Jump to content

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

Pro life GamerGate

How to tell whether a Twitter user is pro-choice or pro-life without reading any of their tweets - Some interesting data crunching on uptake of a hashtag, the sections regarding the intersection with the #GamerGate hashtag might be useful in examining the overlap of the GamerGate Twitter campaign and social conservatives/right wing "culture warriors". Artw (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole body of articles where GG is used as an example or comparison or exemplar for other things (pro-life, harassment, gamers, etc), but there aren't any good RS that state this explicitly to use without getting into SYNTH or OR. I've looked because I think it should be included. It's an interesting phenomena. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Phenomenon. :o) Grammar Nazi (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

reaction addition to the lede

The article has a large section dedicated to the various responses, perhaps something should be added to the lede summarizing that. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede is too long as it is TBH. Artw (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Working on tighten up the lede. Also, the lede should summarize, and the response is a large section of the article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Vice: GamerGaters Are Targeting People Who Were Victims of the Patreon Hack

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/gamergaters-are-targeting-people-who-were-victims-of-the-patreon-hack ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Second lede paragraph possible edits

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users allege unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics. They have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

Too much cutting? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Who precisely has said that the goals of Gamergate's actions were to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism? How do we know they speak for Gamergate, and not some false flag or Joe job? if someone did say this, does any reliable source consider that statement plausible? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems a common theme in writings both by and about GamerGate supporters, that the list one of the main goals as being to improve ethics in game journalism. I don;t think we need to question teh plausibility of that goal, given that the next line counters it. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: are you asking for citations? Please, note that the ethics claims are mentioned in the main body with citation. We don't put citations in the lede. "Does any reliable source consider that statement plausible?" Not really, as noted by "These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users allege unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.
In further brutal editing, the actions around ethics purpose is better left in the main article, I think. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(because I fail at ping) @MarkBernstein: ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The argument that this is about ethics in game journalism - whether or not it is largely dismissed - is one of the main points offered by GamerGate supporters, and is reflected heavily in the sources. Leaving that it is ignoring a major aspect of one side of the issue. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bilby: "users allege unethical collusion" too brief? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It is better than nothing, but it doesn't describe what they claim they are trying to do. That said, I'm a bit lost as to why we are further shrinking the lede. Why this push to reduce the word count? It wasn't exactly long to begin with. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Brevity is the soul of wit"? And we need to add more about the responses to the lede. I think raising the GG claim of ethics is enough. What they did is covered in the main article. I'm not committed to any particular edit. But as long as we're looking at the lede, I thought I'd suggest some stuff and see what people think. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; they used these allegations to justify the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see the lede as providing a summary of the body. At the moment it dosen't really do that, and we're trimming it further. Given that the article is almost 9,000 words long, a 250 word lede already seems light. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This I really like. When we mention 'justify the campaign of harassment'- should we expand that somewhat to mention the email campaigns etc., or leave that to the main? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If we go with something like this, I'd rather stick to the more general sources, and include the COI issues: "... Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflicts of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; ..." Otherwise, I prefer the current wording where we state the claimed goal as "They have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism." I'm not sure why that has to be removed, given that it is such a major part of what they have argued. - Bilby (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall the main body stating that ethics is used to justify harassment, but rather many sources allege that it's a front for the harassment. Just as many sources seem to argue that some gamergaters genuinely believe they are on an ethics campaign. Also this version cuts out the line about email campaigns against the gaming press, which is a widely covered aspect of gamergate. Overall I see no reason to cut the lede, most articles this size have far longer ledes. Brustopher (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflict of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; they used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. (how do you do the outdent with line thing?) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Existing paragraph for comparison Gamergate has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag allege collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews. Some hashtag users have said the goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. Users of the hashtag launched email campaigns targeting firms advertising in publications of which they disapproved, asking them to withdraw their advertisements.
Not convinced including the email campaign is as relevant this far past the start of it all. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I seriously think this is the best edit to the lead I've seen yet, and I vote it be incorporated immediately as the new second paragraph.Rockypedia (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I really dont see the point of shortening the lede, it's short enough as it is. Also we can't definitively say the ethics thing is a front, because we have as many sources calling it genuine as we do calling it disingenuous. Brustopher (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we actually? Would you say that there's an even amount of sources which say that the primary focus of Gamergate is actually ethics in games journalism compared to the view that Gamergate is primarily about bitter nerds harassing people they don't like? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of sources don't believe it's primary (not even sources sympathetic to GG seem to think its primary). BUT there are quite a large number of sources which argue that a lot of GGers genuinely believe they are campaigners for ethics (even if they are anything but). What you're saying draws an arbitary distinction between people who think they are ethics campaigners and harassers. There's plenty of room for overlap, and quite a lot of sources acknowledge this. Brustopher (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New lede implemented

