Jump to content

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

"Movement" or "Controversy"

A move request was closed 1 week ago as snow keep. Gamergate is described as a "movement" 18 times in the article. Since we're not going to move the article and Gamergate is already described as a movement, there's nothing more to be said here. Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I've been watching this article from the shadows, and I think there are some parts of it that are quite inaccurate. I am not "Pro" or "Anti" Gamergate, rather I am pro-wikipedia, and would like to see this article (since it garners so much attention) represent wikipedia accurately.

With that said, Gamergate is certainly more of a movement more than a controversy as reported by Reliable Sources. Best example I can give is TIme Magazine:

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/

Time is quite clear in labeling Gamergate as a movement. Is there any objection to changing the opening paragraph so it more accurately represents what RS are reporting?

Marcos12 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a the specific wording that you want to use? — Strongjam (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We just had this discussion days ago. See Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_28#Requested_move_14_February_2015. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, in the first paragraph, how about "Gamergate is an online movement claiming that the gaming industry and the journalists who cover it have grown too close." That's straight from Time. It doesnt necessarily need to be worded exactly like I suggested, but to call Gamergate a "controversy" is really inaccurate. Reliable Sources, and anyone with knowledge of Gamergate would agree. It's a lot of things, but a controversy? Not in anyone's opinion that I can think of. Marcos12 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate's identity is very fluid since it has refused to have leaders, organization, membership or any stated goals. So, it is partially a movement, in the loosest possible sense but it is also an event, a campaign. I'm not in favor of changing the article title but I think we could work to incorporate this quote from Time in the lead. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As EvergreenFir, we just hard another long, long discussion. 4 editors supported a change to "movement," 23 opposed. Nothing in the Time FAQ indicates that GamerGate has notable adherents, a manifesto, or a statement of goals -- all of which are normally characteristics of movements. Let’s not discuss this further. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Marcos12: You are suggesting what amounts to the page being moved. Again, we just had this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with EvergreenFir, there might be some wording that incorporates "movement" that I could support, but not this, it's essentially a page rename. — Strongjam (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought this *was* the place for discussion. Time magazine clearly refers to Gamergate as a movement. So do numerous other RS. I don't see any RS describing it as a controversy (albeit this is based on a cursory glance). If you go to google and type "What is Gamergate?", only wikipedia refers to it as a controversy. Again, while I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another, it's pretty clear that very the first sentence, in the very first paragraph, starts out inaccurately. I know people have been working on this for a long time, but if someone happens upon this article looking for info on Gamergate, they are going to be very confused (in my opinion). I (and countless other readers I'm sure) am appreciative of everyone's efforts; at the same time I feel that this article might be in the need of a *fresh* set of eyes with no axe to grind.Marcos12 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a place for discussion, but that discussion was already had a couple days ago. You are not adding anything new with this particular source so I don't see the point in continuing a discussion that's already occurred. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
EvergreenFir and everyone else, we're not talking about changing the article title, it's about how to incorporate the Time article (certainly a reliable source) into this article. The article isn't just about what is significant about the subject but is also descriptive. Time describes it as an "online movement" and I don't understand why that can't be incorporated. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
As we already had this discussion, I don't anticipate anyone coming around on it yet, but I'm obviously in favor of any change that puts it into a move NPOV statement of "movement" or the like. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: if someone approached you and asked you "What is Gamergate?", is there *anyone* here, I am referring to any editor reading this, that would answer "Gamergate is a controversy." ?? I can't see why there would be pages of discussion about this. It seems glaringly obvious to me. I understand this is a charged topic, but *nobody* wins if the reader is simply confused about the subject at hand. Marcos12 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The "movement" isn't what's notable though. The controversy surrounding it is. And that's what the page is about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous proposal was closed on 16 February. Today is 23 February. We're repeating what was said there. Let's close and hat. We can revisit this in a year. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we can let the discussion run its course and ensure consensus hasn't changed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Six days is probably not enough time for the equine zombification process to take place, unfortunately. Seconding the call to hat and move on—surely there are other non-WP:SNOW ideas for improving the article.drseudo (t) 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@evergeenfir Sure, so if the controversy is notable, then why not define it as a "controversial movement" ? As I said before, this article may very well be someone's *first* exposure to wikipedia. If I showed the article to my 11 year old cousin or 85 year old grandmother (using two examples of people who would be unfamiliar with the controversy/movement), I think it's safe to assume they would have more questions than answers after reading it. I guess what I am trying to say is this article could be much cleaner. You could probably define the whole kerfluffle in four or five paragraphs tops. But I get the impression that *any* edit, no matter how small, is going to be met with a committee group clamoring against it. Marcos12 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. deja vu all over again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anita Sarkeesian Prominence

Rather than wade in and edit a page that is clearly the result of heavy editing as it stands, I wanted to raise an issue here in the expectation that this section will simply be deleted if others do not respond to it. In the first paragraph as it stands, Anita Sarkeesian is specifically mentioned and that paragraph ends with mention of "a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event". Now while certainly Sarkeesian is tangentially related to the Gamergate controversy, she was subjected to harassment before Gamergate. For example, to quote her Wikipedia page, "in March 2014 Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak and receive an award at the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. The organizers later revealed that they had received an anonymous bomb threat and that San Francisco police had swept the Moscone Center hall before the event proceeded." Given that the shooting threat on 14 October 2014 was made without the Gamergate hashtag, and - both in tactics and nature - followed a pattern that preceded the controversy, should this incident really be included in the head paragraph of this article?

There are two concerns here. In the first place, certainly the controversy is most widely known as a consequence of the objectionable tactics used by people who identified themselves with the hashtag. Once you have mentioned "doxing, threats of rape, and death threats", however, is it adding to a reader's understanding of the subject to specify a particular threat, especially given that did not identify with the hashtag? (For comparison, the first paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Islam do not mention terrorism, nor should they.) The other concern is that while there may be some confusion in general media about how the Gamergate controversy situates itself within the wider and ongoing controversy regarding sexism in the video game industry and misogynistic harassment, Wikipedia should aim to dispel that confusion rather than merely reiterating it.

My suggestion would be that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the "Subsequent Harassment" section of this article and that she could safely be removed from the first paragraph.

