rebuttal of those points made by those sources. However, right now, that section is about the DiGRA stuff and DiGRA stuff only, and calling it a "conspiracy theory" on the DiGRA aspect from one source as the title is a problem. This is what I sorta aluded to in the section below; the larger situation we could call it that, but it is not appropriate to use that term for only one subfactor of this. --] (]) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last=Kidd |first=Dustin |title=Social Media Freaks: Digital Identity in the Network Society |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-0-4299-7691-9 |chapter=GamerGate: Gender Perspectives on Social Media}} |
|
:A fundamental problem with you POV-pushers is you seem to forget that "verifiability, not truth" was nuked from the policy page for a reason. Just because some journalist says something inflammatory does not mean you are abiding by NPOV by repeating their phrasing as fact. The article has over 1,400 words talking about this matter and you are using two of them to try and discredit the position it is discussing without any regard for the actual facts under discussion. We aren't supposed to be in the business of writing hit pieces on Misplaced Pages. Creep on over to IrrationalWiki or GeekFeminismWiki if you want to spew this bile.-] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=179–222 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter=Changes Following Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
::I am not sure who are are addressing as" POV pushers", however, ] is still clearly a part of the policy. ] is still clearly a part of policy, ] is still clearly a part of policy and dealing with Fringe viewpoints ] is still clearly a part of the policy. and ] is still clearly a part of policy. -- ] 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=63–107 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter=Gamers and Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
:::None of those policies apply in this case, except in the sense that we're giving undue weight to a single article by including so much material about DiGRA in the first place, never mind presenting this one author's inflammatory statements about other people's reasonable interpretation of evidence as though it were fact.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |editor1-last=Reyman |editor1-first=Jessica |editor2-last=Sparby |editor2-first=Erika |title=Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |series=Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Communication |isbn=978-0-367-21795-2 |edition=1st |doi=10.4324/9780429266140 |s2cid=189982687}} |
|
::::Sure they apply. You are advocating that we dump what the reliable source says and instead ] do our own investigation and place that / complaints from gamergaters at the same level of coverage as the reliable source. ] ]. -- ] 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last=Ruffino |first=Paolo |title=Future Gaming: Creative Interventions in Video Game Culture |date=2018 |publisher=Goldsmiths Press |location=London |isbn=978-1-90-689755-0 |pages=104–119 |chapter=GamerGate: Becoming Parasites to Gaming}} |
|
I think at this stage we're only arguing over the section heading. I think we could do better than "Feminism as a conspiracy theory", which isn't particularly coherent. As the section is about attacks on DiGRA and associated gaming researchers and the principal source is about these attacks, I suggest we call the section "Gaming researchers under attack". The current content shows clearly what accusations are being made, and we don't have to use words that some editors cannot agree to. --] 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite journal |last=Salter |first=Michael |title=From Geek Masculinity to Gamergate: The Technological Rationality of Online Abuse |journal=Crime, Media, Culture |date=2018 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=247–264 |doi=10.1177/1741659017690893 |issn=1741-6604}} |
|
: Per ], I've gone ahead and renamed the section. --] 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Veale |first1=Kevin |title=Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment |date=2020 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-030-60410-3 |pages=1–33 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter=Introduction: The Breadth of Harassment Culture and Contextualising Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
::And, of course, like any good POV-pusher, your "" is just as inflammatory as the original POV-pushing.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Katie |editor1-last=Booth |editor1-first=Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |date=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-119-23721-1 |pages=431–445 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter=Red Pillers, Sad Puppies, and Gamergaters |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
::: Could you explain what the problem is here? The section about attacks on researchers. The name surely reflects this accurately. --] 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Zuckerberg |first1=Donna |title=Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age |date=2018 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-6749-8982-5 |pages=}} |
|
:::What's wrong with something neutral and accurate like "Opposition to DiGRA" anyway? ]] 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
'''He Said/She Said''': The proposed language currently on the draft page makes it unclear just what Inside Higher Education was investigating; the language of the draft as it stands right now suggests that a prestigious journal independently investigated DiGRA and found it had been taken over by feminists. That, were it to enter article space, would soon leave Misplaced Pages a target of ridicule. |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
But more fundamentally, we are according roughly equal weight here to two disputants. One is a fellow named "Sargon of Akkad" who posts pseudonymous videos on YouTube; we know little else about him. The other is Dr. Mia Consalvo, the Canada Research Chair In Game Studies & Design at Concordia University. We know quite a lot about Mia Consalvo, who teaches courses in "COMS 398H – Cheating, Games and the Ethics of Play Media" and "SPEC 620G – Digital Games: Theory and Research", has delivered research papers most recently at 2nd Annual Symposium on Digital Ethics in Chicago and at the Association of Internet Researchers in Salford, and who has written one book and twenty six published articles about game theory. Yet, one faction here would add a section on the allegation of Sargon of Akkad, and (being impartial) balance that accusation with a quotation from Mia Consalvo. ] (]) 23:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 62 |
|
: Your interpretation of the wording had not occurred to me, I'm horrified to say. We need to fix that. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
: The piece _ought_ to make it quite clear that this is crazy conspiracy stuff, and I thought it did. Could you suggest a rewrite? --] 23:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
::That's the opposite of what it should do, a fringe opinion? Yes. But Misplaced Pages should never make out anything to be crazy because Misplaced Pages has no opinions. ]] 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
:It's not an issue of balance here; the content of that section seems fine, just the title. To get the viewpoint of Consalvo to explain why being targetted by GG seems silly (from their view), the author at least did try to find out why GG have this and went to Sargon's videos to try to write out how DiGRA is in GG's sights, which thus needs to be stated. The author (and we) post what Sargon's issue is, and then we have two quote from Consalvo which basically call out the logic as inane and a huge stretch of the imagination. Given no other sources have picked up on this point yet, that's a fair balance in the section of why DiGRA is targetted and why DiGRA members are expressing disbelief in that. --] (]) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
::With respect, ], I believe it is a matter of balance. We’re presenting a charge leveled by a YouTube video by an anonymous individual whose qualifications are unknown, and balancing this with a refutation from a distinguished scholar who leads the organization which has been attacked. Giving this an entire section is wrong. At most, this deserves a one-sentence mention: "Some GamerGate supporters crafted self-published claims and conspiracy theories that Game Studies had been overrun by feminists ." To give more credence to such stuff -- much less to insinuate that Inside High Education launched an investigation into the question (!) -- is to lend the project’s weight to the tassels at the end of the WP:FRINGE. ] (]) 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Read the linked article - this is not one semi-anonymous person charging one respected person. The '''whole''' of GG have started a new tangent from their ad-removal campaigns to target anyone in the DiGRA organization that is "pro-feminist" and try to affect their reputations by saying they aren't academics. That's the bigger store here. --] (]) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::if true, the current draft does not credibly reflect this interpretation. I assume, then, you agree with me that it must be discarded and replaced? 03:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, the section is following the source. It says GGs are targetting the group, it explains why by using one of the few established viewpoints from the GG side (Sargon's piece), and then it gives a full out rebuttal of the "WTF" nature from the ''president'' of the association being attacked. It could use a few more sources/voices, but it is accurately talking about the DiGRA piece. It's not a "he said she said" thing as it is written. --] (]) 04:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't see that there's any indication that "the whole of GG" buys into this. Even if true, that wouldn't necessarily make their allegations any more credible or interesting; this isn't a popularity contest. ] (]) 04:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well, maybe not the whole, but this doesn't appear to be an isolated effort; if you explore their pages, the DiGRA angle is one of their broadcasted "how to get involved" steps, like the advertising angle, etc. --] (]) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
From the ] (the talk page discussion at the time veered quickly off onto other subjects, so I'm not sure if it's useful.) The ] talked about this. It might be useful as a source, but I'm not sure if it's ]. If it was one of their journals I wouldn't question it, but this is from their newsletter. — ] (]) 17:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Their response (warning their members that they could become involved) is good to include. --] (]) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==An example of non-impartial writing== |
|
|
This change by North is an example of what persists in the present article of non-impartial writing. There is no reason to move the statement of the DiGRA stuff being a conspiracy theory ''before'' the theory is explained out (per FRINGE), save to pre-judge the subsequent discussion of that theory, which WP should not be doing. After one side is presented, we can throw all the possible criticism and claims against it we can find, eg keeping the conspiracy theory fact, but putting it that early purposely makes the subsequent discussion of the GG side in question. WP cannot be a judge of this stuff. (If this was a longer section that needs an introductory paragraph that in good writing would provide how the section would be laid out, eg, like our lede, then yes, it would be fine to call it out earlier and then going into more detail later. But a 2 paragraph section does not need an intro like that). --] (]) 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:To expand further, the ordering of opinions is a key issue with the impartial nature of this article. The bulk of the content/sourcing is fine, but the article is written to immediately say "Here's the GG side, but no one in the press believes it", so that any discussion of the GG is already tainted by the opinions of others. We'll absolutely get to those opinions in the article, but to put those that high up in the discussion (and not part of a summary like the lede) is basically WP telling the reader "This stance isn't valid", which is a judgement call on WP's part. --] (]) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The difficulty arises when you have a paragraph saying "Sargon says there are Communists in the state department" and only mention in the following paragraph that "no significant authorities believe this, and Sargon has presented no credible evidence." I continue to doubt that Sargon’s conspiracy theory merits more than the briefest of mentions. ] (]) 18:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Are you saying Sargon has presented no credible evidence that there are feminists in DiGRA? Are you aware the president of DiGRA is literally a member of a group called the ?