Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Bokhari

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I draw the attention of editors to the following piece from Breitbart: Allum Bokhari, WIKIPEDIA WILL BAN YOU FOR CRITICIZING WIKIPEDIA <no link: see below>. This essay repeats insinuations about various Wikipedians (including me), and helps publicize an effort to WP:OUT at least one editor. It so substantially misstated one point of fact for rhetorical effect that even Breitbart published a prompt correction. The piece raises WP:OUTing concerns so I haven't linked to it The comments are charming, too: “It's long been well known that trying to add or challenge anything to any page about Jewry, cultural Marxism, or Bolshevism will result in the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force, a real entity lulz) will hunt you down and permaban your IP address after reporting you to the IRS for tax fraud. ”. It's clear that Bokhari is writing about Wikipedia as a partisan or an advocate, not a reporter. We currently rely on an earlier piece of his in the article, and we should not. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be using a quote of theirs as filtered via the BBC. While I would definitely not use any source directly from Bokhari, that unless the BBC issues a statement towards their article on their distrust of what Bokhari was says, I'm not seeing any reason to avoid it as a bad statement. I do consider it reasonable that maybe we should drop the second part of the sentence that's quoted to the BBC withou Bokhari's stance, as the BBC itself still says the gist in their words. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just fixed the cite-error. Personally I really don't care if we use this source or not. It doesn't seem particularly useful here though as the paragraph can basically stay unchanged with the removal of the source. — Strongjam (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi MarkBernstein, Thanks for raising this question on the Talk page; infinitely preferable to simply removing the reference yourself; and also for declaring your own conflict of interest with respect to the author. I am sure that your more vociferous detractors would not have considered such to be possible.

With respect to the source that we are currently referencing, editors should note that it is published not by Breitbart, but by TechCrunch (published by AOL), so there are already potential differences in our stance on reliability of the source; simply by virtue of having a different editorial team.

That the source is potentially biased is of little concern. The vast majority of the sources used for this Article are opinion pieces which are in some way partisan. We have means of presenting information from sources which we consider might not be sufficiently disinterested.

In any case, the information that we use the TechCrunch source to support seems fairly uncontroversial - current version: Various people, some of whom requested to remain anonymous, have also been harassed for supporting Gamergate.

Of course, if there is a strong concern as to the reliability of this source in verifying this information, WP:RSN is available; though it would be preferable for the issue to be raised by authors who are unconflicted.

Finally, with respect to the Breitbart article, I am not certain that I see the same WP:OUTING concerns. I am also not certain that the extensive quote from the comments section is required or justified; it is certainly prejudicial, and therefore unworthy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Emphasizing the fact the passage Mark Bernstein quoted is a random user comment, not from Bokhari. What exactly was the purpose of bringing that to our attention? Rhoark (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Issuing corrections is evidence of unreliability now? I agree Bokhari got it completely wrong about what's happening on Wikipedia, but that's hardly a first for mainstream media. Arbitration can be quite opaque for outsiders, leaving an opportunity for fringe bloggers to sometimes have their views taken credulously. This says little about Bokhari's reliability in general, and certainly nothing about his publications outside Breitbart. Rhoark (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

While I personally think this person is fairly worthless as a journalist, the emphasis is on reliable sources rather than reliable people. That's why the need for a strong editorial process is stressed. Were this person to write a piece published in the New York Times, I would cite to it trusting in the Times' editorial acumen, and not the good intentions of the author. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUTING: I believe that the article links to an effort to identify a Wikipedian, and therefore shouldn't be linked on-wiki. Reliability: we have already questioned whether Tech Crunch is ever reliable, and here we have a source that (a) asserts something for which we have better evidence (b) in a dubious source, written (c) by a person who has gone on to show himself a partisan rather than a reporter. I mentioned the comment because the New York Times would have moderated it -- it violates their TOS. Wikipedia would have oversighted it -- it violates out TOS. But Breitbart (of course) did not moderate it, which speaks to Breitbart as well as to the writer. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've also seen the reliability of TechCrunch questioned on this page - but never justifiably. No one yet has gone as far as to try to discredit TechCrunch using the comments section of Breitbart, though. That's real innovation. Rhoark (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for the clarification. I had erroneously assumed that to be relevant to a discussion of the author that you must have been suggesting that their Breitbart article itself was attempting to out a Wikipedian. I see now, on review of your original comment, that this is not so - that it merely helps publicize an effort to WP:OUT at least one editor.

I have reviewed all of the webpages linked from the text of that article, and do not find anything that I would be comfortable in categorising in those terms - there is certainly nothing there which has the main focus of identifying or providing personal information on an editor. Without requesting that you identify the effort to WP:OUT, is it necessary that we look at sites linked in the linked sites; or alternately do we need to also look in the comments on those linked sites?

Given that any such information is at least one degree removed from the author of the Breitbart article, and is not easily found by even an exhaustive search of the linked sites, would it be reasonable to consider that raising it is also prejudicial to the consideration of the reliability of the TechCrunch source, and unworthy of an experienced Wikipedian, especially one with an acknowledged conflict of interest w.r.t the author? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, In the absence of any reply to the questions above, I respectfully invite you to self-revert your removal of this source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The points are already covered by higher quality sources. Why is it important to have this source? — Strongjam (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response; which, I feel, deserves a response. The salient question, in this instance, is not whether it is important to have this source. Rather it is: Are Wikipedia editors personal interests an appropriate factor for determining which sources should be used? I would suggest that they are not.

MarkBernstein suggests, above, that this source not be used, based on the reasoning that the author of the source has also written another opinion piece, published by other websites, which he considers repeats insinuations about various Wikipedians (including himself). There follows various aspersions about the second piece; which, on examination, do not amount to a hill of beans. Having read the second piece, and without comment on the veracity of its contents, I do believe that MarkBernstein might reasonably feel personally aggrieved. I do not concur, however, that it is right to blacklist the author's other writings from use as sources for this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Movement?

Latest comment: 9 years ago29 comments7 people in discussion

Can we settle this with an RfC? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's necessary to go over this again for the benefit of Masem or others who feel there is still discussion to be had, you're welcome to start one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I kind of hope this would be the last time. Optimistic, I know. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi ForbiddenRocky, I think you might mean WP:RfC (request for comments); and have amended the section header accordingly. I concur that a discussion is preferable to edit warring. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah RfC. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Having just looked at the previous arguments / discussion it has been consistently completely derailed with nonsense about what criteria Gamergate needs to have to be a movement. It has been an exercise in claiming reliable sources are reliable for every other word they say but "movement", followed by a lot of special pleading. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Without parsing the context of the reference too much (a lot of the sources use the phrase "campaign") the below is the beginning of a list of the currently used sources that refer to the "Gamergate movement", and those that don't. I'm not holding any level of truthiness to the accuracy, and adding no weight based on the reliability of the source or context the phrase is used.

It demonstrates that removing "movement" from paragraphs where sources use that phrase - but using alternative phrases from other sources - is not representative. This does not indicate the need to change the title of the article, or the content, but arguing over the word movement when it is being used in referenced reliable sources is bizarre logic. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You do know the index numbers will change if someone adds, removes, or moves a source? Putting in the name the author would help people use this list, should that happen. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, but for the sake of demonstration it'll do, and it's bad enough I'm reading the bloody things. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

1. No use, pre-Gamergate
2. No use (use of horde, mob, saboteurs etc)
3. Multiple use of movement
4. Multiple use of movement
5. No use
6. No use
7. No use
8. No use
9. Single use
10. No use
11. No use, pre-gamergate
12. Multiple use of movement
13. Multiple use of movement
14. Multiple use of movement (including "hate movement")
15. Multiple use of movement
16. Used twice, once to refer to a counter-GG "movement"
17. Uses the word, never in reference to gamergate (Longform, Kony)
18. No use
19. Sorry I don't have a copy of this Multiple uses of movement Brustopher (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
20. Used twice once for GG, once for #notyourshield
21. Multiple use of movement
22. Generally refers to other movements (gamergate discussed as an aspect of larger MRA movement)
23. No use
24. No use, pre-gamergate
25. No use
26. Used twice
27. No use
28. No use, pre-gamergate
29. No use
30. No use, pre-gamergate
31. No use, pre-gamergate
32. No use, pre-gamergate
33. No use, pre-gamergate
34. No use
35. No use
36. No use
37. No use
38. No use
39. No use
40. No use
41. Multiple use of movement
42. No use
43. Multiple use of movement
44. Public statement by Utah University, no use
45. Multiple use of movement
46. Multiple use of movement
47. Single use, but clear reference
48. No use
49. Single use, but clear reference
50. No use
51. No mention, largely about 8chan
52. Single use, but clear reference
53. Multiple use of movement
54. No mention, largely about Wu
55. No use
56. Single use, but clear reference
57. Single use, but clear reference
58. No use, but the feed of other articles is headered by a description of Gamergate as a movement twice
59. No use
60. No mention of gamergate at all
61. Multiple use of movement
62. Multiple use of movement
63. Multiple use of movement, specifically refers to "hashtag movement"
64. Multiple use of movement, specifically refers to "loosely defined" and links to their own summary of gamergate as a movement
65. Multiple use of movement
66. Multiple use of movement
67. Multiple use of movement
68. No use
69. No use (but is referring to harassment of a Gamergate supporter)
70. Multiple use of movement
71. Not about gamergate
72. Multiple use of movement
73. Multiple use of movement (beautiful sentence "...Web-based campaign of harassment against women who make, write about and enjoy video games, masquerading as a movement of gamers upset about a perceived lack of ethics among games journalists. The movement, insofar as a group of people obsessively complaining about something on Twitter deserves to be called a movement...")
74. No use
75. Multiple use of movement (and use of "of sorts" and "so called")
76. No use
77. Multiple use of movement
78. No mention of gamergate at all
79. Multiple use of movement (and describes how video gamers were labelled “a terrorist movement,” “a hate group,” “a bunch of fascists,” and “recreational misogynists and bigots”)
80. Multiple use of movement
81. Multiple use of movement
82. No use
83. Multiple use of movement
84. Multiple use of movement
85. Multiple use of movement
86. No use
87. Multiple use of movement
88. Multiple use of movement
89. Single use
90. Multiple use of movement
91. Multiple use of movement
92. Multiple use of movement, including reference to an equivalent "SJW movement"
93. German article, can someone please vet as I don't trust translation services. @Krano:@ForbiddenRocky: both of you can understand German if I recall correctly? Pinging for judgement. Brustopher (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No use of movement. The auto=translation would probably have been enough for your purposes. (Though the what is written does suggest "activism" and "discussion".) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC) PS I don't think the ping worked. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

94. No use
95. No mention of gamergate at all
96. Multiple use of movement
97. No use, links to articles that do
98. No use
99. No use
100. No mention of gamergate at all