I would further suggest that the contentious term "misgynistic attacks" be substituted. I would suggest "abuse, often expressed in misogynistic language". The distinction is important because "misogynistic attacks" suggests that the hatred was directed at these particular women because they were women, which is certainly not known to be the case. Sordel (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE the lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. The fact that Sarkeesian is adequately featured in the rest of the article (mentioned by name 25 other times) is all the more reason to mention her in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I take your point, although counting how many times her name appears in the article only goes to show how disproportionately prominent she has become in an article on which she has comparatively little direct bearing. (Sarkeesian is not mentioned in the article on Sexism in video gaming, which is her main concern, to which she is directly relevant and which as it currently stands is largely concerned with sexual harassment.) As a commentator she is likely to be a secondary actor in a number of controversies and I would compare her relevance to this article as similar to Al Sharpton's relevance to Bernhard Goetz: while Goetz is mentioned in the Sharpton and Goetz articles, he is not mentioned in the Lede to Goetz's article. While Adam Baldwin is a principal figure in Gamergate (and credited with coining the hashtag), he is not mentioned in the Lede to this article. The Lede is required to be neutral, and part of this should entail distinguishing between figures of direct relevance (as Zoe Quinn clearly is) and figures who are connected largely by association. I do not say that she should be removed from the article completely, and this is because while she is a secondary actor (and secondary target) it may well be the case that readers consult this entry due to Sarkeesian's media presence.

Sordel (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we cover the subject in the manner that the reliable sources cover the subject. If you can show that the reliable sources do not include Sarkeesian as a significant aspect of their coverage, then there may be a discussion. However, I find that unlikely as the terrorist death threats against Sarkeesian were the incident that brought GG to the NYT and that she was the model for the "ripped from the headlines" tv show about gg, it seems that we have her relevance appropriately covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
When looking at all the sources? No, they actually don't use her as a significant aspect of the coverage. They mention her as part of the whole when discussing the harassment aspect, but Sordel is basically right that we spend perhaps more time than we should in the lede and, given what Bosstopher notes today, perhaps even mention her less specifically. Yes, undue weight matters, and this proposal would go a ways in balancing this article out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
They cite her as a key component of the harassment, which is the basis of the almost the entirety of the coverage of the subject. The mention the GG obsession with her as a feminist critic as the key identification is a culture war which is the basis of the rest of the coverage of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a disconnect here, as criticism of her predates the establishment of Gamergate as a named thing. And if what you say is an accurate assessment of the Gamergate activity surrounding Sarkeesian, then the lead is inaccurate as it only notes Sarkeesian as the recipient of harassment, not as a cultural critic who has been criticized herself. So which is it? If we're going to actually start using this article to accurately talk about the movement, I'm glad you're on board and how we address Sarkeesian is a solid place to start on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarkeesian is among the most frequently discussed gamergate targets and also a prominent gamergate critic. It's telling that this proposal ends in a suggestion to minimize or overlook the centrality of misogyny to the attacks, and the centrality of the attacks to gamergate as described in the preponderance of the sources. The proposal being contrary to policy, it cannot be accepted..MarkBernstein (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As NPOV is policy, this is a proposal that addresses it head on and, if we're looking to build an encyclopedia entry, must be considered and addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, NPOV is a policy. This suggestion however, is a flagrant attempt to violate it. I think we are done unless you wish to continue at AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what your threat is about, nor do I see this as an attempt to violate it. It is a good faith proposal from a long-time (albeit sporadic) editor that addresses key problems with this article, and deserves to be treated as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
the initial comment from a goodfaith editor new to the subject matter is not necessarily the issue. However, you Thargor Orlando, as a frequent editor on the subject should be familiar enough with the sources to help that new editor understand that their perceptions are not supported by the sources, rather than to encourage the beating of the dead horse and participating in WP:TE on a topic that has been endlessly discussed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You and I continue to have a disagreement on the sources, what they say, how we're using them, and how this article has been manipulated source-wise. This is not a dead horse, this is trying to repair an article that does not conform to site policies. Discussion is how we build consensus, not trying to continually remove dissenting viewpoints from the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to come back to the question of sources, it is not the case that all first-tier discussions of Gamergate mention Anita Sarkeesian. The initial articles in The New Yorker[1] and London Telegraph[2] dealt with Quinn alone and were the means by which the Gamergate controversy came to wider attention. If you Google "Anita Sarkeesian Gamergate" you will find that there are no references to her until 13 October 2014, at which point Zoe Quinn had been receiving death threats for over eighteen months and the hashtag had been used well over a million times. This is despite that fact that the harassment experienced by Sarkeesian is very similar to the harassment experienced by Quinn, and was in the public domain. Although Sarkeesian was a target of people with a similar mentality (and perhaps in many cases the same people) harassment of Sarkeesian only became conflated with the Gamergate controversy after she herself