Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Weaponize v. Ridicule

I reverted most of the change by @Lawrencekhoo: because 1) weaponize is what Chu uses, and 2) because weaponizing white male guilt is very different than ridiculing it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Full quote from source is "Gamergate is fully aware of the power of SWPL snark to skewer, deflect and demoralize allies joining social movements. They’ve fully weaponized it, with the #NotYourShield hashtag, whose purpose is to parade around the diversity of voices in Gamergate while accusing “anti-Gamergate” of being homogeneous privileged white guys." Using weaponized instead of ridiculing makes sense to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest including a partial quote since "weaponize" is a rather contentious term (completely fine in the context of a quote, however). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the article more closely and then the entry, and I'm having a problemwith including male with white guilt. I'm going to add quotes and remove male. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky, I changed that sentence because I couldn't understand what it meant – how do you 'weaponize white guilt' so as to stop people from doing what 'white guilt' would cause them to do. So, I went to read Chu's column to see what he was saying, and he's essentially saying that making fun of white guilt makes people less likely to do what white guilt would otherwise cause them to do. I think the sentence needs to be edited to explain this, otherwise it doesn't make sense. LK (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you still missed Chu's point. Chu is pointing out that "white guilt"/SWPL is fraught with problems. And those problems can be leveraged to silence allies - and the creation of silence harms less powerful/more marginalized people. The creation of the silence is the attack - leveraging the problems is the weapon. Ridicule is one of the things used as leverage. I dunno if the GGC entry is has the scope to explain all that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's probably no need to explain the whole thing, but what is here should at least make sense to the casual reader. I suggest editing it to something that makes sense. LK (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and WP:BLP concerns. Our opinion of Arthur Chu is irrelevant; the opinion of the editors of major web magazines that have published his essays is what matters.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please explain why we have Arthur Chu's opinion at all in an already bloated article. As far as I can tell from his bio, he is a game show contestant. He doesn't appear to be a social scientist or having any expertise that would lend weight to his opinion over anyone else. WP is not a indiscriminant collection of information. How is Chu notable for this topic? --DHeyward (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) What value is Chu to this article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) It appears that he’s published seven substantial essays on technoculture and games in Salon: [1]. That’s a considerable body of work, comparing favorably to a number of academics in the field. Also several essays for the Daily Beast and for Huffington Post. Compares very favorably, for example, to Allum Bokhari, whom we cite, I think the problem may lie with his wikipedia bio. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Skimming through the potentially sourceable articles (salon) only four seem to comment on "technoculture" ([2] [3] [4] [5]) and all four comment on Gamergate. I think DHeyward's asking "what makes him qualified to comment on Gamergate?" The response "because he's commented on Gamergate" begs the question. There's an open thread discussing the reduction of a quote from Alex Macris, founder of The Escapist, an online games magazine. If length and abundance of quotes are issues to address (and I believe they are) I'd think Macris is significantly more relevant to a controversy involving games and games journalism. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) The articles that are not specifically technoculture are about the intersection of race and culture, which is the #notyourshield gimmick in spades. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) That's a fair point. If we keep the Chu quote I'd rearrange them - as it is we have Quinn (anti) then 4chan (pro) then Chu (anti) - I think anti, anti, pro (or the reverse) would be better. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'm still not convinced he's notable enough to cite as an authority on "white male guilt" or #notyourshield. Nothing he's done has been peer reviewed and he isn't reporting on peer reviewed stuff and self-identifies as a liberal commentator/blogger leveraging his game show fame - he's passionate but passion isn't a substitute for demonstrated competence. I think we've identified exactly one harasser by name/gender/race and he has mental health issues. It seems a little ridiculous quoting a lay persons opinion about a faceless gaggle of harassers or the diverse set of #notyourshield hashtag users are really targeting "white men" (are we really quoting someone that appears to be saying privileged white men are #NotYourShield victims?). It's a bit much to make the leap Chu did when he described the targets of #NotYourShield were "privileged white men" when our own paragraph starts off, quite correctly, saying it was directed at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Fundamentally, #NotYourShield was an extension of the Ethics vs. Misogyny discussion and the point being made was gender wasn't a shield against the criticism being put forward by the GG crowd. The reanalysis that it was really victimizing privileged white men by Chu contradicts what has been said since the beginning. I find it hard to generally add privileged white men to the list of victims of gamergate without some more sources that speak more authoritatively about it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) You might not be convinced that he’s notable enough to cite as an authority, but the editor of Salon is. So are the editors at Daily Beast and Huffington Post. We’re an encyclopedia; we follow the sources. For the rest, your analysis might be interesting, and perhaps Salon will publish it! But we can’t because it’s original research. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) RSs are evaluated in context: publisher, creator and content all affect reliability, standard wiki policy. DHeyward's criticisms of creator and content are very much relevant to what we do as an encyclopedia. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) We can quote Chu's own nonsense Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it. Really? These privileged white males are the intended victims of #NotYourShield GamerGate? Does this pass the laugh test? Gamergaters "weaponized" #NotYourShield by taking on the perennially lambasted "privileged white male?" This sounds like MRA garbage - where does that viewpoint fit into the article about misogyny or even the #NotYourShield section that highlights the targets being Quinn and Sarkheesian? Should we rewrite it and claim, like Chu, that #NotYourShield was weaponized to attack privileged white males? No, this gameshow trivia celebrity is like quoting highschool-dropout-turned-Hollywood stars that testify before Congress on matters of science. This source is not significant enough to include and if we do include him, half his quotes from his articles contradict real reliable sources and spew nonsensical categories of victimhood. Giving a celebrity space to write a column doesn't make them reliable sources. Might as well use twitter. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) And no, those editors don't consider him an authority on anything (except maybe gameshows). They gave voice to a minor celebrity in the form of space for a personal opinion column, not a gamergate or feminist content expert. No one cites his opinion. Well, except here. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Ridicule is not the best tool to use when arguing for whether or not a source should be cited. Regardless of whether or not you personally think who our sources include is worthy of mockery, they're reliable sources with a history of good, accurate content. We shouldn't shy away from citing them because of this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Oh please. What history of good, accurate content does Chu have? He's a gameshow contestant that leveraged 15 minutes of fame into an opinion column that is only good for discussing what Chu thinks, not objective facts. He's not a journalist or content expert, but rather a self-described left-wing blogger. His "analysis" contradicts the section and is only added, it seems, because "weaponized" is a militaristic pull quote. Without a "privileged white men are the real victims of #NotYourshield" section, though, we are not accurately describing his position of who it was "weaponized" against. Such is the problem with taking bloggers as reliable sources. It may be his opinion that privileged white males were gamergate victims but that's hardly a reliable or widely held view. In fact, I'd venture to say that particular view is even less widely held than the "but ethics" view. It's a fringe view and there is no reason to publish Chu's fringe view at all. Where his views are mainstream, they are adequately covered by other sources. When they aren't mainstream, they veer off into fringe. Are you seriously arguing that we need the "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" narrative held only by him? Hint: the mainstream view is that NotYourShield was an attempt to isolate criticism of Quinn and Sarkheesian from criticism of women and transgender people so that GamerGate wouldn't be labeled misogynistic and/or transphobic. That's clear from all the other reliable sources. None of them makes the Chu argument that privileged white males were even targeted, let alone victims. The two most widely known anti-GG people people at the time of NotYourShield were Quinn and Sarkheesian but the quote to justify "weaponizing" that "made sense" above is that the GG crowd was portraying anti-GG as privileged white men. That's about as far from from reality as one can get. He's not a notable source and he lacks the credentials to be a reliable source for anything other than his opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Arthur Chu isn't the reliable source we're citing. Salon is (who Arthur Chu is writing for.) Salon believe that Chu is a suitable writer for the topic, and I'm willing to believe them, given their history of good, accurate content. If you believe that we cannot use Salon as a reliable source, you'd best bring it to WP:RSN. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Chu is a commentator giving an opinion. He's not an assignment journalist and he's only giving his opinion. Salon isn't endorsing his opinion, they give him space to express it. But Chu's value as a reliable source in Wikipedia is whether his opinion is notable (there are thousands of commentary in all sorts of reliable sources but we typically choose notable experts, not just a random "letter to the editor" type opinion. The fact that it's in Salon satisfies the published requirement of reliable source. Note that simply being in Salon opinion piece doesn't make a viewpoint notable or reliable otherwise we could cite all the commentary made by readers that gets hosted at these sites. Salon doesn't vouch for opinions. Even if you still think he's an RS, we are SYNTHing his "weaponized" usage in a way that contradicts his usage. we would have to add his "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" to put his view in context since that is what he is saying. I think his view is rather fringe and so we shouldn't add "privileged white men are victims of GamerGate" into the section that says Quinn and Sarkheesian are victims of GamerGate. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This is Arthur Chu. Is he a reliable source about anything but Arthur Chu, other than gameshows? A resounding 'No.' Maybe a fun person to read but ultimately not an authority. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Who else do we remove on charge of 'not being an authority'? Nathaniel Givens? Erik Kain? Regardless of whether or not you like his 'opinion', he's a noteworthy, representative figure who's writing for a very reliable source. We do not remove cited articles because individual editors do not like the person who wrote them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Never heard of any of those guys or Chu ntil here so it's not about 'like.' His viewpoint that priviliged white men are the victims of NotYourShield is fringe. He's not involved in Gamergate except as an irregular commentator. His claim to having a notable opinion comes down to leveraging his gameshow appearance. --15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) This section has veered into WP:BLP territory. It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not. That is the task of the editors of newspapers, magazines, journals, and book publishers. It is not our place to discuss Arthur Chu. It is not our place to deride his abilities or to minimize his publications or to say his viewpoint is fringe: since it's appeared frequently in one of the Web’s largest and most respected publications, it's unlikely that the opinion expressed above (without signature) is pertinent. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopnen the above (I do think it's fine to include Chu), but to comment on Mark's reason: "It is not our place to decide who is an authority and who is not." That is exactly what we as a tertiary source are supposed to do, to determine what sources are the best to summarize a topic and include those, that's what WP:RS is all about figuring out. We do use how a person is reused in other sources already deemed reliable as part of our decision-making process to determine if someone is an authority, but we as WP editors can take other steps as well (And in fact this already has been done before on this past to remove Christian Hoff Sommers' opinion despite being sourced in RSes, as one example). And to that end, we might have to critically review an author's intentions and role (staying away from direct BLP issues) to figure that out. This happens all the time on WP, and is not a bad thing. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, Sommers was removed as she never actually addressed the topic of this article, speaking instead in obliques- WP:OR on our part to tie her statements to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added what Chu's point is and how it contradicts the rest of the section. His viewpoint that it was white male journalists and privileged white males that took risks flies directly in the face of misogynistic attacks that were launched at Quinn and Sarkheesian. Chu's view of race as a wedge issue or that white males were victimized by NotYourShield is unsupported by any other references. If anything, it's the exact opposite as white, male defenders of Sarkheesian, Quinn, Wu et al, didn't flee their homes. --DHeyward (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've replied below, but you mis-quoted Chu. He did not say white journalist took risks. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Strongjam. See also the new ThinkProgress article which quotes Wikipedian Sarah Stierch “It’s interesting how a male feminist had to write a blog about it before anybody realized that there are these problems on Wikipedia.” MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Redirect notice by Bosstopher