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There are doubtless feminists, vegetarians, Democrats, and Francophones in DiGRA. As far as I know, professors in Canada are free to join the Fembot Collective, the Maple Leafs Fan Club, or the '''Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique.''' Feminists might study computer games, just as Marxists, economists, and Baptists might. But what has this to do with the Gamergate controversy? ] (]) 19:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The mere fact that someone is a feminist is not evidence, much less proof, of the vast feminist conspiracy that Sargon believes exists. ] (]) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sargon's views are being used by the IHE author to explain why DiGRA is being dragged into the mess, based on the author's evalution that Sargon is speaking in a representative manner of the rest of GG that has targeted DiGRA. Without that explanation, there's no logic, and even if the logic is "conspiracy theory" it needs to be presented to complete the narrative. --] (]) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Masem, we are not going to mention what is demonstrably a fringe conspiracy theory without immediately mentioning the fact that the only reliable source to cover it considers it to be a conspiracy theory. ] (]) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::THAT would be an example of GROSS POV violation. -- ] 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We print the few details in an impartial manner in a neutral manner as if the theory has weight, and then present the counter-fringe view. It is a non-impartial to use the changed order in the statement because it tells a reader that WP believes the theory is a "conspiracy theory" because we've identified the opinion of another prior to exploring it. --] (]) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, that's not what FRINGE says we should do. We present theories as they are presented in mainstream reliable sources. If mainstream reliable sources present them as conspiracy theories, then yes, we present them as conspiracy theories. If the proponents of those theories don't like that, that's just too bad. ] (]) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::FRINGE says "...minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it". Since clearly one side is not going to take to calling their view a conspiracy theory, it should not be presented as within discussion of their view, but certainly in criticism of that view. --] (]) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No, you're not understanding. We don't present things as "he said, she said," we present viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, per ]: {{tq| Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.}} The most prominent and significant viewpoint published by reliable sources is that Sargon's claims amount to a conspiracy theory, and that must be the predominant viewpoint in our article. The minority viewpoint (that it's true) must be presented, but with significantly less prominence than the majority viewpoint. The minority viewpoint does not get to override the majority and prevent us from accurately describing how reliable sources view something. ] (]) 01:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::But UNDUE says nothing about '''order''', which is what I pointed out. You are 100% wrong about how we present FRINGE topics - every single one I can find presents the fringe view, and then criticism of that view. Point/counterpoint. That's how you make the most neutral article. My version before your change still has the same weight of sources and balance per UNDUE, including the "conspiracy theory" point. But by changing the order so that calling out the GG side as a "conspiracy theory" after one has gone over the basics of the minority retains UNDUE '''and''' meets FRINGE and NPOV's impartialness requirement of describing the minority side in a neutral manner. --] (]) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Wrong. For example, our article on ] is literally called "9/11 conspiracy theories". We also have ], ], ], etc. All of those articles mention "conspiracy theory" in the very first line. So really, we should rename the section to "DiGRA conspiracy theory" and put it in the very first line. That's the established precedent for articles about things that reliable sources label as conspiracy theories. |
|
|
::::::::It's not "calling out" something, it's describing it as reliable sources do. Which is what Misplaced Pages is about. Once again, it's apparent that you don't like the way reliable sources treat the viewpoint. That's not of any consequence to us. If you want an encyclopedia that presents Gamergate viewpoints as Gamergate believes they are, there are other wikis for you to do that on. ] (]) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::In terms of title of a complete article, there's no question that you have to go with the larger opinion, and there's no way to remove "controversy" from this one (whether it is "Gamergate controversy" or "Controversy over the Gamergate movement", that's a different question); similarly, in the lead, we are going to give a broad summary overview, and that absolutely cannot avoid harassment and condemnation of the group since that's a huge chunk of sources. But when we get to the body, just like those articles, they present the theories devoid of criticism, and then present the criticism later, or in terms of specific theories, at the end of the section in the body of that. Remember, conspiracies aren't factually wrong, they are just very very very very unlikely to be true; still, per FRINGE, we do not attempt to attach a notion of "wrongness" to these in how we write our articles, and so stating "here's a theory but be aware one side calls it a conspiracy theory" is preloading the reader's judgement in favor of the anti-GG side; after explaining the theory, then its all fair game to shoot the theory down. That's what FRINGE and IMPARTIAL caution about doing. --] (]) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
We have a single source -- Inside Higher Ed -- which mentions in passing the conspiracy theories of someone named Sargon of Akkad, who declined to be interviewed for that piece. That this appears to be the only mention of this argument in a reliable source should no surprise us; if you listen to the video (as I have done), it is a numbingly tedious exposition in which Sargon classifies professors as either Academics or Feminists, asserting without argument that Feminist research is slipshod. The video lacks evidence or argument. There’s no controversy here and no need to provide balance: we have one isolated voice who creates YouTube videos espousing an extremely fringe position, who was once cited as a conspiracy theorist in a lengthy article on the possible implications of GamerGate for Higher Education. There’s literally nothing here; it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here, and so much time, trying to "balance" the account of something which doesn’t come close meriting serious consideration. It’s hard for me to understand how good-faith editors could promote coverage of such stuff. ] (]) 21:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Read the IHE article. The author has 1) properly identified there is a ''large scale'' effort within GG ranks to target DiGRA researches for claimed "feminist agendas" (if anything, this point is huge and a different track from anything else), 2) has identified that Sargon's statements though his vlog (which, you note, we are not sourcing directly in any way or form) are highly representative of the thought process that those using this approach within GG has used to determine why DiGRA should be scrutinized, and 3) the author feels this is of conspiracy theory levels. The singular viewpoint is not taken by the author as a single view, but a highly representative view - in much the same way the article uses the DiGRA president's view to represent's DiGRA's take on this. It's not "he said, she said" as you claim, but appropriate representation of both aspects of this. --] (]) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I ''have'' read the IHE article: I said so. Of whom do you consider this view "highly representative"? How would you know? We do know Sargon espouses it, whoever he is, and that some people on shady message boards endorse it -- but that can be said of all sorts of WP:FRINGE views. No other reporter seems to have mentioned this large and highly representative strand of thought. I'm not sure how we would know what a ''large scale'' effort within GG ranks would be; '''would that be anything like ''Operation 5 Horsemen,'' the GG attack on Misplaced Pages?''' I continue to think that, if we must mention this at all, it should be a sentence of the form, ''“Inside Higher Education reported on a conspiracy theory common among GamerGate supporters that held that DiGRA was a radical feminist front organization bent on world domination ”''. ] (]) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You know, I've always criticized pro-gamergate as being too judgemental of their opposition, calling them thin-skinned and what have you. I read about the operation or whatever that little blip was, '''IT LITERALLY WAS JUST CALLING FOR DIFF COLLECTION'''. Nowhere did I see motions to dox (as I just got from a anti-gg person who can't spell), or to mflood, or SPA flood, or to DDoS Misplaced Pages (literal attack of Misplaced Pages). Also, your proposed revision insinuates that Sargon is a crazy buffoon spouting nonsensical claims of NWO's and what have you. It simply seems he, like many others are simply critical of the new, radical feminism. So, that sentence would be in violation of ]. --] ] 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::your personal feelings and accusations against those you disagree with are indeed well noted. however, they play no part in creating an encyclopedia and should be kept to yourself here. (there are 8chan boards where you can vent all you want if you feel the need to do so in public. ) -- ] 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The author of the IHE piece makes the "claim of authority" of Sargon speaking for the GGs. And if you have followed the GG sites themselves, its very easy to see how this is a level of their side that this article presently doesn't cover; Sargon's statement, while not verifyable by RSes directly, can be easily verified reading the primary sources even if they are "shady" message boards. (And I note that covering it is a negative blemish against GG; I'm not disagreeing their ideas of DiGRA and feminists are way out there, but this is one of the few rather visible things that they have a general issue with their belief feminists are pushing them out of gaming from all areas gaming touches). --] (]) 01:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Until GG decides to organize in a fashion where they are able to identify their own "voice of authority" and thereby also take responsibility, they will be at the whim of reliable sources identifying who speaks for them. We follow the lead established by the reliable sources. -- ] 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Mark that "it’s incredible that so much ink could be spilled here". Repeating the comment I made above which was pretty much just ignored, "That one source section is already too long. I wouldn't reference Sargon at all. I'd take the first sentence, a quote from Consalvo, and then move it into the prose at 'Role of misogyny and antifeminism'". - ]]] 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Honestly, I think the most appropriate place, as I said before, is actually the End of Gamer identity section, because that is what the source identifies as the motivation for the criticism. Of course, it also needs to be phrased accurately, which is not the case at present. The "conspiracy theory" according to Inside Higher Ed is "that members of DiGRA were actively plotting to influence game development." It may not seem like much of a conspiracy theory given that the cited notes show members explicitly discussed methods they could use to influence developers and the overall industry, but that does seem to be what passes for a conspiracy theory in the eyes of the author and is what we should be stating in the article.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I like the way this is going, Hahnchen. Thank you. --] 02:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Some editors are dying to change the title of the article to "GamerGate conspiracy theory" ] (]) 14:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I'm not seeing any such suggestions. The main bulk of the article is going to have to be the harassment and misogyny, and the underlying ideology that enables that, while filled with highly speculative thinking and short on relation to fact, is relatively secondary. --] 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===“Impartial” POV Pushing=== |
|
|
From The Daily Beast: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:''The problem with these high-level overviews of the topic—these broad summaries of hordes of angry video game consumers trying to take down what they see as a “corrupt conspiracy” of feminist, progressive voices in gaming—is that any summary of the topic that leaves out the details is going to give #GamerGate too much credit.Because each and every one of the details is ridiculous and insane. It’s a pattern that we’ve all seen before. The Tea Party comparison seems apt. The feeling of existential despair I have right now is similar to how I felt back when I realized American politics was, for the near future, going to be about debating birth certificates and death panels with deranged 18th-century period cosplayers.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Yet this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do: state each claim in detail, and only then mention that the claim is unsupported by the sources, unsupported by evidence, or simply crazy. (The DiGRA "conspiracy" truly is crazy: DiGRA’s most ambitious aspiration, I believe, is to host a modest little conference and to publish a modest collection of Proceedings.) Just look at the time and energy this is consuming ''while the page is protected!