drew attention to it following the Utah State University talk cancelation. The reason that this episode was so widely covered is because of the mass shooting threat, which was not associated with the hashtag. Regarding Anita Sarkeesian as a central figure of the controversy is thus not a reflection of available sources: it simply reflects the sensational nature of a (possibly) unconnected threat coupled with the fact that she is a more public figure than the original victims, who were both games developers. Sordel (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, before Sarkeesian became the target of gamergate trolls, there is little press coverage of her in relation to gamergate. We are not however writing this article at a time prior to her entanglement in the mess. since gamergate began their persistant assault upon Sarkeesian, who has nothing to do with games journalism, she has consistently been in the center of the coverage of the controversy. gamergates obsession with her as a non journalist but rather a feminist commentator on games has been one of the key items that have turned the discussion of gamergate from pure harassment to harassment as an example of culture war in games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing you've said here has addressed what Sordel has correctly pointed out. Can you address his concern, or is it time to start looking closer at how much attention we're giving Sarkeesian in regards to this topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The concern that Sarkeesian wasnt mentioned before she became involved has been addressed as irrelevant. The fact that she has been widely covered in everything since gg focused their claws on her is quite obvious by reviewing the sources since then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant on what basis? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
irrelevant on the basis that of course she was not discussed before she was involved and that we are writing the article from the perspective of now, not prior to the time she was involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to state what I shouldn't have to but probably should: I don't have a position on Gamergate (other than, of course, the social media harassment is unacceptable and the initial criticism of Zoe Quinn was overstated) and am only interested in the accuracy of the article. I'm not contending that there is no point in the history of Gamergate at which Anita Sarkeesian does not become a relevant subject but the inaccuracy of the article as it currently stands favours one reading of events that does not adequately represent the timeline. Saying that Sarkeesian is mentioned by all sources subsequent to a particular point is rather like saying that the Duchess of Cambridge is mentioned in a significant number of articles about childbirth after a certain date: articles about Gamergate tend to be published either in popular media or in articles representing a particular ideological standpoint. Although the sources likely to be cited therefore have no obligation to neutrality, we do. Anita Sarkeesian is clearly something of a lightning rod: people who identify with Gamergate are generally hostile to her, people who are hostile to Gamergate frequently invoke her as a standard-bearer. But to treat her as a principal target of Gamergate is contentious and non-neutral: it overlooks the fact that Gamergate would have existed and merited a page on Wikipedia regardless of whether she existed or not. More importantly (and I suspect that this is why some argue for her continued prominence here) if Anita Sarkeesian is regarded as a principal target of Gamergate then it supports the position that Gamergate's claims to deal with journalistic ethics are specious because Anita Sarkeesian has no bearing on that particular argument. It paints a misleading picture that a hashtag used over a million times before a stated feminist was even embroiled in the controversy is specifically anti-feminist. If someone who is more widely covered than Anita Sarkeesian (say, Paris Hilton) becomes a target of people using that hashtag then does the weight of coverage alone turn that person into someone given equal prominence in the Lede? Would there really be no value in reworking the Lede to clarify what seems (to a neutral and reasonably well-informed bystander) to be an overview that seems factually misleading?Sordel (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources discussing Gamergate reported extensively that Paris Hilton was experiencing vicious online harassment and death threats, then of course that would be discussed in this article, Sordel. We summarize what the reliable sources say, and they say a lot linking Sarkeesian with Gamergate. Sarkeesian is not just another woman who has given birth as have billions of other women. She is the victim of vicious harassment by people who say that they are motivated by Gamergate. (I do not know if she has children which doesn't matter here). Those are the incontrovertible facts, which will continue to be reflected and summarized in this article . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This, again, is not entirely true. If reliable sources repeatedly linked Sarkeesian to a pro-GG position, we would not be including that in the article because it's clearly untrue. Sordel is making a very important, supported distinction that needs more attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a very big "if". The sources discussing the harassment of Sarkeesian are consistent, of high quality and have been thoroughly vetted. I am in complete agreement with the weight now given to Sarkeesian in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a big if, yes, but it's also a salient one. As some sources are giving an improper value to Sarkeesian's involvement (for lack of a better description), the question remains as to how high-quality the source is if it repeats falsehoods or advances misleading claims. I don't see a lot of "high quality" sources in this article when it comes to the topic of video games independent of the Gamergate issue, which might be a reason to point more toward specialized literature when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to convince other editors that your theory of "improper value" is correct, and you have not done so. It seems like original research on your part to me. Consensus on this matter is clear, and I believe that it is time to move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to convince other editors. Telling me to "move on" is not going to assist in convincing people, and noting the problems with sources on the talk page is what we do as editors, it's not OR. If you're not convinced, tell me why instead of trying to tell me to stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source discussion