What do you mean by "movement" and how do the various RS align to that? It's easy to think that the appearance of the word "movement" is enough, but how it's used and what it means in context is just as important. PS I'm really busy, may not be able to respond for a while. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, each of these is a reliable source, we currently use for any number of other words. When they say movement they are calling Gamergate a movement - the context is "gamergate movement" in almost 100% of the cases. There is occasionally a qualifier "ostensible" or "so called" (rare). The significant majority of those that don't use movement either just refer to Gamergate (with no descriptive element) or campaign. Someone else can go through and check if they wish or have some objection, but I intend to do every single source. Koncorde (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making isn't going to be clear, but how many places would "Gamergate Movement" get translated into another language and then back into English with a different wording. When I was reading the German piece I had to check if they translated "movement" as something else - e.g. "activism" or "discussion" or "group". Just using the word "movement" alone isn't really what makes something a social or political movement - as a fact or as a usage. Also, it might be useful to follow the sources to their sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article one more time, as I did so I noticed that Gamergate could also be called a: war, debate, discussion, opinion, controversy, organization, group, trolls, advocates/advocacy, conspiracy, campaign, banner, representation, backlash, identity, hijacking, conflict, escalation, community, orchestration, commentary, protest, critics, distension, vandals, theorists, etc. This is a mighty work you're doing here, but without listing the other possible appellations, it's not as useful as you think for determining DUE weight of the use. Also, those modifiers you're not considering "ostensible" and "so called"? Those two particular ones may or may not matter, but many others would e.g. conspiracy theorist v. theorist. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "due weight", I'm making the point that we're happy to use any other word BUT movement and the arguments against its use are (frankly) terrible. Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am still struggling to understand. I would certainly oppose renaming the article, or if we were to systematically use the phrase "gamergate movement," but if we occasionally use it as a shorthand for a group of people, why is that so bad? Many sources do so (granted, not all, and not systematically). Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the war of Lilliput and Blefuscu, though I will not be surprised at all if I am simply being short-sighted. Thank you. [Just a quick minor edit to officially sign!] Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that this isn't the tool to use to determine if "movement" (or any other word) is the right word to use. It's not a question of bad, but correct and informative per RS. Words don't mean things in isolation - the question becomes "what's the context?". The points I'm making here isn't really about the use of "movement" but about the meaning trying to be conveyed. I find most places where movement was edit from the GGC entry to be unproblematic one way or the other. But this work Koncorde is doing, isn't as informative, clear cut, and simple as it seems. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to identify the right word. I am making the point that many reliable sources use the word movement and we appear to be pedantic only when it comes to this one particular phrase. For instance all the changes made by Mark, and then Peter (after I reverted) are in a section where every single source refers to gamergate as a movement (which is what started this in the end). Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Shorter: This tool isn't going to convince people. Nor should it. However, I'm not saying the people you're trying to convince are correct either. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the real issue here for many people is whether or not calling GG a movement lends it legitimacy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's a legitimacy issue then someone should have a word with all the reliable sources already using the word. If we reflect the reliable sources, and the reliable sources use the word movement, and we trust these reliable sources for the use of the words "war, debate, discussion, opinion, controversy, organization, group, trolls, advocates/advocacy, conspiracy, campaign, banner, representation, backlash, identity, hijacking, conflict, escalation, community, orchestration, commentary, protest, critics, distension, vandals, theorists" without question then what are we doing? Just whose hoops exactly are wikipedia editors having to jump through? Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't argue with me about it. I'm just pointing out what appears to be the sticking point. I think maybe the people who care should RfC it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to come across as arguing with you - I'm not. I could have summarised more simply but didn't want to re-factor your independent replies and responses. I'm waiting happily for the RFC, which is why I have not just gone and reverted Peters changes, until such time I will continue to expand the list. If someone chooses to go through the list and make a greater claim as to why we should not be able to use the word movement then they can have at it. Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not going to RfC it, and the editors who have the status quo aren't either. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The way that one can view it is that everyone (ourselves and the press alike) is struggling to find a word to describe this group of people and their ideals (as opposed to the situation overall, which we are calling the controversy). Of the words even suggested, the three that perhaps stand out the most is "movement", "campaign", and "conspiracy" in the news. And when you do a google news search to survey those terms, if you search on the phrase "Gamergate (term)", movement gets 300 hits, "conspiracy" 20-some, and "campaign" 40-some. It shows that the press have, to some degree, opted to call the group the movement, just as the group itself self-identifies itself as a movement, even if the press believe this term is ironic or is far from an example of what they envision a movement is. (This is separate from the point about in considering the definition of a social movement, which arguably might be original research to force GG to be classified as that without the presence of RSes doing that for us). And that also gives us simple wording that helps make the article readable - it is comparable to establishing an acronym at the start of an article to avoid typing out the long name every time. "Movement" is also a very neutral word as "controversy", since movements can be both redeeming or irrational entities. "Campaign" may be neutral too, but "conspiracy" is not and we'd need a lot more evidence to pick that as our working term.

If the issue is to avoid giving the group legitimacy, the first time the word that movement would be used we can make sure it is clear that this is a self-assigned label by GG, and that avoids giving the term full legitimacy. But I will stress that as a neutral and objective work, we should care little if a self-claimed statement creates legitimacy or not, as along as we establish it as a claim to avoid stating it as fact. If John Q Smith claimed he was innocent of a crime, inclusion of this as a self-claim doesn't legitimize his innocence. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If what the sources say lends Gamergate legitimacy, then we just have to go with what the sources say. Although mind you, the whole idea of the word movement giving legitimacy is absurd in my eyes. If someone completely unacquainted with the subject read through this entire article as it was back when the word "movement" popped up a lot more, I'm fairly certain they'd come to the same conclusion regarding the topic as they would from reading the article as it stands today. The article will not suddenly present Gamergate as a bastion of legitimacy and ethics if the "movement" is used. Going through all this mental gymnastics just to stop Gamergate from having the most dubious, suspect and unwinning of wins is just pointless. Brustopher (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Going through all this mental gymnastics [...] is just pointless." I agree. I just want this settled and then to go away. Ha! I'm so optimistic. I don't see the point of calling it a movement or not calling it a movement. But if examining the issues will settle it, then I hope it gets settled. Really, a representative sample of GG clearly has plenty of douchenozzles - that's pretty clear from the RS. If GG is a movement then it's a movement with plenty of harassing, doxing, sexist assholes in it- that's pretty clear in the WP:GGC entry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Attacks on Fish

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

So I tried to fix this mess of a sentence. If we really must say it was done by 4chan members, maybe add a new sentence. We also don't have to say it was "attributed" to 4chan. We can say the attackers claimed to be 4chan members and that it was in retaliation for Fish's support of Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely need to keep out that phrase in that diff - it is a BLP violation (even if RSes have reiterated that claim, including the Boston Magazine article on Quinn and Gjoni). --MASEM (t) 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Strongman's suggestion, but Masem is emphatically wrong. If reliable sources tell us something then if it's pertinent to the facts, it is absolutely not against the BLP to write about it. That's BLP 101. --TS 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This particular phrase, while used in the source, is probably best if left out of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The phrase that is included is a reference from Gjoni's post that is an accusation against Quinn and (what he believed) her cheating on him. While we can source the phrase to RSes, it is one of those accusations that has very little bearing on the actual events of GG while also a BLP that is never addressed/commented on by sources (compared to the initial accusation about Quinn and Grayson that has been thoroughly dismissed). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(Specifically you can read what I mean at this link Boston Mag, page 2 of the article, to understand why we absolutely should not use this phrase.) --MASEM (t) 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with TS that Masem is wrong about it being a BLP violation, I think this is an error in terminology rather than substance. While the phrase is unquestionably well sourced, I think the WP:BLP exhortations to avoid gossip and to write conservatively make a compelling case to keep it out of the article. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, how it was included (as the name of the group) alone and no other known context, it wouldn't be a BLP violation, but with the knowledge of the origin of that phrase and its implications, we should avoid including it both as a BLP issue (particularly since the point is not addressed/countered by anyone involved so it is wild speculation/accusation) and as being a trivial part of the situation overall. It doesn't matter the name of the group that doxxed Fish, only that he was doxxed and the apparent origin of the doxxing. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When the name of the group itself perpetuates an attack, then it might be best to leave it out per BLP. In my opinion, I'm not sure it needs to be in the article unless a consensus of editors agree that there is a compelling reason to include it. Basically, I guess you should ask whether or not just attributing it to 4chan is sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps then the wording should mention that they named themselves in a fashion to personally attack Quinn, but definitely keep the attribution to 4chan in the article. Personally I see little harm it does to point out the name as it was a prominent part of the harassment Quinn received and articles certainly didn't omit mentioning it, but if BLP is a concern here I can see that as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgina Young

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I notice someone reinserted a reference to her opinion on the controversy -- who is she? Why are we citing her opinions here? It feels to me like we're giving her WP:UNDUE weight by pulling one opinion from her from an interview and dropping it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion on this, seems undue to me. @Kung Fu Man: please self-revert. Page is under 1RR restrictions and this is at least your second revert I count. — Strongjam (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to press this one: she's being cited in the capacity as a games journalist for TechRaptr and for her statements regarding Notyourshield. She was present in both Huffington Post interviews for her opinion, and offers a balancing point to a section, and to my knowledge the Huffington Post is still a citable source. I will also point out this very section cites Arthur Chu as a source...yet this is considered WP:UNDUE?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu is clearly notable and writes for a reliable source, and we should be careful of creating a false balance by over-weighting an opinion. — Strongjam (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this. TechRaptor is simply not as reliable as Salon -- it lacks an established reputation for fact-checking, for instance. Singling one (and only one) voice from an interview like that is plainly giving her WP:UNDUE weight, especially if you feel that you're doing it to "offer a balancing point." We're not supposed to include obscure opinions simply because they provide what an editor feels is a "balancing point"; that's false balance and a violation of WP:VALID. Neutrality means that we need to cover aspects as they appear in reliable, mainstream sources; if an opinion is too obscure to get significant coverage there, then it is WP:UNDUE to highlight it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

But we're not discussing an obscure opinion: if this was on TechRaptr itself I wouldn't cite it. However it was done in an interview on a website we can cite as a reliable source. The Huffington Post asked for their opinions, debated them, and posted the interview. In effect despite the Post being a valid source for the article, we're saying if the person interviewed isn't notable enough it cannot be used? But yet an opinion piece somehow is?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd invite you to have a look at Wikipedia:Interviews and see what you think afterward. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, That is a very interesting essay; I extend my compliments to the authors. Having read it in its entirety (and fixed a typo), I'm not sure, however, that it detracts from the points that Kung Fu Man is making here. Would you be able to identify the sections that you feel are pertinent, and how they are so? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: certainly. I don't think anything in that essay is particularly dispositive, but on balance, in my opinion it tends to militate towards leaving out Ms. Young's interview. I think it should be, in essence, treated like a self-published source, and the sort of free-wheeling nature of this interview does not give me great faith in its editorial strictures (this is not exactly investigative journalism). Thus, for me, this is a bit like citing a YouTube video by Ms. Young or some such. It would be fine for certain uses, but as proposed here, it strikes me as being accorded undue weight, if not downright unreliable (in the Wikipedia sense, of course). Of course, that's simply my opinion. And I'll actually even sign this comment! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fortune: Despite industry growth, game developers worry about jobs

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Diversity has long been an issue in gaming, but it’s one that has sprung to the forefront in the past year, thanks in part to the Gamergate controversy. The intimidation of and attacks on women who spoke out about equality in the video game industry actually proved to be an amplifier for the cause of diversity in gaming, forcing video game companies to look at their own practices." http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/video-game-developer-jobs/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Gjoni gag order