The name of Zoe Quinn's twitter account is TheQuinnspiracy. The name of her website is Quinnspiracy.com and it's titled The Quinnspiracy. She very much uses the name Quinnspiracy as a label for herself. Is it specifically the phrase 'moniker' people object to, because if so please provide a reword instead of autoreverting. If its because you thought it was meant as a smear against Quinn, (like those 'who' tags that got strewn around the article a while back) you really should have spent some more time wondering why none of the millions of people watching this page for BLPvios, reverted it 5 days ago when it was originally added.Bosstopher (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I have to admit I wasn't aware of the self-use. Still, the question is: given the fact that "Quinnspiracy" couldn't possibly be mistaken to be her actual name, and the fact that her website and Twitter account aren't in themselves notable subjects, and as such not something that readers would be likely to expect standalone articles for, why would any reader type "Quinnspiracy" into the search box and expect to be led to a bio article on Quinn rather than here? The only purpose of a disambig hatnote would be to deal with precisely this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

While it likely wouldn't be confused as her real name, people could type it into the search bar looking for her, the same way they'd type TotalHalibut to look for John Bain, or PewDiePie to look at the article for Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, or even Cliffy B] for Cliff Bleszinski. Therefore I can imagine that someone wanting to learn more about Quinn after reading her website or twitter feed could very likely search for quinnspiracy instead of Zoe Quinn Bosstopher (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because her handle on Twitter is not notable doesn't mean that people won't search by it. And redirects and hatnotes are cheap. It is better to cover all bases (particularly here when we explain how she came to use the term herself to turn it back against the people that created it to harass her). --MASEM (t) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the notion that "hatnotes are cheap". Redirects certainly are; hatnotes are not. Hatnotes take up a disproportionate amount of the most valuable space on screen, easily distract readers and can draw their attention away both from the actual topic and from other hatnotes that may be a lot more relevant. Hatnotes should only be used where they are absolutely essential. Furthermore, I don't see how we "explain how she came to use the term herself to turn it back against the people that created it" in this article – there seems to be only a single reference to the term in the whole article. Finally, I still don't see how the fact that she uses the term is tantamount to her "going by the moniker". Using something as the title of one's website is not the same as using it as a name for oneself; as long as she isn't doing the latter, there is no "disambiguation" issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

She didnt turn the term against the people who created it. Her twitter account and website have been called the Quinnspiracy long before a bunch of particularly unimaginative people started using the term as an attack on her. It's the username that is assocaited with her online identity. By having the username Quinnspiracy on twitter, she is using it as a name for herself.Bosstopher (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of NYS revert by Bosstopher

While this is only specifically said in a few of the sources (such as arstechnica),[6] it is important that the article actually explains why the hashtag is called notyourshield and what the specific meaning behind the name itself is meant to be. It also gives context to the later quote by Quinn claiming NYS are acting as Gamergate's shield. This is one of the few cases where we can actually mention something that is a fact instead of an opinion in this article, and the sentence is informative to the reader. We're not giving undue weight to an opinion here, we're giving the definition of the term notyourshield as it was originally stated by the 4chan anon who coined it (see arstechnica screenshot). Bosstopher (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This could be tricky, I know of the Leader of Notyourshield but to prove it was him with reliable sources is hard, since it's such a internal issue with little to less exposure and mostly researched through inhouse GamerGate investigation. So that's a dead end. As for what Notyourshield's purpose was is told by Cinemablend which I do not know if reliable enough. It does not disclose who the leader of #NotYourShield is however as the person who did that said it via twitter which makes it unreliable in itself and I've yet not find any source that helps eliviate it. He has spoken several times of why he created the tag through twitter but nothing of that has been reported outwards. I'll avoid disputing the claims the other sources have since we have additional information that puts the chatlogs down into their true context and the 4chan weaponizing the shield to deflect criticism under scrutiny and even breaking that claim, but these have not been reported to any reliable sources either so they are unusuable. This is a darn hard lock to do unless some journalist find an interest to expand the information of notyourshield to the world like in a book or an article. This is the issue with GamerGate being locked out from weighted media and press and only giving one side most of the time. Our inhouse have all the information but to be useable we need an outlet. TheRealVordox (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point slightly here. My revert's meant to clarify what the term Notyourshield actually means, and can be viewed here. The leader (more accurately first tweeter) of notyourshield, was not the guy who coined the term, which was instead coined by an anonymous 4chan poster as noted in this Arstechnica article. The revert I made is reliably sourced, and warrants a place in the article. Bosstopher (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. We have been told by the person that adopted the Tag and made use of it told who the person was that coined the name #NotYourShield. But it's been only stated through twitter from the leader of it. I'm not saying your should remove the article at all as that's reliable sources which Wikipedia is made of. However I cannot find any reliable sources that goes through what NotYourShield purpose was except for it being used to deter criticism of bigotry "It’s also spawned a parallel hashtag, #NotYourShield, used by minority members of the gaming community who want to distance themselves from Quinn and Sarkeesian’s accusations of bigotry." which also is included in Art Technica "Eventually a second hashtag sprouted, #notyourshield, which was pitched as an attempt by the worldwide gaming community to show that this isn’t just male gamers who are speaking about gamergate, and this isn’t an issue of hating feminism or not wanting women in the community." So we have 2 statements which goes against bigotry accusation. The chatlogs however states and claims that it's origin was sparked however does the chatlog actually state anything about #NotYourShield? Gives doubts on that since we cannot see any connection in neither tweet or image. Good enough points on why NotYourShield started? EDIT: Ádditional information about Quinn's Chatlogs. TheRealVordox (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that a hashtag can mean different things to different people; a statement from one person using it is not sufficient to say that that's what it means, or to imply that that's what everyone using it intends, or even necessarily worth reporting without coverage to determine that person's relevance. The Ars Technica source, for instance, says that the purpose of the tag (according to its creators on 4chan) was to use a rush of throwaway accounts to give the impression that "this isn’t just male gamers who are speaking about gamergate, and this isn’t an issue of hating feminism or not wanting women in the community", using strategies similar to the ones 4chan used in the #EndFathersDay hoax. The Washington Post source says that the purpose was for minority members of the community who "want to distance themselves from Quinn and Sarkeesian’s accusations of bigotry." I don't feel that the sources given support the statement we're making there now; maybe some people have made that argument, but there's little real coverage saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not so fun knowing all answers but unable to back them up. But reliable sources says so which means that's what to add. >< TheRealVordox (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading the Ars Technica article, I don't see what you're pointing to. All it says was that the purpose of the tag was to give the impression that there were significant numbers of minorities and women attacking Quinn and Sarkeesian. It feels like you're inferring from the tag's name that it was making that particular argument; but that's not present in the sources you're giving, so we can't state it in the article. If you feel it's reliably sourced, please provide some specific quotes here from reliable sources supporting your interpretation. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"As for #notyourshield, its first reference appears on the /v/ video games board on 4chan as a suggestion for responding to "social justice warriors" who claimed the #GamerGate campaign was misogynistic. "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism," an anonymous user wrote on September 2." Bosstopher (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

More on Wu + PAX (and GDC)

Note I have no idea what to do with this immediately as it might be making too much of what happened at PAX East, [7] (from Boston Globe) in that Wu was there but had some issues with GGers there, as well as the incident involving one of the PAX volunteer Enforces (security) that made public threats towards Wu but that I've yet to see reported in reliable sources. I do note that between GDC and PAX there's press discussing this period as a change in patterns (some I've seen compare it to a truce, others point to how GDC talks turned the tables against the ongoing harassment, etc.) Exactly what to include I don't think but I feel there's something that with some brainstorming there's a proper means for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The enforcer said he was not pro-gamergate nor anti-gamergate on his twitter once he was found out. Haven't heard of any GamerGate related issues with WU on Pax. Where'd you find that idea? Hmm. I see that Sampson mentions some of GamerGate's goals. A source that speaks for it? This'll be an interesting fact check, brb. TheRealVordox (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What do we do with the paragraph that says she wasn't attending because of security issues? --DHeyward (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean the one that said her studio withdrew from the Expo Hall? We leave it as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The enforcer may have claimed to be neutral, but the tweets he's made in the past claimed solidarity with gamergate, as do the accounts of those who were egging on his threats.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we have RS to use to add this? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On that Think Progress link in the "in the media" box

It should be pointed out, per [8] under "Think Progess", it is apparently not an OUTING, as the named names volunteered their information to TP to the article (at least, according to Mark). --MASEM (t) 07:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the OUTING policy says. They must identify On Wiki. In general, we have no idea whether the person claiming to be a Wikipedia editor is, in fact, that editor. Editors can identify themselves and their other accounts on their user pages if they so choose, but absent that, we have nothing that says they are related. TP is a blog and unsuitable. If we can't say what's in the article, we shouldn't link to it. Feel free to post the identifying information here if you are certain it is okay. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, OUTING only affects when a person's name/info is directly posted to WP - not via an external link. And nothing being added to WP wrapping around the article includes the information that would be restricted under OUTING. Even if this is the case of John Q Smith pretended falsely to be the WP editor in question, that doesn't affect WP policy in any way. (The only time it would be is if there was BLP directed at the WP editor due to this). --MASEM (t) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We apply the same standard as BLP (even BLPTALK allows links, but we delete them when the value to the article is not clear). What value is a link to a blog that personally identifies editors? Nothing article worthy and potential harm. If all the editors in the article posted thir information on Wiki, that would be obvious keep, but they haven't done and I presume it's because they don't want their account and Real life identity mixed in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question has clarified that he is ok with the article in question being posted on wikipedia.[9] Bosstopher (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be wise for DHeyward to take a step back and consider why it is he believes the Think Progress link is not feasible for inclusion in a list of media reports on this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe that? --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of its inclusion in the list- which is fine, but the correct approach in this case is to stop and think rather than act. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care why it was on the list. If it was a news outlet that could potentially be used as a source, that requires slightly more thought. But it's a blog and not suitable for the article. It OUTs editors that have not indicated they wish to be outed. Therefore it's value to the project is actually negative: it provides no article worthy content and potentially subjects an editor to more harm. Only reading the first few paragraphs points out a glaring falsehood as well. The smell test is what I said above: if you are sure that it's not an OUTing violation, quote the articles identifications. I doubt anyone would be comfortable doing unless the editors themselves did it. Why would we keep such a link? --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a multi-author blog which might not meet WP:RS. ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards ... It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation. And there has been a discussion on Wikipedia regarding this...