Please identify where the article does not comply with site policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted numerous times, we spend a lot of time on secondary issues, we give undue weight to some sources and not enough weight to other sources of information, we aren't doing a good job vetting sources, not actually describing the movement in clear terms, we have the title of the article at a POV name, we're using questionable sources, we're not doing enough proper attribution of information and claims, and so on. The article is still very broken, and the continued ownership issues we're seeing has not yet been resolved even with a bunch of topic bans. Does that scratch the surface enough to start? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
1) identify secondary issues that should be cleaned out. (note: harassment is not one of them) 2) Which sources have too much weight and why do you think so? And much of the content as I look is from some of the highest quality sources, NYTs Columbia Journalism review, PBS etc so I think we are doing a pretty good job of vetting sources 3) " not actually describing the movement in clear terms," we are actually following the sources which say that when something consists merely of a hashtag, clearly describing it as a "movement" is pretty much impossible 4) the name of the article reflects what has been covered by the reliable sources and so is not an issue 5) Where specifically are items that are not attributed? 6) Vague claims are not specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
1 and 2) The focus on harassment is one of them, as it is given undue weight to the actual topic of Gamergate. The continued excuse that "this is what reliable sources say" comes from the fact that we've largely excised information used in reliable sources to discuss what it's about, and misused sources by assuming they get it right. The few times we've done the right thing, such as our handling of the ArbCom/Guardian piece, is commendable, but we can and should do more. We are not required by policy to focus on one aspect because of undue and counterfactual coverage in reliable sources, we are required to use our heads a bit. This should not be construed as an elimination of any specific aspect, but more a continued attempt to get us to handle one aspect of the dispute with the proper weight and context. 3) We're not really following the sources, we're following one aspect of the sources. If we were following the sources, we'd spend the bulk of time focused on what Gamergate is described as. You've asserted that it's solely a harassment movement, and the reliable sources do not take this point of view at all. 4) As demonstrated before, this is not a factual statement. There is no room for disagreement on this, you are factually wrong on this matter. 5) A very quick skim again shows problems with the second and fourth paragraphs in history, third para in subsequent, first para in debate over ethics, and I'll just stop there for now because it's showing even more POV issues again that need work. It's definitely improved, but we have a ways to go. 6) Vague claims of my supposed "vague claims" is not something I can address and isn't helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The sources focus almost entirely on harassment and hence the article will too. Pushing to have our article present something other than a primary focus on harassment is plainly pushing the article against WP:NPOV.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And there's a continued dispute on this for the reasons I have outlined. Taking a hardline stance does not do anything in terms of helping build consensus and bringing the article in line with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
While this is yet another example of those "disputes" it is typical in that those "disputing" are never actually able to provide any support for the premise or position by showing actual significant coverage of the topic sans harassment in reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
When I point to the sources we use and say we're not handling them correctly, that is support of the premise and position. When I note that the coverage deals with both, that is support for the premise and position. Discussion you disagree with is not tendentuous, and blanket accusations as such are not helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have specific sources to discuss, fine, bring them out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue is definitively more general. We rely on sources not to flesh out the article, but advance a narrative. Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, but I'll go back to my comparison to the GMO debate, something I've spent significant time on Wikipedia working on. What we know about GMOs is that the scientific consensus is that they're tested and safe, but the media consensus largely tells us otherwise. Under your stance for this article, our articles on genetically modified foods should be primarily about their lack of safety and the concerns of activists. Yet, when we actually verify the information, when we use proper editorial discretion, we move forward with the scientific consensus as it reflects what's going on. The same way with Gamergate: we spend an inordinate amount of time on harassment and trying to debunk claims instead of discussing the movement and its goals. This is not to say that the harassment narrative is not part of the complete story. It deserves its own section and an appropriate amount of coverage because of its place in the broader discussion. Unfortunately, this article places that small part of the issue (a part, by the way, that has a questionable relationship to the overall movement even as anonymous internet trolls use the hashtag as a breeding ground) front and center. It treats a commonplace problem of death threats on the internet (something I provided links about in the archive) as somehow specific and unique to Gamergate and gives it significant play. We can't do original research in the article, but when we're discussing how to use sources, we need to consider why we're taking claims as standard when authorities and those "in the know" do not give them the same credence, and balance it accordingly. In other words, it requires us to be smart about how we build an article, and make sure that we're not actually putting the fringe behaviors of questionably-related trolls as the main point of the article. When I first came to this article, I hadn't even heard of Gamergate. I did the research, and you're correct that the media spends a good deal of time on the harassment narrative (it's not the majority as we continue to assert), and you're correct that the majority of sources we use here (not all of them) are talking that up. When you remove (such as the Forbes/Eric Kain pieces) or diminish (like Cathy Young) reliable sources that actually speak in detail to what's happening and actually provide proper, sourced refutations of many of the claims, how can we then turn around and call the article accurate or NPOV? We don't need to start linking to Gamergate blogs or TotalBiscuit videos to get to that point, we just need to actually handle this with care. We're not doing that right now. We're instead advancing a narrative. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, specific sources are required for any meaningful discussion. and " Part of the problem is that the media has not covered the issue responsibly, " is a non starter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it's a general problem, it requires general discussion to start. I have detailed where the problems lie, so if you're looking to assist in fixing it, let's do so. And no, it's not a nonstarter to discuss how the media is failing on this topic. It's actually key to getting to the bottom of this, just like we've had to for other controversial topics with similar problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You have laid out general claims of where you think there are problems. those general claims have been countered as not being supported by sources or policy. Now your options are provide specifics for action or come to the conclusion that our article generally, appropriately follows the sources and policies and your general claims are unfounded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