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey. Kung Fu Man added a little bit to the article stating that Zoe Quinn sought and received a gag order against Eron Gjoni- I'm not sure the article we use as a source includes anything other than Gjoni's assertion that this happened, and in fact casts doubt on it by virtue of the fact that it's an interview. The sentence in the article is "The first thing Eron Gjoni said after sitting down across from me at Veggie Galaxy in December was that he would probably violate his gag order if he talked to me. Then he talked for the next three hours, and again and again over the next three months." - I'm not sure we can use that to state the 'sought and received a gag order' thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm...yeah I'll concede that other than his statement and this tweet (https://twitter.com/thequinnspiracy/status/540666146706300929) I am finding little reliable sources here to back this up. I have no problems pulling it back if that is the case, though may be worth looking into. I've been out of the loop for some times...could court documents be of use here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be using primary documents as a source, but if we can find court documents that prove this then I'm fine using Gjoni's statement in the interview as a source for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that, personally I assume nothing on either the parts of Ms. Quinn nor Ms. Gjoni as a neutral editor. For the time being I'll do some research on the matter but will remove the statement calling it a gag order.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The same Boston Magazine article goes on to describe the court proceeding and gag order as a matter of fact, not in Gjoni's words. Rhoark (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and attribution

Latest comment: 9 years ago43 comments12 people in discussion

Hey! Kung Fu Man and I were having a discussion at his talk page- initially because I believed he was skirting more than a bit too close to 1RR, but it developed into a discussion on how we should be describing Gamergate's harassment and how to properly phrase it in Wikipedia's voice. I believe that we don't need to provide citations every time we mention Gamergate's harassment, and I believe a good essay to refer to here is WP:BLUE. I'd rather let Kung Fu Man phrase his POV himself. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll lead this off by illustrating it as such. These two sentences convey a very different meaning despite the subtle word choice:

"Commentators felt that this was a response to Gamergate, some noting it as a rejection of the misogynistic harassment it perpetrated."
"Commentators felt that this was a response to Gamergate, some noting it as a rejection of the misogynistic harassment attributed to it."

Both of these are very similar statements, but I believe the latter maintains a much more neutral tone for the article to take. While we cannot deny that harassment has taken place the attribution of it is less factual and more opinionated, as pointed out by videos such as this on the Huffington Post discussing gamergate in which the host acknowledges that such attacks against he had no certainty that attacks against him came from gamergate or indeed third-party trolls. Additionally there was an event covered by Kotaku's Jason Schreier where several in gamergate pointed out an individual that led a personal campaign against Ms. Sarkeesian with no ties to GamerGate yet the blame was pointed towards them. The point of the matter is, looking at this article as it is now it is outright making claims: it is saying all those in Gamergate are responsible for such attacks, that every accusation is true. Which raises a red flag for me and should for anyone regardless of gamergate in that no article should treat a consensus as a fact.

I believe it's very important for the tone of the article to make it clear that for good or ill of the impact of gamergate that these are individuals making these claims, journalists making these attributions and not the article itself. As we see here two sources bring into question some of the claims of harassment, and over time more retrospectives may occur. How could these be worked in without changing the article entirely, given it's entire stance appears to even the most casual reader to say "Gamergate is absolutely this?"

I believe writing the article in a tone that makes attribution of claims good or ill will go miles to improve the neutrality of this article and give us hopefully something we can all agree with that caters to neither side over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a point that I've been trying to point out, and that Rhoark's list of sources from about a month or so ago has also pointed out: the high quality RSes very carefully do not directly attribute the harassment to the group of GG supporters that say they are about ethics and are against harassment, though 1) they do not dismiss the possibility that some of them may be lying and using ethics to cover up and 2) do not dismiss them of any guilt for creating an environment that enables whomever is doing the harassing due to their dehumanization of Quinn, etc. and other factors. But they also note that there are third parties that may be involved doing this to stir the pot. Our article should be making it clear that factually, harassment and threats are actions are done by some agencies using the GG hashtag, but the connection to this to anyone that is a GG ethics movement supporter is unknown. That's also why it is necessary in relationship to the movement aspect above to make sure we are distinct (as most sources do) to understand that we have the GG hashtag users (which include those engaged in harassment), and as a subset of those, the GG ethics movement users, though obviously who is in what group, we (WP and the press alike) have no clue. The more-reliable sources are very careful from directly assigning blame here to those that say they aren't doing it (though have more than enough condemnation of other factors to that same group as clear opinions). --MASEM (t) 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that the harassment is all Gamergate is about. There is no scandal, only a vain attempt to excuse disgusting behaviour by blaming "ethics". That's what our reliable sources tell us, overwhelmingly. --TS 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources may call it an vain attempt, but as we are objective and neutral, we can't accept that tone as fact. We clearly have to include this predominant claim, but only as a claim. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can say it was a vain attempt. This is a statement of fact. The attempt failed. There was no scandal. Attempts to excuse misogynistic attacks by saying the victims were corrupt comprehensively failed. In fact our article is largely a catalogue of how comprehensively the ruse failed. --TS 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Something worth consideration too is that these claims of harassment are sometimes overshot by the articles. For example, Buzzfeed took the word of one individual that during the Baltimore riots that Gamergate was inciting racial hatred and the 'color cabal' was an enforcement branch of the movement; after some pushing they only added a disclaimer than the person presenting the information "admitted to being dishonest". Jezebel ran an article on youtube reviewer Charlanahzard contacting the mothers of online harassers but attributed it to Gamergate. She herself stated otherwise and the writer admitted she based the information on information from The Guardian and would amend the article (seen here). This is one very good reason why such statements should be treated as being attributed to the group than as straight out 'facts'.

Additionally there are sources such as the above HuffPost video as well as this one, these lengthy comments by Stephen Totilo and Jason Schreier where he acknowledges that the argument for ethics in journalism is a factor for the movement. There are statements too by C. H. Sommers, Mark Kern, Dennis Dyack, Brad Wardell, Daniel Vávra, Liana Kerzner, and The Fine Young Capitalists in both written and interview form that discuss much of the details are they themselves citable (Kerzner herself is neutral towards the movement and just as critical as she is supportive). There's an article discussing the bomb threat made against a meetup in Washington D.C. that in it's closing paragraph even acknowledged the ethics in journalism aspect in light of other other criticisms. Several prominent internet reviewers such as John Bain (TotalBiscuit), Stephen Williams (Boogie2988) and Joe Vargas (AngryJoe) have all offered opinions on Gamergate and discussions on the matter positive and negative, with Bain even interviewing Totilo on several things seen as ethical breaches. There is even an upcoming Airplay debate with the society of professional journalists this very month discussing gamergate and the media's handling of it. Even a purported response by the guy running this very site, Jimmy Wales, has weighed in on this subject of the group, harassment, ethics in journalism and its leaderless aspect. These are all things that should have a place in this article to cover it by all aspects.

But in its current form? It's taking a side on an issue it should be neutral. Rather than covering it in an encyclopedic manner it instead approaches it entirely as a harassment narrative to the point that almost all of the above does not fit the article's tone whatsoever, despite their validity. We're not here to take a stance, simply to give the movement the proper and fair encyclopedic coverage it deserves, good and bad, regardless of our personal feelings. That's why we're editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate was a harassment campaign. That's what the reliable sources tell us (and even what we have experienced here on Wikipedia). How is there a "good" side to that? Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's a claim. If GG states they are not a harassment campaign, it doesn't matter how many RSes try to claim it is, it is a contentious state, a labeling statement, and one that must remain as a claim to stay neutral and objective. If in the future some law agency (people in the position to be able to determine this directly) issue a report that GG was a harassment campaign, then at that point we should treat it as fact, but not before when we're only going off reports in the media. We certainly have to present the strong opinion GG only exists as a harassment campaign by mainstream media, obviously. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying is right Kung Fu Man. The article as it stands mentions the bomb threat, and other harassment faced by GG supporters, presents analysis and commentary on the ethics issues. As for the Airplay issue, I believe we're waiting for that to happen and more sources to be generated before putting that in the article. A lot of the things you mention do actually have a place in the article. Brustopher (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I may have missed them. The overall tone just seems to focus entirely on online harassment, to the point the article itself feels more like it's discussing that online harassment exists than the Gamergate movement itself. In fact I'll go so far as to argue that some of it may be received undue weight and certain sections either needs to be consolidated or rewritten entirely as the subjects they're covering seem to be online harassment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The media is not judge and jury to determining the validity of a scandal, particularly one that involves the media. The media certainly believe that there is none, wanting to instead focus on the harassment, but that's demonstrating the implicit bias by nature of the industry that the media has in covering a story that involves all these counter-culture elements to it. It is the predominant opinion but by no means necessarily the right, factual one. This is a social situation where there likely is no right answer so we cannot right pretending there is one. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but what actual scandal did gamergate expose? If there was one, I still haven't heard about it. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well several sites have taken up disclosure policies in light of it, including PC Gamer which was in response to people citing that a reviewer was covering Ubisoft products while married to an employee. Bain brought up disclosure issues in his discusion with Totilo including those by Patricia Hernandez, and Kotaku staff member's own statements in light of Gamergate's accusations. There's meat there, but even with just these sources it's hard not to say ethics aren't a factor to the movement. Not to mention the whole Gamejournopros mailing list, which showed evidence of several sites agreeing on how to handle stories amongst themselves. I honestly believe more in-depth research could rapidly flesh this out easily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, do such research, and present your findings here. I'd like to read that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty Dumuzid it'll do little unless the tone of the article can be addressed first.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article already mentions gamejournopros and changes to ethics policies. I strongly suggest that you carefully read the article all the way through at least once, and then come back to the talk page with proposals. That way you can acquaint yourself better with the source material and the article itself, and thereby make more productive proposals.Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my statement that I may have 'missed some sources' to mean 'I didn't fully read the article'. I've read it over and it really does come across as favoring one party over the other. It states several times throughout the article that "gamergate harassed", not "accusations of harassment by gamergate" which is what these are. There are several quotes in here pulling quotes by Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian as factual observations and not their own stance on the matter. So yes I have paid attention to it. It's a behemoth, and certainly not a fair one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So the "scandal" that set the gaming world aflame is that 1 PC Gamer reviewer failed to disclose a potential COI, Patricia Hernandez was friends with some of the developers whose games she reviewed on a blog, and "several sites agreed on how to handle stories amongst themselves" (huh)? How does any of that count as a scandal? Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Scandal" (implying one event) is probably the wrong word; it is fair that the GG side believe there is a conspiracy between (what they call) "SWJ"-aligned developers and journalists that want to force ideas like feminism into the video game industry via video games, and are accomplishing this by using their relationships (any that go beyond a professional one) to get other journalists and the like to elevate the cover of these games to make them seem better than they are as to increase sales/reputation/etc; by doing this, they are "eliminating" hard-core gamers from the gaming community (see their reaction to the "death of gamer" articles). I'm sure there's more nuances to their points but that's why "conspiracy" is a better term (and why they are dismissed as conspiracy theories by the press). The thing is - it is impossible to prove this is or isn't the case without a full investigation of the gaming press by third parties, which hasn't been done. And we do have the members of the industry that have admitted there are ethical problems in the industry, though likely not the same as those GG has stated there are. So we can't say that the conclusions of GG are flat out wrong as fact, but we can including overwhelming press that says they are far-fetched and debunked by those they have accused. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article states several times that "Gamergate harassed" various people because (a) this is true, (b) this is widely reported by reliable sources, and (c) this is notable. We do not need to say that there were "accusations of harassment by Gamergate" because there is no question whatsoever that those accusations were true. Of course, statements by Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian are their statements. There never was a scandal; there's no need to weasel. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely true and well-reported and notable that "Users under the #gamergate hashtag harassed various people". The problem is that this article wants to called the movement "Gamergate" (as opposed to the Gamergate movement) and then called "users under the #gamergate hashtag" as "Gamergate", such that they appear to be one and the same group, effectively calling the people in the movement directly responsible for the harassment when they have said claimed they are not. Just as we should be very clear that calling the ethics side a movement is not breaking down the walls of NPOV or NOR for the article, we have to be aware that making the distinction between the movement and the harassers is not going to displace the WEIGHT of sources on the harsh criticism of the harassment side. We know the press are accusing them of harassment, but that's not the same as factually saying the movement is engaged in harassment, and hence the need to say it is accusations. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who, exactly, are these Gamergate “people” who say Gamergate is not responsible for harassing female software developers? Are the hundreds of #Gamergate threats all from some other conspiracy that happens to share the same name? Have all the reliable sources, from The New Yorker and the Guardian and the New York Times on down, been duped? By whom? What reliable sources report this, and also report that these "people" speak for or represent Gamergate? All we know of Gamergate are their public actions -- the actions attributed to #Gamergate. They’re not actions "under the hashtag," they’re Gamergate’s actions. If Gamergate wishes to disavow those actions, they can do so, and when reliable sources report that those actions have been convincingly disavowed, we’ll weigh that with the other sources. Until then, the actions are Gamergate actions. The press is accusing no one of harassment; the press is reporting harassment which attributes itself to Gamergate. There is no distinction between the so-called “movement” and harassment: harassment is what Gamergate is known for, and all that it has accomplished. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Are the hundreds of #Gamergate threats all from some other conspiracy that happens to share the same name?" Yes - remember that we have a pretty significant section already that talks about how the word "gamergate" is tainted, advice from the press to those that want to talk ethics that they should abandon that name and use one without the stigma of harassment, and the fact that there is a resistance within the GG movement from moving away from that name. And no, none of the major press source is being dupped, as Rhoark identified last month with his analysis of the sources, these press sources are very clear that there is the movement that is a subset of the users under the hashtag that claim they aren't involved in harassment; the press still blame the movement for enabling the harassment but that's not the same as performing it. So the press does make a distinction, and we need to make that clear. There has been harassment done within the Gamergate controversy, but for the group that considers themselves the GG movement, they claim they aren't part of that. This distinction is clearly documented in mainstream sources, even if no one can figure out the distinct between who is and isn't in the movement. This is why the removal of "movement" baised the article because it removed that necessary distinction, because while the press has accused the broad "Gamergate" aspect of harassment, they have not blamed the movement as fact (though they throw many strong opinions towards that). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, here is a prime example of how the highest RS, the NYtimes, presents it: "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women". [1] If the NYTimes can identify that there are (at least ) two different groups at play here, there's no reason we should try to avoid that either. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the root of all conflict around the article. Some editors want to follow the reliable sources, and some want to say Gamergate is exclusively a harassment campaign. Rhoark (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite true Rhoark (although I agree with the sentiment that there's an attempt to control narrative). I think, more accurately, that people don't want the achievements of the movement overblown compared to what is actually notable i.e. the harassment. Sans harassment, the movement wouldn't warrant an encyclopedic article (it'd be a stub, or a subsection of another article) and so this whole fiasco of an article wouldn't exist. As it stands this article is a narrative piece of "news" which should be dealt with within the respective BLP's (and already is). The rest of the crap needs culling back to Gamer, Sexism in video gaming, Women and video games, Internet activism, Video game journalism etc where it can be dealt within in a historical context.

