This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halfhat (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 20 February 2015 (→Discussion of my reverted edite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:09, 20 February 2015 by Halfhat (talk | contribs) (→Discussion of my reverted edite)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously. |
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 2 days  |
Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Removal of social justice category
Hi! I noticed that the social justice category was removed, and TheRedPenOfDoom has commented in edit notes that the only connection with this is the rants against people purportedly called "SJWs". While I agree that this assertion has merit, I'd like to discuss with you whether the removal was justified or not, and perhaps persuade the editor to revert the edit.
I present my reasoning: Even though Gamergate isn't a "social justice movement" per se, it does pertain to the issue of social justice in video gaming culture. The persons impacted (women in the gaming industry) have been affected by this ordeal, and I find the fact that they were affected by harassment to be relevant to the theme of social justice. I want to hear the thoughts of the Misplaced Pages community, and most importantly, the thoughts of the editor who made this edit, to see if we can come to a conclusion that could help me understand why this edit was made. TRPoD is, in my opinion, a much more experienced editor, so perhaps I could gain a little insight into why these changes were made and whether the changes were made to adhere to a Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you! Meşteşugarul - U 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just based on the current contents of Category:Social justice I don't think this article really belongs. Maybe in a sub-category though? — Strongjam (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- My first and biggest mistake here, it seems, was to neglect opening the category itself. Thank you for bringing some clarity :) Meşteşugarul - U 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Are you coming from the view that the opposition to gg, the universal analysis and commentary that "women in gaming shouldnt be harassed" is the social justic connection? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Kind of is a social justice connection, but one that is probably covered in a more specific category such as Category:Discrimination — Strongjam (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- In short, yes. The theme revolving around the opposition is a perceived hostility against women in the gaming industry and even in the technology industry. I can infer that some of the references used in this article decry the amount of outright hostility against women who try to make a place for themselves within these respective communities. But Strongjam has already made it clear to me that the article doesn't fit in the category. Meşteşugarul - U 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I assumed that's why the category was there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- You all are more experienced than I am, so I normally just default to deferring to your logic. Strongjam has made a good point that the article is unfit to be included in a category that has articles with another nature of coverage, then suggested instead that we add it to Category:Discrimination. When browsing through that category, it seems more fitting. I see this as a purely semantic issue. Meşteşugarul - U 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you can accurately describe anybody in the gaming industry as 'implicated' by gamergate- that implies actual guilt on their part. I'm perfectly fine with this article not being in the 'social justice' category, given the seeming current focus of it. It doesn't quite fit with the others. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I meant to say "impacted". Thanks for pointing that out. I will edit my statement. Meşteşugarul - U 16:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I'm glad the discussions like this are civil and the merits of the edits can be considered, not in consideration of how the article will be viewed by readers but by how the GamerGate Controversy fits into larger categories of Misplaced Pages. Since many of the conversations and debates here concern very small edits, it's easy to focus on the trees and miss seeing the forest. Liz 17:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to admit I had dealt my own fair share of (slightly) stupid behavior on Misplaced Pages (also particularly in this talk page). But in general, I appreciate the effort that everyone else takes and take heed when stronger and more experienced editors than myself give me a talking to. I think I may write a little advice column on this in a subpage of my user page, but this is what I take from my experience in Misplaced Pages so far:
- The fact that I've toiled endlessly on an article does not make me more right than another editor who reverted my changes.
- I must become detached from the subject matter to have a clearly objective view on it. If I cannot do this, I must stay away from it.
- I must resist the temptation to "right great wrongs" and instead focus on the ultimate goal of improving Misplaced Pages.
- I must remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a battlezone or truth-finding mission. Reliable sources are all we have to indicate something as objectively "true".