• See this entire RFC at WP:RS/N in 2013 whether ThinkProgress was reliable. There was no official closing, but by my count, about 12 editors said it reliable, and about 15 said either (no/use sparingly/use for opinions attributed as opinions). There is definitely no consensus that ThinkProgress fully meets WP:RS. We've got so many media organizations mentioning this article already, we don't need a borderline RS like ThinkProgress. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• This is absolutely the issue. Whether it's a violation of outing policy is irrelevant to the broader point that ThinkProgress is not a reliable source at all. Supporters at the RS/N discussion above relied heavily on a "NewsTrust" rating, which is a crowdsourced independent thing that would have no bearing on the source's reliability, which does not seem to actually exist given its terrible record on the facts. Not convinced it's a BLP violation, but it's definitely not a useful sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Extensive masthead: check. Editorial process: check. Commitment to fact checking: check. Sounds reliable to me. Interesting how the opinion of some editors on this topic shifts when the forum is right wing , MarkBernstein (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Outing settled? Break

Has anyone asked the editor directly? I believe that editor has been active. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have contacted the editor in question and they are aware of the article and it being linked to from WP, and have no apparent issue with it. — Strongjam (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Does that settle putting the link back in the "in the media"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I only have a small reservation in that the article is more about the ArbCom case and the overall situation of all articles under the GG banner than this specific page, but that's nitpicky (it would probably be better over at Criticism of Wikipedia ) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a nitpick. I'm still trying figure out if we have a consensus problem with using ThinkProgress. And as far as media mentions does it RS matter? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have gone to a notice board. Settled? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Just a Blog break

As it's just a blog, I'd hope we wouldn't. Why open that door? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As MarkBernstein notes, it's not just a blog. quote: "Extensive masthead: check. Editorial process: check. Commitment to fact checking: check." That is has a blog that it is noted for is not disqualifying for the things it fact checks. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no commitment to fact-checking I'm aware of, actually, as I noted in that RFC back when it occurred. The RFC above, if we're being generous, would not say there's a consensus for that sort of inclusion. Breitbart would be a better source than ThinkProgress, and Breitbart is understandably terrible. If we're trying to be careful and aware of the sourcing and keeping things high-quality here, we should be leaving this out of the discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you back that claim up? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of anything that has changed since the information I left in the RfC/RSN discussion that is linked above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't seem to prove your point last time either. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it was made expressly clear that ThinkProgress is not great at fact-checking, correcting its errors, or having a standard of reliability. There was not really any argument made that refuted that, and I'm still not seeing one now. If we need to go back to RSN with it, fine by me, but no one even wants to use it in the article proper currently, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish. The section it's in may have won out its welcome, frankly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, backed up in the article linked: He became part of a group of “feminist” Wikipedia editors, later dubbed the Five Horsemen, who were eventually banned .... . As blatantly false today as it was when published by other unreliable source. No fact checking. The outing also includes more than the gamergate editors. --DHeyward (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1) "Five Horsemen" Um... The five editors did get sanctioned. I think I know what you're talking about, but please clarify? And if they update, would that serve as proof of fact checking or not? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

2) Other outting? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article says the five editors were eventually banned. That's false. And no, not all 5 were even sanctioned, let alone banned. That's not hard to understand is it? And there are at least two editors that I could identify from the article and no, I won't name them. If you you think it's not outing, post the information in the article that uses real names, occupation, etc. If that give you pause, it's outing. It's the gut check/quack check for outing. If it wasn't outing, there wouldn't be dancing around names. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1) "The Five Horsemen" were all sanctioned. And given the rest of the article I think the sentence where it says they were banned as an editing mistake, FWIW. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

2) Still not sure who you're talking about no outing info on MarkBernstein that isn't already on Wiki. Amy Senger isn't attached to any username (also self-identifies). Other usernames are not attached to offline info. The other people mentioned don't seem to be Wikipedians. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• @ForbiddenRocky: - did you read the 2013 RFC I linked to above? There was no consensus that ThinkProgress was reliable then. It would require a new consensus to establish its reliability, unfortunately, that might require another RFC. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It never closed which mostly makes it moot. But I see many of the same people making the same arguments against ThinkProgress here. Which when I look at the RFC those concerns were addressed. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• If it's moot, then it's not approved as an RS. Also, since when did Orlando become "many"? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Um... no being moot doesn't mean it's not approved. It means the issue isn't settled - which means you can't claim it's not RS. And my mistake, I thought there was more than one voice here and there echoing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Even if "moot" means middle ground (neither approved nor forbidden) - that's not good enough. The burden is on editors adding the information to obtain consensus that it is WP:RS. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(ignore moot) Working on consensus. Might reopen the issue in the right forum. (Wikipedia is arcane.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Think Progress and Epistemic Closure

Hat WP:FORUM and comments about others. Dreadstar ☥ 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the About Page [10], which is the first place one would look for editorial policy: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ThinkProgress is editorially independent. All editorial decisions are made by the editors of ThinkProgress. Editorial decisions are not influenced by those who financially support the site, either through advertising or contributions to our parent organization. ... ThinkProgress is committed to accuracy. We check our facts and seek multiple sources. Any errors will be promptly and transparently corrected. It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read. The Twitter stream for "Gamergate Wikipedia" is filled with references, it’s got 1700 Facebook shares, it’s generated secondary coverage in Slate [11]. If we were interested in the stated purpose of that box -- if the boxes at the top of this article were not dishonest -- then there is no question that (a) "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" applies here, and (b) this is background that any editor new to the topic ought to know. But of course, not all new editors are new in the same way! Still, including this reference will not harm the next batch of sock puppets, because they lived through the events described therein. It won’t hurt the next brigade of throwaway accounts from 8chan and KiA, because they're already coached and instructed. It might help anyone else, though, who arrives here. I can't see the downside. It’s certainly more useful than that isolated German article which is featured because it’s thought to be sympathetic to Gamergate, while we ignore Der Standard and Neues Deutschland and de Volkskrant and Le Monde [12] and Social Text. There's also a simple matter of public relations. The list above is already woefully scanty and obviously slanted. It’s much smaller, for example, than my little scrapbook of major media discussions of [Infamous] at [13]. It could be really embarrassing, couldn't it, if this were pointed out in public. Let’s do this right because it’s right, not because we’re shamed into it. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC) There is no vast conspiracy here, it's just not a reliable source and shouldn't be used. Your comment, however, is a good argument in favor of removing that news box entirely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Gee, it should be obvious from the article you are linking to: He became part of a group of “feminist” Wikipedia editors, later dubbed the Five Horsemen, who were eventually banned .... Fact checkers? Not. And it wasn't just a single editor that was outed. The requirement isn't that they quietly approve of a link, it's that they make the information available on wiki. Of the two, none have done that. --DHeyward (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think there's ever going to be consensus here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Does 1RR apply to the talk page? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I asked already, it does not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Where do you ask? I tried looking it up. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC) [14] Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Slate take on TP article

Just as a note, Slate's commented on the TP article here [15], it mentions the name of one WPian who has volunteered their information on WP (see User:GorillaWarfare). As I noted above, I'm not 100% sure if, as "In the media" this is better here or over at Criticism of Wikipedia, but I'm just noting this. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, catch that, it mentions the name in question that we're not sure if OUTING applies or not; but still, hand in hand with the TP article in terms of fate of where to use. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't think OUTING applies here, at least not the spirit of it, I've discussed this with the editor and they've not had any issue with it. Also, interestingly that article has their name but not their alias. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think OUTING applies either (and that seems to be the consensus at WT:OUTING) in terms of name reveals. I just ask if its about this article or about the arbcom case overall, just as with the TP article. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Both? Actually it mentions the Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian articles directly with the resounding endorsement of "they are free of objectionable content or misogynist distortions." So I'd say strong case for those talk pages. — Strongjam (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, as I've said elswehere, that's me, and I am public about my real name. I can't comment on the other names used in the article, as I don't know if the same is true for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Masem: - URL says it's a blog? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It makes it clear(er) that it is an opinion piece than factual, but she is a columnist for Slate and other sites, and we have to recognize that "blogs" of major newspapers and sources are still valid as reliable sources for opinions. It's the new-media way of reporting organization. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

outside the anglosphere

I found an Estonian article about this topic ("Battle bikinis and culture war"), it was published in both Postimees (the web version at least) and Sirp, which are totally legit sources. There probably aren't any new facts there but I'm wondering if there's reason or room here to mention this somewhere, as an opinion piece. It's directly critical of what it calls "gamingfundamentalists". I can translate it (not the whole thing) but I'm not sure -- there's more than enough people having opinions on this topic so I don't know if this one is worth mentioning. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

At the very least might be used as an example of commentators describing it as a culture war I suppose. However, not sure if that's really needed at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"There probably aren't any new facts there" Unless there's something new, the recommendation is to stick with English sources, FYI. But, there are some Wikipedia volunteers that maybe will do translations for us here (Esotonian). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes yes, I know that, when English sources are available for facts then it's better to use those; which is why I'm wondering if some non-Anglospherian sources can still be useful here as opinion pieces (see also: the Swedish section above). There are a lot of sentences in this article that say something like "observers have said" or "commentators have noted" or "supporters have etc etc", which describe opinions (including opinions based on facts, I'm using that term in a broad sense here). Okay, I'm (probably) gonna have a closer look at these articles and see if I have a more specific suggestion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