Per Rockypedia, ForbiddenRocky, and myself, and the belief that the newly proposed version addresses the concerns raised by MarkBernstein, I've gone ahead and put the two proposed paragraphs into action. I think it's an improvement- we've cut a lot of cruft out, and it should be a lot easier to see where expansion is necessary (cutting out the list of online forums gamergates use, and list of their most prominent targets, is a good example of where potential cruft has been cut.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun, here - I don't see that consensus has been reached. In addition, I still fail to see the need to change the current version - which has had better support long term - in order to reduce the word count, making the lede less effective. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Reducing word count doesn't make something less effective- I argue that it makes it more efficient. What we've mostly dropped is the laundry list of gamergate targets, gamergate forums, and gamergate 'but ethics' claims, all of which are fully detailed in the main. We don't need to completely explain things in the lede- it's meant as a summary. Instead, I think if we were to expand it after this cutting (which I'd encourage) we should focus on elements in the main text that aren't summarised in the lede. What do you disagree with about the changes made that made you revert them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Bilby & Brustopher that there are issues with this proposed rewrite; particularly w.r.t the categorisation of the ethics claims - both that the rewrite straw man's a narrow "collusion" claim in place of the broader/generalised claims which are supported by the more independent sources; and that it asserts that these claims are factually "a front for harrassment", also not supported by the more independent sources - while these may be widely held views, they are not universal truths, and it is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV) for Wikipedia to assert them as fact. I further concur with Bilby that no consensus exists for these changes at this time. W.r.t the edit summary quoting a "4-2" consensus; it is not a vote. On the basis that there is no consensus for the change, and that WP:NPOV is not negotiable, I will be reverting, to allow further discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a vote, but neither is it 'I don't like this and I will never allow any change to ever happen because I have to agree before things change'. Compromise is a two way street. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a clear improvement, but if people want a compromise, I would suggest dropping or reworking the 'they used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment' bit, which seems like the most controversial aspect. (It is sourced in the article that the people who initially coordinated what became Gamergate made a deliberate decision to use those allegations to create a palatable public narrative for their efforts to harass Quinn -- see eg. Heron, Belford, and Goker's analysis -- but it has to be worded carefully; most sources also say that this cover roped at least a few well-meaning but misguided people into the campaign as it gained steam. Also, by my reading of what they're saying, even among the people who used it as a front, it wasn't just a front for harassment; it was also used to craft a palatable public narrative by reactionary culture warriors eager to start a fight over issues like feminism, progressivism, and so on, and this aspect has a lot of attention both in sources and in the article.) The rest is clearly an improvement -- a lot of bloat and redundancy has accumulated there over time as people tried to highlight every aspect from every possible perspective, but stuff like the email campaigns are clearly pretty marginal if you look back on the whole thing from today. Breaking up the first sentence is likewise clearly an improvement; it reads awkwardly as it is. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This pretty much summarises the crux of the issue regarding ethics in the lede. It is however important to note that Heron, Belford and Goker are amongst those who thought that GG could have raised from legitimate ethics concerns if it wasnt for all the harassment. I'd also say that while the IRC origins of gamergate are definitely important in understanding it, the whole thing's been going on for months since then and has attracted a lot of other people. So we shouldn't overstate the role of the IRC in later months. Regarding email campaigns, in a lede this size it is perhaps not needed, but the lede should expand the cover all the important and major facets of Gamergate we cover in the article. We have entire major aspects like the industry response and its culmination in Intel's women in tech scheme (also the culmination of the email campaigns) which aren't touched in the lede and really should be. Brustopher (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur with what Aquillion and Brustopher have to say directly above. The lede as of this writing[1] is the least bad I've ever seen it. The expectation that language as baldly partisan as the "front for harassment" bit could ever gain consensus is laughable. Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: I think you jumped, the gun, but perhaps BOLD applies. I was waiting to get more input. But it's happening now. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Shortening v. detail

