Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:59, 20 December 2014

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gamergate (harassment campaign) at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (0 participants) Evernight Games (0 participants) Pokémon Home (2 participants) List of Pokémon volumes (1 participant) Gameplay of Pokémon (7 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (6 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) List of Minecraft characters (7 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants; relisted) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Quiver (video game) (nom) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) End Poem (nom) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (start) Frostpunk (start) Shiny Pokémon (start) Cry of Fear (start) Moida Mansion (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Articles that need... assessment (3) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (249) screenshots (8,991) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources. In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity. David Jenkins (20 October 2014). "2014: Video gaming's worst year ever". Metro. The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer's ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you'd find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

See /RFC1

RFC closing statement: "There is a general feeling here that the article does have a slight bias, however, the point is also made that this seems to reflect the reliable sources available."

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Time to finally move the article back to semi-protect?

Does anyone oppose having the article moved backed to semi-protected and its contents replaced with that of the draft? There hasn't been any serious edit warring on the draft for a while, GamerGate seems to finally be winding down, a lot of people have been topic banned, and from what I can see people on reddit and 8chan have stopped caring as much about this article and the accompanying ArbCom case. Bosstopher (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal... I'm provisionally inclined to support this proposal. Let's consider making a formal request, though. Anyone can put up a request on the appropriate page (shortcut WP:RFPP if memory serves me). If you could link back to this discussion, however it may turn out, it would help any admin to make an informed decision. I'd also advise notifying the original protecting admin of this discussion, though that's not strictly necessary. --TS 18:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've started a request. Bosstopher (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Now on semiprotection per Bosstopher's request. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Recasting the lede second sentence

New wording, and note that I've split it into two sentences because it seemed natural to break out the culture war aspect into its own sentence. Nearly all media commentary refers to the disgusting attacks. Quite a lot of it relates that to Kulturkampf. I've also taken note of potential confusion about which "commentators" we're talking about.

While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the great majority of media commentary has focused on the attacks conducted under the #gamergate hashtag, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

Being bold in the draft. Have at it. --TS 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

After the word "misogynistic" we need to add the phrase "although the only data analysis published in reliable sources states that the overwhelming majority of tweets are "undetermined" and fail to meet the algorithm's criteria for negative." Bramble window (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that is not going to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Far too much to worry about even if we could say that for the lede. Conciseness in the lede is very important and that's sidetracking the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think TS's suggestion is an improvement, his second sentence is still putting too much certainty into WP's voice. I suggest changing it to, "Commentators in the media see it as a manifestation of a culture war against women and diversification of gaming culture." Later in the intro I think we can add a sentence along the lines of what Bramble suggests above. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No we are NOT going to add content that contradicts the essence of the source itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Each of us gets a vote, RedPen, and each of our votes is equal to the others. Please relax and enjoy the process. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've been around long enough to know that we don't vote. Original research doesn't get a vote. --TS 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TS, your opinion on how to interpret and use the source counts as one opinion. So does mine. We don't spend time here trying to disenfranchise each other's opinions, because that it contrary to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages. We give our opinions and the consensus is what goes into the article. About the only exception is BLP concern. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone's opinion who says that the source which states "Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows" should be used to state otherwise is an opinion that will be discounted as being irrelevant. WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence is clearly implied as a "opinion of the masses" and not as a fact (using "is seen as..." language to defer any implication it is WP's voice stating that. I'm not worried about it. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reads fine to me. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The final sentence is intended to indicate a sizable fraction of informed media opinion. If there's a better way to say that commentators often see this event as a symptom of Kulturkumpf, please edit the draft. --TS 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Identifying material that has fallen to the spell of Recentism

Identifying material that's been given too much weight because it loomed larger at an earlier stage can be tricky, but I think it may be worth trying to get consensus on the bits that are now starting to look "too fat" or that have coverage but don't really seem to go anywhere.

I don't expect we'd all agree on exactly what counts, but I think we might at first look at what criteria to use. Did the inconclusive nature of the GameJournoPros affair count against our quite detailed coverage? It's hardly ever mentioned outside Breitbart and one or two other fringe political websites. Do we spend too much space covering the endless and largely uniform opinions of the pundits? Do the Fine Young Capitalists merit so much space, given that their role was quite incidental? I'm inclined to support all three suggestions, but I'd like to see what other editors' opinions on this are. -TS 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed some of the punditry quotes around the "ethics" issue, as there's only so many ways to say "there is no ethics issue." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I carried on trimming. Seems to be a better read now, at least. We may soon be able to remove the quote farm tag. --TS 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be all for removing The Fine Young Capitalists entirely, or paring it down to a single sentence at most, since they seem to just be one incidental group that attached themselves to this and not particularly significant in the scope of the larger controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists has it's own page, pretty much entirely dedicated to Gamergate related material. Either that should go or the mentions here should consist of a single sentence and a link. Artw (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but think the TFYC incident is worth mentioning, since the actions alleged to have been taken by Quinn in regards to the Game Jam, were one of the factors that caused gamers under the "Gamergate" movement to at best be angry with Quinn, and at worst, target her for harassment. As it is, the current edit is a touch lacking, though it would be hard to really say anything without seeming biased one way or the other, or too wordy. One possible solution might be to say "Early on in the movement, members were angered by apparent attacks on the "The Fine Young Capitalists" game jam by Quinn. These attacks, included reported Doxxing of members of The Fine Young Capitalists, and allegations that Quinn sabotaged The Fine Young Capitalists' game jam, on the grounds that the idea was oppressive, in order to promote her own similar event, Rebel Jam." Granted someone would need to write it better than me, but the idea is to give just a general idea of what is reported as happening, and how it relates to Gamergate as a whole. Basically, leaving this out leaves out some of the motivating factors to the movement, or at least one of the early ones. Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those allegations are non-starters and have no place in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?

I see that the latest edits from Draft:Gamergate controversy were added to this article, but doesn't doing it that way break the GFDL, since we're losing attribution? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I've tagged the page as requiring a history merge per WP:HM. — Strongjam (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually not. When we merge Page 1 into Page 2, it's not always possible to do a history merge, so we're allowed just to leave an edit summary of "Merging stuff from ]". It's normal at that point to redirect 1 to 2, which allows us to keep it for attribution purposes without worrying about the second page sitting around and getting found by Special:Random. It's a lot easier, especially as there were occasional edits here while the draft was being worked on; a history merge would have resulted in very-convoluted diffs at some points, e.g. this. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for taking care of it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the {{copied}} template to better track the copy-over for attribution purposes. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING

Less an hour and we're doing this already? --MASEM (t) 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

....I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed that apparently the consensus from a drafted article is attempted to be derailed within minutes. What was the point of the drafting? Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" for that draft.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I would agree there should have been a straw poll or something before it was moved over, its there now, and this page is under sanctions. Talk about it if your BOLD edit is reverted. While the GS do not have 1RR, we all should be acting that way. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, if we are talking this change, it is actually more accurate and more impartial to call out the harassment from those using the hashtag, because that reflects that we have no idea if they are supporters just because they tag it with #gg, and the implicit problems of people hijacking hashtags. I'm completely fine with that. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that this version of the article actually managed to be worse than the previous one. This looks more like a liveblog timeline entry than an encyclopedia article. Weedwacker (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If Gamergate partisans continue to ignore sources, consensus and policy and continue to edit in a disruptive manner then they should be banned. We have given them way too many chances here. Artw (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The version in draft space has been worked on by several editors for weeks. For the likes of TDA to swoop in and declare "no consensus" is seriously beyond the pale, and grounds for a last-minute Arb Evidence section, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't even see any sort of discussion about whether that draft is preferable in the last few days. I would have chimed in against it had such a discussion occurred. There seem to be a number of "consensus" situations in which many editors are unaware of this consensus existing at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have to, but I'm working on the assumption that we have this to work from and we should edit it as appropriate per the sanctions. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO this should've remained locked until the end of ArbCom. Weedwacker (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There were a number of eleventh-hour changes by basically a single editor before the draft was moved into article space. I have not touched those, but they include removing all mention of GameJournoPros members trying to pressure The Escapist's editor-in-chief to shut down GamerGate discussion on his site and reducing mention of The Fine Young Capitalists to a two-sentence entry. Another change from a few days earlier was the removal of Usher's piece in Cinema Blend about female GamerGate supporters. It is only because I objected that there is any material attesting to the existence of female and minority supporters, despite ample reliably-sourced coverage about them in outlets such as The Washington Post, though that detail is still attributed as opinion and was moved to the less obvious "nature and organization" section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"But I didn't know about the draft!"