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I submit for your consideration that it might be a very good thing for Misplaced Pages if it were announced that this page would remain fully protected for an additional six weeks or -- better -- six months. ] (]) 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I think this comment and its inflammatory remarks of there being an essential 'cabal' of editors as well as people who shouldn't really be editors but really are 'toxic' an example of ] behavior. When you deliberately see other editors of the other POV as 'one small cadre of editors, aided by off wiki organization' and assert that they're just wasting time while the page is protected, you're in essential attacking anybody who dissents from the status quo of the article. This, in effect, doesn't lead towards good Encylopedia making. I guarantee you if some other side attempted this they'd be topic banned on the spot. I urge to hat this thing for your own sake. ] (]) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Impartialness is not about balance/weight. It about tone and organization. The article in its present shape has absolutely the right balance of viewpoints with the sources give, but not presented in an impartial manner. --] (]) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think that at its core, the biggest problem that the article has at the moment is that it goes into too much detail on the blow-by-blow about things that are ultimately not very relevant. The Gamergate controversy is fast-moving and could produce nearly limitless quotes and subtopics, but we should generally concern ourselves with overarching coverage of the controversy as a whole and not get so deeply into "some random person on YouTube made an allegation of XYZ, which journalists X, Y, and Z responded to with comments X, Y, Z, which in turn got comments from..." That's not an encyclopedia article. My feeling is that the DiGRA thing as a whole probably doesn't warrant more than a sentence or two. The most important thing to improve the article at the moment (given its overwhelming length and unreadable mass of back-and-forth quotes) is to trim away most of the more peripheral controversies like those. If those controversies do eventually go anywhere, they'll probably be able to support their own articles anyway rather than being mashed into a disjointed list of topics and quotes the way we're putting them now. --] (]) 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: That's the RECENTISM problem I've pointed out before - we wrote a lot as this was breaking, but now that there's a lull and/or "the end of GG" (we can't tell but it feels like its going that way), we should be reviewing sources, and taking out primarily opinion pieces of people with no skin in the game that were written at the time of the events, as those are more reactionary quotes. And that also includes excessive details on some facets like the TFYC situation. The longer term view is what we should be writing for, and this type of work will help not only to address that but also the NPOV issues. --] (]) 18:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I wouldn't count on it. The pro-gg side/group/??? Has seemingly found 2 things. Gawker's source of revenue, and possible TOS violation of said sources. News at 11. Until the hashtag usage drops 90%+, it shouldn't be considered "dead", even though the hashtag usage is to aliveness, as alexa rankings are to website access rates. Which is to say, a rough, but accurate measurement. --] ] 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Um....reliable sources for this? WP:SOAPBOX? ] (]) 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Gamergate "exists" insofar as reliable sources cover it; once that dries up the story's pretty much over, regardless of how many twitterers tweet things with the #gamergate hashtag. There are still people out there that believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii in 1961, but do and you'll find there's very very little discussion of them anymore. ] (]) 17:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I agree with this, but I will point out that in reading the various GG areas, they still seem to be finding things to poke at, but just nothing that is newsworthy (for whatever good it is - the amount/details of harassment has seems to drastically subsided compared to a month ago, but that's probably why it's also fallen out of mainstream coverage). But yeah, if we go a month without any significant GG story developments, I'd be hard pressed to call it anything but "done". --] (]) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sony boss on Gamergate== |
|
|
|
|
|
Forthright condemnation of violence and harassment, but rather vague on Gamergate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-17-sonys-layden-harassment-completely-unacceptable |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Perfect for the "Industry response" section. added to draft. --] (]) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Better then what I was going to suggest. I did tweak a bit. He's not Sony CEO, but SCEA CEO. Not sure if that's too pedantic though. Feel free to revert if you think it is. — ] (]) 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:People mention the three usual people time and time again, but nobody acknowledges the threats Christina Hoff Sommers got on twitter. Perhaps finally, someone acknowledges both sides. --] ] 05:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't see any such acknowledgement.—] (]) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:A bit vague, I have no objection to using it, but caution is needed. ]] 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::What about '"SCEA chief Shawn Layden said he didn't think there is one answer to what Gamergate means, before condemning bullying and harassment in general."', could probably do with a bit of tweaking still <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
:::Currently in the draft article it's {{blue|Sony Computer Entertainment of America CEO Shawn Layden stated that the harassment surrounding Gamergate was "completely unacceptable", but noted that there isn't "one statement or one position on it, or one answer to whatever this very broadly-defined #GamerGate really means".}} On review, I think we should probably drop the 'surrounding Gamergate' bit. I think it's implied, but not explicitly said. — ] (]) 14:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Second source for his comments. This one includes an edited transcript of the interview with . — ] (]) 14:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Npov?== |
|
|
In my opinion, the article seems slightly biased against the movement. What the movement is about is pretty subjective, and straight up saying it's about sexism doesn't sound neutral.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
: At least in Misplaced Pages policy, neutral doesn't mean impartial. There is a very strong dichotomy between how Gamergate supporters tend to see themselves and how the outside world sees them. Our article is based mostly on the latter as derived from reliable sources. --] 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: *cough cough* ]. *cough cough* ] (]) 23:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Or to expand, there are several facets of neutrality to consider. Weight/balance is one that we clearly have to recognize is never going to be <s>met</s>better than we have now, due to the limited number of sources speaking in any sort of nonnegative voice for GG, and that's why its fair to call the GG side FRINGE. But as can be seen under ], there's many others, like structure, impartiality/tone, wording, and sourcing issues, that all have to be considered that we can still improve on to better present the material in a neutral manner. --] (]) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) (ETA to reflect that we are following policy wrt weight aspects and the sourcing #s) --] (]) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Mmm, Masem preaching to the all divine choir. You're a cool guy, and I appreciate all that you've done and continue to do. If you were the final editor to decide definitely what would happen for the GamerGate ArbCom case, sanctions, topic bans, and just in general what happens, I'd be content and sated. Regarding neutrality, yes I've seen the horrible heated and somehow convoluted discussions of neutrality and acknowledge it. I'm not the person to convince, you know who needs to be convinced in that aspect. The tone and partiality is blatantly shown and asserted and even overt as if it's proud of being there. If trying to fix it didn't result in massive edit warring and vitriol, I'd have fixed it a long time ago. ] (]) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Sorry but "the world" and so-called "reliable sources" encompasses the media which which is accused lack of ethics and corruption. Plus where are those allegations on Grayson reviewing Depression Quest? --] (]) 04:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nathan Grayson never reviewed ''Depression Quest''. Any allegation that he did so is provably, and proven, false. ] (]) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He may not have reviewed ''Depression Quest'', but he has written about it, and used images from it to illustrate the article: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ ¨¨¨¨ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
:::::the allegations were not "but he mentioned it" they were that "he gave positive reviews". and a journalist doesnt pick the images that accompany their copy. now stop your BLP allegations. -- ] 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, he wrote '''five words about it''' in a blogpost, three months before the relationship began. Congratulations, your "smoking gun" is a broken water pistol. ] (]) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Perhaps my understanding of the English language isn't as good as I thought it was! I meant that we don't treat all opinions equally. --] 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
The perspective of gamergate ''is'' largely one-sided, as reliable sources have taken the view that it is primarily about harassment, so our article reflects that. An encyclopedia is not a venue in which to ]. ] (]) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:If the """" RS"""" supposedly condemns the harassment, I don't see anything about the hate and vitrol, not to mention ] violations *cough*sommers is a far right MRA XD*cough*cough*Milo is just a parasitic opportunist :^)*cough*. If there was no narrative to push, why are the """"" RS"""" silent about the harassment, on both sides? The fact that almost all that is acknowledged is the harassment towards the 3-5 people everyone are tired of hearing about. Also, CBC, should not under any circumstances be used as an RS, slandering David Pakman as a supposed perpetrator of harassment, despite Pakman being neutral/anti-gg. Fair word of warning about CBC as a source. --] ] 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now that I remember, the view that Sommers is an MRA making a cashgrab/holding onto relevance is one our friends over at the fine establishment of Encyclopedia Dramatica push. I would say it safe to consider ED views serious violations of BLP. Article won't be linked for obvious reasons. Bing it or something. --] ] 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::actually, pretty much every reliable source that discusses Sommers' involvement notes that she is a Chrissy-come-lately to any interest in games. -- ] 05:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: While Sommers had no previous experience with games, before her first (very informative and nicely done) video, let's look at it like this. The battleground of feminism has moved into the digital world, and here is something which is a hot topic for feminism. It would be a logical choice for a feminist to tackle a new thing. The only truth, is that sommers didn't say much about gaming before this. However, anything beyond that is speculation/opinion/slander, and therefore unfit for inclusion. The salon article is a hitpiece, simple as that, non-notable, seeing as Milo is back, and clearly slander. Its absurd that criticism of a group makes one against it. I have been very critical of gamergate myself, but that doesn't mean I'm against it. --] ] 05:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Also nice ] violation there. --] ] 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What, specifically, is the BLP violation? I see , not a violation. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It implies she is a rabid opportunist. If one side gets to decide the wording, and images used to describe them, is it too much to ask MINLOVE to allow nonslaneerous description of the other side? --] ] 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::its not ''my'' implication, its the one supported by 4 reliable sources. -- ] 07:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't think that word means what you think it means. <small>Seriously, click the link.</small> It's not a BLP violation to call someone a noob. I have no idea who MINLOVE is, but if they are causing a problem, please bring it up to ]. ]ing is a serious thing and should only be done in extreme circumstances. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::See ]. --] ] 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Er, do you mean ]? I ask since I was also under the assumption of the reference being toward a user. --] (]) 04:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd say content wise it's a pretty fair representation, the wording is often quite questionable though, and the article in general isn't very well structured. ]] 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== TV and GAME_JAM == |
|
|
|
|
|
], an actor credited with originating Gamergate, made an influential to two videos, the second of which makes claims about ] and the apparent failure of GAME_JAM. I was unable to access about the jam, but this is the event that Quinn was cited, and her game mentioned, in a piece by someone who (I think) she was accused of subsequently having a relationship with. But I find other writings about it like , mentioning TV reality show aspects to the production, including the statement that the suggested contract wording ''"also gave them provisions to make things up about the developers for the sake of drama, which, understandably, did not go over well with the people involved."'' This editorial seems to agree with something Quinn said (I think) in saying that Lesham, acting as middleman for the TV producers (???), "attempted to get a rise out of Zoe Quinn by asking blatantly sexist questions about her and other women’s involvement in game development." |
|
|
|
|
|
Now it seems to me that whatever happened that day at GAME_JAM is therefore right dead center at the heart of this 'controversy', apparently kicking off everything that followed, and needs to be explained in a lot more detail than ''I'' know about it. What is not so clear to me is whether the entire Gamergate Controversy is a continuation of this reality show, with the same manufactured controversies being continued. Has a 'reality show' in fact become ''real''? ] (]) 17:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''Added note:'' Lesham on , including 23 news articles from 2010-2014. ] (]) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:When I read through the Game_Jam stuff when it was news before, I don't get the impression that GG is a continuation of it; it was a show produced to be a "reality" show which is designed to provoke the participants so as to get good entertainment value. It ''is'' tied to GG for certain in the matter that GG'ers have pointed out that Grayson wrote his own take on the GAME_JAM, including a brief highlight of Quinn's DQ at the time, and while all that was before the reported date of their "closer" relationship (April-ish 2014), GGers claim this is "favorable coverage" that Quinn sought by becoming friends (platonic or otherwise) with Grayson. (This is why we keep having IPs/etc. claim that we can't call the accusations "false" because this one still exists). --] (]) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::If it were "dead center" there would be more reliable sources covering it. -- ] 17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sourcing to expand on the consumer/culture war asepct == |