The real issue with the article is the fact that it exists only because motivated individuals insisted it was notable enough to warrant its own article (it wasn't) and the response was to create the only article that could exist - one about the controversy - cue edit war for the last 12 months. Koncorde (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all the points about moving things to other articles would make much actually WP:FRINGE at those articles (for example, the complains that the GG movement had made about VG journalism is most certainly fringe in the context of video game journalism and would never be covered there). The topic is too diverse in what it involves that separating it into its parts would likely cause much of it to be wiped away. Yet, for better or worse, the GG situation has created change in the video game industry (for example, the industry taking its own retrospective look to recognize issues with diversity within their own ranks), and the harassment and coverage of it by mainstream brought this to mainstream. So this is clearly a notable topic as long as it is covering the whole of the situation and not just the movement. We definitely do not want to try to force the balance of coverage of the movement itself since that simply doesn't exist in depth in reliable sources, but we should be treating the movement with a much more objective tone that does require to read past the vitriol that the press have expressed. It should be stressed that making sure that any "positive" coverage of the movement should still be expressed as claims by the movement or the individual speaking, as that will keep WP from appearing to endorse that view (just as we need to do with the press's take). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the point Masem, this is "Fringe" strapped together to try and create an article from what is effectively not much of anything of any notability. If it's made a significant change to anything then it should go in the proper wiki articles. If it doesn't go into those wiki articles then what are we doing? If Gamergate is fringe to sexism in video gaming and women and video games and gamer then why do we pipe to those wiki's? Why are they categories for the page? We are not presenting this as fringe. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The GG event is notable - what has transpired has caused major changes in the video game industry. Not in the way GG supporters might have wanted, but in positive directions in terms of addressing existing issues of diversity and sexism. This needs to be a standalone article to document why this is a notable event, and to that point, that means we have to explain the attention that the situation got due to harassment and that we have to explain the group that in central to the events. This is the only article on WP where that makes sense. Being a fringe view for another topic does not mean it is a fringe view in a different article (otherwise, we should delete the Flatearthers article right now). A key point though is while the event is notable, it is very difficult to assign notability on the GG movement; the movement only has coverage due to the event, because of whatever that group is being key actors in the events (harassment, advocacy or otherwise). --MASEM (t) 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If there have been major changes then surely those major changes would also be significant to sexism in video gaming and women in video games too? Surely major changes like that are notable? However this article certainly does not outline any quantifiable "major changes", no section of major changes exists, they are not mentioned in the lede, and I can't find any reference to such changes in the body or reflected in RS, so to what are you referring? The Gaming industry response section in the article basically has 6 examples of people saying "we're not commenting, but harassment is bad", an update of ethics policies by the Escapist and Arkham Knight trolling. Your argument carries no water.

You cannot make an argument for fringe and also make an argument for major changes to the very topics about which it is fringe, we shouldn't be piping to those articles or categories if we're saying that none of this content has weight. If it has no weight other than in the context of harassing 3 BLP individuals then what is the notability?

There could be a very grown up discussion about the impact of gamergate, or their can be this awful edit-warring article, but in its current guise this article is poorly written and full of its own self importance in a way only a viral internet thing can be. Koncorde (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it is going to take time for the positive changes that the industry stated they need to make to actually occur to where they can be documented (eg the first interesting data point I suspect will be the gender ratios/percents of professionals working in the industry). We have some statements of companies being proactive, but its not something that happens overnight.

Second, GG is the net result of something that has been lurking in the industry and community for some time, and as such, its result and impact has been a moment of catharsis for many involved. The event touches (either due to being an issue or that it is suggested by either side to be an issue) on many many areas from sexism, harassment, feminish, ethics, the video game industry's immaturity, games as works of art, social messages, and so on. It is not an isolated thing: for example, while sexism in video gaming should include a mention of GG, GG is nothing like the examples given there, such as the harassment Sarkaasian got when she launched the KS for the Women vs Tropes series 2 years ago; that is pretty clearly isolated as sexism. GG has hit a much broader range of topics that it can't be broken out to its components in the manner you describe without making it difficult to understand the full thing.

Finally, given that there's been a strong stress on using the most reliable sources, its very hard to consider this just some "viral internet thing". I've written articles on viral phenomenon before, and trust me, this article is far more stronger in sourcing than any of those to demonstrate the importance and significance of what transpired instead of a random spur-of-the-moment thing. There is still improvements to be made but its far from the self-importance that I've seen put in viral meme articles. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First, your point is ridiculous. There are no reliable sources in this article suggesting any such change is about to happen (we have many reliable sources suggesting it was already happening) or that it can be attributed to gamergate and not wider cultural impact of social justice (against which gamergate, MRA movements and the like are a symptom - not the origin). This is dictionary definition of fluff. By your own admission you have "some statements of companies being proactive, but its not something that happens overnight" - right, so you're admitting that there are no major changes. So why does this exist? What exactly is the point of traipsing through reams of documented harassment?

Second, how can you at once say it has been lurking in the industry and then not also see that what we have here are the grafted remains of 5 related topics thrust together with the bloated narrative of the harassment. If it has been lurking in the industry, and yet excised from those same articles, then its true context is lost in place of trying to establish a new context where gamergate actually matters. You see you don't need to understand the full thing for gamergate to be mentioned, in the same way we don't need to explain Jack Thompson or Donald Trump to understand their comments. Crafting an article around harassment was needless. When the movement actually achieves anything let it stand on its own two feet.

Finally, it is exactly a viral thing. The whole name of the subject is a catchphrase built of a self replicating meme the "-gate" suffix, and numerous new phrases and adoptions. It has no popular traction other than within its own subculture. Numerous reliable sources talk about gamergate - but you will note they never talk about it in the absence of the greater context. This entire article is deprived of context. It is neutered, a mule, it cannot grow anything of its own that wont immediately have more relevance to either the protagonists or the movement itself. This is the article equivalent of talking about the Beer Hall Putsch by referring only to the march and not the wider social implications.

The more accurate truth is that this is a sump of material, filled with innuendo and unclear references to larger topics with all coherence stripped out of it in order to justify having an article with the name gamergate in it. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the RSes covering GG and the issues involved, this is really not a compatible view of the situation. No editor is mashes this various issues together - this is the fallout from the various angles that the RS are covering it. Other points: on my first point about change in the industry, I implied that this is change caused by the GG situation but not necessary the change that proGG were trying to ask for. None of the industry changes that have been documented in this article are predicated on the demand for better ethics (outside of the disclosure policies), in as far as we can document these. That's still means its important. It is the industry making the most of a bad situation. On the second point about this being a symptom of long-standing problems, sources have pointed this out, harassment, sexism have been issues plaguing the industry, and the public coverage of GG brought them to light; there have been problems with ethics in the industry though not those identified by GG supporters. These are all points our sources have brought up. No editor is going out of their way to force inclusion of something coat-racking off GG - these secondary sources have framed the GG situation as dealing with this issue which is good material for us to include.

On the final point: if there was zero harassment involved with GG, but we still had a group of users calling themselves GG and pushing for ethics changes, I would have expected nearly no coverage of any sort to have an article, given that their views are generally fringe to any other pre-existing topic on WP. (As a data point, keep in mind that there are cases of harassment before GG started against people like Sarkeesian and others that had some coverage in gaming sources but absolutely nothing in the mainstream. It was when that harassment turned to violent threats at USU that the mainstream press sat up and took notice. If those threats never happened, this still might have gone too far under the radar to have an article). The thing is that harassment and threats happens, it attracted public attention, and it would be completely ignorant of us not to cover this as an encyclopedia. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that the bulk of this article is not about the fringe theories that the GG supporters have presented, but about the wider perception of what has gone done. I would agree that if we were doing what some of the earlier pro-GG editors wanted on this page (before and at ArbCom) to try to insert the complete statements and manifests that GG supporters have made, and then coat-racking the bit of criticism of GG atop that, that would have been a problem. But no, instead, we have a situation that has been the subject of major discussion in the press and academic sources, and with a few avenues to try to explain why the pro GG is arguing what they argue. That is far from what you are describing. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Koncorde hits the nail on the head here. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Submitted for your consideration: Gamergate goes to AfD and, after much discussion, the consensus is Delete. (Yes, we are in the Twilight Zone.) Never mind that it's hard to imagine reaching this consensus; just assume it's there. The next day, someone's bound to write a weblog post or two. Someone’s bound to Twitter. Some reporters are going to call Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn for comment. There will be news stories: “Wikipedia deletes Gamergate!" There will be subheads: feminists banned, history rewritten, critics silenced. You might not think that fair, you might not think it just, but you can see the headlines. The Guardian, Gawker, DailyKOS, Scalzi, Will Wheaton, and off we go. Within the week, people would have ample sources for The ‘Gamergate Controversy’ Controversy. And here we’d be.