After dealing with two articles in German, where the removal of key phrases in the translation changed the meaning significantly, I will strenuously oppose using non-English sources without a full human translation from one of the Wikipedia volunteers. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no special rules for non-English sources. And under no circumstances can there be any full translations of copyrighted material on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be on Wikipedia, just a full translation somewhere. Because seriously I've already dealt with two passages from a German articles where the proposed inclusion to the entry was seriously different than what the article said in German. At this point I will object to non-English inclusions without something that all the editors can read. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A full translation will be a copyright violation no matter where you publish it. I don't think it's appropriate that you encourage that. You also can't exclude content based on non-English sources because of personal doubts like this. There isn't any policy support for it and no amount of self-published human translation will make a source more reliable.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NONENG says asking for translation is ok. And the note about copyright leads to saying fair use of copyright for context is ok. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I amend to have at least the relevant text translated with enough context. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NONENG clearly specifies "relevant portions of the original source", not full translations. Fair use covers only limited quotes. You'll save everybody a lot of trouble if you just ask users who speak the language to look at machine translations and determine whether they're sufficient or not. Like with the Swedish source.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That didn't work for the German sources... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with that source was that the full text wasn't available. — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't have time at present, new source/angle to add

[16] Rep. Katherine Clark is pushing for the FBI to take cyber-harassment (specifically calling out Gamergate) seriously. Note she represents Mass. and took interest in response to the harassment towards Wu. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added this now (using a Verge source). As the Verge points out, GG is now in the Congressional Record. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I think it needs to be re-worded a bit. The cited sources doesn't say was because of the harassment of Wu leading up to PAX, it doesn't really speculate on the reasons. We could probably also link to the letter she wrote. I'll take a crack at it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel discussed this with her [17] ""We discovered this fall that Brianna was a constituent and reached out to her about what we could do," Clark said. "That led us eventually speaking with the FBI about how they're handling these cases."". --MASEM (t) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt the truth of it, but I'm not going to be the one to cite Jezebel in this article! (Is there a smiley template?) — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't have time to work on phrasing but the reasons and scope are broader than Gamergate though one of the triggers is Gamergate - re: "to crack down on the harassment associated with Gamergate." Will get back to this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, tried to re-word a bit. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

However, the VB article above does summarize that Jezebel statement and ties Wu to why Rep. Clark is doing this. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• CBS (doesn't mention Gamergate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• The Hill ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Any Swedish Editors?

Potential source, but as it's Swedish I won't be adding it as I don't trust machine translation.

• Sundell, Joachim (March 9, 2015). "Ny undersökning: Gamergate handlade om kvinnohat". SVT (in Swedish). {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

— Strongjam (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You could ask Wikipedia translation volunteers. I see Peter Isotalo on the list. He's commented here before. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to strenuously object to using the Swedish source without a human translation of the entire article from one of the Wiki volunteers. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're objecting too. I'm not going to use it as I can't read it. I just thought another editor here might be able to make use of it if they knew the language. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Preemptive. In case anyone else tries to. I had three go arounds with one article in German. And one more for a different article. In both cases the removal of key phrases changed the meaning significantly (in one case reversed the meaning). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Swedish-English machine translations tend to be very good since they're pretty similar. I see no problems here. SVT is also a very reliable news source. I notice that the word hatdrev didn't translate, but the basic meaning is "hate campaign". Peter ^Isotalo 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Seconding this, the machine translation seems to get the gist of it. There are some awkwardly worded sentences, but nothing that changes the meaning as far as I can see. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I can translate it, Swedish here. Even though I know what's written I kinda don't want to. But Wikipedia gotta be Wiki. Where can I write the translations? TheRealVordox (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't. It would be a copyright violation.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well at least the relevant passage(s). I think most German to English machine translations are ok, but one of the passages confused the machine translations because of an idiomatic phrase, and the other one was a problem because of complex sentence structure interacting with sarcasm. The machine translations mostly supported the wrong interpretations that people wanted to include, but the human fluent translation does not. I don't want to go through that again. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So I shouldn't translate it when people are asking for translation,eh? TheRealVordox (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @TheRealVordox: - perhaps you can post the translation off-Wiki, then link us to it? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that would run afoul of WP:ELNEVER. If the machine translation is good, I might try to add it, although I'll be asking for a review from a Swedish editor first. — Strongjam (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems consensus is in favour of Machine Translation. Well if there's any issue I'll point it out if I see anything really sticking out. TheRealVordox (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out above, I see no problems with the machine translation. There's some awkward grammar and a few untranslated words. It's an accurate rendition of the original.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I trust Peter Isotalo in this particular case. I just have a general problem with unavailable and/or machine translations given past experience. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias

as so many other times this has been discussed, there is still no indication of "bias" as the article substantially reflects the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a participant in the Gamergate controversy but it does seem as if the article is very heavily skewed to the feminist/social justice side. I do find it somewhat worrying that this type of bias is allowed on Wikipedia without even a possible warning that there may be some issues regarding the neutrality of the article. Please feel free to shout at me for being wrong, but the lack of any acknowledgement that this bias may even exist is a fair bit frightening to say the least. A Missing Semicolon (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC) That reflects the bias in WP:RS. This has been discussed to death already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia articles don't have disclaimers beyond the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. — Strongjam (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) It's amazing to me how many people's first edits to GamerGate related pages happen almost _exactly_ after they have 10 edits and are around for four days, only to say that they're "neutral" but use language that is consistently used as an insult by one group of people. Shocking, really.--Jorm (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Figure out a way to turn that amazing coincidence into lottery tickets and we will all be set for life! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC) This article is really burning people out fast! Anyway, Missing Semicolon. Yes there is a bias to this page and it's been attempted to be adressed for quite a few months now and minor changes are being made. However with the current reliable sources choosen for now (Since the coverage is mostly about the negative form of the controversy) the bias stands until further change happens (Like how FBI is currently investigating GamerGare etc etc which may give coverage). But for now, this article cannot change due to its topic focus. TheRealVordox (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I think one of the more contentious pieces of bias is the "Reliable" Sources themselves. While it has been established, even by the sources that have been allowed as reliable, that "Gamergaters" believe the movement is about ethics in Gaming Journalism, these very same Gaming Journalism publications are being allowed as reliable sources for findings of fact about themselves and "the movement" or group that claims to be scrutinizing them. And Twitter, of all things, is being used as a source in this article. Twitter... The exclusion of the Game Journo Pro's mailing list, that ties the writers and/or publications of the "gamers are dead" articles to each other, is a very blatant example of selection (exclusion) bias. It's existence and contention has been confirmed by RS articles, though they did find themselves to be not-guilty of any collusion. Without this scandal Gamergate would probably not have been as big of a deal as it turned out to be. This article is about as NPOV as if the article on Hydraulic Fracturing was written by Oil and Gas companies with only their paid-for research as reliable sources. And if you don't mind my soapboxing a bit. In my opinion, Gamergate has been misrepresented as the new face of "the Internet." Threats, Trolling, Doxing, Swatting, Misogyny and all other forms of prejudice are not new. They're an intrinsic part of the internet+anonymity (i.e.: 4chan) since the beginning. But now, for some reason, all of those practices are being attributed to Gamergate instead of their actual sources: various groups or message boards on the anonymous internet. Gamergate has become the new catch-all 4chan. Any contentious action on the internet is attributed to Gamergate regardless of it's true source, even if that source is 4chan itself. TyTyMang (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure it's misattribution if the harassment is tagged with '#gamergate', however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC) The purpose of this talk page is not to editorialize about how all the reliable sources have been unfair to Gamergate. Instead, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss specific changes to this article which comply with Wikipedia's established policies and guidelines, appropriately cited to what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Take up your concerns about "misprepresentation" with the reliable sources covering the controversy. Our job here is to summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say. Nothing more. We will not engage here in any broader debate about the "the truth" or media fairness. Take that debate elsewhere. If the best of "gaming journalism" sources were universally accepted as reliable sources in gaming articles a year ago, I see no reason to exclude them now, just because they have been systematically attacked by random dissenters. That is no more persuasive than a generalized attack on mainstream news sources. No individual "reliable" source is 100% reliable. But when, for example, the New York Times makes a major mistake, we know that because other highly reliable sources point it out. One can accept and engage with a comprehensive rejection of the entire notion of "reliable sources". Those who do so need to, in the end, accept the challenge to create a new online encyclopedia, with all new standards established for which sources should be considered reliable. Feel free to do so. In the mean time, experienced Wikipedians can be expected to stand by our long established policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) The contention that reliable sources have been "unfair" to GamerGate is absurd anyway. If GamerGate is a campaign to improve ethics, it has to be the most failed campaign in human history. Kaldari (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Reliability is always affected by context. According to the sources, Gamergate claims to be a campaign to improve ethics in *gaming journalism*. This means *gaming journalism* would be a primary source in this *context*, and may not be appropriate or reliable for statements of fact. For gaming articles, there's no question of their reliability. But in the context of Gamergate, which we can all agree isn't about actual gaming, it is very debatable. Also... Twitter... TyTyMang (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) actually according to the sources gamergate is a hashtag that is used for a wide variety of things by mostly anonymous people who do a number of things, including ranting about things that arent ethics and coordinating actual harassment and death threat campaigns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) This can also be said about any hashtag, part of the problem with limiting the movement to the hashtag for sure. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC) as the multiple reliable sources have said, you cannot have a "movement" when all you got is a hashtag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Should we rename the article; "Gamergate Hashtag" ? TyTyMang (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC) or Gamergate hashtag harassment which is the primary focus of the sources covering it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Article to help establish that behavior of GG is not new