I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. It was first mentioned at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 14#Working draft. That's November 13th, folks. Ignorance cannot be used as an excuse here. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Plus the big blue flag that was at the top of the page until a few hours ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference of being aware of the Draft, and being aware when it was planned on being moved into article space. The former, no excuses to not know, but the move from draft to main was a surprise. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There's been an open discussion for doing just that since the 16th, it's not that much of a surprise. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So a discussion of two people and nobody else resulted in the draft moving over? This is the consensus everyone is talking about? Weedwacker (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The header seems to imply the discussion is only about protection, not about actually moving the draft. I'll assume that wasn't purposeful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what, bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy? Should there have been steering committees formed, meeting minutes, and schedules drawn up so we could devise a sub-committee that would eventually vote on the final form and shape and second of when the draft will be proposed for moving? Will there be punch & pie served? Geez, I think it'd be common sense that if an article is locked and a Draft:* version is created, that the draft and the talk page are where issues can be hashed out without edit-warring a live article. That objections are raised at any point during that time on the talk page, and that when protection was lifted, the draft would be merged. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In a situation like this, a simple straw poll would have worked. I'm not opposed to the draft version being moved or its current state (in broad terms, I've other concerns but will wait to see what comes from ArbCom if there's anything to act on), just that just like we should be editing with 1RR and more discussion on bold changes, we shouldn't be doing mass movements without a quick straw poll check. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No one had been objecting at all to the cleanup that TS and others had been doing to the Draft version though. You should only really need to take straw polls when there's doubt about where we stand, and there didn't seem to be any. This is the second time that TDA has professed unawareness of a very large and very public discussion regarding this article, the first being irt the RfC. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because no one has had issues with TS's updates and the like doesn't mean that the draft was necessarily ready for prime time. For example, I was working under an impression (my own) that we'd wait until ArbCom was resolved and issues from that dealt with before moving the page, so I simply wasn't paying that much attention unless a specific matter was brought up on the talk page, figuring to review the work at the end rather than in an intermediate state. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, Baranof created the draft literally ten hours after this happened. I am using "coincidentally" ironically here. It was not a coincidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, it is entirely a coincidence. I created the draft because the main article was locked for forever and a day, everyone was arguing about hypothetical wording on the talk page and I wanted to create space for people to propose stuff and try to move the article forward even under protection. I'm not sure what significance "ten hours" is supposed to have, because it doesn't actually have any. On the other hand, creating the draft actually resulted in significant productive collaboration and improvement. That instead of recognizing that positive contribution, you choose to go off on some conspiracy tangent is telling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Go ahead, pull the other one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere. This section is far enough off-topic. — Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The draft is where we work on the article content while it's locked. We discuss those edits and resolve issues on this same page we use for the main article. There will be issues with any version of the article, and these can be fixed by further editing and discussion. To be absolutely clear:

• No version of the article is "ready for prime time". It's a wiki, we edit content in place.
• Consensus can change. No content is beyond scrutiny, no single version "has consensus." The encyclopaedia has no deadline and will never be complete.
• Arbitration changes nothing. The arbitration committee could conceivably pass an injunction to halt editing on a topic, but in my experience this has never happened.

Those late to the party are urged to join in and edit the article, with due regard for the purpose of Misplaced Pages etc, to improve our coverage of the topic. --TS 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Need a source on this lede change

I agree this is a truthful statement from everything I've read, but we don't have the "unwillingness" factor sourced in the body of the article, as best as I can tell, and I'm not finding one immediately. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note, all we need to is get a source and make sure in the body about the makeup of GG, that this is put in place. I'm sure there is one, I'm just coming up dry at the moment). --MASEM (t) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To pick one that makes the argument pretty directly, Chris Ip discusses it in detail in the Columbia Journalism Review. But if readers are still mostly confused by what it is, who composes it, and what they want, that’s because coverage of the so-called movement has been pieced together mostly from tweets under pseudonyms and anonymous chat logs on websites like 4chan-offshoot 8chan and Reddit. ... The difficulty of reporting on Gamergate reflects faulty PR from the movement, but also the difficulty of covering any digital-era subculture that works in anonymity. ... The problem is that when anybody can tweet under the Gamergate hashtag, and no one wants to take responsibility for the movement, it becomes a challenge for reporters trying to nail down verifiable facts. When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. ... Meanwhile, the abusers and the reasoning debaters cannot be separated. ... To Polygon’s Grant, however, there is no clear resolution to reporting on Gamergate because the lack of coordination appears to be by design. “They resist cohesion, they resist leadership, they resist order,” he said.

This point is also made by Jesse Singal in his New York piece: So what is Gamergate “really” about? ... You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as Gamergate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True Gamergate by anyone who disagrees with that manifestation or views it as an inconvenient blight from an optics standpoint. And who gets to decide what is and isn’t True Gamergate? You can’t say you want a decentralized, anonymous movement and then disown the ugly parts that inevitably pop up as a result of that structure. Either everything is in, or everything is out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Ip's "by design" and Singal's comments work, I'll just add language specific for that in the body. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be un-fully protected?

I don't know, but was it a good idea to remove this article from full protection while an ArbCom case involving the topic and editors involved is ongoing? I feel this will only lead to even more strife, just after the evidence collection period of the case is supposed to have ended. Weedwacker (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi is fine as long as all respect the sanctions and expected editing behavior. The brief stint of EW earlier stopped fast so that's a good sign semi works. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was won over by the stability of the draft page. Should edit-warring resume (I didn't notice it as it was happening some hours ago) or should we see a resumption of extensive vandalism, I will take it as a misunderstanding by the people who said "it's ready for unprotection" and put back the protection that I removed. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an ARBCOM case about this and documented extra-Wiki organization to push POVs here. It needs protection at least until ARBCOM is done. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration and external campaigns have been experienced routinely throughout Misplaced Pages's history. We don't lock down articles unless there is an active and demonstrable issue on the wiki, and even then we remove full protection as soon as possible. --TS 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, many assumed the draft page would not replace the main article while an ArbCom case about it was ongoing. Weedwacker (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the draft, but only in the sense of reverting it and putting it back. See "Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?" up above: all I did was ensuring proper attribution for what someone else had put in. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to discuss unprotecting the talk page first, before moving onto considering the actual article?Bosstopher (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously not referring to this talk page, but I thought this was a discussion of this article. Which talk page were you referring to? I'm confused. --TS 07:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also confused about what he is referring to. Weedwacker (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede is overlong and full of repetition. Discuss.

"Wintergreen determined the outcome by throwing all communications from General Peckem into the wastebasket. He found them too prolix. General Dreedle's views, expressed in less pretentious literary style, pleased ex-PFC Wintergreen and were sped along by him in zealous observance of regulations. General Dreedle was victorious by default..." -Catch-22, Joseph Heller.

Let's imagine the reader is Ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen. The lede should be written by General Dreedle; General Peckem can collaborate on the finer details in the body of the article.

I suggest we work out carefully what needs to be in the lede. There are some themes that appear there several times when once should be enough. The main body of the article should contain elaboration of themes, the lede should just quickly summarise them. --TS 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, you could keep the current first and fourth paragraph and it would be much easier to read, as to get into all the details of the harassment, the claimed ethics, the criticims of GG, etc. is bulking it up. 1st para is a strong overview, 4th is a good understand why we are here. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Weedwacker (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Support trim to only paragraphs 1 and 4 of the lead. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph is absolutely essential (it provides a broad overview of the key points of the article), but the third one is definitely unnecessary and mostly restates stuff covered elsewhere in the lead. In fact, I think only the current first and second paragraphs are really needed -- they cover the core facts and history of the controversy. The third and fourth paragraphs mostly go off on tangents about analyzing it from various perspectives, which isn't necessary for the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really: the phrase "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" in the first sentence summarizes that well, if we need to add an adjective to describe the nature of the harassment that drew public attention to GG, then that's fine. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The lead needs to reflect the article; and the article spends a huge amount of text summarizing the overarching history and focus of Gamergate. That history, in turn, is primarily about how they came to focus on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, and "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" is not a remotely adequate symmetrization of that history. I would say that overall the second paragraph of the lead is the most important and most well-written part, and it is the one part that absolutely must remain in some form in any revision. My feeling (and the thesis of at least large portions of the article) is that the second paragraph describes the heart of the GamerGate controversy and the core of the events that the rest of the article approaches from various angles; the other parts just summarize less-important editorializing by various talking heads and a variety of sub-controversies that grew out of those attacks. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"primarily targeting women in the video game industry, including Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient. The origins of the controversy make up much of the core article, and deserve the full paragraph they have now. I reiterate my opposition to any changes that would remove the second paragraph. The third paragraph, I agree, is mostly redundant, but the history-focused second paragraph is exemplary and I see no reason for it to require significant changes, let alone to remove it entirely or to replace it with one sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're making progress! Thanks everybody. Keep the ideas flowing. --TS 07:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea (of cutting the second and third paragraph) although I feel like there is one line that might be of use from the third paragraph, specifically how it defines the "culture war" as a "culture war against the diversification of video game demographic". If we cut the second and third paragraph, can we slightly rewrite the first paragraph to state in the last line:

"...a manifestation of a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics and gaming culture." Ries42 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, the last paragraph could be rewritten slightly to take out some repetition as such:

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition as an art form has led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The resulting clash has led to conflict and harassment.

I realize after doing it that is a much larger rewrite than I intended, but I think it still keeps the same information in a more formal tone. But I am willing to scrap that entirely if no one agrees. Ries42 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's some great work — much more concise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementing Ries42's concise version of the fourth paragraph - I don't see why anyone would oppose. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then here's a proposal for the full lede:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014, because of ongoing harassment and threats, primarily targeting women in the video game industry. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, but media commentary has primarily focused on the attacks by Gamergate supporters, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics and gaming culture..