|
|
|
|
|
from Reason by an associate editor there. --] (]) 22:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: I thought you were calling for more mainstream "higher quality" sources? ] (]) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: ] has a point. Specifically, it should not surprise us that a Libertarian think tank whose raison d'être is "free markets" publishes a piece by an associate editor that concludes that Gamergate indicates the need for free markets. I see lots of opinion here but little if any news; it might be news if a right-wing free-market outlet '''failed''' to find a culture-war aspect to the controversy. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually Masem has a point. This article contains multiple opinion sources. Why are libertarian sources not included in this article anyway? Is it due to paid editing like it happened before? --] (]) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::First, the article is neutral - it neither glorifies or condemns the GG side, but instead begs the question "why" this is happening, at least in terms of the ethics questions. Second, Reason as a magazine is similar to Slate or Salon, in that 1) they are not video game/tech publications and 2) they are writing from a social analysis standpoint, which is definitely where we should be putting forth the broader questions of why GG occurred like it did, without blaming or sympathizing. --] (]) 00:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Its certainly better than Gawker Media sources. And of course, I must agree with Masem's points. --] ] 04:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Slate and Salon are run by media companies, while Reason is funded and run by a non-profit political think-tank. --] (]) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This could go for just about any source, people have their own views that they generally view everything in the context of. Also bias per se isn't enough to dismiss a source. ]] 09:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:While an interesting read, a think tank publication is not quite on-par with actual media sources. ] (]) 13:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reason is not a "think tank publication," but an actual media source. ] (]) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ] ] (]) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Which, FWIW, does not bar it from being ] or used in Misplaced Pages, but we were talking about using only mainstream, non-specialist sources on this page and it would go against that. ] (]) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I would consider this, like Slate or Salon, a mainstream source - it has nothing to do with technology or video games on a regular basis, and has all the usual facets of RSes we'd expect (editorial board, an established history, etc.) It's not a broad distribution mainstream source like NYTimes or WAPost, but that's not an issue. --] (]) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: It's a specialist publication for the kind of right wing politics espoused by Baldwin et al. I also note that it's an opinion peice, something you've been against also. ] (]) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::<small>''Reason'' is not a right wing publication. It takes liberal positions on social issues. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::::: I never said opinion pieces were not usable. Just that we have to recognize they are opinion pieces and can't be used for what WP says it ins own voice. Further, I've pointed out that we should be looking to put more weight on sources that are removed both in topic (non-tech/vg) and time ( months after the initial events) that avoid the RECENTISM problem. All the initial responses by the VG industry within the first few weeks by people that were not directly involved are the ones that we should be reducing how much we use them, given that their overall response - that GG should be condemned for harassment - are now well summarized by more recent sources. --] (]) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::In principle, this argument might be used to justify removing coverage of female developers who were threatened with dismissal, assault, rape, and murder (because they are involved in the video game industry) and replacing it with the more measured commentary of right-wing male pundits who are more distant from the issue and can see both sides. Their greater perspective naturally gives them a more measured and nuanced view than those hysterical girls who made such an unholy fuss and who were directly involved. Of course, that’s not what anyone editing this page would propose, but we should be cautious both to avoid the injustice and also to avoid the appearance of injustice -- especially as some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light. (See, for example, the edit war over replacing "rape" with "sodomy" in the proposed draft, now escalated by the proponents of not mentioning the word "rape" to a request for sanctions].) ] (]) 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::There's plenty (an excess even) describing the harassment, but nearly all of them have the same general stance - the harassment and threats should be condemned, which are still readily summarized by current mainstream sources. (And of course, the opinions of the three women at the center of it should still get their own weight). And there are sources that are very critical of GG in the mainstream side that also acknowledge this is a culture war, which this Reason article would help build on. So no , there's zero issue here in the direction you are speaking of. --] (]) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== That 4chan image == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since I'm not seeing where this was discussed before and to actually establish some consensus, in considered the referenced DBZ image that the GG logo's colors are said to evoke, the question is how that image is described. Both from the sources and knowing the image in question, the image can be described, at best, depicting sodomy (one static image cannot readily imply rape) but when the image was used on 4chan, it was typically associated with their so-called "rape jokes" - in that 4chan applied the "rape" concept to the image. The FastCo Branding article does establish that it is a "rape joke" image, so we can't say it depicts "rape", but can say it is a image often associated with "rape jokes" on 4chan, per FastCo. --] (]) 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::-] writes: '''“ one static image cannot readily imply rape”'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I rather suspect that few art historians and fewer semioticians would agree with ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: In the context of threats of personal harm, I’d not advise anyone to rest too much weight on the distinction between "rape" and "rape joke". I know that I just critiqued ] above (in fact edit-conflicting with this), but seriously: this is not what you want to say, not even on a talk page, not even in the heat of an argument. Please rethink this quickly. ] (]) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is a necessary distinction, however, when it comes to the typical 4-chan mindset, and why we should be clear. Communities like that are aware of the cruelty of the physical action, but their online culture of anonymonity and separate from any victims, as described by many social reports on GG and the Internet in general, give them little idea of the consequences and repercussions of the use of "rape jokes" and the like particularly to those the target of those jokes. They don't see that being an issue (at least, until moderation steps in as was for the given 4chan image with the given color scheme). As such, in terms of talking about the 4chan community, there ''is'' a difference, and we have to be careful with the wording to avoid implicating something that is not true on a otherwise delicate manner. --] (]) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It really wasn't that I could find after the fact, or it was not discussed with any conclusiveness, so that kinda takes the hot air out of the flawed GG sanction filing last night. I'd be fine with "rape joke" as the descriptor. I'm also rather nauseated that we even have to discuss this in this level of detail. ] (]) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Trying to stave off another edit war, and since I can't find earlier consensus, might as well set it now and get it done over with quickly. I don't like talking about this either but necessary to avoid problems here. --] (]) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Emphatic Oppose''': First, the Fast Company article uses "rape" in the headline, repeatedly in the body, and elsewhere. Second, "joke" is a silly fig leaf: "Oh, my client made no threat -- the horse head in his bed was simply a practical joke" Third, we are apparently being invited to speculate whether '''in the mindset of 4chan''' sodomy is not as bad as rape or is "not that big a deal" and we have to respect what the <strike>people making rape threats</strike> 4chan commenters really meant. This is well beyond the pale. Please think again. (Meanwhile, should this go to AN/I immediately? Discretionary sanctions? WP:EMERGENCY? The project would be cast in a most unfortunate light if this discussion became common knowledge.) ] (]) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:First, there was an edit war over it; something has to be discussed; it's an icky discussion but one that is needed if we are going to talk about that in the article (WP is not censored). Second, it is not a "fig leaf", it a very large difference between a "rape joke" that comes from the locker room attitude of 4chan, and the actual vile physical action which I doubt the average 4channer would actually support. --] (]) 17:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:BTW, the article doesn't use "rape" in the headline at all, and only uses "rape joke" or "rape meme", but even describes the actual image in another manner. --] (]) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::My mistake: rape is in Boing Boing’s headline, the other reference. I'm glad you think the average 4chan reader does not support committing a first-class felony. And it's not an '''icky''' discussion at all. What’s icky here is excusing threatening female game developers with rape (besides murder) because either (a) not everyone on 4chan thinks that three women who happen to work in the games industry ought to be raped, and (b) they might have intended to threaten anal rather than vaginal rape, which they (or you?) think is less bad for some reason? Or you have reason to think that ''they'' think it’s less bad? ] (]) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well this is where we'd probably differ, but I think we're winding up in the same place anyways. The average, level-headed person obviously finds the idea of rape abhorrent, but IMO they also find the idea of ''joking'' about such a serious thing equally abhorrent. Trivializing and desensitizing others to the act via joking is just as damaging, so if Gamergaters want to hang their argument on "we aren't being serious, we're just having fun", I say "go right ahead". ] (]) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed 100%. Is there consensus to change this to {{blue|... linked the character's green and purple color scheme to an old 4chan rape joke.}}? This is how it's most commonly referred to in both sources (or 'rape meme', but in this context I'd consider them pretty much synonyms.) — ] (]) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'd quote "rape joke" but other than that is fine. Let the reader determine how appropriate a "rape joke" is instead of putting it in WP's voice, to keep us neutral. --] (]) 18:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::No. "Old" implies it's just an old joke, so no big deal. "Joke" is doubtful: I see no evidence that there's a joke here. Is there a story with a funny punchline? Is this something said to cause amusement? Who is amused, precisely? It’s allusion to an image of anal rape, presented in the context of threats against specific named women, and we should (and must) say so without excuse or prevarication. '''And someone -- preferably Masen -- should revdel the claim that "static images cannot readily imply rape " before we end up being called (a) a laughingstock and (b) rape enablers. |
|
|
::::::::I was thinking of "old" as in "long standing", not as a diminutive. We can leave it off, but we should convey to the reader somehow that this wasn't something new and unfamiliar to 4chan users. The sources use both "joke" and "meme". I agree it's not much of a 'joke', maybe "meme" would be better? We definitely don't need the scare quotes or any "locker room culture" talk. — ] (]) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
(edit conflict) ]: in the interest of keeping WP’s voice neutral, you want to be sure that the reader determines how appropriate a "rape joke" might be in the context of threats of physical harm leveled against women for pursuing their professional vocation. Could you provide an example where readers would think rape jokes to be appropriate in this context? (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?) ] (]) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Firstly your thoughts on this aren't very relevant, second of course people found it funny, it's shock humour. ]] 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, we should let the reader come to a conclusion that is not stated in the sources but implicit by a reasonable moral system. That is we can say, factually: |
|
|
:* There was an image (since banned) used on 4chan as part of a "rape joke" locker room attitude that has a unique color scheme. |
|
|
:* Even once the image was banned, other images of the same color scheme were used on 4chan in the same "locker room" joking attitude. |
|
|