I really don't see why we are trying to shrink the lede. Most articles this size have far larger ledes and if anything it should be expanded. Brustopher (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Because it's too long, and confusing to anyone who hasn't spent hours (days, weeks, etc) working on this article. I knew nothing about Gamergate and came to this article to find out what it is. After I read the lead, I was more confused than when I'd started. I realize that everyone in this discussion knows this topic inside and out. That's great, and valuable to the article, but the lead doesn't exist for the editors; it exists for the readers. Just my two cents. Rockypedia (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the lede doesn't really describe what GamerGate is - making it shorter increases the problem, rather than fixing it. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Bilby (and, by extension, Brustopher), my apologies, but I don't quite understand what you mean here. What sort of info about "what Gamergate is" do you find lacking? Are we talking about the "it's about ethics" claims again? It's probably because it's Friday, but I am having trouble discerning the actual outlines of this disagreement. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking generally, when reading the current lede, you get the impression it is about harassment organised online due to a culture war claiming collision between some groups to push an social criticism agenda, and that some people see it as about ethics concerns. You know the main targets and what has been done to them, and you learn that Gamergate have been operating email campaigns and why. There's an awful lot missing, and I doubt the average reader would feel that they have any real understanding from the current lede, but at least you come away with the understanding that there is really nasty harassment, that there is a claim of collusion and why, that some people see it as about ethics, a little about what they do, and that generally these claims have been dismissed.
Reading the new version, Gamergate is just an excuse for harassment. We know that they claim collusion, but aren't told what they believe people are colluding to do; we don't know what they do other than harassment (not even the email campaigns); who is targetted (other than "feminists in the game industry"); and from what the lede says, any reasons they may present for what they do are just excuses for more harassment. I don't know what Gamergate supporters are concerned about, (maybe it is something to do with "gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition, social criticism of video games" but what remains a mystery), and my overall impression is that it is a conspiracy to excuse ongoing harassment of women.
More specifically, yes, I'm concerned that we've pulled one of their two main arguments - that Gamergate is concerned with ethics in video game journalism. Whether or not we agree with that, it is reflected in the sources, and it would seem that there is a significant portion who are genuinely concerned about that issue. Similarly, I think the claim that any concerns they have are just a front for harassment is POV, and lacks sufficient support.
This article is over 8,000 words. I'm not sure why we feel that it can be adequately summarised in 230 words, much less in 160. We should be expanding the lede to better reflect the body, rather than shrinking it. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe, as a general principle, that brevity is to be valued in leads, and that they should be as short as possible while still giving an accurate precis of the article. As such, I don't think article length is a direct correlation to length of lead; plenty of large and complex topics have relatively short leads. For me, the big question was posed above (by Brustopher, perhaps?) when he asked how we define "Gamergate controversy" for the purposes of this article. I am honestly not sure. It dramatically changes the lead if the controversy is focused on the harassment (which would be a valid definition to me), or if it is alleged unethical acts (which could also be valid). I think the most notable part of these events per the reliable sources is the harassment of late 2014, but that's certainly open to debate. Whatever the opinions, if we could come to some rough consensus on what exactly constitutes the "controversy," I think it would be helpful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
My position is fairly simple- Gamergate is notable for the campaign of harassment it perpetrated, the reliable sources primarily report on this, so that's how we should describe it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is great, because yes, that is the single most widely reported aspect of Gamergate. But that's not what Gamergate is - that's just the most notable part of what happened. If you say "Gamergate led to harassment" or "Gamergate involved harassment" I'll agree with you, but I still will not know what Gamergate is about. - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Bilby -- that's essentially my point. If what we're really concerned about is the harassment, then we could, in theory, define Gamergate in a sentence or two and move on. Does a reader have to understand "what Gamergate is about" to understand the "Gamergate controversy?" I am honestly unsure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think they do. If I'm reading a summary about Gamergate, I would expect to be told what Gamergate is. Not knowing that seems like a pretty big hole. I'd also expect to be told of what they do - the harassment is the most notable part of that - but it isn't enough on its own. - Bilby (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And that's the source of the disagreement; to me, the "Gamergate controversy" is not necessarily a summary of Gamergate, in the same way that an article on the Watergate scandal need not include a history of the Watergate Hotel. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be a summary of Gamergate. But if I want to understand what the controversy is, don;t I need to understand a little about what each side of the controversy is? The rewritten lede (and to a lesser extent the current one) gives me a very good idea that it is somehow about harassment, but I have almost no idea about anything else. The reader needs an accurate summary of the controversy, and the new lede doesn't do that, because it fails to give a picture of what is going on, and the picture it does give is an oversimplification to the point of being misleading. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Bilby, could you suggest a sentence here, on the talk page, that you would like to see in the lead describing what Gamergate "is"? I had kind of the same concern when I first came to this page - I didn't know what Gamergate was, not really. I think simplifying the lead actually helped. I think if you say "it made it worse and doesn't tell you what Gamergate IS", you should suggest a sentence that would remedy that. I, too, value brevity in the lead; I think it makes concepts clearer for people who are looking for introductory info on a topic. Rockypedia (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
We can't do it if we focus on brevity over content. Look, I'm being led down a path here that isn't really what I'm arguing. What I'm trying to say is not that we need a coherent, single line definition of Gamergate. That would be nice, but I'm not convinced that it could happen. But that the rewrite and the content removed take the reader further away from understanding the issue, because by turning it into harassment only the reader is told even less about why the harassment occurred than they were before.
When writing a lede I normally work through the article - grab a bit from each section, summarise each of the main points in it, and put that together. That's not what we're doing by reducing the lede further, especially as the end result is misleading by arguing that all of Gamergate's actions are just a cover for harassment. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Explain this to me - why did the harrassment occur? Rockypedia (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
According to our article there are a number of reasons, from a backlash against political correctness; a response to perceived ethics violations in the gaming press; a reaction against the increasing diversification of gaming and the loss of the clear social identity of "gamer"; ingrained misogyny; a response to the perceived pushing of a social justice agenda into game journalism; and as a side effect of its origins on imageboards. Along with various other reasons offered. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
How could anyone know what Gamergate is? Anyone can say they know what Gamergate really is, and plenty of people have used this page to tell us about their special insights into the real Gamergate, but how can we know whether they’re right or wrong? If you want to know what the Republicans really are, you ask the Republican National Committee. If you want to know what Cubs fans really are, you can go to Wrigley field and talk to 38,382 of them. You can't do that for Gamergate.
I was talking about Gamergate and Wikipedia recently with a Wiki pioneer -- someone, in fact, who was embroiled in the very first WikiWar, long before Wikipedia was ever though of. He asked if I could prove that there were more than a half a dozen active Gamergaters. I can’t -- not conclusively, not even through stylometrics or textual analysis. Some sources claim this, but we have few reasons to think they know, either. And if we don’t know that, how can we know what Gamergate really is?
We do know what Gamergate does: it sends emails and broadcasts through Wikipedia and other social media sites its intention to assault, rape, and murder women in the computing industry. As a secondary effort, they claim to boycott Gawker, to support a game development studio in Columbia, and they've been trying to take over Wikipedia through a network of brigaded and zombie accounts. All of this has been widely reported because it's observable; we know what Gamergate does because Gamergate signs its threats. We don't really have any idea what Gamergate is, or who actually sends these threats, but we do know what it does. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