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition as an art form has led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The resulting clash has led to conflict and harassment.

Its not perfect, but I think we can get a consensus on this and move forward with nitpicking specifics afterwords. As it is such a big change, I think we should have a consensus before putting it on the article itself, and at the very least its a significant improvement, IMO. Ries42 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That is drastically better than the lede as it stands, but still stands to be improved. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the second paragraph is redundant with the end of the first paragraph. More importantly, it still employs some weasel language. I suggest something like this:

The Gamergate controversy is an interrelated group of debates about ethics and sexism in the video game industry. In August 2014, allegations against game developer Zoe Quinn by her former boyfriend Eroj Gjoni incited online sexual harassment directed at Quinn and aroused suspicion of unethical conduct among Quinn's associates in the game development and game journalism industries. Subsequently, online commentators have roundly criticized incidents of sexual harassment, while others have engaged in activism to expose and correct the alleged journalistic misconduct. Debate is ongoing as to what degree the activists for journalistic ethics bear culpability for the simultaneous sexual harassment, but media commentary has focused almost exclusively on the occurrences of harassment and threats. These events play into a preexisting and ongoing cultural debate about representations of women and minorities in the video game industry. Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

outside of the gamergate echo chamber, the only "controversy" is the harassment. the "but ethics" are peripheral smokescreen at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Before making a statement like that, educate yourself on what activities GamerGate is actually devoting tremendous man-hours to http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-ftc-info-updates-will-address-affiliate-links-native-ads/ compared to some salacious but isolated death threats. We don't need to agree on what GamerGate "really is", but the lede should avoid drawing a conclusion on that matter either. Rhoark (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

nobody cares what gamergaters are doing except for their horrendous viscous harassment. look at the sources. Our article is NOT about the self proclaimed "consumer movement" - its about the controversy. As a "consumer movement" its completely non notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We as a neutral source have to care, in as far as it is documented in reliable sources. There's not much we can, but there are definitely things that are available. We can't plug our ears and go "la la la not listening" to anything said by GG if a reliable source describes it (even if then going on to ridicule/criticize it) --MASEM (t) 19:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"We" as a as a neutral source only care about what the reliable sources care about. and the jury is fully in on that. they do not care a horses ass about GG self proclaimed crusade whether it be "but ethics" or "consumer revolt". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a controversy, we, to be neutral, need to cover both sides, even if one side has been otherwise mostly ignored. If it was impossible to document one side with reliable sources, that would be one thing (this happens all the time in video game articles where user reviews are vastly different from published ones - we simply can't use SPS sources to support the user side). But we can document, a small degree, the GG supporters sides, and thus our responsibility as a neutral party is to include that documentation in proportion (read: very little) relative to the rest of the sources. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS No, we dont need to create some false balance. We cover it as the sources do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL "The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." There are respectable sources for people believing they are activists for ethics and not misogyny. Misplaced Pages can and should note that most media disagrees, but can't go so far as to say or imply which is right. Rhoark (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing violating WP:IMPARTIAL in stating that GG is noted primarily for the harassment it has done when all of the reliable sources focus primarily on the harassment that it has done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No, of course there isn't an impartiality problem to say that GG is noted primarily for harassment. But it is a violation to act like GG has no stated claims of ethics or is a movement, when we do have reliable sources that make it clear that the group has self-identified these aspects. To ignore that under the claim "but the rest of the press ignores them" is not impartial for WP. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We cover the "but ethics" as much or more than the reliable sources do. However, we should not give them excessive credence in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That I agree, we can't flip this around to make it about that issue. The current language in the first paragraph, being half a sentence long, is about right. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you link to. There was defamatory content in the forum that you linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no defamatory content on the linked page. Rhoark (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is. Search for "Wu". Please don't re-add, or if possible find a way to link only to the text you want to highlight. — Strongjam (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch to call any of that defamatory, but I replaced the link with one that summarizes the main content Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

semi arbitary break

@Rhoark: I see where you're going with this, and there are some points that I do think are good, but I don't think it reflects what the article states at this time, or gives due weight to the reliable sources that are within. Until and unless the article itself more accurately follows how you summarize it, I do not believe your attempt is an appropriate lede. That being said... perhaps something like this might be more palatable. Label it proposal B.

The Gamergate controversy surrounds a self-described movement and hashtag campaign originating in August 2014 following allegations made by Erin Gjoni against his former girlfriend, indie developer Zoe Quinn. These allegations lead to false accusations of Quinn using inappropriate personal connections to gain media exposure, and sparked a long simmering debate of sexism and ethics in video game culture.

Supporters of the Gamergate movement argue that the movement is primarily concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism; however, widespread media coverage condemns the movement for encouraging misogynistic harassment and threats targeting prominent female developers and critics such as Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. Commentators view the conflict as rooted in a culture war against the diversification and maturation of video game demographics, gaming culture, and perceived changes to the gamer identity. The resulting clash has led to significant conflict and harassment.

I think that hits all the highlights. Ries42 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that may be the most balanced possible lede that could be said to reflect the article such as it is. Rhoark (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to attempt and conflate two major changes at once, particularly given the extensive discussions and consensus-gathering which underpinned the development of the new lead paragraph just two weeks ago. Downplaying the fact that the controversy is centered around sexism in video gaming is just not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

None of the changes I see suggested here seem particularly viable to me; they make the lead less reflective of the article, and nearly ignore huge sections of the article. I will reiterate that I feel that the current second paragraph is excellent as-is and provides a vital overview of the core background; I am completely opposed to removing it or significantly reducing its size. To me, keeping the following in some form (with at best minor tweaks) should be seen as a given:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention beginning in August 2014, because of ongoing harassment and threats, primarily targeting women in the video game industry. Many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, but media commentary has primarily focused on the attacks by Gamergate supporters, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. Quinn was then subjected to severe misogynistic harassment, including false accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. A number of gaming industry members supportive of Quinn were also subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and the malicious broadcasting of personally identifiable information about them (doxing); some of them fled their homes. The targets were mostly women, and included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan, 8chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community.

This description, as noted above, was the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building just two weeks ago, and I think that it is one of the most well-written and balanced parts of the article. The third and fourth paragraphs can go (they're fairly vague and redundant with the first two), but the second paragraph is utterly essential, and I haven't seen any actual arguments for cutting it at all. Likewise, I do not see any particular need to significantly revise the first paragraph, which is more or less excellent as it is. However, I think we have a general consensus that the third paragraph can go...? --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's significant repetition there. How about we collapse the third and fourth paragraphs into this:

The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition of video games as an art form led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The movement's unwillingness to move beyond its unorganized, leaderless and anonymous roots has been criticized as non-constructive, and has resulted in an inability to control its behavior and messaging—while some supporters condemn harassment, others continue to harass their opponents. The issue of the movement's unorganized, leaderless, anonymous nature is repeated in enough reliable sources to be lede-worthy; it's frequently cited as a reason why the movement hasn't been able to control harassment conducted under its name, or even to clearly define what it stands for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is still trying to say too much without citations. It should be a single, brief paragraph in the vein of what I or Ries42 suggested. The feeling that the lede needs to be much more is driven by the lack of directness in the first sections of the article proper. It's drowning in he-said-she-said, tertiary cultural background, and full quotes of opinions from every journalist under the sun. Its deficiencies cannot be compensated for by an over-ambitious lede trying to explain what it all really means. Rhoark (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

An article's lead doesn't require citations, since it is supposed to reflect the article; the things it references are cited down there. Regardless, I'm still not seeing any arguments in favor of removing the second paragraph -- have we agreed that it needs to stay? It is, as far as I can tell, an uncontentious history of the core parts of the article's subject. I want to get this settled first, since I think that it's the most clear-cut part of the discussion; we can discuss how we want to revise (or remove) the third and fourth paragraphs later, but I want to be sure we're all in agreement that the second / 'history' paragraph needs to stay. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros debunked

The Columbia Journalism Review reporter states that the claims have been debunked. It doesn't really matter where any hyperlink goes to - the reporter is making the statement that they have been debunked. The CJR is an unimpeachable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But what do the vast majority of sources say? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That CJR is wrong. Weedwacker (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty bold claim to make. Every report on the supposed "collusion" that I've seen has been firm that the issue is a complete non-starter. Parabolist (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could supply some mainstream reliable sources for that statement, it would be helpful. And I don't mean RealGamerNewz.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Random editors don't get to second-guess reliable sources, sorry. There's always the noticeboard (WP:RSN) if someone feels they have a case to make. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the reliability of ArsTechnica generally? Or of Kyle Orland? Isn't he accused of creating the GameJournoPro's list? If he is being accused of creating it, can we trust him to reliably report about debunking it? Ries42 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You've misread the page. Kyle Orland's ArsTechnia piece is referenced to source his statement AS creator of the list, and is not among the four sources referenced as debunking the claims of collusion. Parabolist (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