- Editing with someone who opposes my POV might actually become a learning experience if I approach the person in a proper manner and put aside my own ego. Every time I edited alongside others who were diametrically opposed to my POV, it was (perhaps ironically?) a pleasant experience, one which teaches me a lot about people on "the other side" that I may not have considered. Meşteşugarul - U 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mestesugarul, one element of editing on Misplaced Pages that is still hard for me to accept is that a dozen editors can hash out differences of opinion, try to come to a consensus on any number of conflicts, over a period of months...and any one of us could return to this article a year later and find the article has been completely rewritten! There is no final version. While that is humbling (and helps to prevent WP:OWN), it does put some disputes into a little perspective. We can spend pages and pages arguing over one aspect of the article and some future editor can come by and rewrite it all. Those changes might (or might not) be reverted...but the take-away is that we can polish this and polish this article but there is no final, unchangeable version of GamerGate controversy. Liz 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Back to the original question that started this thread, I agree with removing this article from the social justice category. The only connection that I see is the persistent effort by some GamerGate supporters to take the generally positive two word phrase "social justice" and transform it into a three word pejorative "social justice warrior" as a verbal weapon to attack and caricature their opponents. That's my view of the matter. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- The term social justice has been around before Gamergaters added "warrior" to it and presented it as something bad. Had I heard the term before seeing it beaten to death in a Gamergate context, I would have considered it a compliment. Or at least a fairly neutral description of highly devoted activists.
- Misplaced Pages will be around long after Gamergate vanishes into obscurity and so will the term "social justice". I am very strongly opposed to any suggestion that we allow terms like "social justice" be defined by a
vocalloud-mouthed minority of sexist video gamers. - Peter 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the term's been around long before GG blew it up. But back then, depending on context, it was either a positive term for people who put a lot on the line for social justice (like Gandhi and MLK) or an insult referring to people who try to use privilege arguments for all the wrong ends, especially as an excuse for harassment (like the stereotypical Tumblr user). Sadly, very few who haven't had to deal with the latter on a regular basis knew about the term before GG, and /pol/ - from which a good chunk of 8chan's GG board came - thinks those two definitions are one and the same (on the grounds that "money is the only real privilege" or something, IIRC), so here we are. In any case, though, yeah, per Cullen, I support the removal. Random 14:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- If anything, it seems we even have a consensus supporting the removal from the category. Meşteşugarul - U 13:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Back to the original question that started this thread, I agree with removing this article from the social justice category. The only connection that I see is the persistent effort by some GamerGate supporters to take the generally positive two word phrase "social justice" and transform it into a three word pejorative "social justice warrior" as a verbal weapon to attack and caricature their opponents. That's my view of the matter. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mestesugarul, one element of editing on Misplaced Pages that is still hard for me to accept is that a dozen editors can hash out differences of opinion, try to come to a consensus on any number of conflicts, over a period of months...and any one of us could return to this article a year later and find the article has been completely rewritten! There is no final version. While that is humbling (and helps to prevent WP:OWN), it does put some disputes into a little perspective. We can spend pages and pages arguing over one aspect of the article and some future editor can come by and rewrite it all. Those changes might (or might not) be reverted...but the take-away is that we can polish this and polish this article but there is no final, unchangeable version of GamerGate controversy. Liz 21:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relevance to subject of the article?