For better or worse, the trolls who decided to launch an “operation” to harass women in computing caught the imagination of the world. They didn’t secure the praise of the world, for which they long, but everyone knows about Gamergate and its harassment campaign -- and a ton of people know about Gamergate and its campaign to pervert Wikipedia. I doubt this page could be deleted, but if it were, the public outcry would itself be a notable controversy. Shall we save the project a lot of time and trouble by avoiding a debate which Gamergate cannot win, and if it did somehow win, would itself likely generate a new page that is no better for Gamergate? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As long we are clear that the article has to be framed around the history of the harassments and threats, the results it has had on the people involved and the industry as a whole, and the analysis of why this situation occurred - the bulk of what the reliable sources on GG present - there's no reason to consider deletion. We've certainly got heated disagreements about what the rest of the content of this article should be and other tone and style issues, but even with what we have, the wealth of sources documenting this topic as I have framed it above is all very much encyclopedic and still summarizes the situation very well. Deletion just because editors can't agree is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

To add another (unnecessary) opinion, it occurs to me that a big problem is the effort of the article to describe gamergate as an ongoing phenomenon. On a purely anecdotal level, I have noticed more and more references to GG in the past tense. I would definitely agree with this; I think all of GG's notability is now in the rear-view mirror. I am certainly cognizant of the problems with "cutting off" the article, but the sooner this mess is understood as a discrete event which is over, the better by my lights. Dumuzid (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion here of deletion, I am suggesting it's a crap article written poorly of insufficient depth or content. Marks example is pure drama, as if the existence of the harassment in and of itself justifies a need to talk about the harassment on an encyclopedia at great length and cite each instance in a narrative form. It's the worst possible justification "well we're going to get trolled so we may as well have a crap article about it". Really, that's the solution? Get a grip people, we don't do this sort of crap about any other controversy.

At the moment the notability of gamergate is within the context of harassing people. In the context of those peoples own articles the vast amount of detail here would never be allowed as undue, unnecessary, and overwhelming. The sections dedicated to "reaction" pieces from the media serve no purpose other than to pillory the whole and further reinforce the established viewpoint, we quote at length but offer almost no analysis (some of the more reliable sources have attempted to be more high brow about it, but significant majority of sources are just mirrors of the same talking points) while the discussions of gamergate are wholly within the context of harassing people.

At what point will all this get talked about in its context? It needs the vast majority of its content paring back and discussing within the context it is delivered with due weight to the greater topics that are at hand, rather than justifying talking about minimally significant events because they are notable within the context of gamergate.

With regards to Dumuzids point - this is also an element of the same issue. Lets start treating this article as a mature topic and cull the drama. Writing an encyclopaedic article will require making a genuine effort to expand upon the larger topics with context and due weight on those primary-pages. Koncorde (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that while the sources should not be lost, several details and a lot of the analysis section (particularly on opinion points) can be heavily trimmed down. We had to go through and do a lot of quote stripping before, but we're still there where a sentence seems to be devoted to each major opinion which really isn't necessary. But to me, the major concepts that are discussed in the analysis still need to be addressed, because as I noted above, GG is an intersection of several different issues in VG and journalism and the RSes have gone into depth on these. There is also a need to be a bit careful and stay detailed on certain parts of the history due to the complications between who actually did what, BLP issues, and the like, and that summarizing too far may report something incorrectly. But I do want to stress that the overall situation is not as trivial as Koncode describes. This is one of those major events that is affecting the billion-dollar video game industry, it's not a simple TMZ-type celebrity scandal that we'd normally just sweep away if no major sources cover it.

Also I would support based on the present sources calling this a past event, but I would caution that we're far from being able to write it as a mature topic. Things are still happened, questions are still unanswered. We can't write it like it is resolved (even if the press wants to put it to bed) as there are still academics exploring the behavior and like from this. It is going to take years to actually reflect how GG affected the industry at the long-term. At which point we can come back and cull down if it really was a tiny road bump or expand out if it had serious impact. That's the benefit of WP being a living document and we can follow the sources. It is easier to trim down after the fact when we have added information when it was fresh, rather than to try to build up later and struggle to recall the details. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that Gamergate would prefer lots of the article to be trimmed -- especially the sections critical of its harassment "operations". That’s not going to happen. We might want to cull all the most shameful episodes as "drama", but that’s not going to happen, either, especially as law enforcement becomes more engaged. I suppose that Gamergate would be happy if Wikipedia suggested that the harassment was all in the past, except new reports continue to surface -- and there's no other reason to talk about Gamergate because it hasn't accomplished anything else of note. This entire discussion has wandered off into meta-land, predicting what the future of the article might someday be; that belongs on the meta page or Village Pump, not here. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's about improving the article (at least, individual editor's opinions of how to improve it), so 100% this discussion belongs here. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the attacks on Schafer are specifically described as 'harassment' and 'abuse' in the two articles used on sources for it, respectively; we have to cover that accurately, when reliable sources us those terms. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

aljazeera: The invisible hordes of online feminist bullies (opinion)

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/8/the-invisible-hordes-of-online-feminist-bullies.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, because Al-Jazeera is not in the least bit misogynist, the ruling family of Qatar - its owners - are famously progressive and supportive of gender equality. Oh, wait, no they aren't. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, having already read this, the article is clearly written to chastise the GG supporters for their claims that there's feminists out there to indoctrine the video game world (eg in line with nearly every other press source). That said, I didn't see anything to really grab on that is a unique opinion that other sources already offer for this. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Al-Jazeera America is a reliable source or not, but it would strike me that the political beliefs of its owners (odious though they may be) are, at best, a subsidiary inquiry in an overall RS analysis. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually Al Jazeera has a pretty good reputation for solid journalism in my country. Is Al Jazeera America supposed to be some kind of rogue version, "odious" somebody called it in a comment above? Is the Arabian name somehow causing some people to rush to judgement? I would honestly expect it to be a reliable source, all things being equal.

This piece is commentary by Megan Condis. Who is she? Here she is:

Megan Condis blog.

A relatively minor commentator, so probably not a suitable source. --TS 01:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway, let me be clear, I was not calling Al-Jazeera, American or otherwise, 'odious.' That was a reference to the apparent political beliefs of the House of Thani, which again must be qualified, based as it is on an imperfect understanding of the conditions within Qatar. Dumuzid (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually. That's one of the strongest departments in the world for digital humanities. so, no, not minor. 02:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AJA as RS

Al Jazeera America was born from Al Gore's Current TV. As RS it's generally not bad. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no reason to question even an essay from AJ (or AJA) as a reliable source. I just comment that this particular opinion piece repeats all the main points we've got made so no reason to include unless to add as just another reference elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto these EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New source

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Challenge accepted: interviewing an Internet #hashtag. From gamepolitics.com which is run by the ECA, but keeping in mind this is also a freelance writer. But I will note that I saw this reporter ask these questions at KIA, and reading his methodology and comparing to what I saw this appears all above the table (eg the threads he asked questions can be readily linked). This is likely the most indepth insight into the GG movement side that anyone's done (more than Singal did). I do expect this to be challenged so exactly what to be added from it will not be clear until we've discussed the source to start with, but there is a number of things to be added. And if anything, the lead paragraph that points to a quote from Michael Koretzky of the Society for Professional Journalists regarding the media's partial responsibility should be included from its original source. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an op-ed, and carries a disclaimer at the bottom The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not represent the views of GamePolitics or its staff. I'm not sure how useful it is other than for the authors opinions.— Strongjam (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is tapped as an op-ed, but the point is that the bulk of the article is this freelancers study at KIA and restating what he found without excessive additional comment, which is pretty much the first such article of any type in the GG situation. Keeping in mind that per the RFC on bias that there are times that we might have to look to less than perfect RS to provide some objectivity to a topic. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC or not, this is still only useful for the authors opinion. — Strongjam (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is true for many of the sources we presently use, too, as op-eds or opinion pieces. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We are citing dozens of opinion pieces in this article. And the Game Politics piece is not entirely opinion. It's more like reporting plus analysis of research in terms of asking GG people questions and assembling the top responses. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a little off topic but how many sources in this article are opinion pieces? I feel like that's important to know. GamerPro64 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As a very very rough estimate, nearly everything after the first major section (history) is covering the analysis and opinion of the media; so of about 250 references, 77 are used for the history, making at least 100 of the sources opinions and analysis. Note that I'm not saying there's too many of these, because most of what has been said about GG is opinion and analysis in sources, but we shouldn't be shying away from this type of piece just because it is labeled an op-ed. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is however an op-ed, and only usable for the authors opinions (WP:RSOPINION.) If there are places in the article where we are using op-eds for statements of fact then that should be cleaned up. — Strongjam (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

At some point IAR comes into play. While it is labelled an op-ed and noted as such at the site, it is clearly reporting facts, in the sense that this are positions that the GG supports state they are behind. (that is, a fact that "GG said X is unethical", not the fact that "X is unethical"). --MASEM (t) 15:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to sound like a broken record here, but Masem, if you could suggest a concrete change or addition to the article, it would be a big help. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Without exact details (because determining if this is an acceptable source is the primary hurdle) two things that stand out that could be included:

One question dealt with the GG supporters take on the media with the response being that they consider the media to have been improperly and misrepresenting GG. This should be something added to in the current section on Debate about Ethics allegations (in the current structure of our article).
Another question dealt with the flooding of replies to hashtags, and this can be used to add a sentence to the same section, likely around where we discuss the various campaigns.

A change that does not depend on this article but that is in a separate link in the article is that statement from Koretzky (at the top of the article) that states that the press is partially to blame for GG as by not covering the subculture, that helped to incite the subculture to react more. I know we have some section in this article about the media's part in GG, if not the difficulty in covering GG, so that should go there.