4 Sources? I thought we were talking about one source, Chris Ip's CJR article. What are the other 3? Ries42 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion." Which cites the CJR piece, alongside ones from The Verge, The Week, and Vox. None of which written by members of the mailing list, as far as I know. Parabolist (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The other three that were added upon request. I can find even more if you really want, but that would seem like piling on citations for their own sake. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

North, please do find more sources which are not affiliated to those being accused on the list. CJR and Week are fine. Polygon is on the GJP list, and Polygon is owned by Vox, which also owns Verge. They have a vested interest in decrying the list. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that dog doesn't hunt, and your "vested interest" claim is ridiculous on its face. The sources stand, support the statement and that's pretty much the end of it. The existence of shared parent ownership among three different media properties does not permit you to discard two of them by claiming tenuous, Alex Jones-level conspiracy links between their positions. Moreover, Polygon was not "on" the list - certain staffers were, but that does not constitute any sort of institutional membership or endorsement of the list. This looks for all the world like an attempt to carry fringe Gamergate conspiracy theories into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Two reliable sources debunking that tabloid-esque garbage is more than enough. The fact that almost no reliable sources actually picked up the story should be proof in and of itself. This is not the hill for Gamergate supporters to lay down their lives on. Parabolist (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: That's fine, I'd like to see them as I must have missed them in the article itself. I could only find 2, the CJR article quoted above and Todd VanDerWerff's article here. In the mean time, I am relatively new here, so I don't know the "Misplaced Pages" answer to my question above. Could you tell me how reliable is Ars Technica generally and Kyle Orland's claim that GJP is 'debunked'? (HAHA, trying to post this is hard with all the "edit conflicts" I keep getting) Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the exact wording of the CJR report - which does not say how the GJPro list was debunked, just that it "was" - and the lack of any other source other than the ArsTech/Orland statement, begs the question of how it was debunked and we should not be stating that factually with at least a few other sources to assure that. Please note that I in general agree that GJPro is a red herring in GG evidents, but to be accurate, there is only really the word of one person that I can easily find to counter the GG claim of collusion. (On the other other, as one of the comments in the CJR piece states, the press have generally ignored the GJPro claim as anything actionable, but that's just a comment, we'd need a source to back that up). --MASEM (t) 04:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have four separate sources saying the same thing, and if you really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh, ad infinitum, we can do that too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Parabolist: Thanks! :) Mind letting me pick your mind a bit?

This source (Vox) appears to have ties to the "list". Isn't Vox the owner of Polygon, whom Ben Kuchera is the editor of? There are several Polygon journalists on the "GJP" list, so there may be a bit of a conflict of interest with this source. Additionally, at least the article you linked to appears to have been written on September 6, before the "list" articles in mid-September and early October. This doesn't appear to be a reliable source targeted at "debunking" the GJP list. Do you disagree?

The next article from the Week is also suspect, in that it doesn't actually say much about "debunking" the GJP list. Specifically it says:

"... because he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists, thus giving the appearance of confirmation to #gamergate conspiracy mongers."

It doesn't read like a fact that the list is "debunked," if anything it confirms that a list exists (although it gives no information of the purpose or content of the list).

The third source you linked is the Verge article here, which actually appears to be the 'strongest' article of the four in terms of reliability, but even that doesn't appear to say the list is "debunked" as a fact. It says specifically:

"... there is no real scandal with the game journalist list — unless you believe that journalists merely speaking to one another constitutes some kind of shadowy media illuminati."

The source here doesn't appear to "debunk" the list's existence or address any other claims. Again, it seems to, in fact, prove that the list did in actuality exist without commenting on the content of the list. This source would not be a reliable source as to the content of the list, either positive or negative though, based on what is written here.

The last source is the CJR article here. There is a reason I'm asking why you believe the creator of the list, Kyle Orland, can be reliable as to "debunking" that same list. Specifically this article is the first one that actually uses the word "debunked" and states:

"about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked."

There are two links there within the article, the second one is the important one, and I have recreated it here for ease. It links to an ArsTechnica article written by Kyle Orland as the "source" of the fact that the GJP list has been "debunked". Therefore, I challenge the reliability of this source because it does not appear to be making a claim itself that the list is debunked, but linking to an article written by Kyle Orland, as evidence that the list is already debunked. As such, the reliability of the statement "the list is debunked" is contingent on the reliability of Orland's article. So, do you assert that Kyle Orland, the creator of the GJP, is a reliable source to debunk the GJP list? Ries42 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (Thanks, Sorry! :) )

I'm afraid you're not on point here. Our article does not state that the claim is debunked; rather it states that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion. We do not question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions — that amounts to original research. CJR is an indisputable reliable source, and that CJR writer Chris Ip views the claims as "debunked" (in his words) is more than sufficient to be a supporting source for our article's statement that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Of course we question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions... in the talk page. WP:NOR states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages," so anything presented here is fair game, although of course it won't make it to the article, that research CAN be used to challenge the WP:RS for its WP:V and reliability. Here, there is a serious question to the reliability of the source here, not because of the author, or even the publisher, but the work itself. It states its claim is based off of an article that has a clear WP:COI, and therefore, is unreliable because of that. If the linked article would not be considered a WP:RS on its own for it's stated claim, why would another source linking that first source change it if it does not bring anything else to the claim other than parroting the first article. Ries42 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Strongjam: - Go to vox.com theverge.com and polygon.com/games. Scroll to the bottom. You'll see a logo of VOX MEDIA at the bottom right. They are under the same parent company. They have a vested interest in protecting themselves from allegations of collusion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome to believe your absurd conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• A company protecting its financial assets is not a conspiracy theory, it's called business. Weedwacker (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it actually is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that either Vox Media nor Polygon were ever members or "financially involved" in a private e-mail list of games journalists. There is no conflict of interest, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's just like someone saying BBC One is corrupt, and then using BBC Two as a reliable source "commentator" against that allegation of corruption. Yes, I really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh source which is wholly unrelated to organizations on the GameJournoPros mailing list. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: In regards to your recent edit, would it be more accurate to say "Ryan Cooper of "The Week" labeled the list as "basically anodyne emails between game journalists" while ..." I still question the reliability of using CJR specifically as a source for GJP because of the reasons listed here. Ries42 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

North has fixed that for you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof: - where are your "fifth, sixth, seventh" sources? Why do you keep persisting in adding Verge and Vox? And your Westman Journal ref is broken. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears he's just going to ignore talking about it and make changes to the article... I'm lost. Is that how this is supposed to work? Ries42 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll reply once he's done making changes. Assume good faith. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I just figured we'd determine which sources were the best/most reliable first in the talk page and use those instead of this more carpet bomb type approach. But I suppose we could just cut what is redundant after all is posted, so nothing is really lost. Ries42 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof: - When I first removed the information, it was only the Forbes source, and the inline text stated "most commentators". We've progressed from that point already in having new sources. You've got CJR, Week, Forbes and Westman Journal. Four unaffiliated sources are plenty. Forbes is the most critical but even Kain states that "a largely civil conversation". Why the need for the affiliated Verge and Vox? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Because neither Vox nor The Verge are "affiliated" as you keep suggesting without a shred of actual evidence. You have nothing more than a conspiracy theory. You have presented no evidence to suggest that Polygon as an entity has anything to do with GameJournoPros as an entity. The mere fact that some members of its staff participated in the list is not evidence, much less proof, of your supposed "COI," even for Polygon, much less trying to attach this to two entirely editorially-independent news sites that happen to share a common ownership. The articles in question were written by writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question from news sites that happen to share a common ownership. There is a business or financial interest in Vox Media debunking allegations of collusion in one of its subsidiaries via two other of its subsidiaries. Surely, the reputation of Polygon was sullied due to one of its editors being in GameJournoPros, and GameJournoPros being alleged to be a collusion. Now, if I were Vox Media, my interest would to be how to reverse or minimize the damage of the reputation. It's simple as that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You have an interesting claim/conspiracy theory there. Oddly enough, it's not actually supported by anything other than your personal beliefs. Particularly the claim that "the reputation of Polygon was sullied" needs a citation, because... well, yeah, no, it really hasn't been, at least among anyone who isn't part of the Gamergate movement. There is no evidence in hand that anyone outside Gamergate considers those allegations to be a serious issue. The best you can do is Erik Kain waffling around the edges but ultimately admitting that pretty much everything on the list is just normal discussion. So while you're welcome to your personal beliefs, they don't really have an impact on how we judge reliable sources. You might personally believe GJP to be the biggest scandal since Teapot Dome, but the reliable sources universally disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I've got no problem with reliable sources not affiliated with the subject at hand. Breitbart published 11 Polygon writers as part of the list, including its Editor-in-Chief. Even Chris Plante - Senior Editor at The Verge is there. This has resulted in negative coverage, see the sources in the article, Forbes: "Breitbart piece suggested collusion" Re/Code: "spurred belief in media collusion" Washington Post: "An article at Breitbart ... didn't help matters." --> how can you twist that into something positive, I don't know.
        • Vox acknowledges Polygon as a sister site and Polygon acknowledges the Verge as a sister site. The connection is staring at you in the face, but you don't want to accept it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Your quotes are quite telling. Re/Code notes that the allegations "spurred belief in media collusion," which acknowledges the fact that some people believe in said collusion, but doesn't suggest that belief has any grounding in reality. The part of The Washington Post quote you conveniently omit notes that Breitbart's claim is purported, which again acknowledges that Breitbart's story led some people to believe in media collusion, but does not suggest that there is any factual basis to the claims. The issue withered on the vine thereafter and disappeared from view when it became clear that there was no there, there in the e-mails.
          • You keep skirting around the fact that you don't have evidence for your purported Vox Media conspiracy theory. You have only a deep-seeded desire to believe that the opposition to Gamergate and rejection of its claims is some shadowy secret conspiracy of basically every journalist in the world, rather than simply being a logical conclusion which the facts unanimously support. I'm sorry to tell you, because this apparently must come as a shock, but the world at large has examined Gamergate's claims and largely concluded that they are at best nothingburgers (GameJournoPros) and at worst, malicious lies ("Quinnspiracy"). Endlessly repeating the claim that this conclusion is the result of underhanded conspiracy is not constructive nor does it aid in the writing of an encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dear North, I neither a gamer nor a GamerGate supporter. I just don't want a potential COI when we have other reliable sources already present. It's like you're on this moral crusade to destroy GamerGate that by my opposing your content, I automatically become some evil harasser or something, that's just what I feel. I'm off to edit things I feel better about. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This pile-on attempting to overturn the conclusion of, among other sources, the highly reputable tertiary source CJR, is fuelled by original research and unlikely to get anywhere within policy. I'm minded to close this discussion down as unlikely to get anywhere. Rebuttals to my suggestion, please? --TS 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's a highly reputable source, but the sourced line in question here is one wherein the CJR cites the subjects of an allegation about them. Nobody is arguing that CJR isn't a reliable source, just that with that mention it's not. Weedwacker (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, we don't really care who they cite. The credibility is CJR's. News articles are not Misplaced Pages articles — the mere existence of an inline link to something doesn't mean that link is the only reason they're saying something. Given CJR's long history of credible reporting on media issues, there are no evident grounds upon which to second-guess the statements of a reporter for that outlet. We presume that they conducted the necessary research and reporting to make that determination and their conclusion has been reviewed by a credible fact-checking and editorial review process. If you have evidence which tends to disprove this presumption, now would be the time to produce it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a very bold statement NS :). But I'm not sure exactly if it tracks. WP:RS says a source is three different things: The piece itself (the article, and if I might be so WP:Bold, the claims the article makes), the creator (author), and the publisher of the work. WP:RS then says in bold, Any of the three can affect reliability. No one questions parts 2 or 3. No one is questioning CJR, or Chris Pi's integrity. But as WP:RS states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