NYtimes article on documentary "GTFO". Probably can be used over at Sexism in video gaming too, but important that this shows that GG was not new behavior but symptomic of the current environment. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That gamergate is a manifestation of the longstanding misogyny in the gaming community has been noted by many of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the section on sexism/misogyny could be better improved to start with the history (which not only this source but others) note, going back at least as far as 2012 with documentable examples, and then noting how in the present, there was an opportunity to address that but the waves of harassment deflected the issue from the forefront. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to summarize this quote "While online harassment in the video game industry has made headlines of late — most notably, with the so-called GamerGate controversy, in which anonymous players threatened to rape and murder the game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others — “GTFO” (an acronym for an obscene dismissal) makes the case that these are not isolated incidents, yelled or texted today and gone tomorrow. “I do worry that the general public will focus too much on GamerGate and say, ‘Look at this crazy thing that happened,’ ” the film’s director, Shannon Sun-Higginson, said. “It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem.”"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the way I was envisioning it was better organizing the Sexism/Misogyny section to start with acknowledging that this existed before GG. As TRDoD points out, this is not the only source that says that, but a bit of reorg of that section, would help. It's not necessary the one statement to use from that. (Key here is that this is a NYTimes article so considered a very high quality source). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose reorganizing the section around this (since, after all, the article is about GamerGate, not all of history), but I do feel that many sources agree that GamerGate is just the latest manifestation of a long-simmering opposition to women in gaming and a deep thread of anti-feminism among some parts of the community, and that that broad background of misogyny is a big part of what a lot of sources focus on in describing where GamerGate came from -- in other words, I think most coverage along this line says that it's not like the misogyny and anti-feminism and so on came out of nowhere; #GamerGate happened because there were already a lot of people eager to harass women, attack feminists, and generally form an angry-mob-slash-political-movement opposing progressivism and what they saw as changes to the nature of gaming. There were already lots of embittered culture warriors on 4chan and the like eager to howl SJW and let loose the dogs of war, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with Aquillion comment here. Though I'd be interested what you think needs reorg'ng Masem. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I do want to make clear that I don't think reorganizing around this specific article is what is needed or appropriate, but there is a better way to organize that section that should focus first and foremost that there have been past issues (which this is one of several articles that highlight that) and GG being a visible manifestation of that, and then moving on to GG specifics. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This entry already says "Sexism and misogyny had been identified as problems in the video game industry and community prior to the events of Gamergate." and links to Sexism in video gaming. Not enough? What do you propose as the reorg? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the first para of the current version - which states (paraphrasing from memory) that GG could have been a point to start discussing the long term issues but quickly diverted from that - is chronologically out of place in the logic flow. We should be stating, first, that GG is commonly seen as a symptom of ongoing misogyny and sexism in the industry and into the userbase, and then follow up with that while GG could have been used to address this, the harassment prevented any such rational discussion from occurring. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article and the sources say that gamergate could have been a point to discuss actual ethics issues of AAA productions buying reviews, but the harassment circumvented that and instead brought light to the longstanding misogyny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There's just something about how that section reads that doesn't make for a good narrative flow. Not that any of the information included should be removed, just reworked to provide a more logical narrative. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The complicated nature of what was/is going is make chronology a difficult thing to do, because different topical events have different following events. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't part of the "History" section, this is the analysis of third parties trying to figure out the nature and origins of GG. There is a way to organize this specific section better to start with what is the most predominate thought, that misogyny and sexism in the industry has been seen in the past, with GG being an ignition point that made it more public and forced the industry to address it. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

the most predominate thought is not "theres a lot of terrible misogyny in gaming and for a random example heres gamergate" - the most predominate thought is "HOLY SHIT this gamergate fiasco makes it impossible to ignore the misogyny in gaming." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still confused what organizing principle Masem wants to use. I'm not generically opposed to reorganizing, but I want some idea as to where we might be headed in a reorg. I'm sensing something like P) misogyny in gaming pre-existing supports Q) Gamergate is example of misogyny in gaming? I think TheRedPenOfDoom argues start with Q) (specific) supported by P) (general evidence). In this case I'm a fan of specific supported by evidence presentation style. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To be simple, the way the section should be written should be "GG is considered misogynist and sexist because (X). GG is considered to be a continuation of existing misogyny and sexism in the industry because (X). GG had the potential to be seen as a way to address these but failed because (X)." That is, make it clear what is the now, why it highlights issues, and why it is not doing anything to help fix those issues. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I can get behind that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to draft that since that would be gigantic change. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Presently, the way the section is written, and identify the 3 "parts" above as 1, 2 and 3, we have one para on 3, and the rest on 2. Finding parts for 1 should be trivial (if not already in the article, but we should make that section lead off with this part), and then the rest is just providing narrative glue for writing flow. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a start. This is the first RS that actually makes the link, except it's focused on women as opposed to the general point that death threats and such are typical. Masem is right that we need to review and rewrite, not that this is some sort of "symptom of misogyny." Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is most certainly not the first article that identifies that harassment of women is nothing new in gaming and that gamergate is merely an extremely vicious, prominent and sustained example. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment in general, of course. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Misogynistic attacks" is an opinion

Whether or not this harassment was misogynistic in nature in an opinion. This statement (among others) attempts to disguise an opinion as fact: "...when several women ... were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks." You may use a source's opinion only when explicitly stating that it is that source's opinion. You may not take that opinion and present it as factual. See WP:RSOPINION. Galestar (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not all adjectives are matters of opinion. You are, unfortunately, wrong in your assertion that stating harassment is misogynistic is a matter of opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Moot cites GG as one of two reasons he left 4chan

Rolling Stone interview. (The other reason cited is the iPhone nude picture leak). We should include this, but I don't know where. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

probably at the end of Gamergate controversy#Gamergate activities Avono (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I added it in at the section about 4chan--> 8chan as this was specifically the flack Moot got for that decision - but it does affirm that 4chan shut down GG discussions as harassment increased at Moot's order. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Academic Paper on GG

Potential source

• Chess, Shira; Shaw, Adrienne (2015). "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 59 (1): 208–220. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.999917.

I don't currently have access to it, but other editors might so I thought I'd link to it here. Based on the abstract might be useful for expanding on DiGRA. — Strongjam (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Your Shield

As it stands the current wording doesn't reflect anywhere near what RS report.

From The Telegraph: "One example is #NotYourShield – a hashtag that people of minorities are using to say they also agree with #GamerGate."

From The Washington Post": "It’s also spawned a parallel hashtag, #NotYourShield, used by minority members of the gaming community who want to distance themselves from Quinn and Sarkeesian’s accusations of bigotry."

Any thoughts on changing the NYS section so it more accurately reflects RS? Marcos12 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the many sources we have that support our current wording, and would you like to explain why you believe they're unsuitable or not fully accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is how the first paragraph currently reads:

To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism.

It references Arts Technica, WaPo, The Telegraph and LeMonde. If you take the time to read those articles carefully, you will find that the paragraph as it stands makes conclusions not supported the sources. The Telegraph says, "One example is #NotYourShield – a hashtag that people of minorities are using to say they also agree with #GamerGate." If you look at what is written on the wiki article, it makes the jump that Gamergate is claiming (important distinction) that some women and minorities are critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian. Same with the WaPo article - it claims that NYS is used by minority members of the gaming community. Not that Gamergate is claiming so. Marcos12 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ars Technica source as well as the Daily Dot and Escapist sources in the next paragraph support those particular claims. Woodroar (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points here. Unlike the rest of this article, the sources contradicting the validity of #notyourshield are very much not the majority. Infact, most of the sources don't even address it at all. Here's a couple of things I think are important to look at.

• I think it might be important to note that the Ars Technica article has been updated and contradicts it's headline and introductory paragraph. It seems this would put the reliability of this specific article in question.
• Also we're including an article by Arthur Chu as a source of information for this section. If that's the case then we should also use an article opposing that view such as this written by Patrick Toworfe, who is without a doubt more reliable than Arthur Chu, a self-described "Freelance Blogger".
• The Escapist article only reported what Quinn and "4chan" said and did. They made no statement regarding the validity of the claims. In fact the only statement they made was to incorrectly define "Blackhat" and "SJW".

This entire section is in dire need of revision. TyTyMang (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most sources don't even address it at all."- this would be justification for mentioning it less, not changing how we're mentioning it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially all of the sources in that section come down to the same conclusion that it was an astroturf campaign and is seen as an astroturf campaign. Theres more where they came from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you quote those relevant parts for the record? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom WP:CONS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I feel like I have made some quality arguments against the blatant POV of the material in tjis section. Which you have not just failed to address, but have ignored completely. Even one that contradicts your statement where I noted how a source was just informing the reader of the information and not making it's own conclusions or statements. Ignoring these issues is not conducive to consensus building.

At the very least the material from Arthur Chu, a self proclaimed "Freelance Blogger" should be omitted completely. TyTyMang (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had on these talk pages, as little as a week or so ago. We decided against it. Perhaps you should read back into the archives to find it, and only bring this up if you have some new concern to raise about our citing Salon? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the conclusion that a notable game show contestant turned blogger isn't a reliable source for anything but his opinion. And his opinion on gamerGate is not any more notable than any other twitter user. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That was your assertion. People disagreed with you, and that's why we still cite Salon despite your apparent grudge against Arthur Chu. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on content. Chu has not established any credibility. He's a blogger with no peer reviewed work. Nor is he a journalist. There are plenty of GG bloggers and tweeters with the same level of expertise or more. Milo Yannopoulis is an example of someone with quite a bit more experience and credentials as a journalist. Chu simply isn't lacks the CV to be considered a serious source for anything beyond Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In the future, DHeyward, don't edit other editors comments. I can't believe I have to remind such a senior editor of these things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Name one gg blogger who has been featured on Salon, NPR , Slate and Huffington Post? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to feature any bloggers as there are plenty of reliable sources from non-bloggers. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop discussing fellow editors. Also, WP:CIVIL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth please remove your comments as I attempted to do without fanfare. I have no grudges and I need no reminding. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I made what edits I made- I have no desire to scrub my speech from history in the hopes of evading notice. If people note my comments, and think less of me, I'm willing to accept that.