They have not been countered, unfortunately. They've been dismissed without supporting evidence, even still. Policy requires us to write an article from a neutral point of view. Until the article gets even close to that point, you cannot say that policy doesn't support what is being said here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, until you can specifically identify where our article is not appropriately following the reliable sources, your assertions of "NPOV" are unactionable and meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, the undue weight regarding the harassment claims as opposed to what the movement is about. The NPOV title and structure. Please read what is being directed toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You are flat out wrong there if you think the sources in the article, particularly the highest quality mainstream ones are not covering the subject as primarily harassment / harassment as evidence of a culture war. If I am wrong you will be able to quickly specify those sources that support your claim that they are not covering harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, the quality of these sources in this subject area are not exactly high quality. Much like how we have to be careful about how we use mainstream media sources on scientific topics, we need to really consider whether the mainstream media really understands the topic they're discussing. Just because a media outlet confirms a belief does not make that outlet correct or "high quality" in context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no technical specifics needed to examine internet harassment or "games journalism ethics" that the mainstream sources lack. They have examined and come to their conclusion. That you dont agree with their conclusion is irrelevant. 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You'd think so, but the coverage is showing us otherwise. Mainstream media doesn't understand the culture within, have a history of poor reporting in the space, act as if death threats aren't sadly typical, and allow their own biases to get in the way as a result. This is all background information that should lead us to reconsidering how we handle this sensitive topic and how we judge the reliability and viability of the claims made in the so-called "high quality sources." Are you up for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That death threats may be typical of gamer culture is irrelevant. Reliable mainstream sources have decided that death threats under the gamergate auspices directed at women in gaming (and belatedly "justified" with inane "but ethics!" ) are worthy of coverage. Just like my dog Sparks not being worthy of coverage because he is just a typical beagle, doesnt mean that the Miss P is not worthy of special focus by those who care and that because of that focus and coverage, that is what the article is about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
That death threats are typical means we need to put the article in the proper context. Why oppose that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
When you provide SEVERAL reliable sources that say "death threat campaigns like the ones against Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian are typical of the gaming world." we can include that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree this seems like WP:SYNTH to me. — Strongjam (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be synthesis if we included something about death threats being common in the article. That's not what I'm asking to do or saying. What we should do is contextualize how we use such claims in the article as a result of what we know about the issue, much like we do with every other topic in the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
much like we do with every other topic in the project, we are covering this as the reliable sources cover it. Please identify what "contextualizing" the sources do that we have not? (WP:SYN and all being that we cannot make "contextualizations" on our own.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources cover it as a movement, but you're against that. The reliable sources cover it as an issue concerning gaming journalism and aspects of the harassment, but you're against that. Yes, we can and do contextualize sources on our own all the time. It's how we've marginalized good sources like Cathy Young and elevated misleading ones as main contributions to this article. I agree we must use reliable sources. Let's do so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources cover it as a harassment movement, or maybe use "movement" in scare quotes, or call it a catastrofuck, or analyse its qualities as a movement and say, nope - random anonymous trolls on the internets, or use movement as a shorthand for something for which there is no good term (see the previous grouping). To select only those from the final group is most definitely NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how many times we need to repeat this, but the reliable sources don't do what you're claiming at all. What do you need to see so you can understand it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In the case of genetically-modified foods, there exists a substantial scientific and technical literature which Wikipedia can, should, and does examine and to which it accords WP:DUE attention. In the case of GamerGate, there exists no scientific or technical literature. The published sources, unfortunately, do not attach much (or, really any) credence to what you assert is true -- they report on GamerGate’s misogyny and harassment, period. Those “in the know” are the writers in the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe. For some reason you want to think that Eric Cain or Cathy Young or Total Biscuit know better, that you know better -- but we don’t do that: we follow the WP:DUE weight of the WP:RS reliable sources. Please stop this; it's pure WP:FLAT in search of a WP:FORUM.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, the published sources do lend great credence to what I'm saying. I know this topic has impacted you in a really significant way (the writings you link make that very clear, and I do not intend to speak out of turn by noting this), and it might be why you're perhaps letting your own point of view shade things. I have no dog in this fight outside of a neutral encyclopedia article that handles the topic responsibly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You have been asked multiple times to provide these sources. Claiming sources exist without actually ever providing them is beyond disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
And multiple times, I have told you that those sources are already in the article. Please stop with the continued baseless accusations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There are 175 sources in the article. Which ones are you speaking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best solution here would be to create a list of sources which espouse alternative viewpoints that you believe have been left out or underutilized. Also it's probably not wise to make even vaguely personal comments about Mark given that he is on a final warning about making personal comments, and would not be able to respond in turn. This is a good thing given how he responded in the past, but that still doesn't mean you should do things that can be construed as abusing the situation. Bosstopher (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a hardline stance to say that we should follow the source. The consensus has already been built and is not ambiguous. The current article, in accordance with policy, describes the known activities of Gamergate -- its campaigns of misogynist threats against women in computing. One might wish Gamergate had accomplished other things, but it has not -- or, if it has, those other accomplishments have not been widely reported by reliable sources.