:* Images used by GG - their logo and Vivian specifically - use a similar color scheme. |
|
|
:We can then say, per Fast Co's commentary that they (and others) believe this is not concidence, while GGs have denied any connection. |
|
|
|
|
|
:But we ''cannot'' make the implicit connection from GG using images that suggest the rape joke to the issues of harassment and rape threats to say that there's a problem with this because even as an opinion that is not stated in the sources; it's well implied, but not stated. The reader will have to come to that conclusion themselves, and I would expect most will, regardless. But we have to stay non-sympathetic as editors on WP, and present things as neutrally and impartially as possible. Also, I consider your last sentence approaching a personal attack; I am in no way trying to morally justify how 4chan thinks, only that they do think in a different way that we should not present wrongly. --] (]) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On the subject of whether a static image can imply rape, we have ] on the one hand, and on the other hand we have Goya, Picasso, Bernini, Rubens, and a whole lot more. I think it's quite clear that Fast Company and Boing Boing drew the conclusion that the color scheme was chosen to allude to a rape meme. I also note that above you adopt the excuse that it's merely a "locker room" joking attitude -- after all, threatening rape in ''a locker room'' is just boyish behavior? I can't believe what I'm seeing -- and I can’t believe I’m alone here. ] (]) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am absolutely not trying to defend them, I am trying to say that in WP's neutral voice, there is a difference between a "rape joke" and the actual act, and we cannot imply the latter if the sources only talk about the former. We need to stay amoral regardless of any personal feelings on the matter. --] (]) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is Misplaced Pages. We go with what the sources say. ] (]) 18:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted that this misunderstanding is partially my fault, as I mentioned and allured to a discussion which was not large as I remembered, and certainly not as concrete as I remember. For that I am regretful. Though, More discussion is warranted I suppose. Rather than all the not forum and heated arguments, let's argue strictly based on the sources. The 'sodomy' compromise was what I believe was endured to stop the edit warring and endured until it was reverted by another editor just recently. Sodomy and rape are synonyms and if not, very closely related and is appropriate. It was a euphemism, additionally. So, the sources say: Fastcodedesign.com (ignoring any issues of reliablity), say 'rape meme' in the author's tone, but quotes the 'rape joke' portion of it. It also further mentions 'meme' further down in the article. They also use rape joke as someone's quote, so it appears they're using it interchangably. Boing Boing is less ambiguous, they use 'rape joke' in the title and in the article. So in essence, rape joke appears in both sources and if we're going to be going with not a compromise but solely from the source, it would be the dominant figure. ] (]) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:My goodness: I find I agree here with ] Will wonders never cease. However, ''sodomy'' and ''rape'' are '''not synonyms''' nor are they "very closely related", nor is "sodomy" a suitable euphemism for "rape", nor should Misplaced Pages adopt euphemisms to cover up criminal threats. The terms of this discussion are extremely ill-advised, but we now have a consensus: the sources say "rape" and "rape joke" and there we are. ] (]) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: It's not uncommon to do such on Misplaced Pages, especially with regards to BLP; and to stop edit wars. It just makes it all the more common. And no, you're deliberately leaving off the 'joke' portion of it. They didn't mention purely the word, 'rape' but with the qualifier based on it. If you're trying to deliberately omit that qualifier, I am opposed to such as that would be synthesis of the source and leaves behind the important background information. ] (]) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm OK with "rape joke" as in these sources, but I (and I think quite a few readers) would appreciate a hint about how this is "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline." I guess I'm missing something. No doubt I'm being dense; be a pal and let me in on the joke, OK? I mean, if the source called it a "rape trout," we'd presumably be scratching our heads. (Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with ] in thinking Misplaced Pages should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.) ] (]) 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As the FastCo article explains, it is a in-joke in that, in the past, someone would post that image regularly, forcing it to the readers despite them not wanting it (hence the name). It is not so much "a joke about rape" (which yeah, would be hard to stomach), but a "forced" meme, which they came to call a "rape joke". We don't have to make any attempt to justify this even close to be a reasonable thing, only that it does exist and best described by that. --] (]) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Sorry, ]. Walk me through this: I guess I'm very slow today. A group at 4chan is discussing a campaign to dissuade female game developers from pursuing their vocation by various means, such as beating them up at conferences. We're sending them rape and murder threats on Twitter, coordinated through this board at 4chan. And we’re sending each other an image that depicts a purple cartoon character raping a green cartoon character, which we send to various people "despite them not wanting it." I'm still not seeing a joke here. Of course, for some reason you don’t think '''any''' static image can depict rape, so I'm not sure you and I have a lot of common ground when it comes to visual humor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Sanctions enforcement== |
|
::::::Let’s literally follow the sources. Rather than a "rape image" or a "rape joke", how about "an image of rape which 4chan users regarded as a joke"? That seems to follow ''precisely'' what you describe; the sources agree that the colors allude to a specific image, the sources (and common sense) that the image described non-consensual sexual penetration, and (as you point out) the sources make it clear that at 4chan, GamerGaters considered it a joke. This precisely follows our sources. ] (]) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 12:00, 26 April 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1840363256}}<!-- END PIN --> |
|
|
All articles related to the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ]. |
|
:::::::The image and the harassment are separated by about 4-6 years of time (the image was banned on the site some time ago). So you're creating a statement about connection that doesn't exist. The connection from the image, to the green and purple colors which sorta became memetic on 4chan, to the Vivian/GG logo is postulated; the creators in the Fast Co article are stating it started from the green/purple of 4chan, and not the allusion to the first image, even if that's where the green/purple came from (there's oral history-type stuff that gets lost that people might forget such origins). There are clear possible theories presented that the designers of those images knew exactly what they were doing when they created the logos, but we cannot verify that at all. And no, the sources are clear is it s a "rape joke/meme", (in quotes) when used in the past. I doubt that today they would considering using that image in light of the harassment issues. --] (]) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) ] (UTC)</small> |
|
I am so lucky I have someone on the inside to consult about *chan and the IRC. To start MB's... ''useful'' contributions are full of factual inaccuracies, appeals to emotion, and other such stuff. For one, Poole has formally censored any talk of GamerHate, save for a containment thread on the /pol/ board, which ''everyone'' takes seriously. Secondly, I can't imagine what 20k+ <s>group of diverse peoples who are fed up with the status quo</s> GamerHate sockpuppets, have to gain from harassing 3 women for 3+ months. Am I defending the scumbags who have harassed the women? Absolutely not. I simply find it beyond logic that 20K+ white, cishet male sockpuppet SPA vandals like me (neither cis, heterosexual, white, SPA, or vandal, and im NEUTRAL to GG, fyi), would have something to gain from such a trivial exercise in self-humiliation. Anyways, sure someone on the internet said so and so = rape, but it is up to Misplaced Pages to present the APPROPRIATE INFO. I'm sure the "green+purple=rape" can be justified; the same way /pol/ justifies the Holocaust. And, suppose that the green+purple colourscheme was based on piccolo. There are many avenues one can take to explain that. Perhaps the /a/ anime board wanted to hijack, in essence a character in a professional game. Or, make an inside joke about DBZ and GG. Perhaps a subtle way for /a/ to insult /v/'s taste in anime? Maybe some other board did something, since as I'm told, board infighting is common. AND, even if it is a reference (somehow) to Daily Dose, context matters. Perhaps it was the forced nature, perhaps (this is a huge stretch), since the pro-gg side were already nazis/rapists/KKK/ebola, they wanted to throw a curveball to the media knowing they grasp at nonexistent straws, in the hopes they'd make fools of themselves (suddenly its sounding very plausible). Unless you hunt down all 20K+ sockpuppets of GamerHate, and force them to submit to polygraph tests, and interrogate them about the meaning of the colors, is there really any way to make the claim said by the "RS"? Sure, both sides have made some hilariously fringe claims, but this one takes the cake, and eats it too. Unless you resort to far-right pseudoscience, I find no logical way to make such a definitive, and final claim. More attempts to charge an already charged article. --] ] 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: if we're going to open things up to ] them we're going to open things up to EVERYONES OR, and trust me when I say it's not going to come out looking any better. ] (]) 05:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The articles sourced should somewhat be held to Misplaced Pages's own standards. This is a fringe point being made. It takes up valuable server space and adds nothing of value to the article. It should be removed completely. --] ] 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You are not actually suggesting that we should apply ] to content within our sources and dismiss any source that makes an analysis because '''the source''' has made analysis and interpretation? -- ] 16:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: /glances upwards at ridiculous conversation. |
|
|
::: I think the whole conserving server space ship has sailed, I'm afraid. ] (]) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::it was a joke. --] ] 07:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== They/them pronoun confusion == |
|
== Cernovich's involvement == |
|
|
{{hat|] for general discussion of a topic; if there are, at some point, reliable sources for this discussion, it can be restarted.}} |
|
|
It seems Mike Cernovich, impromptu lawyer of pro-gg, wants to take on the IDGA for libel and/or slander. Has any RS picked up on this? And no, tabloids/blogs don't count as RS. --] ] 05:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is there a connection between Gamergate and the issue(s) between Cernovich and IDGA? If not, then it is just an issue between the two sides. --] (]) 07:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For one, Cernovich almost got SWATted by an anti-gger (] works both ways. Second, IGDA, is under scrutiny by pro-gg I hear. --] ] 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Update, by this point the IGDA is throwing the chairman of its Puerto Rican branch under the bus. No 2nd party sources yet. Check Cernovich's twitter, Milo's twitter, and Roberto Rosario's twitter for background before Gawker is inevitably sourced again. --] ] 09:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Background . --] ] 09:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used. |
|
Ummm,,,,I see no sources here, reliable or otherwise. What are you trying to say?] (]) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The lead currently contains the following sentence: |
|
:He's trying to find out if anyone else has found reliable sources on this issue. This appears to be a valid question and a valid situation to address if we can. ] (]) 15:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, this appears to be a ] for DSA510 to talk about something he explicitly admits has no sources. ] (]) 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I see him saying there's no second party source on this Puerto Rican issue, but not on the chief topic. It appears he's being proactive in trying to find non-poor sources, which should be commended. Of course, if no sources can be found, it shouldn't be included, but that doesn't preclude discussion. ] (]) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Nonsense. The twitter stream only shows that one fellow on the internet is upset and threatening to sue someone. There's no reason to believe that he is capable or willing to file such a suit, and less reason to believe that the suit will succeed -- especially if it is filed against IDGA, which merely links to the database. Meanwhile, Cernovich’s allies have been sending Randi Harper, the developer of the blacklist, pictures of her dead sister: absolutely charming, right? But sure -- it's a valid situation to address, because '''maybe''' something will happen and '''maybe''' if something happens a WP:RS will mention it, and then you can edit war indefinitely for a pro-spin? '''No sources, no news.''' ] (]) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gamergate began with an August 2014 blog entry called "The Zoe Post" by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of <u>their</u> sexual relationship with a games journalist. |
|
== False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text. |
|