@EvergreenFir: I appreciate the reminder, for it is both timely and perhaps necessary given recent events. I'll strive to be more civil. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So if we're going to keep Freelance Blogger Arthur Chu's opinion as a reliable source of content. Then in the name of Neutrality we must also include an opposing opinion by someone with at least as much credibility. Is this article, dedicated to #notyourshield, by a black journalist, that also references one of their own female writers to contradict the sock puppet claims, not reliable enough to use as content for this section?TyTyMang (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

you still seem to completely NOT GET Wikipedia's NPOV policy - have you actually read it? We present the mainstream voices in the proportion that they are held. and we dont attempt to create false balance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And if we can't find Artur Chu's opinion used in anything but his blog, it's unique and in the "not at all" portion of FRINGE viewpoints. If you can find his opinion expressed in a mainstream source as fact, then cite the mainstream article. Arthur Chu's solely held opinions, as a proportion, is not notably larger than zero. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The viewpoint that #notyourshield was an astroturf campaign is not FRINGE. That #notyourshield actually represented a significant range of voices that were women and non white is the fringe viewpoint. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dheyward, Arthur Chu's opinion is not a "mainstream voice" of any significance. In fact, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming mainstream consensus against the validity of #notyourshield. It seems the current version of this section is the "UNDUE" version.TyTyMang (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If we could add Bloggers (Factual and Opinial) I have about 50 or so from GamerGate. However that would be not productive to the article due to the massive difference of opinion. I would also agree that Bloggers should not be put into the article. TheRealVordox (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu is now a writer for Salon, a reliable source. The article is tagged as "life news" and "editor's picks". Woodroar (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu, as I have already mentioned, is a self-described "Freelance Blogger" since 2014. Yes he does write for Salon, but that does not make him any less of a blogger. There are plenty of proGG blogs out there, should we allow the use of all of those too? Here is a piece that is from a very reputable source that we can use in the rest of the article as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ Though it does paint quite a different narrative than all the other sources. TyTyMang (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang: You don't seem to be familiar with the Forbes contributor model. That article isn't a Forbes article, it's a blog post by one of 2,500 people that Forbes.com calls contributors. They're not staff, but rather paid based on traffic they drive to the site. Their posts are not subject to editorial review or fact checking before publication. It's not what WP would normally consider a high quality reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: This is somewhat troubling to hear, actually- we cite Erik Kain's posts to Forbes quite a lot in our article, and if what he's written truly are blog posts without any sort of editorial oversight then this is something we definitely need to cut back on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The UNDUE amount of Erik Kain references in this article has been an issue for quite some time now. drseudo (t) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Kain's posts there are blog posts, even if they're on Forbes, so we should avoid citing him for points of fact; mostly, we can just rely on him as a cite for his own opinion. I went through and removed most of the refs to him from the article (although for now I left in every reference to his opinion; fortunately, nearly every point of fact we cited to him was also cited to a more reliable source.) There are one or two things left uncited which we might want to consider either 1. removing, 2. rewording in a way that makes it clear that it's just Kain's opinion, then citing it to him again (which I think is a bad option given that we already give him, yes, WP:UNDUE weight), 3. finding a better source for, or 4. finding a wider variety of opinion sources to indicate that it's an opinion held by many people rather than just Kain, and describe it as such. More specifically, after going back over it, the only part of the article that both stated as fact and sourced solely to Kain's post was the statement that early forum bannings led to a Streisand effect that brought more attention to the accusations; we need a non-blog source if we want to state that as fact rather than just as Kain's personal opinion. For now I put a fact tag on it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any news-based replacement - blogs from all sides, yes, agreeing that the 4chan censoring caused the situation to explode, but not an RS to be used. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget, we're talking about #notyourshield here. And we're also talking about a "Freelance Blogger" and his very minor opinion about a group of people. I still maintain that we should exclude the excerpt from Arthur Chu at the very least. On this issue can we agree? TyTyMang (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think we will agree on that. We shouldn't be talking about the writer, we should be talking about the publication and their editing staff who picked, pruned, and published the work of the writer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Forbes "contributor site: “And they’re all vetted by our editors and our staff,” DVorkin said. “We look at their experience, we look at their credentials and what they’ve done. And we turn many people away.” - they aren't just people off the street or wordpress. --DHeyward (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that's why we can source Kain for his opinion. We have to avoid using him for statements of fact in WP's voice and need to avoid WP:UNDUE. — Strongjam (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate and antifeminism

Second paragraph of the section Social and cultural implications starts with

Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies.

citing "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." (http://www.nordicsts.org/index.php/njsts/article/download/Editorial/pdf_4)

Now, in my opinion this source and not even the provided quote supports directly (as required by wiki rules) the statement. First, if you check the wikipedia site on Antifeminism it is stated that antifeminism is an ideology opposing feminism or aspects of feminism - not women (as in the quote); further down in the article on antifeminism are various differing definitions from some individuals even more examples for antifeminism from different time periods are extremely inconsistent - and mind you the examples from the 21st century are not in the slightest something like "against women" or "limiting women's rights". If you go further and try to find out what Feminism is you find 20 different definitions/examples (?) - so which is gamergate opposing exactly?

What I am trying to say here is, that antifeminism is even using our very own wikipedia rather difficult if not even impossible.

I added an [citation needed] and removed the source that didn't support this statement. It was reverted, with the comment that the source supports the statement. It doesn't! The source just tells us that the authors of this editorial have the opinion that gamergate is against women's rights. This is why I thought coming to the talk page was a good idea. It was also implied that the sources of the directly following statement would support this statement as well.

1. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html indeed states that some random guy on the internet said that they think that gamergate is antifeminist. But if you follow the given source for this statement you find a blogpost that just says something different - yes, the words antifeminist occour, but just as this guy describing himself and not gamergate, in the blog is even a reply to the source emphasising this fact. This indicates clearly that this source is not reliable and should be removed. Just to quote the source of this source:

I am anti-feminist and freely admit that, not because I’m against women’s rights or opportunities, but because “feminism”, much like GamerGate, has become too nebulous and mixed up with people of completely seperate ideas of what “feminism” is or isn’t.

So if we call gamergate antifeminist because someone in an editorial said it is against women's rights and the other source says it is antifeminist because some guy said so (with a nebulous definition of it), but this guy actually said he is not against women's rights then this doesn't make much sense at all.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/ doesn't talk about feminism or antifeminism.
2. http://www.vice.com/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it contradicts the given statement. Even goes as far to say that connecting (anti)feminism with gamergate is bullshit.
3. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance is a really bad article. poorly sourced and then there is a link in a statement about some neonazi in the gamergate ranks but the link is just a piece on some internetcelebrity-neonazi with no mention of gamergate whatsoever. Then a statement about how gamergate punishes its targets links to an article about intel apologising for pulling ads. this is not in the slightest to be considered reliable.
4. http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-female-gamer-mascot-created-by-anti-feminists-828 Yes it talks about antifeminism but only asserts that gaming culture and 4chan is inherently antifeminist. Well if we just define it as antifeminist (whatever bad thing that is), well, then gamergate must be antifeminist. Nope. Crappy source that doesn't fit the description reliable source.
5. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/8/6919179/stop-supporting-gamergate doesn't even talk about antifeminism.

I could go on. It appears to me that every single one of the sources on this page is just an opinion piece. please check WP:NEWSORG for guidelines on reliability.

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.

Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

Much of what I read here and in the sources provided sounds just like gossip, rumors and labelling groups of people with no proof whatsoever besides "everyone says so". After reading some of the Arbcom stuff regarding this article I don't think I want to come back here. As parting advice: Pick a random number and check the according source in this article with respect to reliability. This article is in bad shape. Sorry if this sounded like I was venting. If it wasn't appropriate feel free to delete this. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific source that is being mis represented or a source that you think should be added? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My main concern was/is that many sources are rather opinion pieces or even poorly written (badly sourced themselves) and should be checked if they individually should really be considered reliable sources. See answer below. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are quite good about separating their editorial/opinion sections from factual journalism. That's part of why they're considered reliable sources. None of these articles are marked as editorial or opinion. Woodroar (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should assert that certain outlets/publishers/magazines are inherently reliable. This may be the case with news agencies because their trade is fact checking but not so much elsewhere. I don't think you should argue that just because some writer works for NYTimes what he writes is reliable and fact based (I think I proved that this is indeed not the case). Just to show you that your assumption is problematic in this case:

I believe Smilomaniac. I also believe the various Reddit and 8chan posts and the folks in the Hangout; I think Gamergate is primarily about anger at progressive people who care about feminism and transgender rights and mental health and whatever else [...]

This is definitely the authors opinion that is represented here. Similar:

Journalists donating to crowd-funding campaigns, which is another major Gamergate complaint? I bet if you asked 100 journalists you'd get 100 different opinions on whether this should be inherently off-limits (personal take is that it isn't, but that journalists should certainly disclose any projects to which they donate and shouldn't report on them)

If I am correct (I didn't go into much detail checking out the gamergate "demands" on the ethics side) the author contradicts himself here - gamergate demands that such things should be disclosed (and not off-limits) - so is the "but ethics" wrong or not? Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem . The cites for the two sentences all discuss the GG being associated with anti-feminism, limiting women's rights, or misogyny just saying "anti-feminism" seems like a decent way to describe that, as I don't see the need to pile it on. The point of the two sentences isn't to label GG as anti-feminist but simply to assert that it's been described as anti-feminist and that those who support GG dispute that. — Strongjam (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that some $writer said something about gamergate and antifeminism. I argue that the sources are not reliable and should be checked. In the first source I discussed the case was that supposedly some random guy on the internet made this connection - which wasn't even true - and among others this (wrong) information leads to wikipedia writing about the connection between antifeminism and gamegate.

On another note, I think antifeminism too broad a notion to be useful. The first definition I ever heard was opposition of feminism in the sense that feminism tries to achieve equality by focusing solely on women and antifeminism wants to get rid of this one-sidedness by acknowledging that men have disadvantages too and both genders need equality. There was nothing in it that said something about "against women's rights" or misogyny. So I argue that this should be formulated more precise since the definition of antifeminism is not that clear (see its wikipage) and arguably not all-encompassing.Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not substitute our "verification" of an authors work for the editorial board of their publication. If you feel that one of the sources does not in this instance meet the criteria, you will need to take it up at the WP:RSN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words: We know that the source is wrong, but we wilfully ignore that fact. What does this say about Wikipedia if its editors use questionable sources, just because these sources are judged by the publishing entity usually being considered reliable and not by its own merit? Any insight from veterans how my chances with the bureaucracy are in such a case? Will I waste everyone's time or can I expect a reasonable result?Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 14:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That hardly seems a fair summation. I've admittedly only skimmed through this discussion but I don't think you've written anything that proves one of the sources is objectively wrong. What qualifies as anti-feminism is very much in the eye of the beholder, for instance see Christina Hoff Sommers who considers herself a feminist, but is considered an anti-feminist by many mainstream feminists. If we had to have a deep theoretical debate on the concept of anti-feminism, everytime someone wants to make a change to the article, everything would probably be on lockdown. In cases where sources have made claims that have been proven outright wrong by later sources, (this occurs in a lot of the earliest articles from August), we've left out those false claims. Bosstopher (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that anti-feminism is a poorly-defined, overly-broad, and inconsistently applied concept. It's also true that, for statements of fact, we should avoid using opinion articles and stick to only the best sources available. The NYMag article is definitely an opinion piece, barely rising to the level of an "editorial." However, the claim made in the article space is not that "Gamergate is anti-feminist," it is "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies." This is a true statement -- the nebulous and vague term has been affixed to the Gamergate movement by commentators. I see it as balanced, too, because the next sentence is used to clarify that supporters do not agree with that definition. This section seems quite balanced to me, but I do appreciate your willingness dig into the sources to see if they are being properly represented in the article space. We need more of that here. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about Miss Sommers, she's a supporter of GamerGate according to her actions and she's celebrated by the GamerGaters for her views on feminism, however I cannot find a single reliable source about it which had linked her support in mainstream media. This is mostly common knowledge but due to sources it cannot be included since she has also become under attack/criticism and even slandered (As Bosstopher said about Mainstream media and labeling) but there's no talk about it in journalistic circles which means it cannot be included. Even if she's a part of the controversy. Why is truth so selective... Even worse is that GamerGate is called anti-feminists when we clearly have several feminists(They need to split and reform into different categories, it's called a movement but the manifesto is not in focus anymore for feminists either). As a pro-GamerGate there's no reliable sources to weigh to help elevate inconsistencies.