I would also argue that we can include some of the quoted statement that starts "GamerGate is a movement dedicated to fighting for ethics..." (after explaining why this quote was pulled from the KIA thread as the most-upvoted reply) as to explicitly state what GG believes their cause is. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I guess I have some trepidation on two fronts: first, using that statement Mr. Koretzky made on a podcast (I'm assuming it was not scripted) seems to me to be giving it undue weight. Secondly, are we simply going with the exact identification of "Gamergate" with "Kotaku in Action?" Of course KiA is a gamergate related subreddit, but can we say "KiA says X, therefore Gamergate says x"? Thanks for delving in to this. Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not listened to the podcast, or checked that out any more, but given that it is a lengthy-ish quote, it doesn't seem that off the cuff. But I agree context there is important. As for this article, if we do use it we need to explain briefly its mechanisms, eg "Glasgow asked a series of seven questions and follows at the KIA forum (which by this point in the article we have identified as a forum hub for GG) and evaluated replies based on the reddit voting process." This makes it clear how these statements bubbled up as the most representative from KIA. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What is gamergate?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The intro section of this article does not clearly state what "Gamergate" was but only what the goals of the movement allegedly were and what the consequences of it were. Could we at least add one sentence at the very beginning mentioning something along the lines of "Gamergate was a scandal that initiated by claims that certain video game developers and certain video game reviewers/journalists were influencing each other's work through personal/romantic relationships". Then we can start talking about whether those claims were well-founded or not, whether the gamergate "movement" grew to have a larger agenda, whether the biggest consequence was a ton of harrassment, etc. But seriously, I was trying to understand what this was all about and had to go to other websites to figure out what really happened. This is not the case for other Wikipedia articles. Let's just state the ALL the information regardless of sides and be careful with the stating anything as fact, that's not our job. Let's just report on what happened. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! And welcome back to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, this question has been addressed many, many times in the archives of this page, which you might enjoy reading. One problem with your account of the origins of Gamergate is that you can't have a “scandal” when, in fact, none of the allegations were either true or plausible. Another problem with your account is that the notable actions of Gamergate -- the huge outpouring of threats of violence, rape, and murder directed at women in the software industry -- cannot reasonably be explained as an attempt to address the purported origin of the purported movement. We do, in fact, report what happened. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Willamette Week article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Focusing on how Gone Home got pulled into the controversy.

Korfhage, Matthew (August 12, 2015). "Gone Home and Portland's Connection to Video Games' Biggest Controversy". Willamette Week.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind: Gone Home was released before GG was even a term, though it was criticized by 4chan/etc. type groups for the reasons the article states. What's important for GH relative to GG is that it , alongside Depression Quest, are the prime examples that GG supporters use to argue that games that carry a message without any significant gameplay get disproportionate positive coverage relative to other titles. Even this article is clear that the only impact to the Fulbright team is the negative criticism their game (and likely their next game) got due to being one of the examples GG latched onto. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Colbert in "Responses outside gaming industry"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since there's now a section for things involving events outside gaming, should The Colbert Report interview with Anita Sarkessian be mentioned in that section? We have John Oliver's episode which had the Dateline clips used in that section and those two shows are the same. GamerPro64 03:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another new source

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

From the Seattle Times, here: [2] Not sure there's anything that demands changes or additions to the article, but thought it was a good summation/update of general interest. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Superb source, which will be useful when the next gamergate emissary arrives to shout bias and suggest that all the media are unfair and can't we give ethics equal time. .(looking at watch) that'd be day after tomorrow, give or take. Right? Folks around these parts get the time and date/From the Atchison, Topeka and Gamergate! MarkBernstein (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"“Gaming culture has been pretty misogynistic for a long time now,’’ says Edwards, 50, a lifelong gamer and developer who worked on Microsoft’s Halo. “There’s ample evidence of that over and over again . . . What we’re finally seeing is that it became so egregious that now companies are starting to wake up and say, ‘We need to stop this. This has got to change.’ ” is a key quote that summarizes a lot of the situation of why GG is important. (Obviously needs to take just snippets of it). Also some more examples of industry adjusting to be more inclusive (as both devs and players) of women. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bomb threats and ethics

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

So in a more than likely vain attempt to get the SPJ AirPlay mentioned in this article more, here is an article from GamePolitics.com on the panel before the bomb threats went down. Enjoy. SPJ AirPlay: ethics with a side-order of bomb threats GamerPro64 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64, for me, GamePolitics is a bit up in the air as a reliable source. But even having said that, as I say above, why not draft the mention you wish to see in the article and bring it up for discussion? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure GamePolitics meets RS - It looks like it might be user submitted stories? The [Milo Yiannopoulos] article has some alternate sources though TBH none of them look super strong. Artw (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

While GP does have some user contributions, this author is the managing editor [3], and note that while it has disclaimer on some aspects, it's not the "this does not represent the views of GP/ECA" that other blog-like GP stories will include. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgina Young revisited

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

I'm bringing her up again as a possible reliable source because of something I'd overlooked. Prior I'd brought up the suggestion of using statements by her as a reliable source on the nature of gamergate made in discussion videos by the Huffington Post such as these. It was brought up she's a writer for TechRaptor, which the vg project hasn't yet recognized as a reliable source, but she's also regarded here as a staff writer (and directly called as such in the video) for website Gamesided, which is part of a larger network of sites. I feel that gives her statements enough credibility to be cited for the purposes of this article to discuss what GamerGate is, as long as those citations are making it clear they are her statements. Thoughts on the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, even given this information, it would still feel to me like citing her would be to give her opinions undue weight under the circumstances. Moreover, I can't find her listed on Gamesided itself [4]. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Found her. [5]. GamerPro64 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, that GameSided site doesn't necessarily look like it would be considered an RS either. It's part of the FanSided Network: "We aren't called FanSided for nothing. Our network of sports, entertainment and lifestyle sites are powered by fans that want to cover their passions! Whether you are just looking to get your start in online media or you want to contribute to your favorite site as a hobby, FanSided wants to hear from you." That sounds more like hobbyist reporting rather than professional, such that it wouldn't add to reliability automatically for someone that wrote there. But what's the issue with Tech Raptor? Can you point to a discussion of its vetting as a reliable source? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion here, albeit a very brief one. A google news check shows several other sites citing statements from it though and not in the capacity of GamerGate but on their game reviews themselves.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It can always be taken back to the board and a consensus can be made about its reliability. GamerPro64 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GamerPro64. Funny how they do their listings! Dumuzid (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is too I'm not even suggesting we site all her statements as a source in this regard: just those where her opinions are being factored in by the Huffington Post, which we can agree is a reliable source. Unless we wish to say that the Huffington Post itself should be considered unreliable. I mean a key point many sources in this article hammer is that "GamerGate harasses women", yet this is a female gamer and games journalist stating some of the contrary. Shouldn't that have a place in this article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is still highlighting her personal opinions by pulling them out of a much larger piece. Why do you think that her personal opinions are noteworthy enough to take that one reference out of a larger article, and put it here? I'm not seeing anything that would make quoting or referencing her here any less WP:UNDUE; undue weight isn't about reliability, it's about how significant something is as part of the larger topic. Her opinions simply aren't very significant overall. Beyond that, your argument that her status as a female gamer gives her words special significance is WP:SYNTH -- that's your personal conclusion, not something in the source. And your implicit argument that "our article says one thing, yet here's a random person saying another thing, shouldn't we include it for balance?" falls afoul of WP:VALID; NPOV is about presenting what the sources say in proportion to their prominence in reliable coverage of the topic, not about choosing arbitrary sides and then exaggerating the weight of anything you feel represents an "under-represented" view of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Much of this article is nothing more than personal opinion. And frankly we can try to wiki-lawyer this all we want, but the simple fact of the matter is we're sitting here arguing a woman being stated as a games journalist has less credibility than a man that has no notability in the gaming industry. Why are her opinions any less significant? She is, quite literally, being brought on that panel by a site we regard as a reliable source for her opinions on the subject of GamerGate. A movement which, if we are to believe this article in its current form, should be entirely opposed against her. I feel that has a place here and great significance to the article's overall neutrality.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "should be entirely opposed against her"; I don't see that in the article, and I feel that your reading of her comment as significant relevant to that conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Regardless, the issue isn't credibility, the issue is WP:DUE. We cite sources that are prominent, mainstream, and reliable, and we cover the things that they focus on to the extent that they cover them; what you are suggesting is that we should ignore that and give this one quote much higher prominence because, based on your reading of the narrative, it changes everything. But that's just your personal opinion; we cover prominent opinions, yes, but they need to be well-cited and well-represented. We cannot include someone's opinion just because you personally feel it's big deal. If it is big deal, after all, it should be easy to find coverage of her remarks in many high-profile sources, rather than just a passing mention in a single interview. --Aquillion (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"what you are suggesting is that we should ignore that and give this one quote much higher prominence because, based on your reading of the narrative, it changes everything" is an allowable action that was a result of the RFC I started on this way back. We know there is a bias on the press here and the points of view that might favor GG have been drowned out in mainstream press. No, we can't give false and equal balance, but we need to recognize that there have been many viewpoints that are opposed to what the press has said from very valid sources (experts in both video games and/or journalism and/or feminism-type studies) that are the other side of the controversy and should be covered. Not 50/50, obviously, but not flat out ignoring them either. That's our goal in being objective here is to make sure we're documenting the situation, not simply repeating the popular opinion. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that there is any more bias in the mainstream press here than there is anywhere else. Regardless of that, though, saying that you feel the mainstream press is biased is not a valid policy-based argument to ignore (or even weaken) WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, or WP:VALID. WP:NPOV requires that we accurately report what reliable sources say with the weight appropriate to how they cover the topic; saying "well, I personally feel it's biased, so I'm going to weight it the way my gut tells me it should be weighted" is a violation of WP:NPOV. What you are suggesting is not objectivity; what you are suggesting is that we should replace the consensus of reliable sources with your own personal opinion by weighting our coverage according to your subjective personal perception of what aspects are most important, to correct your personal disagreement with how reliable sources have covered it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually, that was the end result of the RFC. If there is determination that there is bias in the sources, then we do not have to be slaves to NPOV/UNDUE in terms of trying to include better sources to document the situation. That is objectivity when we know that the primary bulk of sources are not objective in the coverage of the topic. And given how many other established editors have been pointing out the problems in the sources, that probably means there is a bias that we have to work to correct to provide encyclopedic coverage of a topic, rather than just mirroring the sources. NPOV has the allowance for this, it is not as black and white as suggested. We also do use editors' judgments to determine what is important to cover, and do not just rely on what the RSes give weight to, to make sure we are presenting a neutral encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, we should both be assuming good faith here. This is more than my personal opinion but my observation as a long term editor that a subject like this requires statements like those to balance it out. When something is being sold as a harassment campaign against women in the gaming industry, and a woman is speaking up to say the contrary, I don't see that as WP:UNDUE. Additionally we are also dealing with a group claiming corruption in mainstream newsources; relying solely on those when one such mainstream source offers a contrary opinion can also be seen as WP:UNDUE and possibly favoritism towards one particular opinion. In this particular instance, she offers a statement as to why '#NotYourShield' exists, which is contrary to the 'sockpuppet' accusation that the current paragraph is making last I checked. If we're really going to argue WP:UNDUE, I would say the issue lies more with the one-sided nature of the subject when we have sources that should and could be cited without opposition in any other article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, your personal reading of why you feel her opinions are important actually makes things worse; what you are suggesting is that we should use her words as WP:SYNTH to respond to two parts of the article (the coverage of harassment and the coverage of the origins of notyourshield) by making the implicit argument "she is female, and this disproves all these things!" That's not an argument presented in any reliable sources, so it's a violation of WP:NPOV to use her in that fashion. And the issue of "they're saying the mainstream sources are biased, therefore we can't use the mainstream sources" comes up on every article about a WP:FRINGE theory; proponents of moon landing conspiracy theories would say that NASA cannot be trusted, one side of the Creation–evolution controversy would say that mainstream biologists cannot be trusted, advocates of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories would say that the media is in on the scheme, and so on. Yet as an encyclopedia, our duty is to report what those mainstream sources say; if there is some genuine earth-shaking conspiracy or vast bias to suppress the truth, Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is not the appropriate place to go to to try and correct that. We cannot give additional weight to WP:FRINGE sources just because they claim that mainstream coverage is biased against them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not siting this out of personal opinion sir, nor am I suggesting WP:SYNTH information: I'm pushing that she is a credible source that provides more information on the original of #NotYourShield. If you wish to argue that she is not a WP:NPOV, I will quickly bring into question whether Arthur Chu and possibly other quotable sources are providing such due to ties to Ms. Quinn and related. This is not a case of WP:FRINGE, this is a citation as to the purpose of such a hashtag and the concept behind it. I'm not seeing the issue in including that in this article. Again, I implore you to assume good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of intentionally pushing your opinions, of course. My point is that the things you say you're trying to achieve by adding the quote ultimately amount to putting your personal opinion in the article, whether you realize this or not; that's the essence of a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH argument, which I'm making here. When you say "her words are important because they challenge this part of the mainstream coverage", that's your personal opinion. When you say "mainstream coverage is biased, we need to balance our coverage to account for that", that's your personal opinion; and the 'balance' you aim for -- the message you are trying to send by adding this source to the article -- is therefore also your personal opinion, which you are suggesting the quote implies to be true; it is not something you are backing up with any sources, but something you are assembling out of the sources yourself, which is WP:SYNTH. You don't have sources to say that she is actually providing information on the origins of notyourshield; you don't have a source to say (as you claimed above) that she calls the reporting of harassment into question. But you are suggesting that we use her to say these things, which means that (whether you realize it or not) you are suggesting WP:SYNTH -- you are explicitly saying "I want to add this source to the article to make a point that is not explicitly stated in it." I don't think you're doing it deliberately (because, to you, the point is just "obvious" or whatever, and because obviously if you were intentionally trying to use a quote for WP:SYNTH you wouldn't come out and say so), but from my perspective it is still WP:SYNTH, and what you're saying only drives that home. Now, as far as other sources in the article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- you can start a separate section about them if you want. But I think you are confusing WP:BIASED with WP:DUE. We can rely on biased, opinionated, or involved sources, especially when they are clearly notable, high-profile, highly-cited on the subject and so on (in fact, sometimes biased and involved sources must be included, because they are central to the topic.) We can quote large numbers of journalists to establish what the overarching coverage is. What we can't do is give a random quote undue weight simply because you feel that it says something important; you need some way to establish the significance of her personal opinions, beyond just saying "but it implies these things!" Implying things is bad. If you feel the article needs to say those things, find a good reliable source that says them explicitly, and we can discuss its weight in the article; but using a quote to imply them is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Determine what content to put into an article is in no way a violation of SYNTH or OR - it is a necessary amount of editorial judgement to determine how to present a topic. This is done throughout WP, in determine who are RSes, in determining how to organize an article, in determining how to present facts vs claims, and so on. What Kung Fu Man is suggesting on the broader scale is absolutely no way against any policy on WP. And if you feel a random quote is giving undue weight (which, btw, is also an acceptable practice and in the same lines that KFM is suggesting), we have a number of sources and quotes that then need to be eliminated from this article for the same reason. (Which I am not suggesting, I'm just point out the logic here). --MASEM (t) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