in Gamergate_controversy#Targeting_advertisers the final sentence of the second paragraph (particularly the second half) have to do with the subject of this article? "The Columbia Journalism Review commented that, while the tweets were likely jokes, "it's no secret that Gawker is the bully of the nternet."" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was never a fan of it's inclusion, just seems to be there to take a swipe at Gawker. Doesn't really add to the readers understanding of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think a better pull quote might be "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good." The source and information is relevant, but I don't love the quote we have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think that quote is better if we need one. Gives more context, it didn't make Gawker look very good, and it was a bit convoluted, hence immediate reactions from companies like Adobe. — Strongjam (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of just removing it altogether- doesn't seem like it adds much information to the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Gawker is notable for being the target of an email campaign to their advertisers. But their role in the actual controversy, beyond being a target, is minimal. They have posted articles critical of GamerGate but only one of their blogs, Kotaku, covers videogame journalism and their entire corporate collective of blogs was targeted. Their actual articles on the subject of GamerGate are very similar to ones published by other news and gaming blogs. The fact they were singled out in such a striking way seemed puzzling to me at the time. Liz 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- They were singled out not because they ran a "Gamers are Over" article, but because Nathan Grayson works there. For example, the KotakuInAction subreddit pre-dates the articles, it was created 06:13:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC). — Strongjam (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's a key aspect of the controversy and about what Gamergate is about, so to remove it would really be a negative to the article. We really need more coverage of situations such as this, not less. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain your rational for why someone stating that Gawker has a reputation for not playing nice with other internet media has ANY relation to gamergate. With sources please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- While not with regards to other media, Auerbach has argued that Gawker's role in the whole controversy is hypocritical: "Now Gawker is stirring up a new bogeyman for clicks, not social justice, defending women only after its revenue streams are threatened—a ploy some advertisers evidently see through. Gawker, if you want to claim any moral authority on Gamergate, I would first issue a public apology to all you have wronged" But I'd suggest we instead replace it with Thargor's alternate proposal of "it didn’t make Gawker...look good," and leave the bully quote which doesnt necessarily work.Bosstopher (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- RedPen, Kotaku, part of the Gawker network, is central to the controversies surrounding Gamergate, both in the conspiratorial and ethical points. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly not to the the sources covering the controversy. None except this piece have had any mention of Gawker's prickly relationship with other media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sources covering the movement have certainly highlighted Gawker's role numerous times, and this source pretty clearly links the movement to it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD would you have any issue with Thargor's alternative proposed quote which doesnt mention Gawker's relationship with other media, just that the tweets made them look bad?Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Quoting Aurbach to state that he thinks Gawker played the GG story entice readers? How relevant is that and where would it be placed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. This quote from CJR: "While the issue goes into convoluted gamergate territory, it didn’t make Gawker...look good."Bosstopher (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Quoting Aurbach to state that he thinks Gawker played the GG story entice readers? How relevant is that and where would it be placed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, Gawker's only relevance is the fact that they were a GamerGate target. Their coverage of GamerGate is similar to that of other blogs. If you are actually talking about Kotaku, than say Kotaku. But since this is all about "ethics in gaming journalism", I think what is most relevant is what gaming blogs had to say, not Gawker. The sole reason that Gawker was a target is because of few flippant Tweets that "outraged" gamers and they struck back. But except for Kotaku, Gawker has nothing to do with videogame journalism. I don't think their coverage of GamerGate was more notable than that written by authors who actually are knowledgeable about the gaming industry. Liz 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- As Kotaku is run/owned by Gawker, it's very relevant. If you're only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," I understand what you're saying, but if we're working under what's actually happening in the real world, Gawker's relevance is apparent, and the source makes that expressly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- those who may be "only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," are, well following the reliable sources, like we are supposed to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we're following reliable sources, we include the Gawker information. Like we're supposed to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we are following the sources, ALL of them focus on harassment. A small handful mention Gawker. Of those small handful that mention Gawker, most dismiss the GG claims about it. So, while Gawker may loom large in the obsessed minds of GG, in the real world - as per coverage of the reliable sources WP:UNDUE, Gawker has squat all to do with the gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Don't get off track, this is about this specific section of the article, and about Gawker, the movement and advertisers. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were the one who is attempting to suggest that "gamergate = harassment," is not the foundation of the reliable sources' coverage and that we need to enter some "real world" where Gawker plays some major role. THAT is off track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I suggested nothing of the sort. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- You were the one who is attempting to suggest that "gamergate = harassment," is not the foundation of the reliable sources' coverage and that we need to enter some "real world" where Gawker plays some major role. THAT is off track. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Don't get off track, this is about this specific section of the article, and about Gawker, the movement and advertisers. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we are following the sources, ALL of them focus on harassment. A small handful mention Gawker. Of those small handful that mention Gawker, most dismiss the GG claims about it. So, while Gawker may loom large in the obsessed minds of GG, in the real world - as per coverage of the reliable sources WP:UNDUE, Gawker has squat all to do with the gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- If we're following reliable sources, we include the Gawker information. Like we're supposed to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- those who may be "only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," are, well following the reliable sources, like we are supposed to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- As Kotaku is run/owned by Gawker, it's very relevant. If you're only working under the assumption that "gamergate = harassment," I understand what you're saying, but if we're working under what's actually happening in the real world, Gawker's relevance is apparent, and the source makes that expressly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD would you have any issue with Thargor's alternative proposed quote which doesnt mention Gawker's relationship with other media, just that the tweets made them look bad?Bosstopher (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sources covering the movement have certainly highlighted Gawker's role numerous times, and this source pretty clearly links the movement to it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly not to the the sources covering the controversy. None except this piece have had any mention of Gawker's prickly relationship with other media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain your rational for why someone stating that Gawker has a reputation for not playing nice with other internet media has ANY relation to gamergate. With sources please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamers are Over Paragraph
Just trimmed the Gamers are Over paragraph. Thought I'd explain my reasoning here.