And yes Citogenesis, you hit the nail on the head with a "truth" that isn't reported which makes this article what it is. And it's known here that due to how wikipedia works with sources and encyclopedia, there is nothing here that can be done except changed later if media gives more coverage. That's the current truth due to failure of sources and evidence to backup the claim in the sources used, as Colourof suffering mentioned above. But at the same time, can Wikipedia be selective of the statements? That's a whole other bucket of worms to dig trough. TheRealVordox (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change the statement to:

"Gamergate has been described as involving worse than militant islamic, fascist and anti-feminist ideologies."

No. No reliable source would ever print such a baseless statement ... wait a minute, they did and at least the fascist claim is already cited here (currently 144). I hope this makes it quite clear that repeating idiotic and factually baseless claims on Wikipedia is just plain stupid and should be avoided. We are not here to distribute gossip. And it doesn't matter if some high-profile writer says something stupid it is still stupid. And before writing such nonsense we Wikipedians should wait until such claims are reasonably explained. Until then we can only report that gamergaters claim ethics, a lot of writers for various outlets claim harassment and nobody is the wiser. The statistics I have seen so far have been interpreted both ways by third-parties. I'd say, wait a year or so and then rewrite history, er, the article. And another point: Are the sources I reviewed above so essential to this article that it would fall apart without? Aren't there any sources of better quality available? I think not. So long. Thanks for the amusement. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't stuff like this, a popular thread on a main GamerGate supporter hub which d, enough for us to discard the canard that Gamergate isn't anti-feminist? The entire weight of the RS is behind the claim that Gamergate is anti-feminist, a basic perusal of what Gamergate says is enough to demonstrate that they are against feminism, even if they don't like that the media calls them anti-feminist, and...I mean jesus, what possible sources are being brought forward to claim that they aren't anti-feminist? Literally all I can see in the arguments above is the claim that maybe they aren't anti-feminist -- no evidence, no sources, nothing. That is some weak sauce. Some very, very weak sauce.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

First you people (who want to keep the description the way it is) say you can't use OR and we should (blindly) write as fact what authors working for as RS considered platforms say. Then when I show that some of these considered reliable authors have by accident, ignorance or wilfully (whatever may be the case) fabricated certain attributes with "proof" that contradicts their claim you come with OR. Do I have to understand that? And I didn't say gamergate is or isn't antifeminist. I merely made these two points: First, that the sources given to support this attribute are contradictory and shouldn't be used for such a statement. Second, that the definition of antifeminism on Wikipedia isn't so clear that the word antifeminism can reasonably used when in fact summarizing misogyny, harassment of women and restriction of women's rights. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Don't tell me what side I'm on or what I'm arguing for. Quit with the battleground mentality.
2. I am not trying to add that source to the article. I'm responding to the claim that the claims of antifeminism are not actually being based on what gamergater's say they feel. Well, here's what they're saying, and they're saying they think feminism is bad.
3. What is your logic in calling it "blindly" adhering to the RS? What else are we supposed to be considering? I provided a popular GG thread in which the members are happily in agreement that they dislike feminism, so what more informal context are you looking for? Or are you just using "blindly" because the obvious conclusion to be reached does not satisfy you?
4. You have failed to demonstrate that the sources are contradictory. Your interpretation of what the authors said is not the consensus interpretation, and that's previously been explained to you. Perhaps you should contact the authors and ask them to clear up your misunderstanding, because the other editors aren't getting the interpretation you are.
5. I think someone saying "feminism is bad, it's good that we're trying to eliminate it" is enough to say they are anti-feminist. Whatever claims you're trying to make about these various threads of feminism (which, again, consensus doesn't agree with you that the prominent threads are discordant, or that the discordant threads are non-fringe), that's pretty black and white -- it's popular in GG to celebrate getting rid of feminism, according to both the reliable sources, and the most casual skimming of what GGers actually say. The onus is on you to provide reliable sources claiming they aren't anti-feminist, because both official policy and common sense are strongly stating they are.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

1. sorry, if my comment was a bit harsh. It wasn't intended that way. It's just that the argument against criticising sources is mostly "no OR" here, I was a bit perplexed to see OR as an argument against my criticism.
2. I think we argue about different things. I argue that the sources provided are not reliable (I already made a comment on Reliable Sources Noticeboard). In fact I don't think that antifeminist ideas are in the minority in GamerGate. But I also think antifeminist isn't a inherently bad thing (depending on definition).
3. There are facts on this article wrong. Provably. And instead of removing false claims or marking them as claims of certain authors these wrong statements are protected by referencing so called reliable sources that aren't that reliable (again provable).
4. Singal writes (referencing some blog with link) that someone described GamerGate as antifeminist although that claim is not to find in the blog. The author of said blog goes even so far to add a note after Singal's article is published stating that Singal has misrepresented his statements. I don't think anybody can argue that Singal's article is reliabale. You can't interpret a lie (even if fabricated by accident) as the truth. There are other inaccuracies and false statements in Singal's article, see RS Noticeboard.
5. So the fact that there are on the Wikipedia page on feminism 20 (!) different types of feminism defined doesn't matter because the consensus just accepts one definition. Whatever. But as I stated previously I don't even want to debate if they are antifeminist or not (as long as the word antifeminist is not used as substitute for attributes with probably completely different semantics as misogyny, harassment of women, etc.) I'm primarily concerned with sources and (un)reliability. (Edit: I'm bad at formatting) Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 21:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

CamelCase for Hashtag?

The most recent diffs have converted instances of "#Gamergate" to "#gamergate". However, I think that the hashtag itself is most often used in camelcase format "#GamerGate". Should the article reflect this? Is there an existing policy on how "Gamergate" is to be spelled in specific instances? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Has been talked about before in Talk Archives, and the consensus was No, even if GamerGate is always double Capital G. TheRealVordox (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion you have referenced does not appear to show any consensus being reached. In addition, it presents some reasonable arguments for using the CamelCase style for, at least, the hashtag references. The all lowercase "#gamergate" is not mentioned. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Our manual of style overrides everything, including references, self-designation, trademarks, reason, and common sense. (Only partly joking there.) As far as "-gate"s, we simply don't do camelcase. Woodroar (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are all aware that obvious socks can be blocked, right? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Second Sentence in Introduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My understanding is that introduction sections do not in general require citations, but there is a problem with the second sentence.

These attacks, initially performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement.

This is factually incorrect regardless of anyones' positions. The sentence is misleading on several accounts. Firstly, the #gamergate hashtag itself was not coined until ~10 days after the initial zoepost. It is also the case that the Zoe Quinn affair was being discussed extensively on first 4chan, then Reddit, and at some (probably) later date 8chan. The affair was also initially discussed under various hashtags, of which I believe #Quinnspiracy was the most common.

I don't know which sources are being used to support this sentence, but I have serious concerns as it being chronologically and "gemologically" misleading. Right now the sentence reads as if events began with the hashtag and thence to the forums, and not the other way around. I don't think this is an accurate summary of events in the introduction. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change it to 'These attacks, later performed under the Twitter hashtag #gamergate, were later variously... etc'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like it would make a very well formed sentence. It won't help reader comprehension. But this does bring to mind the wider issue of the general organisation of the article. It jumps around in time quite a bit. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, right, my bad. Here, try: 'These attacks, initially coordinated in the online forums of [...], were later performed under the twitter hashtag #gamergate'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest 'These attacks, initially coordinated in the online forums of [...], were later continued by those using the twitter hashtag #gamergate' simply for clarity. But I am a bit troubled because the sources seem to indicate the ongoing participation of the forums, so we have to be careful that the article does not mislead by implying they were only involved at the beginning. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sources do you mean specifically? Also, I think it would be incorrect to say that attacks started at all of the forums at once. Also, there is a question over whether the attacks were ever conducted under the hashtag #gamergate as compared to simply being associated with the hashtag, AugustRemembrancer (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say

Washington Post Article

Ars Technica Article

Both seem to me to indicate ongoing participation of the subject forums--by ongoing, of course, I mean at the time of publishing. Basically, that there's no indication they stopped. I confess I'm a bit baffled, though, by the difference of something happening "under" the hashtag as opposed to being "associated" with it? Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"There is a question over whether the attacks were ever conducted under the hashtag #gamergate"- if we're going to stick to our reliable sources, there is no question that these attacks have been conducted and performed under #gamergate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Fine Young Capitalists Vice Quotes

Hi! In our section for the Fine Young Capitalists, we have a few quotes from Vice of 4chan users speaking about the decision by the collective to donate to this group. I have a few concerns with it:

• 'PR-untouchable' and 'attacks the cancer and simultaneously sponsors the chemo' are from the same quote in the source, but we have them quoted separately on our page.
• 'attacks the cancer and simultaneously sponsors the chemo' is a paraphrasing of the quote the appears on Vice- shouldn't have this in quotation marks if we want to paraphrase, or we should put simultaneously in square brackets.
• 'attacks the cancer [etc.]' is in the source described as an elaboration of/reponse to the plan to 'look really good' by sponsoring the group, but we've included it first in our section- this could be misleading.