In this specific case, for this specific claim, that "GJP is debunked," the reliability of the source, the work itself, is in question. The mere existence of an inline link, with nothing more, does not in an of itself, make the work itself unreliable. However, the work states GJP is debunked as a fact, as if it were indisputable, and the inline link in this case is being used as evidence of that fact. If that evidence has serious reliability issues, how can we not then immediately question the reliability of that fact? Ries42 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

*@NorthBySouthBaranof: May I ask you, can we at least agree that the above makes the source questionable? Even if you ultimately believe and answer that question as "The source is still reliable," can you at least agree the above points make us, as good editors, have to question the reliability of the source? Ries42 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think you believe in good faith that there is a question of reliability, but that belief is not well-founded given the lack of any evidence for the conspiracy theory you posit. There are a number of people who believe in good faith that there is a vast global media conspiracy against Gamergate, but those beliefs cannot have an effect on the encyclopedia, any more than the fact that a number of people believe in good faith that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president would require us to present that claim as having any basis in truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Conspiracy Theory? You're saying I am doing what now? That... what? Please, explain yourself, because that is quite an accusation. How is questioning the reliability of a source because it links to an unreliable article directly in its claim in any way a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you're conflating my argument with another?

Holy... Wow. Are you seriously equating this situation to the "Birther" movement or even the "mass Gamergate conspiracy". None of that matters. I'm asking a very specific question on the reliability of a specific source, irrespective of any other source. How is your conduct in any way appropriate? I believe you misunderstand good faith. Ries42 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The continual questioning of reliable sources with strong or impeccable track records of reliability and accuracy — the Columbia Journalism Review is one of the most respected media criticism publications in the world — because they are consistently reaching conclusions that Gamergate supporters disagree with is, at this point, beyond tiresome and repetitive and into the range of being tendentious. It is very much akin to the various birth certificate conspiracy theories, whose proponents constantly declaimed that only the biased liberal media was preventing the world from knowing the truth about Barack Obama being a Kenyan Muslim socialist usurper.

It's evident that y'all don't want to hear what the reliable sources have to say about Gamergate, but that's not Misplaced Pages's problem. The movement's total public relations failure is not going to be fixed on Misplaced Pages. That's not what we're here for. We're here to document the world based on what is published in mainstream reliable sources. The argument that your personal interpretation of the meaning of an inline link in an article makes Chris Ip's reporting on the subject of GameJournoPros suspect or unreliable just isn't going to fly. Ip's reporting, which has passed through CJR's editorial and fact-checking processes, is in all certainty more reliable than the self-published blogging of Erik Kain, whose work is not routinely edited or fact-checked at all. But I don't see you demanding that Kain's claims be removed from the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, relax. Secondly, relax. Thirdly, relax.

Stop clumping me with someone else. I am no one else but myself. I do not appreciate you imparting me with bad faith because of nothing I have personally done. I'm questioning a source, not trying to overthrow your world view.

First, it is not just my own personal interpretation, it is a reasonable interpretation for what is presented. When an inline link is placed in such a way that it directly underlines a claim that is stated as fact, it is implied that the inline link is supportive of the supposition being made. That is basic sourcing. It's exactly the same as if he put a footnote at the end of the line and linked to that article.

WP:RS tells us that we must look at each item on a "Case-by-case" basis for a reason. That reason is because, no matter how infallible a source may have been in the past, WP:RS states, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains error." Sometimes things slip through all the fact checking in the world. Sometimes those things even become laws. I'll tell you a story one day maybe, but this isn't the time for that.

Whatever your personal issues that have made you so agitated, I am sorry for them. I am sorry you have had to deal with so much shit here. And I'm sorry that it has made you angry, and resentful, and maybe even a little bit paranoid. I do not wish to make it worse, or exacerbate them. But you are using them as an excuse to abandon critical thought, and that I cannot, in good conscious, ignore. I'm going to step back for a few hours and ask you to do the same. Perhaps we can discuss this again later. Ries42 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with all this is the word "interpretation". We don't interpret, we quote. As long as you don't have reliable sources that corroborate your interpretation, that is original research - simple as that. Also please refrain from speculating about other editors' mental state and engage with the issues at hand. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:OR, in the talk page it states we 'are' supposed to use original research to verify reliable sources if there is reason to call the source into question for the stated proposition. Its one thing to say, "this person's opinion is X," but this particular source is saying that "X is a fact" and then using a very unreliable source as the basis of that claim. The unreliable source being Kyle Orland himself, ultimately the person who created the list in question. If that isn't unreliable because of WP:COI or WP:BIAS I don't know what is.

Therefore, to call it "CJR's opinion" is wrong, per WP:V, which would " imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source." The source treats the debunking of the GJP list as a fact. If we were to use that source in the article, we would have to treat the material as a fact. When that fact appears to be sourced on unreliable information, it would be inappropriate to put it on Misplaced Pages, no matter who wrote the article. Ries42 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not "CJR's opinion," that's correct. It's a statement of fact in a reported news story published by a well-respected journalistic organization. Your claim that the fact is "sourced on unreliable information" is merely an unsupported personal opinion based on your interpretation of the article, and it's obviously not widely shared. Challenging the reliability of sources generally requires more than a personal hunch or gut feeling — to use the example of Breitbart, there exists a consensus that anything from the site is presumptively unreliable based on the wide array of reliable sources which have exposed the organization's repeated ethical failings and generally consider Breitbart to lack any journalistic credibility. What you are doing here is challenging CJR's credibility supported by nothing more than your own credibility, and CJR wins that fight by TKO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except... I'm not challenging CJR, or the author. I'm challenging the third prong of WP:RS, i.e., the work itself. If you or I, or anyone were to write that exact same line in the article, and sourced it as the CJR article does, would you let it stand as reliable? Ries42 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You are stating that the author and publisher are fine, but if the author and publisher were not reliable would it be OK? well of course not. But they are, Blanche. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