- Dropped the quotes from one of the articles. I didn't think it really helped the reader.
- Moved up the Gamestar bit about it being viewed as a conspiracy. Seemed important to me. I've been told it's not an op-ed so I didn't attribute the opinion.
- Removed Kain, since the Slate article covered the same points I just went with that.
- Changed "attack" to "alienate" seemed closer to the article where he says "
There is no faster way to alienate my audience—that is, the people who pay my bills. And yet, this is exactly what writers at not one but half a dozen online gaming publications did to their audiences last week.
"
If anyone wants me to revert please ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Declaring that the old image of "gamer" is over and has been replaced by a diversity in gamers today seems more like alienating some readers than attacking them to me. The fact that this change in demographics about who plays games is backed up by trade organization studies makes it appear more like it is recognizing a reality than attacking individuals (who, ironically, then supported this view by the #NotYourShield campaign). Liz 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Strongjam: The Gamestar piece is an op-ed - very much so. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks @ForbiddenRocky:, I'll attribute it just to be safe. — Strongjam (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Strongjam: I would revert this sentence, and/or I would get one of the Wiki translation people to translate the article for you. The sense of the paragraph you're trying to summarize is that the Op-ed doesn't think there's a conspiracy, rather an overreaction. Your summary complete changes what Graf is trying to say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do not use a machine translation on this, the machine translations are confusing. Relevant passage: Angesichts der gleichzeitigen Berichte wittern viele #GamerGate-Anhänger eine Verschwörung, sie klagen, man wolle ihre Pressekritik mit einer Schmutzkampagne ersticken. Dieser Eindruck ist nachvollziehbar, an eine Kampagne glauben wir aber nicht, sondern einfach an eine komplette Überreaktion. Eine Überreaktion auf die Überreaktion vieler Spieler auf die Überreaktion eines betrogenen Ex-Freundes. Die Spielebranche als Pulverfass. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Or find some other source for the point you're trying to make. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm misusing the source here, he clearly says that GG supporters saw it as evidence of a conspiracy. We can add something more if you want though, maybe something like "
Michael Graf of GameStar wrote that Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism, he disagreed with that conclusion, seeing them instead as an overreaction.
" — Strongjam (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)- Only so he can say the doesn't believe that, and that the whole thing is an overreaction. You're changing the point he's making in his own OP-ED. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well I can't read it, so I'll just let someone who can figure out how best to use it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I doubt the value of adding this source, this is the second time that in an effort to reduce the verboseness that Graf's opinion has been mostly reversed in meaning. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well I can't read it, so I'll just let someone who can figure out how best to use it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Only so he can say the doesn't believe that, and that the whole thing is an overreaction. You're changing the point he's making in his own OP-ED. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm misusing the source here, he clearly says that GG supporters saw it as evidence of a conspiracy. We can add something more if you want though, maybe something like "
- @Strongjam: I would revert this sentence, and/or I would get one of the Wiki translation people to translate the article for you. The sense of the paragraph you're trying to summarize is that the Op-ed doesn't think there's a conspiracy, rather an overreaction. Your summary complete changes what Graf is trying to say. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks @ForbiddenRocky:, I'll attribute it just to be safe. — Strongjam (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Strongjam: I agree with your changes. For the most part, I see it as an attempt to make the point of that paragraph brief and more adequate. Meşteşugarul - U 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have my concerns. The consistent narrative throughout this whole long term dispute at this article is about the majority/preponderance of sources being about a certain topic. Then, time and time again, we seem to be actively diminishing or removing sources and claims that run counter to the "established" narrative, thus "proving" the narrative true as a result because, hey, look at the articles we use in the article. When it comes to this specific article, is the reason we're removing it due to the language it's in? If so, that's an exceptionally poor reason to do so, as we appear to have a credible translation, or at least a credible way to summarize. Is it something else? Long and short, I'm concerned about the removal of otherwise good sources that may help flesh out what this topic is actually about right now, and this seems like a prime candidate for assisting in improving this article to better reflect what's going on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it because I can't read it and can't credible summarize it, what I thought was a fair summation was challenged. I think it can be used, just not by me. Perhaps we can go back to the previous usage "
Gamergate supporters saw the publication of these op-eds as evidence of a conspiracy to stifle their criticism of the press with a smear campaign; Michael Graf of GameStar described this impression as understandable, but not credible, and he said that the op-eds were probably just journalists overreacting to the initial events, which he described as many gamers overreacting in turn to the overreaction of an ex-boyfriend.