I seriously cannot believe we are starting this topic again. We can't slap the False into the title because the allegations that the a friendship existed were true. We have to define that the allegations that favourable coverage were given were false; That however cannot be done in a single heading. ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Unless I'm missing something in the sources, isn't the accurate description of the claim "unfounded?" After all, the allegations have not been proven true or false, right? ] (]) 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, the claims, while based on weak evidence, has some foundation. But the claims have certainly be "refuted" by and large - the claims were made but the press has considered what the involved parties have said to be truthful so the claims were refuted. --] (]) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Walk me through this as if I'm completely new to this topic (it may just be able to nip this for good). What is the foundation, and what refuted it beyond the press simply declaring the "involved parties" as "truthful?" ] (]) 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The foundation of the claim is: based on Gjoni's post, that Quinn and Grayson had started a more closer relationship. Quinn is a game dev with a game about to come out at that time, and Grayson an editor for the video game site Kotaku. The supposition that GG has used from that foundation is that Quinn was using the relationship to garner positive press for her game. (Note that Gjoni himself did not suggest any of this, and later went on record to affirm he didn't imply this at all). |
|
|
::::The refution comes from a post made by Tolito, the lead ed at Kotaku, stating that the relationship between Quinn and Grayson (Which exists) has not impacted any of Grayson's editing since - there has been no review by Grayson or any member of Kotaku about DQ (this is provable), and while Grayson wrote about DQ earlier in a post about Game Jam, the timing was before the start of their relationship. As such, Tolito has refuted such claims, which Quinn and Grayson have said similar in their own comments. The press has readily agreed that the accusation is simply untrue based on these statements and lack of a DQ review. The GG side still point to the Game Jam article, which was written about 3 months prior to the relationship start date, as that there was still positive press at a point where Grayson and Quinn were friends within the industry, and that this still points to ethical concerns that Grayson gave Quinn's game a more favorable light in that Game Jam article. But at that point, we start going down a rabbit trail to even talk about it more from RSes. As such, the primary charge - Quinn was using the relationship with Grayson to get positive press - is by and far refuted by pretty much everyone else in the world. --] (]) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing: |
|
:Zoe Quinn is a free adult woman; she may befriend whom she pleases -- even a writer. So no "allegation" can be made on this account. The "allegation" is that she traded sexual favors for favorable reviews; this allegation has been comprehensively shown to be untrue. "False" accords with (a) the sources, (b) the facts, and (c) the longstanding usage on this page and its consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Called "The Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of <u>their</u> relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for <u>their</u> sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the gaming websites Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun. |
|
:Also note that the unqualified allegation that Quinn traded, is alleged to have traded, or arguably traded sexual favors for favorable reviews would, if it appeared in the article, be a major BLP violation and as such is not, by my understanding, subject to the 3RR rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship. |
|
:Please note that this edit war began (as I predicted yesterday) within 5 minutes of the end of page protection. Restoration of '''FULL PROTECTION''' is very much in the interest of the project -- not least because this page is and will continue to be the subject of interest and scrutiny. Admins please take note. ] (]) 16:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). ] (]) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::The fact the accusation has been the major point of discussion of sources - and that all key parties have clearly stated that these are not true - means that from a BLP standpoint, it is acceptable to include the high-level nature of the allegations, as long as it is 100% clear that they have been refuted by the specific parties and by the press at large. This has been determined waaaaay in the past. Now there are other claims that have come against Quinn based on Gjoni's post, but which the press have generally ignored, but we are absolutely not including those per BLP. --] (]) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I agree. I've tried some very minor rewording - replaced the first "their" with "Quinn's" to read "which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of Quinn's sexual relationship with a games journalist", and removed the "their" from the second to give "The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson". Hopefully that reads better. - ] (]) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::So, to be clear, the evidence that they're false comes from personal accounts, right? That's why "unfounded" appears to be a better word to use. That way, we're not letting the voice of Misplaced Pages take a side in what amounts to he-said-she-said, unless there's some clear evidence that I'm not seeing here. ] (]) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The biggest piece of evidence is the ''lack'' of positive coverage; there is no DQ review from Grayson (or Kotaku for that matter). What some GGers have focused on is Grayson's Game Jam article that highlights DQ as one of several games there, which arguably may be positive press, but it also was written before the date that Quinn/Grayson's relationship has been claimed to have been started; some GGers still consider this a problem in terms of positive press. --] (]) 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So there isn't anything proving or disproving the allegations, thus they're unfounded. Am I reading this right? ] (]) 17:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That there is a relationship is true - none of the involved parties deny this (Tolito even affirmed it in his post). But using that relationship for press, there is no visible evidence for that, in addition to what all three have said on the matter (Tolio, Quinn, and Grayson). There are some GGers that doubt those statements, but that's not our place to second guess what RSes have all assumed to be true statements. --] (]) 17:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That there is or was a relationship is true, but cannot be an allegation. The only thing that can possibly be alleged is that sexual favors were exchanged for favorable reviews. This was alleged, and it was shown to be untrue. Dredging this up again and again could conceivably be actionable and is certainly a violation of WP:BLP. Nor need we make a point that the RS have all ''assumed'' these to be true statements: since no favorable reviews were in fact written, then the favorable reviews that do not exist could not possibly have been written in exchange for sexual favors. '''Why do the same WP editors keep finding the need to rehash the sexual history of this particular woman, who committed no wrongdoing, here?''' Stop it. ] : please consider revdel-ing this section, and someone -- anyone -- please hat it without delay. ] (]) 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{ping|Masem}} got it. I think, given what is known, that "unfounded" is what we should be using. ] (]) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think ''false'' is fine. And I think it's a good thing we have six months now to discuss this and other pressing topics without risk of using wikipedia to make allegations about a game developer’s personal life. Now, it'd be dandy if the proponents of "Allegations" or "Unproven Allegations" would apologize to their victim, but that's not going to happen, is it? But I think it not unreasonable to ask that we enjoy a respite from rehashing this unrelenting torrent of vituperation against women in computing. ] (]) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::With no firm evidence that the claims are false, regardless of our own feelings or beliefs on the matter, we need to go with what's available, thus "unfounded" seems fair: it put the onus on the accusers and assigns no fault to the target. "Unproven" implies evidence exists that hasn't been presented for the purposes of writing a neutral, factual article. Furthermore, please stop with the bad faith accusations here. It's a lot of heat and no light. ] (]) 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The allegation that Quinn had a relationship was something that Gjoni's original post brought up (and to go into any more of that post, would be BLP for sure); the subsequent allegation that grew out of that from the GG side is that she not only had that relationship but was using it for positive press. Now at that point, there was no affirmation that Quinn/Grayson had a relationship, but once Tolito posted, as Kotaku's lead editor, about the situation, he affirmed that yes, there was an relationship, but nothing else about the allegation was true. As such "false" is technically wrong, because one facet of the allegation was confirmed as true; I'm fine with "unproven" to signal that no reliable source considers the allegation to be true otherwise. --] (]) 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris == |
|
I've restored full protection. An immediate edit war upon the end of page protection regarding a significant aspect of the controversy clearly indicates the need. ] <small>(])</small> 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion in ''Wired'' of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in other contexts '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 00:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Thank you,]. As you were doing this, I was posting at ] asking someone -- anyone -- to do exactly that. You're a prince. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu == |
|
The hatting of this thread really comes across as strange. If we're not able to discuss a key section of the article, how are we supposed to improve/fix/settle the article? ] (]) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: per the above, I was willingly to compromise with the "Unfounded" change, having regrettingly done the "Unproven" ] one because I thought it represented it better. I was about to post this to end the discussion when I instead found out that <s>Gamaliel </s>RedPenOfDoom hatted it instead. ] (]) 18:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: . Arguably we've been through the details of what the allegations are so many times in the past but that's been something that new ediors might not recognize if they don't read the archives. --] (]) 18:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should it be added that several proponents of Gamergate attempted to out then stealth trans woman ] as part of the harassment campaign? ] (]) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The hatting (partially) protects serious BLP violations. If it were necessary to discuss false allegations concerning a named individual's sex life -- which you apparently felts was desirable -- that discussion is now settled. The allegations were false and unfounded; that's what the sources say, and that's what Misplaced Pages says. Some people apparently felt it was important to argue that the false and unfounded allegations might be better described as "unproven" or that we should rehash the sexual allegations again, in more detail, to see if something exculpatory for Gamergate might come up. It didn't. I'd take it as a kindness if, having read this, ] would tick his question and my answer together up under the hat.] (]) 18:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will not do so, no. I don't know why you continue to assume motives about your fellow editors, but the fact remains that the allegations, true or false or unfounded or unproven or disproven, remain part and parcel of the topic as far as I can tell, and are as such because of the sources that discuss them. No one involved in this talk section appears to want to slander anyone, but rather wants to solve the problem so we can all move on. Comments like this only serve to fan the flames. ] (]) 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 5 November 2024 == |
|
::That's an overreaction. If we were only including an allegation with no claims to back it up or no sourcing to show it was refuted, that would definitely be a BLP allegation. But we have many many RSes that all explain how this situation started from the allegations of using the relationship for positive reviews, the refutation of those by said parties, and the numerous sources that all believe their word it was refuted. That's completely acceptable to include (and as necessary, discuss) in building and improving the article. Again, I note that there are several other claims made by Gjoni that we '''will not include''' because no one else has talked about them or provided evidence about them, and that would be a clear BLP issue. But when an accusation is the focal point of an event, it has to be discussed. --] (]) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
I have unhatted, Red Pen of Doom should absolutely not be hatting any discussion. It also violates ]. ] (]) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
::There is a valid argument that TPROD should not have hatted the discussion under ]. There is no valid argument that it requires unhatting. According to BLPTALK, false allegations should be removed, deleted, redacted, or suppressed. It does not say that hatted discussions should be exposed. ]: You are experienced enough that you should know that BLPTALK does not say that hatted comments should be exposed. ] (]) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I have issue and concern that if these claims related to the article are not resolved, they will stay in a state which will happen to also be a BLP violation. Hatting (and especially by a seriously involved editor) has no purpose on this specific discussion. For an example of hatting done right, Dungeon's assertion of Mike Cernovich should be hatted, as he presented no sources and the like. Hatting an active discussion relating to content which there are sources is not a productive use of time and delays the editing process. ] (]) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