But saying "we need to add this quote, because it establishes [this fact]", where [this fact] is something not in the source, is definitely suggesting WP:SYNTH. There are good and bad arguments for adding something to an article; and that's a bad argument. We use sources to say what they say, not to imply other things. We can discuss other quotes in the article (and as I said above, go ahead and create discussion sections for them), but most of the quotes we do have come from writers publishing in high-profile, reputable publications where everything they're saying is subject to strict editorial controls. (The few who don't qualify are quoted because they're directly related to the controversy, and are generally quoted via a secondary source that explicitly affirms their significance.) This quote doesn't meet any of those conditions; it's a random quote pulled out of an interview, which KFM explicitly says he wants to add because he believes it will, when coupled with other things in the article, lead the reader to a conclusion not specified in the source. That falls on the far side of WP:UNDUE (and amounts to using the quote for WP:SYNTH); "there are some opinions in the article" doesn't mean "we can add anyone's opinion we want to the article for any reason." --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're misunderstanding the purpose of WP:SYNTH in regards to this: her statement as it is quoted on the origins of #NotYourShield and its purpose are direct, and something within the body of the video being cited. That's solely what the citation should provide. I'm up for discussing further citations related to her as far as those videos go, but I don't see how simply putting in a direct quote by her on it when she is clearly being cited by HuffPo as a) a gaming journalist (more directly, 'staff writer' to quote them) and b) a member of GamerGate for her opinion on what these subjects are is somehow violating wikpedia's policies nor WP:UNDUE.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, you'll likely be unsurprised to learn that I agree with Aquillion; you've failed to give any reason her opinions are as weighty, as, say, a New York Times piece for any reason other than that she was part of a 'puff' piece on Huffington Post. Moreover, I have to agree with the shades of WP:SYNTH here, insofar as you've determined this person has a view you want included, rather than finding a reliable source and introducing its view. I certainly don't mean to accuse you of anything, but it's rather like the inverse scientific method insofar as you've started with your conclusions and seem determined to conform the evidence to them. I mean no offense to Ms. Young, but if your position relies on balancing her against several major news outlets, I would say with all due respect that you should re-examine your position. I understand there are things here you want included--I would humbly suggest that this is not the way to do so. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Simple question: how is the Huffington Post not a reliable source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Kotaku italicized

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Torchiest: I'm confused, why shouldn't Kotaku be italicized? Normally websites that publish original works have their titles italicized per our MOS. — Strongjam (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was basing that on an old (quite old) reading of WP:ITALICS and possibly a discussion somewhere on WP from years ago. I also saw that none of the other Gawker Media sites are italicized and was working towards consistency, but perhaps all the others need to be switched this way. I undid my changes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think the others should probably be italicised. When to italicize Gawker though is confusing. When talking about Gawker I think it should be italicized, but when talking about Gawker Media it probably shouldn't be. It's not always clear to me which we are talking about in the article when we just saw "Gawker", I think generally though we are talking about the parent company. — Strongjam (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Change Gawker to Gawker for the non-umbrella and change Gawker to Gawker Media for the umbrella. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My confusion is more about which one we are talking about when we just write "Gawker". I think we actually mean the parent company everytime we use it (outside of cites.) — Strongjam (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of a paragraph to lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I would like to suggest adding a new paragraph after the current two in the lede to discuss the responses to GG, something along these lines:

In response to the malicious and misogynistic behavior that arose from the Gamergate controversy, the video game industry has reevaluated long-standing attitudes in the community towards sexism and diversity. Positive steps have been made to encourage the video game industry to be more inclusive for women and other minorities as to reflect the changing culture of video game players, to support those that have become victims of harassment, and to find means to prevent and counter harassment. Efforts are being made to give law enforcement agencies better abilities to prosecute cybercrimes in light of Gamergate.

Basically, this is to reflect that this is why GG is important to the industry and to try to end the lede on a reasonable positive note. This is summarizing the latter part of the article as well as pointing out that barring anything major that the situation is considered done, and we're in the more the long-tail reaction phase. Any wordsmithing is appreciated, its the points that I feel should now be stated in the lede. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Masem. While in general I agree with the thrust of the proposed paragraph, it makes me a bit uneasy. I'm not sure of the exact word I want, but, it sounds--too didactic? Too preachy? Too value-laden? I'm certainly not opposed to a paragraph along these lines, but I think it's better left in the sources' voice rather than in Wikipedia's. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would be good, but perhaps undue in size if added to the lede as it currently stands. I think the lede should probably be expanded to include a bit more on the history and origins of Gamergate, and perhaps some other issues. It's hit me recently that the lede as it currently stands would leave someone with no prior knowledge incredibly confused as to what Gamergate actually is. Brustopher (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My only criticism is that it could be read as "GamerGate supporters made positive steps to encourage..." and so on, not that it's exactly the opposite of what they wanted. I would phrase it something more like "contrary to GamerGate supporters' intent, positive steps..." or something similar. Woodroar (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I had originally worded it "The industry made positive steps to.." but that created a word duplication on "inudstry" in the same sentence. While it is a fair assessment, "contrary to GG supporters' intents" could be seen as a loaded statement for the lede, and just saying that the industry is working to make changes is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about "intent", that isn't the greatest word. But it was more than a "response", maybe "reaction" instead? To me, "response" suggests that these were the types of changes that GamerGate supporters were asking for. I don't think there are any sources supporting that view. Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fair, completely understandable to use "reaction" vs "response". --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation very much needed on all of that. Artw (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a lede statement so it doesn't need citations, and it is all cited already in the body of the article under Industry Responses and the section about Rep. Clark's actions. No OR there. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing sufficient material in the lede to warrant its inclusion. Artw (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with that paragraph. I think a bigger and better lead is needed without a doubt though, considering the amount of content in the article that's left unsummarized. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

From the New Times Broward-Palm Beach

Latest comment: 9 years ago32 comments10 people in discussion

With AirPlay happening this Saturday, this might be something good to use for the event. GamerGate is Coming Saturday to Miami. Also interesting seeing someone calling GamerGate a "civil war". Not sure if anyone else has described it as that but I could be wrong. GamerPro64 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly hope some information is added for spj airplay. It's a fairly significant event. Cadarn d (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll see -- its significance will be judged based on coverage or lack thereof in the reliable sources, and what they have to say about it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Side note: look at how that article summarizes Gamergate: "Forbes calls GamerGate 'a consumer movement.' But the Washington Post calls it a 'misdirected lynchmob.' CNN calls it 'a heated debate over journalistic integrity.' But the New York Times says it looks 'like an orchestrated campaign of harassment against women.'" I feel like this article needs a summary more in line with that. We're using the WaPo and NYT sources, but not the others. If a brief survey article does that, how can our massive, detailed article not? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Torchiest, there has been quite a bit of debate about those Forbes sources, and the opinion pieces such as the one you linked we tend to treat more as blogs or self-published things. I think your description of the CNN piece misses a lot of what is in that article, but if you have a concrete suggestion to make, like a proposed rewrite, by all means bring it up for discussion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just quoting exactly what's in that article. My suggestion for a specific edit would be to include mention of "a consumer movement" or "a heated debate over journalistic integrity", potentially in the lead. And as was discussed in a section above, there are dozens of opinion pieces included in this article already; I don't see that as something that would immediately disqualify a source, and it seems neither does current usage consensus. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire quote from the CNN article is "At its most basic level, it's a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them." That, to me, is a bit different than simply saying gamergate is "a heated debate over journalistic integrity," but reasonable minds can differ. It also goes on to say "Some gamers have adopted 'Gamergate' as the term for a loosely defined movement defending hardcore games against criticisms from feminists and others." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting wrt to forbes, that Erik Kain wrote an article clarifying his position after the "consumer movement" article: "Is it a “consumer movement” as I once suggested? Not really, though there are consumer advocates associated with it, and consumer concerns are a part of its raison d’etre."[6] Also rereading his article and the polygon article he references[7], I've noticed there's probably room to expand on the Gamergate "get your politics out of my videogames" conception of ethics.Brustopher (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Forbes didn't call Gamergate anything. For those unfamiliar that piece is one from thousands of "Forbes Contributors". Their pieces aren't fact checked before publication or go through Forbes editorial control. They all contain a disclaimer that they opinions expressed are the writers own. There are literally hundreds of articles about Gamergate on the contributor sites, and we could probably cherry pick whatever we wanted to say from those if it suited us. — Strongjam (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