But that's my point. WP:RS states there are three elements to a reliable source, and that each of them affects the reliability. I grant that the reliability is generally good in this case because we have a good author, and a good publication. If the assertion was neutral, there would be no issue at all. But that isn't the case, the issue is the work itself, the fact itself, is supported by a very unreliable source. My challenge above was to spotlight exactly how unreliable the assertion is. It cannot stand on its own, its only being entertained because of the author/publication. But WP:RS states that any of the three can affect the reliability, both positively and negatively. In this case, there are other sources that could very well be sourced to assert the opinion that the GJP list is not very notable. We should use those because they are ultimately more reliable. There is, as far as I can see, only one source that labels it as a fact that the list is completely debunked. And that fact is on shaky ground because it bases that fact from a piece written by Kyle Orland. For that reason, the CJR source should not be used, specifically related to GJP. Otherwise it is a very reliable source and its other assertions are, as far as I can tell, reliable and unquestioned. There should be no issue using this piece as a source in other sections of the main article, but its inappropriate as a source in regards to the GJP list because the only assertion it makes to that issue is unreliable. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's what it boils down to. You are claiming to know exactly how Chris Ip reported and wrote the article based on nothing more than your inference drawn from the existence of an inline link in the article. News articles are not Misplaced Pages articles, inline links are not necessarily the only "sources" used and you have absolutely no idea what other reporting Chris Ip did to draw the conclusion he did. Unless you can read Chris Ip's mind and tell us with metaphysical certaintude that the link in question is the only thing which supports his reportorial conclusion, all we have is your personal opinion about what you think of the source, and your opinion does not outweigh the clearly-expressed judgment of Ip's editors and fact-checkers at CJR who approved the piece for publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess at this point, the best thing to do is say, I disagree with you, I'm not the only one, and leave it at that. Perhaps we should see if there is a consensus as to whether this source is reliable besides the two of us? Ries42 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to keep wasting everyone's time on this quixotic quest to declare one of the most respected journalism magazines "unreliable," you're welcome to launch a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, can we please avoid turning the section into another massive block of quotes used to argue things by proxy? I think that given the sources we've been able to find, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of commentary does agree that there is no scandal there; Erik Kain seems to be the only noteworthy source outside of Breitbart that disagrees (and even then, only slightly, since he says that only two things caught his eye); and nothing about him makes him notable enough for us to turn that section into a back-and-forth about his views, especially since "overwhelming majority" still clearly allows for a few dissenting voices (like his) to exist. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly want to avoid turning this section into a quote fest, I'm trying to nail down the reliable sources that actually state your proposition that an "overwhelming majority" of reliable sources believe that. There are reliability issues with many of the sources which state that proposition, for WP:COI and WP:RS grounds. Ries42 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Orland himself recognises some slight wrongdoing as well in this article. "In short, some of the private thoughts I shared in the wake of Gjoni's blog post crossed the line, and I apologize for airing them. It was an error in judgment." He seems to sympathise with Kain's POV a bit here.Bosstopher (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that rather than supporting the claims of "collusion" or "groupthink," this bit of evidence supports the idea that the list hosted freewheeling debate and promoted healthy, professional discussion – Orland admits to a pair of personal missteps, but says the other members of the list disapproved of his proposals and did not, as has been charged, engage in "collusive" behavior. Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers (which is exactly the kind of productive, self-correcting debate the group engenders). No such note was ever sent. and No one else in the group took this suggestion seriously, as the game still has only one scored review on Metacritic. While I was wrong to suggest it, the utter lack of response clearly disproves allegations of "collusion" among game journalists. Instead, it shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and this is pretty similar to what Kain's POV is on the issue for the most part. Kain's eyebrow raising moments, arent argued to be examples of collusion but rather examples of personal wrongdoing.Bosstopher (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• support closure given zero evidence of collusion and multiple sources identifying no collusion, this "discussion" is over. consensus does not rely on converting every tinfoil hat wearing crusader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

L Agreed. This is classic attempts to ignore reliable sources and make them appear more controversial than they actually are because some people aren't happy with what they say. Consensus and policy are both clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• The only issue with the present wording that I see is: The overwhelming majority of commentators described the list as evidence of nothing more than the fact that journalists engage in professional discussion, advice and debate isn't accurate in the emphasized part s the GJPro list has been relatively overlooked compared to the harassment, so few have actually commented on it, but we do have. Most commentators that evaluated the list considered it a standard practice across most professions to have an informal venue to discuss matters relating to their profession, and did not consider this a form of collusion. captures the "size" of the commentator pool better as well as the fact most were like "this is what every professional does". --MASEM (t) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cutting

This paragraph:

Depression Quest was released through Steam in August 2014, which coincided with the suicide of actor Robin Williams. Quinn, who had received the notification of the release from Steam shortly after the news about Williams' death, decided to release the game free as a service to those who may be suffering from depression, the only revenue the game receives is "pay what you want" proceeds, part of which are donated to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. She said she did not want to be seen as capitalizing on the public tragedy, and decided that instead she would promote the game some time later out of respect for Williams. Nonetheless her timing was criticized.

Appears to be... unnecessary and long-winded and doesn't really talk about the controversy or really provide much relevant context or history. Can we edit the next paragraph with something like the following and just cut that whole first paragraph:

"Shortly after the release , Quinn's former..." Ries42 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorsed as irrelevant. Propose replace with Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on the Steam software in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend... DQ was originally released in February 2013 as per the above paragraph. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm partly unsure, but I also think this information would be more fitting for the page on the game and not on this article. Weedwacker (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This para yeah, it is a bit too much (we need to establish Quinn and DQ prior to the event but at this point, we don't need info about the release ). --MASEM (t) 06:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not really relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Removed, thanks all for the comments. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest initial release

I am confused. Depression Quest was released on Steam in August 2014. But it was initially released in February 2013 - on what platform? The sources are unclear - Daily Dot doesn't say anything from what I've read, and New Yorker just says Depression Quest, a free interactive fiction game released in 2013. From the Depression Quest Misplaced Pages article, Game Politics write that The game was originally released on February 14 of last year. Verge writes lo-fi Twine games like Depression Quest. A mystery indeed. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Steam is a distribution platform, not a publisher. DQ was self published prior to its distribution on the Steam platform, likely from a website. This is why it was released and available prior to its Steam launch. With that being said, inclusion on Steam likely substantially increased its visability and rate of distribution. Ries42 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. It would be good to get a source saying that it was released on a website. Perhaps it is this website. So it was already readily accessible, it seems. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a source to corroborate that; however, I suspect you are correct. Ries42 (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Solved - Kodra22 presented a reliable source on my talk page. I have added the relevant information to the article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the quote farm gone yet?

We recently hacked out a lot of quotes, either removing them as redundant or unnecessary, or else refactoring them. Is the work far enough progressed that we can remove the tag? I suspect not. And if not, I strongly recommend reducing the problem by vigorous editing.

Discussion of the finer points is okay too, but putting prosaic statements of fact into quotations (or, even worse, scare quotes) is a symptom of timidity and is bad practice. Be bold!

Perhaps we should paraphrase rather than remove entirely, when and only when the alternative would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hacking stuff out is probably okay at this advanced stage. --TS 07:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever progress was made elsewhere it was probably overwhelmed in the gamejournalpros -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly TRPoD hasn't read the latest version of the article, even at the time of his post. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary, part 2

We use an archived version of the Vox piece to support As early gamers were predominantly male this is also seen as having contributed to gendered interpretations of the identity, and we also use it to talk about the mailing list. The problem is that the archive version doesn't really talk about it, but the live version does. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. For some background see archives. — Strongjam (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If the point isn't supported by other, current reliable sources, it should probably just be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also sourced from the guardian article "They often did this with style and humour, but they knew their audience – predominantly young males."Bosstopher (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to re-word based on other sources. I think the only thing we needed the Vox source for was the "gendered interpretations of the identity" — Strongjam (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. VanDerWerff, Todd (September 6, 2014). "#GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting". Vox. Archived from the original on October 2, 2014. Retrieved September 7, 2014.
2. VanDerWerff, Todd (October 13, 2014). "#GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting". Vox. Retrieved December 19, 2014.

Top-level organization

This article kind of stumbles around, going back and forth between presenting developments by theme, then chronologically, and back again. It also has problems of scope, with lots of citations about background developments and cultural context outside the sections devoted to those topics. The problem is of an organizational nature that will not be fixed by incremental edits.