You say that the name of the article is objectively wrong, yet the contrary consensus could hardly be more clear. Just a few days ago, you proposed to rename the article; four individuals supported the idea, twenty three opposed, and it was swiftly snow-closed. Yet here again, just a day or two later, we're asked to contemplate precisely the same proposal. This is not consensus building, it's open defiance of both consensus and policy, backed by WP:POINTy threats that you'll bring complaints against editors who do not conform. If there's WP:OWNership here, we know (and now the world knows: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html) where it lies. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I have not threatened to bring any complaints, sorry. The rest of this is not an accurate rant, and I don't see any need to address it further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperative and collegial approach. What I wrote is accurate, concise, and speaks directly to the points (such as they are) you raised. I'm glad you plan to drop this subject, however, as I am confident my explanation, an TRPoD’s, represent the consensus of the sources and the consensus of Wikipedians. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest
  2. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11082629/Gamergate-Misogyny-death-threats-and-a-mob-of-angry-trolls-Inside-the-dark-world-of-video-games.html

A magical and wondrous list of heterodox sources

As an editor states below, "Suggest an edit and provide a source that can be used to back up the statement." This has just become a WP:SOAP on the issue. Either leave this be or create a section that focuses on specific sources and proposed changes. Dreadstar ☥ 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conversation above doesnt seem to be going anywhere so I've decided to collate all the heterodox reliable sources I can find for discussion, so we can discuss whether or not they have been given due weight. WIP right now, because this is a soul crushing experience and seeing the words 'published 5 month ago' on an article about gamergate really gets you down. Feel free to dispute reliable sourciness for articles linked, and add any articles to the list.Bosstopher (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Heterodox sources
"We can't possibly use Mike Diver as a heterodox source to represent Gamergate! His views are heterodox, and he supports Gamergate!" What's the point of collecting sources on Gamergate if you're going to have this mentality? Of course a heterodox article written from the point of view of Gamergate is going to support Gamergate and not accuse its own group of misogyny. You don't honestly believe that Gamergate supporters are a cabal of evil misogynists hiding their motives behind fiendish trickery, do you? I hope you're not looking for a reliable "pro-Gamergate" article that for some insane reason admits to and discusses Gamergate's inherent, objective, inhuman badness. I'm sorry, but any article that sympathizes with Gamergate or feels compelled to explain their interests is not going to disparage that group with those kinds of insults! YellowSandals (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the idea of conspiracy among "GameJournoPros" is thoroughly debunked by most other RS calls his reliability into question. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Except GameJournoPros did exist and there was no "debunking". From a realistic perspective, there are a lot of benign reasons for game journalists to maintain a mailing list with each other. However, the "debunk" was simply the journalists saying that they didn't do anything wrong. The fact is, it still looked wrong to people in Gamergate and it upset them. So why, exactly, is it so crucial to see people talking about GameJournoPros, see people angry about GameJournoPros, then dismiss GameJournoPros and say, "No, Gamergate started because of misogyny. GameJournoPros is an insane conspiracy theory that has been debunked by God Himself and to question this, even in the most observational manner, is grounds to believe someone is a deranged radical with nothing intelligent to say". I mean, look, you've got these articles where people are clearly mad about ethics in game journalism just like Gamergate says. I know that "misogyny" is easier to understand and has been the most orthodox explanation for all the outrage and public statements over these past few months, but maybe, just maybe, there isn't a cute little explanation for some political controversies. Seriously, if you think some political conflict can be summed up in one world, you're being naive at best and indulgently stupid at worst. How can editors continue to see plausible explanations for an angry mob, even if it's misguided, and dismiss it as if you were the French aristocracy dismissing the peasants. Like, "Oh, they're just being misogynists. Let them eat their cake and they'll settle down tomorrow".
I'm just saying, there are probably more elaborate reasons for some of the behavior we've observed in this conflict, and you do a disservice by being dismissive of it. You can look back at the American civil war, and although you don't have to say anything positive about the ethics of slavery, you can certainly see what economic advantages it provided and note that abolishing slavery did do financial harm to the South, just like the South said it would. This is life for you. Things are not simple and people wouldn't waste this much time and energy on harassing women for its own sake. I'm not sure what hard, verifiable benefit gamers would get from being misogynist, and we're not seeing much speculation on that either beyond, "Well they want to be boys and think girls have cooties". Maybe find some articles talking about what Gamergate specifically gains from being misogynist, aside from avoiding cooties. Otherwise, this article continues as it always has, vaguely alluding to but mostly trying to refute any reason for the controversy to exist in the first place. There's honestly no value in an encyclopedia article that goes about casting demons as a primary objective. YellowSandals (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If they didn't so anything wrong, there's really no point in including it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hat inflammatory rhetoric, WP:SOAP and comments about others. Dreadstar ☥ 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ethics in owning slaves. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm speechless.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem. I name slavery as an unethical thing people would fight to maintain because their livlihoods rest on it, and in a self-satisfied manner you find yourself "speechless". Like you live in a fantasy and can't imagine a world that isn't past the second star on the left. Did you not take history? Did nobody tell you about this? Maybe you just grew up in some insulated background where injustice doesn't exist to much note. "Gasp, how dare someone acknowledge the reasons the South engaged in the American Civil War? What a bigot. We must shun this information from our encyclopedia lest children read and gain disreputable ideas." This kind of stuff makes you sound like a proselytizing chuckle-head. There's a whole list of sources just sitting here that talk about believable reasons people would join or defend Gamergate. You can't just sit there saying, "We can't print this! These people's opinions are not in line with things we believe!" in an article that is actually about these people or focused on them centrally. YellowSandals (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I mean, what I'm getting at is that you're placing me under the impression, here, that you'd remove all reference to any of the financial benefits slavery if you could morally justify doing so in your head. I guess in a misguided attempt to prevent people from thinking slavery was good for some reason, but as the ignorant are want to do, all you're doing is spreading ignorance. If you can't bring yourself to properly understand people or things, you're doing harm by trying to force the world to function the way you want. These are just people. That's all Gamergate is. Just people doing people things. Given an earlier time period Gamergate might have included pitchforks and torches, but here you are, acting aghast about it. Grow up and just approach this thing in a level-headed manner and forget about trying to maintain a narrative of good and evil. YellowSandals (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please desist talking about me. Stick to the topic on hand. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not Cathy Young is "atypical" is not really relevant to this. They're also not opinion pieces, but actually articles on the situation in question. Looking at the Young piece, it makes me realize we missed an Andrew Sullivan piece as well that would be good to use.
This is a good start, so thank you. There's a lot from The Escapist we're not using as well and probably should, but calling them "heterodox" may not be accurate. They're heterodox according to the POV of editors here, but not really to what is happening within the movement and in video games in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE we follow the views mainstream sources. not a group of internet trolls preferred version of themselves. please stop stonewalling against well established policy- this is not the place where policy will be changed, as made clear in the findings of the arbcom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the sources i listed are definately heterodox in approach, and some such as Bokhari even comment that they are writing outside of the journalistic mainstream. Orthodoxy isnt about "what is really happening." There's a reason I didn't call it a list of "factually incorrect sources"Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No one is looking to change policy. We're looking to make an NPOV encyclopedia entry. The accusations you're levying are getting tiring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Even the best of these heterodox sources falls at the very bottom edge of the reliability of the mainstream sources. If we drop down for inclusion of the heterodox sources, we open it back up to the lower quality sources that take even a more hardline stance against gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if Reason, Wapo, Slate and (arguably) TechCrunch fall into the "bottom edge of reliability." However heterodox articles from all three publications have been cited, so perhaps they've already been given due coverage. Based on what I've looked at so far here are my initial thoughts: we have quite a few interviews with pro-GG people in articles, this would be useful to outline how gators themselves posit their views. Because as it stands we're knocking arguments down without stating what the arguments are in the first place. Also amongst the heterodox sources, the two main focuses that have been neglected in the article are their thoughts on the "Gamers are dead" articles, the divide between journalists and readers, and positive thoughts on TFYC (which would perhaps be better placed in the TFYC article). Also if such a focus were added I think it would be a good idea to add these lower quality "hardline" anti-GG sources you're referring to, so that GG's arguments arent given a free ride in the article.Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If the entry is opened to "heterodox" sources, then there are many more of those kinds of sources that are very critical of Gamergate that haven't been included. This would open the floodgates to all kinds of additions that aren't reliably sourced. This would turn the entry into a platform for every minority opinion about GG. If people think this entry is big now, it'll balloon if we lower the bar on the quality of sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Enough talking about others. Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thargor Orlando calls our attention to sources with knowledge of "what is happening within the movement and in video games in general," that is, I suppose, sources that share his inside knowledge of what’s really being planned now at GamerGate HQ. TheRedPenOfDoom suggests that we stick fairly closely to The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Guardian, The New Yorker -- that is, the prominent sources to whom the world (and Wikipedia) gives credence.