" @ForbiddenRocky:? — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)- The Graf's main point here is that he thinks it's an overreaction of some sort; which he states as a counter to the idea that there was a smear campaign. When you just include the first sentence summary, you lose the sense of what Graf is saying. But if you include just his main point, it makes no sense without the thing he's countering. So if you include the longer passage, you get what looks like UNDUE. This is not easy to use. There must be some other source that includes the idea in Strongjam's attempted summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do have this "
They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney.
" — Wasilka, Jordan (November 13, 2014). "GamerGate—righteous riot or misogynist movement?". Westman Journal. Brandon, Manitoba.. Maybe we could combine the two into a couple of sentence? — Strongjam (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)- Hmm... That entire article is a longer version of Graf's paragraph. You have to include the claim and the counter to keep the intent of the intent of the author. And if you do that, it looks like another strawman by proxy kinda thing. Why have a counter to a claim that can't stand alone? You really need something that stands alone as a RS for the claim. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to claim that there was a conspiracy just that GG supporters saw a conspiracy. I think we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible, or "baloney". It's an example of one of GG's conspiracy theories that we talk about but never detail in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the value, but per your and Thargor Orlando's thinking, include it. But have to keep the intent of the authors that they don't think the conspiracy is real. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Let's examine the quote:
They also point to a series of editorials by different writers that claimed “gamers are over,” starting with an article by freelance writer Leigh Alexander for Gamasutra. GamerGaters claim this is more proof of the conspiracy, and that they were trying to shout down their audience. Of course, this is more baloney.
It has 2 logical components: the first is a statement of fact to the best of the author's knowledge (as Strongjam touched on above): "here is what GG believes." The second is the author's opinion of that belief: "I think they're wrong." Note that critical distinction. We don't have two opinions: side X says "there is a conspiracy" and side Y says "there isn't -- we have a fact: "side X believes there's a conspiracy" and side Y is of the opinion "there isn't." Fact and opinion. - IMHO, the fundamental problem with the GG article and our use of sources is that we give fact and opinion equal weight. Opinions change, facts should not, which is why encyclopedias focus on fact.