I propose a top level reorganization: History - a chronological recap of events with a direct proximal contribution - namely, Depression Quest, the Green Label and TFYC game jams, Eroj Gjoni, early threats against Zoe Quinn, and Adam Baldwin's creation of the hash tag

Gamer and Minority Identity - general cultural context, Tropes vs Women, Jennifer Hepler, "Gamers are Dead", and NotYourShield

Ethics Concerns - GameJournoPros, endorsement disclosures, Polytron financials, IGDA and Indiecade voting structures, blacklisting, and news outlets' reactions to these topics

GamerGate structure and activity - leaderless nature, political leanings, fundraising, boycotts, advertiser pullouts, etc

Online Harassment - anything about anyone getting harassed about and because of the hash tag

This would initially entail no addition or deletion of text or citations, just a reordering. It will no doubt help clarify though where the content itself is in need of further editing. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that a chronological reorganization might be more effective. We could start off with the pre-Gamergate events, like the initial accusations against Quinn and the TFYC events, then move into the creation of the hashtag, the harassment of Sarkeesian, the "Gamers are Dead" articles, NotYourShield, and Gamejournopros, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Gawker stuff, then the harassment of Wu, Day, and Sarkeesian in October. Any events I've forgotten can go wherever they belong chronologically. After that we could have sections on media analysis and whatnot. That way, there's a clear rundown of what exactly happened instead of piecing the events together by theme, and then we can get into why it happened. I think it would help tremendously with clarity and readability. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think chronological ordering is only helpful when there is a sequence of causality for that ordering to put a spotlight on. Past the creation of the hashtag, there are so many strands to the issue that putting everything in a single timeline would obscure rather than illuminate how one event relates to another. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true in this case. You have Quinn's harassment leading to the creation of the Gamergate hashtag. At around the same time, Sarkeesian released a new video and was subsequently harassed. The harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian led to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, leading to Operation Disrespectful Nod etc. The only thing that I think falls outside is the harassment of Wu, Day, and the school shooting threat, but with Wu and Day the harassment was a result of their opinions on Gamergate. I don't think that obscures anything at all. From my perspective, at least, it's a pretty straightforward cause and effect series of events. We don't need to overcomplicate it by sorting events by theme and explaining over and over which events are related to other events in different sections. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those things are consequences of one another, but more in a gestalt sense than in the manner of a Rube Goldberg mousetrap. The real issue is that a strictly timeline-oriented approach gives undue weight to minor events happening in between major ones. Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So then we either don't include the minor events, or we give them coverage equivalent to the amount that they're given in reliable sources. I don't think that's giving minor events undue weight, and if they're worth mentioning at all why would it make sense to mention them outside of the context that makes them worth mentioning in the first place? Kaciemonster (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. Putting citations in context avoids the catch-22 that mere presence might give undue weight. I think I may be taking a finer-grained view of what constitutes an "event" here. The scenario I want to avoid is for the reactions to an event to be orphaned from discussion of the event itself due to overly-mechanical adherence to a chronological organization. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we might be talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that we separate commentary on events from the timeline, I'm suggesting we organize events in the order that they happened. It doesn't make sense to separate related events because they have different themes. Why would we separate the TFYC events from the initial allegations against Quinn and put it into a section about the Gamergate movement when most (if not all) of the events involving them happened before Gamergate even existed? Why would we separate the "Death of Gamer" articles from NotYourShield and Operation Disrespectful Nod? The current article removes events from their context, leading to an article that jumps forward and backward in time and makes it significantly more difficult for a reader to piece together what actually happened and why. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I can't envision how the clarity could be improved by combining the section on GG as an organization with its activities and the section on gender identity into a shared timeline. Maybe that reflects how people are talking past each other in the controversy as a whole. Rhoark (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've produced an example of what I propose. The lede is excluded, since that's being worked elsewhere. Otherwise nothing has been added or removed, only rearranged. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rhoark, although a timeline approach may be appropriate after the article has been cleaned up significantly more to where such an issue wouldn't be as likely. In either event, I feel that any reorganization should be on hold until the article is cleaned up significantly. Ries42 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Having undertaken the exercise of actually reorganizing it, I feel more than ever that cleaning can't be meaningfully addressed without also tackling organization. As it is, citations of different things are just peppered all over without rhyme or reason. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Cute that you moved all of the material about harassment — the single most notable part of Gamergate — to the bottom. It's rather obvious that such an organization is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not an accurate characterization. The History section is mostly about the harassment of Zoe Quinn, while the Gender Identity section discusses harassment as a general phenomenon. Exhaustive listing of who was harassed and when fits best after the history and context have been fully established. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. The only reason Gamergate is even notable is the harassment campaigns its members undertook. As has been exhaustively discussed here previously, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), Wired, The New Yorker, New York, The Telegraph, etc. etc. etc. all wrote articles about Gamergate's harassment campaigns — not "but ethics." The controversy Gamergate spawned has nothing to do with "ethics in games journalism" and everything to do with anonymous, misogynistic harassment of women in video gaming. Much of what Gamergate has subsequently done is, in fact, a direct result of its negative reaction to media characterizations of the movement as an excuse for online harassment and as an exemplar of the existence of sexism in video gaming culture. Operation Disrespectful Nod, for one, would never have existed if the movement hadn't been launched by vitriolic attacks on Zoe Quinn, which spurred many in the video games media to write columns which criticized video game culture for misogyny, juvenility and a blase attitude toward harassment, which were responded to with... yes, more harassment. Your proposition is a non-starter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While this statement (GG is here because of the attention the harassment got) is absolutely not wrong, it's also not a long-term thinking aspect - but that's part of the difficulty here. We should be considering how to structure this article when a year from now (assuming GG is effectively a non-story) how to present this information for posterity. The current structure was great with events happening rapidly, but that structure is not well suited for understanding the situation from a stable situation. I don't know the right answer, but I dont think we can be as closed minded to restructuring that better explains the narrative with the dust settled. How to do that, though, I just don't know a clear answer. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not saying that the current structure is perfect, and I agree with you that it should be improved. But moving all the harassment to the bottom, when the reason Gamergate appeared on the front pages of newspapers worldwide has everything to do with harassment, is not an option. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Again "all the harassment" was not moved to the bottom. It is very well represented in all sections. The principle cause of a topic's notability should be addressed in the lede but doesn't otherwise dictate the structure of an article. Context belongs before an exhaustive list of incidents. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think we're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. There is a lot in this article that needs to be trimmed or just completely cut. Trying to find a good, sane, and logical organization scheme with so much else to do is going to be difficult. I say we revisit reorganization after cutting a bit more fat. Ries42 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Organization is entailed in deciding what needs to be cut. In my example, the "Media Reaction" section consists entirely of citations that are quotes not supporting any other claim in the article. Some of them may be extraneous, while others could be reworked as a citation for a claim somewhere in the article that isn't just a direct quote. Preserving but reorganizing them is an effective aid to deciding their final disposition. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment shouldn't be at the bottom (though criticism in regards to it should be lower), however, one arrangement I've brainstormed would be to have the current background, but ending on the accusations against Quinn and likely Sarkeesain, which would be the point of departure for the two threads (ethics vs harassment). The first would be who the GG group are, their issues against Quinn, Sarkeesian, and journalism, and how their stated ethics claims are unworkable. Then the second is the continued harassment including Wu, the "Death of Gamers"/email Operations, and so on. And then we get into the criticism of GG. It's not a perfect idea yet, but it does avoid putting the harassment too far down the article but giving enough details to talk about who GG are and getting into the rest of the historical record of the harassment. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm been long thinking about the structure, and the way this story has developed, there's no good way to present it because for all purposes we have two "story" threads - GG's issues with ethics, and the harassment, which only touch when the first false accusations about Quinn came out. Everything else that GG itself has done beyond the ethics are in response to what the press has said about them (the various Operations, etc.). Who GG are should be explained early on, but explaining them earlier than the harassment seems wrong, and either way I order it in my head, there's no good narrative thread. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I really don't know. We should have separate sections on the group, on the actual events (without commentary unless necessary), and then criticism and analysis of the situation, that's clear, but the ordering is a mess due to the overall situation. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the criticism of the placement of the Harassment section, to address concerns I've tried to find homes higher in the article for as much as possible of the content. The material has been distributed around the History and Gender sections. The final section is now termed "Subsequent Harassment", consisting of specific incidents happening in or later than October. These changes are reflected in the current revision at https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The second proposed revision was boldly posted and reverted. Criticisms that the first revised version gave insufficient weight to incidences of harassment has already been addressed in the second version. If there are further concerns, please share them. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite, and I don't see any consensus on this page for a wholesale rewrite. Nor do I agree that you have in any way addressed the concerns. Gamergate appeared in The New York Times due to death threats made against Anita Sarkeesian — your rewrite moved that fact to the very bottom of the article. It's not "recentism" to depict the movement primarily based upon what has been written about it in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The changes are far-reaching, but hardly a rewrite considering nearly every paragraph of the original remained contiguous. Harassment is a significant part of the controversy and retains principle prominence in the modified article. The Eron Gjoni letter received enough media attention to meet Misplaced Pages's definition of notability. Media attention above and on top of that is worth mentioning, but is not the defining feature of the controversy or the article. Sarkeesian is given space in the section on Gamer Identity and Minorities, where her views are contrasted with those of GamerGate. The threat against her in Utah occurred after the GamerGate controversy was well underway, and has no substantiated connection with GamerGate apart from the fact that Sarkeesian is unpopular among GamerGate supporters. As such, a place in the further reaches of the article is entirely appropriate for the Utah incident. The article as a whole has a problem with recentism, as it was built organically with unfolding events. Individual editors added their contributions in ways that neither presented a chronological or topic-themed account. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Utah threats DO in fact have a direct and documented connection to gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The university received copycat threats after Sarkeesian publicized the original. It stands that the threat she cited in her decision to cancel her appearance had no connection to Gamergate. Even if the threat had been connected, and it was widely deemed as the most notable incident of all related to Gamergate, that would not be cause to place it higher in the article to the detriment of chronological or topical ordering. You can see this in any WP article about a person or organization most known for illegal or notorious acts. The matter is mentioned in the lede, then addressed in full after more biographical and contextual matter. Rhoark (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. What exactly allows you to distinguish a copycat gamergater threat from a real gamergater threat? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Copycat threats are real threats. That is not the salient question, of which there are two. First, whether the threat that caused the engagement to be cancelled was connected to Gamergate. It was not. Second, if the threat was or was not connected, does this mean the incident must be described early in the article. In either case, it does not. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Sorry. As per The Washington Post: The Utah State threat is just the latest one in the ongoing saga of Gamergate, an increasingly nasty culture war between video-game critics like Sarkeesian and a mob of gamers. (See this post by the Post’s Caitlin Dewey for more.) Sarkeesian isn’t the only woman who has received death threats in connection with Gamergate. On Friday, game developer Brianna Wu left her home after alerting police that she received a death threat that included her home address. Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who was the original target of Gamergate, was also forced to leave her home because of death threats. In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home too. Your personal opinion that the threat isn't linked cannot override the fact that the reliable sources universally link the threats to the movement. And if you're going to argue that all of the reliable sources are part of a worldwide media conspiracy against Gamergate, then this is not the encyclopedia project you are looking for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nooooope. Sarkeesian, in turn, has drawn heavy criticism from some gamers, and even threats of violence that led her to cancel a speech at Utah State University. But Sarkeesian’s case is only one part of a broader online assault on women in the gaming industry in recent months. It goes back to August, when an ex-boyfriend of video game designer Zoe Quinn posted an online blog. In it, he accused Quinn of sleeping with a reporter to get a positive review on one of her games. That sparked a campaign that came to be dubbed GamerGate, highlighting perceived corruption among video game journalists. From there, GamerGate has grown to include outright harassment of women like Quinn and Sarkeesian who work in or critique the industry. Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, the claim that it's not linked to Gamergate is just flat wrong. The defining nature of the Gamergate controversy, to use your words, is the misogynistic harassment of Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and others. That's not my opinion - that's the overwhelming consensus of a wide range of mainstream reliable sources which have examined the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the structural concerns are unfounded, but we should be slow and methodical about this. For example, I think the "Hashtag" section should be above the "Debate about ethics concerns" section, because it's true that we should explain what the movement is before we explain the debate over their claims. So I'll make that one change and see if it gains consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm basically not seeing anything in the article that would require such sweeping changes. At the moment I feel our most important goals should be to try and reduce the quote-farmyness a bit and remove some things that seemed important in the past but which are now clearly less significant in retrospect (eg. The Fine Young Capitalists section, the DiGRA section); but I don't see any particular reason to push for, say, a total rewrite of the lead or a massive reorganization of the article. Overall this article is pretty good (and given the amount of very recent time and effort and discussion that went into getting it up to its current quality level, I think that we'd need more reasons than have been provided here to make such sweeping changes.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The rewrite of the lede is a process with support and participation from a lot of people, higher on the talk page. Reorganization is needed for several reasons. Firstly, the article has been built incrementally as events unfold, leaving information presented in an order that is not the most logical (It exhibits "recentism"). Whether you believe the most logical order is chronological or topical, the article is presently neither. As you noted, there is excess material that should be excised, but placing everything in a coherent order helps show what information is and is not contributing to a coherent presentation. Reorganizing is a way of facilitating pruning, not a competing process. Rhoark (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above, 100% Protonk (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New developments; FBI investigations