So gamergate IS about prurient interests in women's sex lives? I thought it was about ethics? -- ] 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::On the ], no one knows that you are being sarcastic. You, ], never really believed that it was about ethics, did you? ] (]) 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Is it about misogyny in gaming then? Explain why I was doxxed. --] ] 19:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Or you could just not make meme claims on the talk page which is about improving the article, Red. ] (]) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::edit warring to reopen well settled and well sourced content to beg ] BLP allegations that are not related to the topic of the article is not improving the encyclopedia. -- ] 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's obviously not resolved if you're having to edit war to hat it. The article was edit warred to the exact issue. Discussion ensued. I see nothing out of process here other than the disruptive hatting. ] (]) 19:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::that editors keep saying we dont believe we should follow all of the reliable sources, doenst mean that it is not "settled" it just means that some people are disruptive. -- ] 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And no editors in this discussion are saying we shouldn't follow the reliable sources, so this accusation also appears unfounded. ] (]) 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The reliable sources call the accusations false. That's a settled issue. ] (]) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The reliable sources call the accusations false, yes. No one is disputing that. The question is how we, as a project, should refer to them in Misplaced Pages's voice given the evidence of the claim. Thus the option to use "unfounded," as it is a neutral term that encompasses the claims of all sides as well as weighs the evidence. ] (]) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We look at the sides of the evidence that have been presented by the reliable sources. Their side of the evidence: That the allegations ARE false. Period. And yes there ARE editors who are not only passively disputing it like you, but .-- ] 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no "other side" here worthy of discussion, per ]. We cannot mention disproven allegations about a living person without clearly describing them as disproven. It is not "neutral" to present something which is false as possibly true. ] (]) 19:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You seem to misunderstand, and part of the discussion above was to solve this. The reliable sources have declared them untrue, yes. We should say that with proper attribution. In Misplaced Pages's voice, however, we cannot simply assert a claim in ''either direction'' lacking evidence to do so. This is not a fringe position that the claims are unfounded, as reliable sources also state that. Given the nature of the claims and the evidence, there does not seem to be any other word that responsibly defines the situation described. ] (]) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You are just kidding arent you? Otherwise you are clearly demonstrating that you are either not ] or are simply here to troll. -- ] 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Please stop the personal attacks. I have been an editor here for years, I understand very well how this works. ] (]) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No. The reliable sources call them false, because, as the reliable sources discuss, '''the evidence demonstrates that they are false.''' There is not and never has been a review of ''Depression Quest'' by Nathan Grayson. '''No such review exists in this or any other universe.''' This is uncontroverted fact, and fundamentally disproves the allegation. Any claims that the allegations are true is a ] unworthy of mention in this article. When it comes to allegations of wrongdoing about living people, it is a fundamental BLP issue that we describe false allegations as false, and we will do so in this case. ] (]) 20:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Okay, now we're getting somewhere, and this comes back to the original question above. How does the lack of the review disprove the claim? That's the part I'm missing, based solely off the sources provided and the article. I'm trying to figure out how to solve this issue. ] (]) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The claim is that the relationship led to positive reviews and coverage by Nathan Grayson. No such reviews exist, and Nathan Grayson did not write anything '''at all''' about Zoe Quinn after the relationship began. ] (]) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Got it. Based on what you're saying here, I have a better grasp on it. The language in the article as it currently stands appears good, then, and we might want to be more explicit about it being about one specific allegation, as the current wording suggests multiple allegations beyond the single review. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Reviewing the bidding '''again''', as requested.. The page is unprotected this morning, after an overnight spasm of WP:FORUM speculation by DSA. Immediately after it's unprotected, we are asked to inquire into Zoe Quinn’s sex life, which has already been exhaustively discussed here. Is there something unethical? No. (again) Is there some source somewhere what says something '''might''' be unethical? (no) Can't we find anything bad to say? (no) Can we just say "allegations were made?" (no) Can we substitute "unfounded allegations" for "false allegations"? (maybe) Should this be on the talk page? (no) But OMG WP:BLPTALK !!!!! Can't hat! We must have more discussion of Zoe Quinn's sex life, as prominently as possible, because ... why exactly?! Oh -- and what other GG victims have sex lives we can discuss? (Hint: DSA tried to start that last night.) But its all fine, 'cause DSA says he got doxxed just like Ruylong, and WP:BLPTALK, and we mustn't misquote the nice admin about no static image can readily depict rape, because (oh yeah) it's '''really''' important that we spend a few thousand words to distinguish whether to call it a "rape meme" or a "rape joke" or "sodomy" because sodomy is totally like rape and it's all icky (as the respected admin reminded us repeatedly) but what are you going to do? Let me walk right up to the edge of WP:CIVIL, because the very edge is the only place we can decently stand: '''The behavior of pro-GG wikipedians on this page over the past 36 hours has been disheartening, appalling, and a disgrace to what was once a noble project.''' ] (]) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Now this comment is the definition of ] and a rant in itself. ] (]) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''. There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic — ] (]) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
=== Arb break=== |
|
|
|
---- |
|
The issue overall is that when we mention "allegations", we have two allegations that we can talk to (under the scope of BLP and what good RSes give us): |
|
|
* That Quinn and Grayson had a relationship (from Gjoni's post) |
|
|
* That, in that relationship, Quinn was using it to get positive reviews (from GG's side) |
|
|
The former was proven true by Kotaku, Quinn and Grayson, in a public manner. The latter has clear lack of evidence (no review of DQ on Kotaku, and Grayson hasn't mentioned her game in anything he's written since the relationship started) to be presumed false by all sources that matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Gamergate}} – In ] (12 November 2014), there was no consensus to move to Gamergate due to recentism and whether it is the primary topic. In ], there was consensus to move the ant species to use its qualifier. It is now clear that there is no recentism issue, and the hatnote indicates this is the primary topic "GamerGate redirects here. For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation)." ] (]) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
So the issue, saying "false allegations" is not accurate because one was at least true. On the other hand if we are limiting it to the single accusation of positive press, then "false" is correct, as we currently have in the body {{green|This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors in the gaming community that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of Quinn's game, Depression Quest}}. But in the section title, "false assuations" is not correct, and while we could say "false accusation", there are several others accusations made (that we will not repeat) that GGers have also focused on, and while these have not had anywhere close to the same visibility of the main one, they have generally been considered unfounded or tangent to the matter at hand, but they do exist. Thus a word that is near to "false" but less "absolute" would be the better wording choice for the section title, such as "Unproven allegations...". --] (]) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Am I right in understanding that the ''Depression Quest'' review claim is false based on the evidence, but that there are other allegations that are believed to be false, but can only accurately be called unfounded or unproven? That might be the root of the issue of this section right here. ] (]) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::There are other issues the proGG side has said that involve Quinn and journalism corruption that are above and beyond the relationship with Grayson which I am not going to go into any detail about for BLP reasons, just that those allegations have been made. I don't believe these allegations have merit but they do exist. --] (]) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Saying that someone's in a relationship is not an "allegation." There is no wrongdoing inherent to a relationship. ] (]) 20:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Two adults having a relationship is not an "allegation" that anyone cares about or that has any bearing on this article. The Puritan sex police are ]-- ] 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Gjoni's post certainly made it it an allegation - he didn't have clear evidence of the relationship at the time. --] (]) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*A nitpick on the "primary topic" bit: ]—that is, ] with 2 capital Gs—redirects here, as nobody writes "GamerGate" when discussing the ant. It doesn't mean that this article is the primary topic. ] is a disambiguation page. Also, there have been 6 move discussions since that 2014 discussion, so I wouldn't put too much stock into just "recentism". They're all under the "Other talk page banners" banner at the top of the page. ] (]) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Categories== |
|
|
|
*'''Support''' I really don’t think anyone outside of biologists even knows “gamergate” is a type of ant. This isn’t like the infamous ] vs. ] debacle— one’s an obscure technical term and the other is an extremely infamous harassment campaign. ] (]) 00:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'm sure there's a good reason that the categories are deliberately broken, but I don't know what it is. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
: fixed, happened during the merging of the draft article ] (]) 16:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
*:agreed! ] (]) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom.--] (]) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Many thanks. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>19:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as there is still data coming out about both topics and "obscure" is only of value as a term when used to demote the usage of something outside ones scope of knowledge. Gamergate as a caste of ant social structure is not going to go away at any point. The harassment campaign is over, and as the legacy section shows, each years coverage has moved more and more to basic level "compared to" analogies and a full lack of in-depth conversation. Recentism seems to clearly be applicable here.--]] ] 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Woodroar and Kevmin. This gets rehashed frequently, but there's still no policy-based reason to move the article from its current name. We should retain the disambiguation page at ] and keep this page as-is. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. I suppose I'll add an official !vote here. The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Misplaced Pages itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the ''Adventure Time'' character or note about ]. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase ] redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. ] (]) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:This won't stay relevant forever, but as long as culture war isn't over, this would be the primary topic in most people's head, and a contentious topic at that. I am hesitant to do a ] here, but I am quite sure culture war will continue for at least 20 years per ], it will be very useful to keep this as primary topic during that time. ] (]) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. ]] 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{tq|nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate}}{{cn}} This seems to sit squarely in statements without data territory. You're saying nobody at all searches for the ant caste by its ''official name''??--]] ] 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Yeah, Not sure what sort of demographic group is searching for ant castes named Gamergate... unless they knew it was an ant and put (ant) at the end. ]] 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::The problem here is that "knowing to put (ant) at the end" is learned behavior for searching and editing on wikipedia, not innate search behavior taught in school or higher education. You are creating a ] that the ant is NOT a search topic ever and using that to endorse your position.