While they are opinions, someone at Forbes is still reading to make sure they are not so far off in the sense of adding slander/libel, defamation, etc, as part of the opinion. (eg, there are contributors at Brietbart that would never make it through that ringer at Forbes). The contributors may not be representing the stance Forbes takes, but they aren't going to let "trash reporting" get through. Then we need to consider that Eric Kain has been cited by other sources like NPR, BBC, WaPost, etc. as a reasonable expert in the area of video games (which GG is). As such, we should not be ignoring this opinions as opinions just because it is a contributor to Forbes. There are other valid reasons to not include, mind you, just that Kain's contributions at Forbes do meet the RS metric for opinion pieces. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is meerly we can't use the source to say that Forbes called it anything. We also need to be careful not to give undue weight in areas where Kain is not an expert. While GG involves video games it also overlaps with other topics. — Strongjam (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It’s clear that Wikipedia relies at present on the good sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times, and gives very marginal opinions -- that Gamergate is a consumer movement, that it is concerned somehow with ethics -- too much weight. There has been no debate over journalistic integrity, as there has been no credible allegation of the impropriety. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"There has been no debate over journalistic integrity"...I would think the very *existence* of a debate with the Society of Professional Journalists on their handling of such a movement would bring a statement like yours into question, Mark.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the media saying there's no debate about journalistic integrity begs several questions about authority. No, GG supporters haven't shown anything close to anything actionable or a smoking bullet, to speak, but that doesn't mean there's no controversy or debate to still be had, just no current net result that can be discussion. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's event was forced to move because of a bomb threat, and the UPI article says "Police began clearing the Koubek Center in Miami around 2:30 after receiving a 'credible' bomb threat." The event was also covered by Forbes, in a straight reporting rather than opinion piece by Erik Kain. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

While checking for other usable sources to cover the bomb threat (though the UPI article works), I came across this [8] from The Federalist, which I will point out should be considered an opinion piece but one weighted towards proGG. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me while I vomit discreetly into this potted plant in the corner. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a good report at Game Politics as well. It has an update mentioning that there were six total bomb threats. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Found an article that discusses more of the details of the event itself. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to write a separate article for the even itself if it gets additional coverage, rather than bloating this one even more. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, if the worst was 6 bomb threats but without evidence of anything. It's a sentence to add to the ongoing harassment along with the DC meetup bomb threat, but that's it presently. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The GamePolitics and the UPI sources are really the only usable sources for this at the moment. A sentence would be good at the moment, but given this seems to be breaking we should avoid specifics (# of bomb threats for example, I've seen 2, 10 and 6 numbers.) I'm sure over the next couple days we'll have some better sources and more specifics. — Strongjam (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source from a local news site that gives some later details and doesn't even mention Gamergate. So should this event be listed in Gamergate activities or somewhere in the harassment sections? I think I would lean towards the former. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say last paragraph of the Further harassment section makes most sense at the moment. That paragraph covers the bomb threat at the Washington meetup. — Strongjam (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A Polygon article goes into significant detail about the event. Note that it says, "The movement, which deliberately has no central leadership, is a backlash to what its supporters perceive as unprofessional or agenda-driven behavior in the gaming specialty press." This is a news piece, not an opinion piece, by the way. Note also that the UPI piece above says, "Members of the GamerGate movement, now a year old, contend that media coverage of social criticism of video games is biased and hope to influence what they call more ethical reporting on the industry." I feel that there are a growing number of sources describing GG in this way, and that means we should consider altering, specifically, the first sentence to include this view. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to repeat myself, but by all means suggest the alteration you think appropriate. It is much easier to discuss concrete proposals rather than broad normative statements about what we should consider. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, as this is going on those 'broad normative statements' from early on used to build the backbone of this article are being countered by more recent ones looking at GG with a neutral eye. I don't think they should be dismissed so readily because they don't 'fit' what some want the article to say, as all that would do is reinforce a narrative rather than build an encyclopedic examination of a subject, would it not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, if you'll look again at my comment, I was saying broad normative statements are less useful on the talk page than are concrete proposals. I am not dismissing anything. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Sigh) Here we go again, I guess. Minor gaming magazine says "some say ethics." Seattle’s major newspaper leads the previous day with "The “Gamergate” mob” -- the first three words of their feature article. So Gamergate supporters seize on the minor gaming magazine’s half-hearted endorsement of the possibility -- just the possibility -- that some members of the Gamergate conspiracy actually do believe there were ethical issues, or something, that warranted threatening to rape women in the software industry. And so we must immediately rewrite the lede because ethics. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Seattle Times article does not actually call GG a mob; instead that a mob worked under the term GG "The vicious mob, which coalesced under the name “Gamergate,” eventually drove Quinn from her home with its threats." (and that's ALL they use to define GG in the article). As has been pointed out several times before, the RSes do make a difference between the movement that call themselves GG that claim they are about ethics, and the harassers that have used the GG hashtag. The Seattle Times' article does not change that because they are simply pointing out the harasser side which, factually, used the Gamergate name. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:I'd like to see "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns sexism in video game culture." changed to "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns sexism in video game culture and concerns about bias and inappropriate behavior by video game journalists." or something along those lines. The latter is a paraphrase of the most recent Polygon source, but numerous other sources exist that have a description in that general ballpark. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Torchiest, I wouldn't personally support that change, as it seems undue given the coverage in the reliable sources, but I think the second paragraph could be reworked to include some of those claims, though I am just one voice among many! Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Man this thread really digressed after the bomb threat. Anywho, here's another article from the "New Times Broward-Palm Beach". An interesting thing in this article mentions how a hashtag, #SPJAirplay, used for the event trended worldwide on Twitter. Seemed to have been a big deal. GamerGate Panel Cancelled After Bomb Threat. GamerPro64 21:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible addition to 'Gaming industry response' section

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. This is a bit of an old source (relatively speaking), but long time game journalist Jeff Gerstmann (the guy who was fired from Gamespot for being too ethical) weighed in on Gamergate here- "[...] when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy." PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to add any more prose to support this common opinion (eg nothing new), but the ref could be added to an appropriate segment. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal article

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just found this on Google Scholar:

Keogh, Brendan (Autumn 2015). "Hackers, gamers and cyborgs". Overland (218): 17–22. ISSN 0030-7416.

I don't currently have access to the paper, but it might be useful for other editors. — Strongjam (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Full article legit appears to be here [9]. The concern of the article, from that, is not to so much on the present but the past "Here, I want to situate Gamergate in the context of the broader patriarchal structures from which video game culture emerged. Gamergate didn’t appear from nowhere, and an examination of its origins provides an opportunity to grasp the entrenched patriarchal values of this significant pop-cultural form." --MASEM (t) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicely put:

Gamergate does not represent a marginalised, discriminated identity under attack so much as a hegemonic and normative mainstream being forced to redistribute some of its power.

This is well argued in the paper and is a nice counterweight to the "gamer identity" section.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kluwe tweet

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not sure whether this tweet cited in the article is an acceptable use of a WP:SELFPUB source, given that it appears to make claims about third parties. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The tweet also doesn't mention Gamergate. Not sure why it's there. — Strongjam (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So it should just be removed then? GamerPro64 20:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so. From the context in the article it's looks like it's supposed to show that Kluwe had his personal information put online in December after the articles we cite noted that Day had that happen to here but Kluwe did not. As it stands though it's just a primary source with no context. — Strongjam (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. Removing it. GamerPro64 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

USA Today article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[10] Initial readthrough shows nothing not already iterated (that is, this should be added as a source to existing material as additional support), though I do find the statement at the end, about the industry having to figuring out how to stop harassment as to retain the increasing numbers of females/minorities in the industry a comment that would be good to have if there were more sources to support it. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I added as a supporting cite to the bit about the GTFO film. Probably could be added elsewhere, but it does seem to cover a lot of the same material as the article. — Strongjam (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Standard article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wade, Lisa (April 9, 2015). "Has Anita Sarkeesian Been Silenced?". Pacific Standard. ISSN 1941-5672.

Focused on Sarkeesian, and I think more useful for her biography, but I thought I'd post it here as well in case other editors found it useful. — Strongjam (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps as a sentence on the para under Further Harassment, where we have Wu talking about that despite the increased exposure her studio has gotten the personal price has been high, as Sarkeesian's statements have a similar tone here. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter on Gamergate

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Carter, Jimmy (2015). "Patriarchy and violence against women and girls". The Lancet. 385 (9978): e40–e41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62217-0. ISSN 0140-6736.

Came up while doing my daily Google Scholar search. Was a bit surprised to see The Lancet mention Gamergate, and even more surprised when I noticed who the author was. Article text is free with registration. The bit relevant to GG is fairly short, just the one paragraph (the fifth one): The recent GamerGate controversy revealed the severe harassment of women who seek to expose and mitigate extreme violence depicted in popular video games. — Strongjam (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Given that none of the issues that GG has been about violence in video games (the closest is Sarkeesian's stance in WvT, but that's more when female characters are uses as tropes in violent games, and not so much the violence themselves), the statements sees out of context to be included presently. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The context is about the TvW series, and Sarkeesian is given as an example of a women who received harassment for speaking out about the treatment of women in VG. Anita Sarkeesian has highlighted how vicious treatment of women is used as decoration in these games, giving the impression that women have no reason to exist except to be brutalised. Sarkeesian faced death threats as a result of her work. — Strongjam (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine; not 100% sure where to include as the general stance is equivalent to numerous others, but perhaps a one-sentence list of non-media persons that have spoken out against the harassment might be good to include. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington Examiner article

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Noticed this piece from a reverted edit due to the 500/30 rule. From the Washington Examiner: Disrupting a false media narrative — what next? Pretty much an expansion of the "Airplay" event that was run by the Society for Professional Journalists. It also mentioned the writer, Ashe Schow, was part of the debate. I have no clue if we're ever going to have an entire section dedicated to Airplay but this article does offer some interesting insight on the event beyond the bomb threat that happened there. GamerPro64 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you believe we could use from this article in our own? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is also a "Commentary Writer" in the "Opinion" section at the Washington Examiner. Woodroar (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There's arguably a few notable right-leaning publications that have expressed their opinion and support for Gamergate (this would include Brietbart). While it would be far UNDUE to go far down that line of thinking, it would not be inappropriate to identify those that have spoken in support of GG or those that are identified right-leaning in the section where we currently discuss the general right-leaning trend that GG is observed to have. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

New Brianna Wu-written piece in the Guardian

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

[11] More aimed at tasking the industry for creating the conditions that GG would grow from, and that her feelings towards trying to encourage diverse hires knowing what they might face in light of it. Also a comment on the L&OSVU episode from her perspective. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be something for her own article about her views, but I don't see anything that's applicable to this article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree in that there is at least one thing to add: that she is another voice that has identified that GG results from a systemic sexism problem in the industry that existed before GG happened. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Check that; we already have a bit from Wu the prior state of the industry back from Nov 2014 in the "misogyny and sexism" section. Probably should add this as a secondary reference to that. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentions Wikipedia as well, if anyone wants to add it to the {{Press}} template. Probably the best use for it is for her opinion on the SVU episode, where I assume it would be uncontroversial to use there. — Strongjam (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)