As we prune down the verbiage from past events, we have to make sure to keep an eye on recent events so the article remains current. #Gamergate Is Reportedly Being Investigated by the FBI will be noteworthy as it develops. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's already been added (I did that earlier today). And to be truthful, all we know is that the FBI has a GG file based on a request under a Freedom of Information request, they are no established details of how extensive it is. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well silly me I searched thru the talk page first and found no mention; didn't think it'd be in the article already. Looks good, just a brief blurb for now. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something to watch re Jimmy Wales + GG

(Not a reliable source to add from, but it is documenting what you can find elsewhere). This hasn't been picked up by major other sources, nor do I immediately thinks it needs to be documented in here if this gets covered (Perhaps at Misplaced Pages:Press coverage 2014), however, it could be a possible inclusion since arguably Jimmy's response is straight to the point to what is wrong with the GG movement, and I've seen many devs on twitter repeat it in 100% agreement with it. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's get some things straight about reliability

I keep seeing a general sentiment echoed along the theme that Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sourcing mean that WP must privilege sources from commercial news outlets concerning Gamergate, or that Gamergate would not meet notability guidelines without the attention of commercial news outlets, and therefore the article must agree with news outlets that Gamergate is mostly about sexual harassment, that ethical considerations are minor or illegitimate, or must otherwise be generally critical of Gamergate. Such ideas stem from a superficial misreading of policy.

First let's get notability out of the way. News media attention does not itself constitute notability. WP:NOTNEWS Notability requires attention from reliable secondary sources, of which news outlets are a representative, but not the only kind. (Reliability will be further discussed below.) There are further criteria to meet for a news event to be notable. Description of criminal activity is not automatically notable. WP:N/CA A key criteria for the notability of an event is that it have lasting effects WP:LASTING. Contributors to the notability of Gamergate would include spurring Twitter to partner with outside organizations to contain harassment, Gawker Media's loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and the FTC issuing new guidelines on disclosing advertiser affiliations. These things, and not national attention on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, cause Gamergate to meet WP notability guidelines. (There are further requirements, which Gamergate meets, at WP:EVENT.) Once notability is established this justifies the existence of an article, but does not determine the scope of that article. WP:NNC An article does not need to limit itself to the aspects of the topic that caused it to fulfill WP notability standards. So, even if one persists in believing harassment to be the cause of notability, it does not constitute an editorial mandate. In fact, it is a guideline to avoid letting the aspects of an article that attract particular news attention and criticism dominate WP's coverage of the topic WP:BALASPS

As to the matter of what makes a reliable source, national news organizations are indeed reliable sources when it comes to the reporting of facts; however, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG In effect, when not dealing with matters of fact news organizations are operating on the same level as any biased source. In WP's particular usage of the terms a source can be both reliable and biased, in that they are reliable reporters of a particular point of view. WP:BIASED As such, an editorial commentator would be reliable in reporting a fact, such as the number of tweets made with the #gamergate tag, but would not be reliable in the context of claiming the tweets were mostly misogynist. At best it would be reliable in reporting that the opinion exists and in identifying specific individuals who hold the opinion.

If an opinion is numerically preponderant, that may be worth noting that in order not to give undue weight to minority opinions. WP:UNDUE This does not however mean that editors must tacitly accept the preponderant opinion as true. On the contrary, editors have a duty not to endorse or reject a point of view WP:IMPARTIAL. If a point of view is a fringe one to the point that a population of supporters cannot be readily identified, then it can be justifiably omitted from consideration at all, but such a circumstance clearly does not apply to Gamergate. It would be impossible to carry on a controversy in which the opposing side cannot be found. Indeed, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." The population believing that women should not be in the game industry is a vanishingly small number of anonymous individuals, so that point of view is rightly given no space in the article. The number of people advocating for ethics in game journalism is in the tens of thousands, easily forming a peer group to those who have written about misogyny in Gamergate. Therefore, adequate space should be given to describing ethics activism. Page space should be dedicated in approximate proportion to the availability of reliable sources, so criticism of Gamergate should receive a degree of preference in space. To reiterate, this is a preference in space, not content, and the space for the minority view must be sufficient that, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." The minority section should also be unburdened by insertions of WP:HOWEVER.

Now, as to the sources that are available to support the minority view, they can be found among factual matters in mainstream sources, the grudging admissions of fence-sitters, and a few friendly journalists. As someone who engages in professional fact checking and issues retractions, TotalBiscuit fulfills the WP:VERIFIABILITY that underlies reliability. However, there is also an ocean of untapped content at KotakuInAction. Although Reddit is in general a "questionable source", such sources are reliable on the topic of themselves. WP:ABOUTSELF Consequently, there is a great deal of material about the membership, aims, and achievements of Gamergate that can and should be included in this article. There are limitations too of course, on claims that are exceptional or about living persons. On the topic of living persons, it should be noted concurrently that as a group of living persons the members of Gamergate are not due the same level of defense as an individual living person on WP, but the onus is on editors to use high quality sources and deploy statements of opinion judiciously.

At last, if I may wax philosophical for a moment, there is an objective truth to the situation that we can't yet agree upon. The numerical preponderance of secondary sources is mandated to influence the structure of the article, but we are not required to take the popularity of an opinion as part of the epistemological underpinning of all our editing. There are things we can know to be true even with a dearth of Misplaced Pages-ready sources, and let those truths influence our editing within the existing guidelines. What I know to be true is that there are tens of thousands of people in Gamergate who value and welcome the contributions of women and have no desire to silence them or drive them out. Every suggestion I have seen of violence or harassment has been condemned unanimously. They would gladly be partners against online misconduct with anyone who would engage them without presumptions of guilt, but the continual demonization gives cover and encouragement to those actually engaging in hostility. It certainly doesn't compare to the affronts that have been shown to women, but the sincere efforts of Gamergate have been maligned by the failure of WP:NPOV in this article, and that will be corrected in the weeks to come. It is my hope that incumbent editors will challenge new contributions, but in a spirit of cooperation, and without misapplying WP policies to stymie the process as described heretofore. Rhoark (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class video game articles
• High-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• High-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press