In this case, Thargor Orlando might be on to something. We could open the article to all speculations from experts in video games who believe they have special insight into GamerGate plans and intentions. Let’s publish a wider selection of the GamerGate harassing messages: they’re true but -- alas! -- not actually quoted in the usual sources because the usual sources don’t use that language. Let’s also publish those gorgeous anti-Semitic caricatures of Anita Sarkeesian; Brianna Wu did, and she knows a bit about video games. Let’s publish the restraining order that protects her: it’s a public record, and if we're waiving WP:RS and WP:OR to squeeze some video game blogs and lover’s rants into Wikipedia, why privilege those above official orders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

This discussion is entirely outside policy: WP:CPUSH and (especially WP:FLAT. Please stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inside knowledge could just as easily be acquired from a fascination and interest in the topic someone is writing about, most of GG's plotting occurs on public online forums. Stop accusing people of being secret gators.Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think he's doing that. I think he's pointing out that people are claiming special knowledge is not being included, but can't provide reliable sources. In fact I got up through archive 10 looking at the source arguments - this has all been hashed out before. And many of the people in this discussion know that already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Not special knowledge, just basic knowledge. And yes, we've been down this road before, but now that some of the most disruptive elements have been topic banned and that the flames have died down, it might be possible to make some progress on an article that reflects our content policies. This idea of "secret knowledge" is really bizarre. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Specifically what do you think is basic knowledge that is missing that is supported with reliable sources? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As a general response to a lot of the comments User:Thargor Orlando has been making: You argue that the sources cited for this article should not have been utilized because factually inaccurate, comparing it to coverage of GMOs. But unlike with GMOs academic coverage is sparse, and you have yet to point out a situation in which a claim made in the article clashes with academic consensus. You've brought up our handling of Arbitration gate as an example of what we should be (but are not) doing in the rest of the article, but there are a lot of cases where we have left out factually inaccurate information mentioned in sources. For instance there are a lot of reliable sources from early on in the controversy that claim (Redacted), perhaps more than the number of later sources clarifying that this isn't true. Yet this factual inaccuracy is not included in the article, simply because it's known to not be true. Is there anything that is completely factually wrong in the article which you believe needs remedying, or anything which you believe clashes with academic consensus?Bosstopher (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is entirely accurate, but it's done in good faith and I won't quibble. The amount of Sarkeesian coverage, the amount of time we spend supposedly debunking claims, the primary activity of looking at this solely through the lens of harassment, those are all factual problems that we should deal with. This is too often interpreted as "don't talk about X," and that's not my intention. But if someone with no knowledge of this topic was sent here, they would come away with a very different idea of what the topic is about than, well, what the topic is about. When we use lower quality sources (defining as such as sources without solid knowledge of the games industry or games journalism, and/or sources that peddle misleading claims), that's going to be the end result. Plus, the fact that most of this article was built during a time of really high tensions by people who were (in many cases) understandibly angered by some of the activity surrounding the players both on and off wiki, it results in a really poorly crafted article. I'll keep beating the drum that we really need to look closer at how we're handling this topic, because it's definitely not done so with our core policies in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What items do you think need to be added? And do you have reliable sources to back up their inclusion? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
More information on what "pro-GG" advocates believe. More information on what has been achieved. Less attempts at "debunking" (much of which is incorrectly asserted). More proper attribution. More focus on what the movement is as opposed to what its opposition believes it to be. We can do all that with current sources and with adding more from already-reliable sources as listed above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Write up a few sentences with associated references? Since you seem hesitant to add as a direct edit, make a draft somewhere for us to look at? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Thargor Orlando: it seems like you're approaching this from the viewpoint of "reliable sources can't be trusted because they haven't researched the real Gamergate and are therefore not able to report on it accurately". I counter that reliable sources have researched Gamergate in all of its nebulousness, and have not only determined that harassment is a primary underlying goal, but also that Gamergate supporters' own self-professed goals are irrelevant or misplaced ("ethics in journalism"), deflection and public relations (The Fine Young Capitalists, #NotYourShield), or about attacking contrary ideologies ("Operation Baby Seal", complaints about "social justice warriors"). And this is not my personal opinion, this is what reliable sources have stated loud and clear. We're simply not going to give undue prominence to unreliable/primary/self-published sources soapboxing about the great things that Gamergate has done, when reliable sources have already considered those viewpoints and roundly rejected them. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)\\
No, not really. It's not even a matter of trust, it's a matter of accuracy. Many of the reliable sources we use in this article say that, sure. As noted, and as seen above, it's not the whole story and really isn't the true one. No one who has spent any time here is arguing to use unreliable or primary or self-published sources, so that's just a strawman. What I'm arguing is responsible usage of sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources of the quality of Columbia Journalism Review, PBS, The Week , the NYT, the New Yorker etc etc that support your position that there is a widespread perception of gg that we are not covering appropriately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Not the point. I'll repeat: what is going on with GG is not the same as what many of these "high quality" sources are reporting, thus bringing into question whether they're high quality for this topic. For example, the amount of changes to ethics guidelines in gaming media over the last 6 months isn't getting reported by "high quality" sources, but trolls who may or may not be involved with the movement harassing some women in the industry is. What, in a topic about Gamergate, should get the attention? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We follow the sources, not your personal knowledge of "what is going on with gamergate" . AND the reliable sources have looked into the "ethics" and "objectivity" and "collusion" and found them baseless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We should follow the sources, yes. The sources do not support what we see in the article, and not at the extent we cover what we do. This is not "personal knowledge," it's information from reliable sources. You can say they found such claims baseless, but you and I both know that the sources we're using for those claims are quite old and outdated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You will VERY MUCH need to provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the any of the claims about living people that the "quite old and outdated" sources clearly and loudly debunked are not still clearly and loudly debunked. Just because it has been hundreds of years since "The Earth is Flat" has been debunked does not mean that "The Earth is Flat" is not still debunked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not geocentrism, this is gaming journalism, a group with a history of questionable behavior when it comes to disclosures. That we can point to a number of gaming magazines and sites that have improved/updated their ethics and disclosure policies following the explosion of the hashtag is important. I'm not sure we can use these in the article, but information exists, and it takes two seconds to Google. The evidence is there, and the real world implications are apparent. It's long past the time for the article to reflect this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, we reflect the reliable sources and you are providing no reliable sources, so you are presenting NOTHING for us to reflect. It is long past time that people stop whacking that dead horse.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what dead horse is being whacked. I've provided plenty of sources so far, there are plenty under the hat provided the other day, and more from those sources. They dispute exactly what you claim, so maybe the dead horse is the continued claim that there's no coverage of what we're talking about? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Taken care of. And no one is 'loosening' WP:BLP or WP:RS criteria. Dreadstar ☥ 05:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remove the BLP violation. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I presume ForbiddenRocky refers to @Bosstopher:'s edit, above? I think there's a BLP there too, but I daren't touch it myself lest the Armies Of Mordor Gamergate fans take offense (again). Also, in the following by Thargor Orlando, the phrase "peddle misleading claims" in reference to (say) The New Yorker is rather colorful. I think few would accuse that editor of failing to have beaten the drum to which he refers. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:, @ForbiddenRocky:. I'm not seeing the BLP violations, but I'm also a little out of it right now with a cold. If neither of you want to do it just email me with what you think needs to be {{redacted}}. I'm sure Bosstopher won't mind. — Strongjam (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Redaction done. — Strongjam (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, in these situations I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. But is mentioning that something is a false accusation a BLP violation? This seems like a grey area where it would be important for admins to clarify. Did they clarify while I wasn't paying attention? Or did I say something which WAS a BLP violation without clarifying that it's false? If so could someone email me my offending claim so I dont accidentally do it again. Bosstopher (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure myself. I redacted out of an abundance of caution. In cases like this I suppose it best not to bring up the specifics of false accusations to avoid repeating them. Even in the context of saying there are false it is probably tiring for those involved to see them. — Strongjam (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher, Strongjam, and MarkBernstein: Looking through the archives (ugh) I saw certain things were being removed for being BLP violations repeatedly. The currently redacted bit was one of them. I think an abundance of caution is good here, especially given the Arbcom involvement. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
From the BLP template at the top: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" I knew I'd read that somewhere. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should find a way to incorporate A Summary Of The Gamergate Movement That We Will Immediately Change If Any Of Its Members Find Any Details Objectionable. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, I see no bar to using Salon When they laughed at rape: Salon is a reliable source and we currently use Slate; Slate was started in emulation of Salon. The MoviePilot essay is written by the "editor in chief" of MoviePilot, which certainly appears to have regular staff; the site accepts user-contributed material but this is clearly marked as written by the editor in chief and so might be a reliable source as well, and certainly is reliable for her opinion or the opinion of the organization. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My concern would be adding too much opinion. The facts are better covered by less opinion oriented pieces. IMO. But if we are adding more opinions, these should be added. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


A discussion/statement of the Article about finding an objective viewpoint

Pardon me for intruding, but all I ask is that if my statement here are considered wrong or right and somewhat on the topic of GamerGate to end or begin several points of discussion.