Not sure exactly how to approach this section. Thoughts, suggestions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The quote isn't from Vice, it's from FastCodeDesign "Can you imagine? 4chan attacks the cancer and simultaneously sponsors the chemo AT THE SAME TIME," said one post archived in a history of the character. "We’d be PR-untouchable."". I don't think there's anything we really need to do. — Strongjam (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I was using this article by Vice also used as a source for the section as my guide. Which website would be considered more reliable in cases such as these? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the specific quote I called into question, as depicted in the Vice article: "“We sponsor [the Fine Young Capitalists]. We... become its rallying cry for ‘breaking down the merit wall in gaming’... Can you imagine? 4chan attacks the cancer and... sponsors the chemo AT THE SAME TIME. We’d be PR-untouchable.”. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think they're both reliable in this case. Vice just copy edited the quote a bit "4chan attacks the cancer and ... sponsors the chemo AT THE SAME TIME. We’d be PR-untouchable.”" They elide the simultaneously to avoid repeating it again with "AT THE SAME TIME". — Strongjam (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I think my concerns are still valid, given the earlier publishing date of the Vice article, and careful wording of its quotes (it seems likely to me that 'FastCodeDesign' have paraphrased their quotes). Do you have any ideas for workshopping the section into something better? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably just drop the whole cancer/chemo quote, I don't think it really adds anything that we need. — Strongjam (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Given no other suggestions, I've gone ahead and tinkered with the section a bit. At the moment, it's just cutting down on a fair amount of bloat to the most pertinent quote, and removing the bits that don't make sense now (referring to /v/ when we don't have quotes from it). Also: Removing 'without Quinn', since it didn't really make sense placed where it was. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources defining GG as movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a question regarding the whole movement/controversy dilemma. I realize the consensus was originally to label GG as a controversy. However since that discussion, there have been many more reliable sources labeling GG as a movement. Considering GG meets the dictionary definition of a movement, how many more RS have to identify GG as a movement before our article will reflect that change? Based on the RS, I feel that "controversy" is no longer accurate, and can back up this assertion with sources. Marcos12 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We currently describe Gamergate as a "movement" 16 times in the article. And that's based on what reliable sources intermittently call it. (As an aside: we won't be describing anything based on a dictionary definition here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's probably best to drop that argument entirely.) That being said, the reliable sources aren't about the "movement", they're about the controversy: the harassment, the people being harassment, responses to the people being harassed, and debunking and dismissing supporters' self-ascribed goals. Even articles ostensibly about "what is Gamergate?" spend maybe a sentence or two trying to define the movement and then move on to the controversy. And that's easy to explain: ultimately, what can you say about a leaderless, anonymous, amorphous movement that by definition has no official spokesperson or statements or goals. So no, GNG requires multiple non-trivial articles about the subject and those articles simply don't exist. Woodroar (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's just my point - since we last revisited this topic, multiple articles have been published about Gamergate as a movement. There are now far more references in RS calling GG a movement as opposed to a controversy. It may have started as a controversy 6 months ago, but Gamergate as a movement is now clearly defined by RS. In other words, what began as a controversy has evolved into a movement. The latest articles (Rolling Stone, Newsweek, HuffPo) are about Gamergate as a movement, it's validity (or lack thereof), and the responses to it. I am willing to list specific references one by one, but before I do so, I'd like to know how many sources must refer to GG as a movement overall before we change the first sentence in the lede. Marcos12 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Each source would need to be considered in context. There is no predetermined criteria. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• in a word no. in many words per all of the sources and all of the pages of discussion in the archives. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamer Identity Articles

In the Gamer identity section, int the first two sentences of paragraph three, reference is made to the late august articles. However only two of these are cited, the Kotaku and Ars technica articles.

In late August 2014, shortly following the initial accusations towards Quinn, several gaming sites published op-eds on the controversy, mostly focused on the growing diversity of gaming and the mainstreaming of the medium. Some of these articles and essays were heavily critical of sexism within gamer culture.[97][98]

• Kotaku Reference
• Ars Technica Reference

There are about a dozen or so of these articles by most counts to choose from, but in particular this section does not reference Leigh Alexander's Gamasutra article

• Gamasutra Article

This would seem to be an important omission, given the prominence of the article in this context, and also due to the later relevance of this to the Intel advertisement pullout from Gamasutra which is referenced later in the article. There are a few other articles which could be mentioned here as well for various reasons (Patrick Garratt's "stream of consciousness" take is perhaps worth a scholarly mention), but I think that the Gamasutra article merits the most consideration at this stage. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That article has been discussed extensively in the past. Please use the talk page archive search function to see past discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

we shouldnt be using any of the "Gamer identity" articles as sources for that claim - certainly not all 12. we should be using the non primary sources that talk about the appearance of the "gamer identity" stories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that the conclusion that those articles are connected (that is, that they're all talking about the same thing) is not obvious or trivial; and, as noted above, not everyone agrees on which articles to include or exclude in the list even if they assert they're connected. Therefore, attempting to illustrate it ourselves by throwing together a list of articles is WP:OR. We need to cite those claims to the specific secondary sources making or reporting on them; the actual list of articles is comparatively useless to us. --Aquillion (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate became the size of what it is due to the relevance of the 19 articles that are connected to conclusion they stated, which also was the enraging of their audience which made GamerGate the powerhouse it is today. Taking that away is rather suspicious.TheRealVordox (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion. However, the reliable sources that state that GG grew because it was feeding on the massive and previously mostly latent misogyny in the gaming community. In the choice between you and the sources, we go by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Redpen, I'd be interested to see how you come to the conclusion that RS "state that GG grew because it was feeding on the massive and previously mostly latent misogyny in the gaming community" rather than GG being galvanized by the "Gamer Identity" articles. Do you have a specific source or sources to back this up? Marcos12 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources that describe the immense amount of misogny in gaming culture, or sources which show misogynists endorsing Gamergate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither. I am interested in seeing multiple Reliable Sources that state GG's substantial, continued, and rapid growth came about due to massive and (mostly) latent misogyny as opposed to the rapid growth being catalyzed by the "Gamer Identity" articles. So far, I have seen zero sources attributing GG growth to pre-existing misogyny. Marcos12 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps TRPoD was using what might be called 'common sense' by looking at the sources which accurately depict these two things I mentioned and drawing his own conclusions? Wouldn't at all be surprised if there were sources reporting on this obvious fact, however. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on Making Changes to Lede

I am hoping some of our more senior editors can assist me here. Since much has changed since the beginning of Gamergate, it would seem that the article should reflect those changes. While I realize Gamergate is a contentious topic for many, I think it is also important to realize we are not looking at the same situation we were 6 months ago. So my question is a simple one; when dealing with current events like Gamergate, at what point do we change the article to reflect the change in how the RS view and define it? If in January (for example) the majority of RS refer to something as "X", and then by July the majority of RS are now referring to "X" as "Y", when do we as an encyclopedia make that change? And what is the proper methodology for building a consensus to make that change. Thanks to all for your input. Marcos12 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably a question for one of the forums. Or the tea house. Or read a bunch of the essays. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

How the RS are referring to and defining GG today is much different than how they were 6 months ago. This is a relevant discussion for the Talk page which is why I am bringing it up here. The article as it stands does not reflect how the majority of current RS define GG. This is clear cut and can be backed up by extensive RS, sources which did not exist 7-8 months ago when the article was first created. Marcos12 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen much of a change in how it is covered. That said, the role of the lead is to reflect the content in the body. As the body is expanded with new material, it would be reasonable to have the lead expanded. It is worth noting, though, that the role of these articles is to provide both historical and current perspectives, so that changes in GamerGate now won't necessarily override the importance of past aspects. - Bilby (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me be more clear. This does not belong on the GGC talk page. There are forums for this, or you can use your own talk page, or you can go read related essays. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby, for your thoughtful and civil response. Expanding the lead is exactly what I am referring to. Rocky, it is my understanding that the Gamergate Talk Page is the appropriate place to discuss changes in the lede for the Gamergate article. Specifically, changing the first sentence to better reflect what is in the article, and what the RS are reporting. Much has changed since the lede was written, both in the RS and in the article itself. I would suggest something along the lines of "The Gamergate controversy concerns both sexism in video game culture and ethics in videogame journalism." Thoughts? Marcos12 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are trying to end-run around the controversy v. movement closure - not cool. I'm going with this is a question about building consensus in general, in that case, doesn't belong here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources are all still consistant: gamergate is a horrendous blight on humanity - a shocking expose' of vile harassment against women and a bunch of clueless dudes saying "No fair! Stop talking about the harassment! MY GAMES are the important thing not those girls!!!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• One very important thing to remember, all else aside, is that lead sections need to reflect the article. I notice a lot of discussion has focused on making changes to the lead for other reasons (eg. people who disagree with the wording or with what it says); but in general, the lead isn't the place to hash out those arguments -- the body is where we go into depth and cite sources. The role of the lead is to summarize what the rest of the article says, and at the moment, at least, it seems to be doing that. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Article seems to be a bit Anti-GG POV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ignoring the obvious trolls on both sides; my perception of GG is it is about protesting dishonest journalism focused on video-games... What gives? --TiagoTiago (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What gives is that we follow the reliable sources and the reliable source say that GG is about vicious antifeminst harassment and that "but ethics" is weak sauce to attempt to cover, and the things identified as "ethics" have been proven wrong or are not actually ethics. See the pages and pages and pages of the archives where this has been discussed to death.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted edit to lede discussion

In this edit, Galestar writes "A number of commentators have argued that the Gamergate hashtag had the potential to raise important issues in gaming journalism..." Is this in the body somewhere? If it is, how should it be addressed in the lede? Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much just a C&P from the first paragraph in Debate over ethics allegations, I'd argue it's too much weight for the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, found it. I don't think the sources provided support the statement that it had potential. Where should I be looking in the sources? Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. I did add one cite to it based on "While the Zoe Quinn incident may have triggered some genuinely healthy discussions regarding ethics within game development, such discussion is muted and ‘declawed’ by virtue of being so difficult to unpick from a movement that is so deeply associated with its origins in a internet cyber-mob." from Heron, Belford & Goker's "Sexism in the Circuitry" paper. — Strongjam (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, its pretty much a C&P from there. I felt it was important to point that out highlight one of the reasons their concerns were dismissed. Galestar (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

as far that comment's overall importance to the coverage of the topic, no it is not leadworthy. yes, a few commentators have said "you know if gamergaters had actually ever focused on anything related to actual 'ethics' issues in the business, people might have taken them seriously" and then thats it about the subject as those commentator all then go on to provide example after example of why no one has taken them seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)