- A number of fresh eyes have noted we don't sufficiently explain what's motivated GG in this months-long campaign. Here we have a chance to, with a quote that goes to the heart of it, and we're debating whether to eliminate it entirely or water it down with opinion. As long as we continue to weight fact and opinion equally this article will be little more than a battle of opinion. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need to include the opinion to make it clear that it's a WP:FRINGE theory. — Strongjam (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorta true. It's a fact that some people think their opinion about what GG is about is true. It's a fact that other people disagree with that opinion. The existence of a conspiracy is not fact. I'm not convinced putting this many opinions into the entry is right. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Let's examine the quote:
- I'm not sure I see the value, but per your and Thargor Orlando's thinking, include it. But have to keep the intent of the authors that they don't think the conspiracy is real. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to claim that there was a conspiracy just that GG supporters saw a conspiracy. I think we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible, or "baloney". It's an example of one of GG's conspiracy theories that we talk about but never detail in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm... That entire article is a longer version of Graf's paragraph. You have to include the claim and the counter to keep the intent of the intent of the author. And if you do that, it looks like another strawman by proxy kinda thing. Why have a counter to a claim that can't stand alone? You really need something that stands alone as a RS for the claim. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do have this "
- The Graf's main point here is that he thinks it's an overreaction of some sort; which he states as a counter to the idea that there was a smear campaign. When you just include the first sentence summary, you lose the sense of what Graf is saying. But if you include just his main point, it makes no sense without the thing he's countering. So if you include the longer passage, you get what looks like UNDUE. This is not easy to use. There must be some other source that includes the idea in Strongjam's attempted summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it because I can't read it and can't credible summarize it, what I thought was a fair summation was challenged. I think it can be used, just not by me. Perhaps we can go back to the previous usage "
- Yes, but that second fact is one level removed. I've confused things with my fact vs opinion distinction. Let my try again:
- The more subjective the claim the higher the standard we hold sources to; for example, wikipedia policy acknowledges a distinction between expert opinion and non-expert opinion and avoids claims of moral judgement. I'll assume we're agreed on this point, so lets examine the subjectivity of each of these claims:
- GG believes this was a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They'd look at any number of sites where GGers congregate and read what they claim, easy to do, non-controversial, little subjectivity and the writer doesn't have to be an expert in any field or even familiar with the details of GG to simply read what's posted on reddit or 8chan.
- It was not a coordinated effort. How would a source determine this? They should speak to the authors of each of the published articles and verify they had no discussions with authors of similar articles prior to publication. But perhaps the authors were directed by their editors-in-chief to write these articles, so while they were coordinated. the authors were completely unaware. To be certain then a source should speak to the EICs of these publications and verify their efforts were not coordinated. Are there other levels of hierarchy between EIC and author where and effort might have been coordinated? One would have to be familiar with the inner workings of each of these publications to say for certain, but if so, the source should also speak to each of them, at each publication. Only then could a source reliably claim the articles were not coordinated. The above requires significant effort, it relies on the truthfulness of authors, editors and potential in-betweens and it requires knowledge of the internal workings of each publication.
- My previous point (hopefully now more clearly illustrated) is that a source claiming (2) should be held to a much higher standard than a source claiming (1); further, the article should avoid or give less weight to claims similar to (2) which necessitate either significant speculation, unless expressed by an expert in the field, or significant research, unless such effort is suggested. This is not new policy or a novel interpretation of existing policy -- it is the standard to which sources in every well-written article on wikipedia are held, except, inexplicably, where Gamergate is concerned. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Except point #2 has a lot of RS support. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- "We parrot the majority view of RSs without regard for context, subjectivity or expertise" is not a policy I'm familiar with. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Except point #2 has a lot of RS support. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, we're unbalanced right now, so a whole paragraph wouldn't really be undue in this case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well per Strongjam's comment, I'll go along with "we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible". But can we not use the German source? I've already had two go arounds trying to explain what the translated passage was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think it is most important to have an accurate translation for any source that is used or we could be misrepresenting the author's argument. This just echoes what you've been saying already but I think it's important...we can't play with the language so it says what anyone wants it to say. Unfortunately, my German is from graduate school and is pretty rusty. Liz 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well per Strongjam's comment, I'll go along with "we should also include the commentary that this is viewed as not credible". But can we not use the German source? I've already had two go arounds trying to explain what the translated passage was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Avono: Pinging Avono because he is a german speaker.Bosstopher (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Avono added this originally, FWIW. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Which would make this person's input all the more useful. Meşteşugarul - U 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Avono added this originally, FWIW. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest Wu addition