  • Wikipedia does not search for "a" truth, but for the most known part based on what reliable sources have to say and to what extent on how many people have heard of it? Example: 1 person publishes "a" truth on inside information (unreliable source for now) and/or creation of said "statement". Then a media outlet that published said "truth" says a "version" of said truth to 100 people, even if they have mistranslated or generalized it to an extent that it has become a "lie" to the first "truth" or become a "Half-truth". The statemenet in question leads to this. The source that gave perspective to 100 people would be what Wikipedia would write due to it being a reliable source outlet to the most spread of people even if based on a "change" from the first "truth"? Would this be a form of input for Wikipedia? (This example is based/inspired bye a study )

If said statement is "true", then GamerGate controversy article in itself cannot change to what it is now unless further weighted reliable sources bring out statistics of another "truth" or using other figureheads of GamerGate members within the controversy and/or GamerGate "sources" that are controversial to the public. This is a deadlock for any change until further newsite prints.
If said statement is "false", would the people in Gaming Journalism not be highly weighted due to their insight and knowledge of every side of the GamerGate Controversy? Even if using only the controversial "side" sources of Gaming Journalism or other source to follow the article's focus of solely controversy such as SupaNova 1 2? TheRealVordox (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliably published sources and presents those perceptions of the subject in the relative proportions they are held. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. With regard to gamergate, the overwhelming perception is of harassment and terrorist threats and a culture war against women and feminists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
...in the sources you've chosen. If we look at the sources above plus sources we're not using (we could absolutely use The Escapist more, for example), that "overwhelming perception" becomes something more akin to "disproportionate coverage." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
there are multiple sources of at least the same quality as Escapist that provide much more scathing views of gamergate that we can include as well. (and some sort of evidence of this conspiracy of misreporting by the major media would be nice too.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Who said conspiracy? And yes, an article with some of those "scathing views" would be preferable to what we have now as well, given the disproportionate attention to other issues of smaller relationship. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
you do not use the word "conspiracy" but you keep asserting that all of the mainstream media has colluded or simultaneously failed their in their journalistic duties without any evidence at all. thats a conspiracy theory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not once asserted collusion. I do think the media is not being responsible, and the evidence is how the coverage of the topic is not reflective of what's going on. This is not about me, stick to the actual topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Basically: Tough nuts to you. Your personal opinions about how the media shouldbe covering this are not worth a pile of wet beans. We follow what HAS been covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, so let's cover it in context, and let's use sources that reflect what is happening, not sources that confirm our biases. Telling another editor "tough nuts" is not going to improve the article, actual collaboration on what we can do to improve the state of things here is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggest some specific edits that use the existing sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We're clearly not at that point yet. Want to work with me on it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As I don't think there's anything to fix, unless you point them out, I won't see anything to work on. But the RS are ok? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the article violates NPOV by providing a skewed, incorrect coverage of the situation, and you're not seeing any problems? The sources are okay in some places, not in others. We have a good list to start with to help with expanding out what Gamergate actually believes, which would be an excellent starting point if you're actually on board with helping me on it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with ForbiddenRocky. These ideological conversations about how GamerGate ought to be covered by reliable sources goes nowhere but it does seem to be endless.
The solution has been proposed over and over again for anyone who is not content with this article, in any way: Suggest an edit and provide a source that can be used to back up the statement. That's all! Once we have something specific, we can discuss whether that source is reliable for that statement. But these vague criticisms without concrete suggestions are not an effective way of influencing the editing of this article and it turns this talk page into a discussion forum debating what is truth!
It reminds me of GamerGate which refuses to have leadership and then complains that it is not being treated as a movement or that the media is not taking it seriously...but that is because when everyone speaks for an event, no one can be singled as having an authoritative voice and represent the group. If its supporters had even a minimal level of recognized organization, this would be a very different article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the article does not violate NPOV. It provides a (reasonably) balanced view, reflecting the preponderant view of reliable sources. Replacing The New Yorker with The Escapist is not likely to be a popular or permissible strategy. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS will be relaxed. Indefinite vague attacks on the article are not actionable. If you have a specific proposal, please propose it. If not, what is the purpose of these thousands of words? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


The sources agree: Gamergate’s notable effects are its misogynistic attacks on women and computing. Whether or not an editor considers the media to be responsible is no more relevant to this discussion than whether that editor considers anchovies to be tasty or thinks meats with sauce Robert to be best with a New Zealand Shiraz. When The New Yorker publishes a profile that reflects new accomplishments of Gamergate, we'll take a look; until then, the endless quest to “balance” the New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, and numerous additional sources of the very first quality by scouring the margins of reliable sources for an isolated dissent or two is pointless and also deeply inimical to the purpose and reputation of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Wu, PAX, Police

Citing threats, game maker pulls her company from PAX East fest: Says call for more security ignored Add the bit about the police not being contacted? Shorten the tried to contact PAX and this part? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the police contact situation would add to the article. Personally would prefer if we just said she cancelled due to safety concerns for her employees and left it at that. No need to get into the specifics about PAX, as that's beyond the scope of the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm for including that PAX didn't contact the police, and shortening the quote about PAX not responding to Wu.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Police wouldn't be contacted, as it's a private event and the police presence would be the extent of it. If there's anything new worth adding, it would be "convention center officials conducted their own security assessment several months before PAX East, as they do before every event, but didn’t see any major red flags," which would explain why the concerns would come across as being "ignored." Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually police are quite regularly, in fact almost standardly, contacted about large scale private events where security may be an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. Not at events where there, to use the reliable source, aren't "any major red flags." This is the kind of context that we didn't get from the first source, and we now have two sources that found it helpful to note the other side of the situation, as should we. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
the fact that convention organizers do not see widespread sustained death threat campaign against women as a "redflag" says something in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps that there isn't one. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The "red flag" issue probably belong in one of the Women and Video Gaming article and/or sexual harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why that would fit in there, but better discussed at that article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, recall again that death threats are typical in the industry. Would it be synthesis to add what I'm linking in this comment to the article? Yup. Is it the context we need as editors to understand why said threats aren't a "red flag" and why we should handle the topic responsibly in the article? Yes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I am glad find it interesting, and sad, that you are so comfortable with the fact that death threats are a common feature of the gaming community. However, your personal comfort does not mean that we treat or contextualize death threats as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You just seem to be strawmanning there. HalfHat 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No strawmanning at all. Thargor Orlando made a specific plea that we as Wikipedia editors need to edit from within a context where death threats are normal. They are not. Nor do we edit from such a context. And it is sad that people believe such a context is and should be treated as normal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"This is normal" does not equate to "I'm comfortable with this". HalfHat 09:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
In context, this is different than general industry death threats (how horrible is it to minimize that?), these death threats are in the Gamergate context. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
As she's an industry representative and Gamergate is the thing du jour in gaming discussion in the media, it's not really too different. More to the point, the link shared in the section below (combined with the unfortunate reality of internet death threats) is probably why such threats aren't being taken as credible by the authorities. That's speculation for here, not for the article, and is really why I'm continuing to insist on proper context in our editorial decisions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Police weren't contacted while Wu tried to work with PAX. Police were contacted after Wu pulled out. It's not our job as editors to make claims about what PAX or the police would or wouldn't do as SOP. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_30&oldid=1039653609"