--]] ] 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Gamergate was a decade ago already, periodically re-upped or mentioned in passing as a historic footnote to the alt-right. The ant is eternal. The "for other uses" at the top likely needs refining is all I would say. And, unrelated to this specifically, the article long ago needed a rewrite. ] (]) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' “the ant will always be relevant” is technically true, but dismissing Gamergate the harassment campaign as just something that will fade away in ''x'' years is ]. If we took this ''ad absurdum'', you could say the primary topic of ''Mario'' being ] is recentism, because ] has been around much longer, but that is obviously silly because there’s only one “Mario” most people are thinking of when they type it in. Similarly, who is seriously searching for information on a type of ant when they look up “gamergate”? None of the first-page hits on DuckDuckGo are for the ant besides its Misplaced Pages page. ] (]) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:It already has faded away and is referenced in the past tense. It was a thing that happened briefly a decade ago. The people searching Gamergate for ants (or writing thesis, or producing research content, or studying entomology) are the same ones doing it before 2016, and will continue to do so forever because it is, like, science. This does not mean Gamergate ceases to be mentioned, or doesn't generate hits or search results - and why prior consensus agreed on the disambiguation. This is also why the sentence {{tq|In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic}} exists. Mario meanwhile is covered later by the statement: {{tq|Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for example, ] is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article}} of WP:PRIMARY. ] (]) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::“Happened in the past” is not a measure of relevance any more than happening in the present is. Is ] irrelevant because it only lasted a few days? Is Randy In Boise’s Junkyard Band relevant because they’re currently touring garages in the vicinity of ]? ] (]) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::It very specifically is a measure of long term relevance as referenced in the example of Apple Inc vs Apple. The significance of coverage of the event confers notability for the creation of an article. After the event, the significance is maintained through repeated coverage. Woodstock (as the given example) has persistent, repeated, significant and notable coverage and new significant material produced about it annually (along with insignificant and non-notable coverage where it is merely referenced). Gamergate as a harassment campaign isn't. Gamergate occasionally comes up in single instances of research, commonly referenced as a precursor to some element of the Alt Right - but the topic itself isn't discussed, rather it is used as a bellwether type event. There are typically articles written from time to time with titles such as "What we didn't learn from Gamergate" etc but there is little meaningful content (either about the victims, the actions, and certainly not the perpetrators beyond the speculative attribution of the thing to a group of people who may or may not be now a part of another thing). In contrast (per example previous) Apple Inc is likely the most searched topic, the most routinely covered and so on - but an Apple is an ], Valve is a ], just as a Gamergate should be a Gamergate. ] (]) 01:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Except nobody knows what a gamergate ''is'' besides an entomologist. It isn’t even considered a valid word by my spellcheck, i.e, it’s an obscure technical term almost nobody uses. ] (]) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Arguments from incredulity do not really give any traction to your point though (you not looking for the Caste =/= NO ONE searches for the caste). Policy is where changes come from, and as it stands now, there is a continually decreasing amount of novel coverage for the harassment campaign, while the ant caste isn't going to go anywhere an has the lasting persistence of science topics.--]] ] 18:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::Bkonrad’s argument directly below is concrete evidence that almost nobody is looking for the ant. The opposes are many, but they’re all based on four main arguments: “]” “]” “]” and “]”; these are all vague and subjective in their importance. ] (]) 07:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::Bkonrad’s argument missed all the points the {{yo|KoA}} provided regarding the nuance of flash in the pan events vrs established topics with lasting use in a field. A situation you also are ignoring,--]] ] 19:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::Yes, there is a small population of individuals in a narrow field of study who might use the term with some frequency (some of whom are apparently thin-skinned enough to get bent out of shape that more people are interested in other things). This niche technical term in is dwarfed by the overwhelming disparity in what readers of this encyclopedia are looking for. Any comparison with Apple (fruit) vs Apple (company) is without merit. Nearly every speaker of English knows what the Apple fruit is, even if the company generates more traffic. For gamergate, it is likely less than .01% of English speakers who know about (or might ever think to look up) the ant-related topic. ] ≠ ] 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. This is a bit ridiculous. The and show pretty overwhelmingly what readers are looking for in this case and it is not ants. The ants can be added specifically to the hatnote in addition to the dab so readers looking for the ant are still only one click aways just as they would be with the current setup. ] ≠ ] 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', if we can make a compromise, why not rename the ant article to Gamergate (insect/or ant)? ] (]) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment.''' Nothing that prior to this comment, the other affected page on the ants was never notified. That's an inappropriate ] in terms of notification when comments are being made about the ants while leaving out the audience that would be most knowledgeable about it when discussing ] and focusing instead on only this page's audience instead. I didn't notice this was going on until I stopped over at the disambig page's talk today. I'll put notifications up shortly. ] (]) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Idk what that means ] (]) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::@]; Primary topic grabs typically require multi-page moves, but if they don't, it is still courtesy to notify the other pages listed on the disambiguation. ] (]) 07:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. While this topic certainly still gets mentioned, coverage has declined sharply; it seems silly to suggest that it would be more appropriate as the main article than it was a decade ago when it was in full-swing. --] (]) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose.''' per ]. It's one thing to have the current disambiguation setup, but to call the harassment topic the primary topic would be a huge pardigm shift from previous discussions that isn't reflected here. I'll get into the substance below, but this does feel like a bludgeon for editors at the ant page not wanting to have to deal with a controversial topic. Over the last 10 years, this page has had a lot of controversy over its title and ambiguity on what to call itself to the point moratoriums have been put in place on RMs partially to give the ant topic a break. For the harassment topic to suddenly be the primary, there would have to be something huge that changed that wasn't covered ad nauseum in all the past RMs. Here's the history I had from the last RM below: |
|
|
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1041117019#Requested_move_20_August_2021 |
|
|
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1039653835#Requested_move_12_August_2021 |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] (moratorium put in place on requested moves) |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*#] |
|
|
*:This initial proposal leaves out a lot of what actually happened in the , but the core issue here is that comments in support aren't really addressing the core issues found in the last move. It wasn't primarily a matter of recentism, but instead rangling with two aspects of PTOPIC: |
|
|
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.}} |
|
|
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.}} |
|
|
*:For the time being, the harassment campaign has higher views in terms of PT1, but all of our guidance related to views, search hits, etc. have strong cautions against carte blanche use of those stats, especially in terms of ] and our internet audience where internet topics like the harassment topic are going to be more popular. For PT2 though, that's where the ant has a pretty clear case. Previous closes were clear too {{tq|it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance}}. Personally I think that puts the ant squarely as the primary topic even when weighing all of that with an even hand. With that said, the harassment campaign over 10 years never had primary topic status, though in the 2021 RM, it was just split down the middle to have a disambiguation page instead of having the ant as the primary topic. That at least did stop the RMs for a time, but I'm not seeing anything here that would suggest that something has majorly changed on that side since 2021. |
|
|
*:The other issue I'm seeing is the naming of the harassment campaign regardless of the ants. All the RMs I mentioned above show the history of how much the topic title has morphed and been contentious. Calling it the harassment campaign parenthetical seemed to finally settle that down, but undoing that is going to increase the ambiguity again. At the end of the day, the last RM at least made it so no one is astonished. You type Gamergate into the search and you're either going to see the two options you want already Gamergate (ant) or Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you click the first result, you get the disambiguation page which guides you even more. Unless there's a major resurgence of Gamergate-related harassment in coming years that truly adds to the event, it's pretty hard for it to leap-frog two levels up to the definitive primary topic. ] (]) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I thought I'd revive a bit I wrote at the last RM that actually focuses on the ant side of things. |
|
|
*::A gamergate is a worker ant that is able to reproduce, which the article outlines as unique for most ant species. This currently impacts all individuals of species within at least five ] and 17 ] (as opposed to only a of subset of individuals within the species ] for the harassment event). For the ants (or really any biological trait this fixed in multiple species), there is not a ] this million-year+ old trait will just suddenly disappear and stop affecting all of these species. In fact, that CRYSTAL policy specifically calls out such arguments as a violation: {{tq|Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections.}} When scientists name these traits, they are generally also stable in usage ] is a similar example of these terminology being common in biology. |
|
|
*::Much of this long-term impact is something inherent to ]/biology topics and is why PTOPIC also mentions long-term education aspects being of higher value. On that note, ant gamergates are something that’s likely to come up in biology textbooks when discussing ant colonies since ] animals are often a common example in varying degrees for both kids and college students. It might be a footnote in more basic biology books, but if you get into common intro-level courses at say college, this kind of thing can easily come up in sections dealing with insect diversity. |
|
|
*::While common usage metrics have consistently been an issue for this discussion, looking at scholarly metrics helps. Google Scholar is well known, but generally not that reliable for things like citation metrics, etc. because they include a lot of non-scholarly sources. is usually a more conservative (scientifically, not political) search engine in that regard. Just typing in gamergate gave 189 articles (49 more than in 2021). Of these, 94 mostly focus on the gamergate ant, and 95 involved the harassment topic. That's giving the harassment topic a handicap since that includes mere mentions of Gamergate in that context in the search parameters. That paints a very different picture than those haphazardly using Google searches. At the least academic attention (or use) isn't any higher for the harassment topic, so you'd be hard pressed to call that the primary topic based on search hits. ] is what really anchors discussion here. ] (]) 21:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per KoA and others, the fact that people are finding the article they are interested in via the disambiguation and also learning about other uses supports retention of status quo. ] (]) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ]. While the harassment campaign is more notable in tv news and right-wing twitter/X/parler, it is not necessarily so world-wide, and most importantly, in the scholarly literature. See also: . Misplaced Pages is a scholarship-driven institution, and harassment of video game journalists is not any more important than entomology in the world of scholarship. Keep the disambiguation page, and keep these two pages (ant) and (harassment campaign) disambiguated. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Pure pageviews and Google hits are not the sole criterion of primary topics. As per others, mentions of the ants and the harassers are pretty balanced in scholarship, if not having the ants come out on top. Can we put a permanent moratorium on move discussions now? The "harassment campaign" part of the title gives ] editors a good reason to keep attempting this move for the foreseeable future. ] (]) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': Leave how the title is and don't change it, or change it to "GamerGate". I'm only speaking for the title, btw. ] • (]|]). 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used.
The lead currently contains the following sentence:
The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text.
Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing:
I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship.
I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). Paditor (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)