This was reverted, citing that it somehow puts blame on the studio. Apparently we're allowed to put blame on the organizers, but putting neutral language concerning the state of the disagreement is not. I honestly don't get this change at all. And to be clear, the idea that security isn't sufficient is not in the piece, and certainly is not supported by the source in any way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- In writing about Giant Spacekat withdrawing from the Expo Hall of PAX East, I wrote 'and the lack of sufficient security.' as one of the reasons Wu cited for the decision. You rewrote this to 'and the inability of the studio to reach an agreeable security arrangement with PAX.' This wording is specifically placing blame on the studio- it being the studio's inability to reach an agreement in this particular phrasing. Our source doesn't phrase things this way. Wu is quoted in the article as saying "I called them on three occasions trying to talk to them about security concerns, and did not have my calls returned," and if I were attempting to slant things against the organizers my wording would have pointed at this lack of communication. Instead I used phrasing I believed to be frank and neutral- 'lack of sufficient security'. An alternate suggestion if you are unhappy with this is 'and concerns with the security at the event.' I'd like to request that other editors pitch in on what they believe the wording should be- I'd be happy to hear if my wording was agreeable, or if a happy compromise could be reached. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence the security was insufficient, nor was it actually claimed. You've introduced a falsehood into the article, and you should probably revert yourself for that reason alone, never mind that your concern with casting blame on the studio doesn't seem to apply to the organizers/venue/convention. By noting that an arrangement couldn't be reached (true and neutral, it casts no blame), it keeps it within the realm of fact. "Concerns with security" is better, but outright does what you're trying not to do with the studio, and outright casts blame by implying that, again, it's a problem with PAX. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looking for 'evidence' one way or another would be original research, Thagor. Again: I believe my wording is fairly neutral, but am open to alternatives. To paraphrase what I've written: "Brianna Wu cited a lack of sufficient security as a reason to withdraw from PAX East's Expo Hall". This is supported very clearly by the article we have as a reliable source. What you read into my writing is, I believe, not what most would. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, as the article does not support that, nor does Wu, actually. You're also incorrect about it being "original research," as the claim that the security is not "sufficient" is whre the OR comes in. I don't need to read into anything, the text is fairly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- In very plain language, from the article, "In a public statement, Wu said that the decision to withdraw from the Expo Hall comes from concern that, due to the sheer volume of crowds at PAX East, "the safety of our team can not be guaranteed."". Wu also talks about her attempts to contact the organizers due to safety concerns. I do not believe she is concerned that there is too much security. Does the article use my exact wording? No. Does the article say the Wu was concerned about her team not being safe? Yes. Could this reasonably be phrased as 'the security was not sufficient'? Yes. We're on the same team here, Thagor. You don't have to argue with every decision I make- I've looked harder at my wording because of your concerns, and I cannot conceivably see how you can say the article does not support the phrasing I've used. Could we please agree on something? I'd really rather you not extend this simply solved discussion too far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't consider your language reasonable here. This isn't about you, this is about the edit you made, and it's one that made the article worse and introduced a falsehood. DHeyward's change is acceptable to me, and if the words "the studio" were really the only problem, then hopefully this sorts it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- In very plain language, from the article, "In a public statement, Wu said that the decision to withdraw from the Expo Hall comes from concern that, due to the sheer volume of crowds at PAX East, "the safety of our team can not be guaranteed."". Wu also talks about her attempts to contact the organizers due to safety concerns. I do not believe she is concerned that there is too much security. Does the article use my exact wording? No. Does the article say the Wu was concerned about her team not being safe? Yes. Could this reasonably be phrased as 'the security was not sufficient'? Yes. We're on the same team here, Thagor. You don't have to argue with every decision I make- I've looked harder at my wording because of your concerns, and I cannot conceivably see how you can say the article does not support the phrasing I've used. Could we please agree on something? I'd really rather you not extend this simply solved discussion too far. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, as the article does not support that, nor does Wu, actually. You're also incorrect about it being "original research," as the claim that the security is not "sufficient" is whre the OR comes in. I don't need to read into anything, the text is fairly clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looking for 'evidence' one way or another would be original research, Thagor. Again: I believe my wording is fairly neutral, but am open to alternatives. To paraphrase what I've written: "Brianna Wu cited a lack of sufficient security as a reason to withdraw from PAX East's Expo Hall". This is supported very clearly by the article we have as a reliable source. What you read into my writing is, I believe, not what most would. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence the security was insufficient, nor was it actually claimed. You've introduced a falsehood into the article, and you should probably revert yourself for that reason alone, never mind that your concern with casting blame on the studio doesn't seem to apply to the organizers/venue/convention. By noting that an arrangement couldn't be reached (true and neutral, it casts no blame), it keeps it within the realm of fact. "Concerns with security" is better, but outright does what you're trying not to do with the studio, and outright casts blame by implying that, again, it's a problem with PAX. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the edit to the article, DHeyward. I truly hope that Thagor finds this sufficient- these back and forths drain me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, UseR:DHeyward's edit doesn't fix the problem. Agreement/disagreement implies two parties - If I ask who the other party is other than PAX, the way things are constructed, the answer is the studio. That still puts the blame on the studio. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's how agreements work. The source has a response to Wu that it is safe. I think it's less wordy to say an agrement wasn't reached without saying either are at fault. The other route is to have it as you described for Wu and add PAXs response about security. The reality is that Wu and/or LE hasn't been able to identify who is making the threats so she has no restraining order to exclude anyone. This is also Boston and security will include bomb sniffing dogs, metal detectors, bag restrictions, etc. They also aren't going to divulge all the security arrangements to exhibitors or the press. Wu doesn't articulate what action PAX didn't take and lacks NPOV to make the claim that security is inadequate when PAX has its own statement. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
- I'm not sure why we don't just say she has security concerns. The PAX response, or perceived lack of, doesn't help the reader much really and seems to be taking sides. — Strongjam (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's how agreements work. The source has a response to Wu that it is safe. I think it's less wordy to say an agrement wasn't reached without saying either are at fault. The other route is to have it as you described for Wu and add PAXs response about security. The reality is that Wu and/or LE hasn't been able to identify who is making the threats so she has no restraining order to exclude anyone. This is also Boston and security will include bomb sniffing dogs, metal detectors, bag restrictions, etc. They also aren't going to divulge all the security arrangements to exhibitors or the press. Wu doesn't articulate what action PAX didn't take and lacks NPOV to make the claim that security is inadequate when PAX has its own statement. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Discussion of my reverted edite
So I removed the following text
On Twitter, Sarkeesian called the episode "sickening". She wrote, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."
Which was reverted. The reason I removed it was that the only source is the tweet itself. Nothing established it's significance. HalfHat 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it being removed. We don't need any individual reviews of the episode. Something summarizing the general response to the show from RS would probably be better to replace it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I reverted. While self-published sources can seldom be used in biographies of living persons, one exception is that a self-published source is a reliable source for the author's opinions. The stated rationale was that the source was Twitter, and since (a) there's no reason to think that the statement does not in fact reflect its author's views, and (b) that she holds these views is uncontroversial, there's no reason not to use the reference.
- Now, we're asked to consider an entirely different rationale. The argument for significance is, presumably, that Sarkeesian is a noted expert in the area and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; her opinion is perhaps more notable and more interesting than a random writer. However, if we want to remove opinions, there are plenty of isolated minority opinions that remain in the article; Eric Kaine comes to mind. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. HalfHat 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not like it's an article written by them though, it's a single tweet. It barely even shows what they think of something, let alone how strongly, and how relevant to the issue. If their important find a quote from an article. HalfHat 18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. HalfHat 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
References
- Sarkeesian, Anita (February 12, 2015). "untitled". Twitter. Retrieved February 12, 2015.
Predictably this week's Law & Order SVU was sickening. They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment.
Source for the effects of Gamergate
This op-ed – Goldberg, Michelle (February 20, 2015). "Feminist writers are so besieged by online abuse that some have begun to retire". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2015. – talks about the effects of things like Gamergate are starting to cause feminists to retire from writing. Maybe usable in our article to talk about the effects of Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Only skimmed through but there doesn't seem to be much focus on Gamergate, the main case of a woman retiring from games jouranlism due to Gamergate is Jenn Frank, and that's mentioned in the article. Seems useful for an article on online harassment, which I have only just noticed does not exist. Anyone here up for a fun and collaborative effort? Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class video game articles
- High-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Mid-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press