"We don't really have any idea what Gamergate is, or who actually sends these threats, but we do know what it does." You can't have it both ways. Rhoark (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In answer to your question, anyone can know what Gamergate is by reading KiA and 8chan. You'll see the good, bad, and ugly. Anyone can do it, and it doesn't take special knowledge or membership in the movement to make editorial judgements about the available sources. As for what we should say in the article, we should report the full range of views in published reliable sources. There's no more reason to be paralyzed by epistemological anxieties at this page than at any other. Rhoark (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate's said several times on several sites we should be citing what it is and what people involved in it are after, but the sources have been shot down. We have statements by folks such as Cathy Young, video interviews actually debating this with prominent members of the movement, and people with multiple published articles across a swath of work such as Erik Kain...and every time it isn't a quote opposing Gamergate it gets shot down as 'unreliable', and even to the point where I've seen sources on here called 'liars' by other editors. You cannot in good conscience say "GamerGate is not telling us what it is" when several of the involved non-anonymous people have outright stated it and you dimiss their answers because it doesn't fit your perspective. With all due respect that's complete and utter nonsense, Bernstein.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The lede has details better left in the body. And it's not summarizing parts of the main body (e.g. responses). The fact that other things have longer summaries isn't really a good argument - that reads as "GGC's lede should be longer because it should be longer." Rather, please argue that a particular thing should be included in the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I would like the lede to be a better summary, but what I'm arguing against is arbitrary shortening on the argument that shortening the lede is good because it will be shorter. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I figured I should probably take a whack at this, since I keep talking. Here's a quick rough draft of how I think the lead should look:
[redacted per Dr. Bernstein]
Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You know what? This is excellent. I throw my whole-hearted support behind this summary - it tells us the main points of what Gamergate is, describes the initial harrasment, describes the excuses of "ethical behavior" and the fact that those excuses were BS, and does it all in a clear, concise manner, leaving the details to the body of the article. A reader coming to this article would have a basic understanding of the topic right away, and that's really what we want, isn't it? Rockypedia (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it is incorrect - some ethics allegations were debunked, but some were correct and led to change in policies for publications. I like the first part, but it dies after that. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, which ethics allegations made by gamergaters were correct and led to changes in policies for publications? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The ones that led to changes were the COI arguments regarding Hernandez in particular, or Patreon funding in general. That said, per what we have in the article, a number of commentators acknowledge that there is validity in some of the ethics concerns raised by GamerGate. They might argue that the concerns are minor, or that the harassment issues have poisoned the well, but they weren't debunked as such. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That is probably UNDUE to include in the lede. One instance out of how many attempts to make the ethics thing stick? Worthy of including in the main body, but too small a detail to include in the lede. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't ask for it to be put in the lede. What I'm saying is that the statement "... equally debunked allegations more broadly against video game industry professionals as well as journalists and critics" is false, and therefore is not something we can claim. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. Can you suggest an edit to fix the problem? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Harassment focussed on perceived feminists": this appears to be a circumlocution to avoid stating that specific women were specifically threatened with crippling injuries, rape, and murder. It's so much more...ethical....to say that harassment focussed on feminists -- as if it's just the harassment doing the focusing, not the criminals. I know of no allegations of unethical behavior that have been made against Zoë Quinn; if these cannot be sourced that phrase must be redacted. "Equally debunked allegations" would be more concisely described as "Additional lies." When describing the hashtag, it should be "proponents of the unfounded allegations." Who are the "such people" who became targets of abuse of threats: grammatically, this appears to mean that Gamergate proponents were targets of abuse and threats, the evidence for which is very, very thin. No one outside Gamergate associates #Gamergate with "attempted ethical critique," while the term has become a byword for harassment, bullying, and low-grade domestic terrorism -- witness, for example, the CSI SVU episode based on Gamergate crimes. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually that was a Law & Order: SVU episode. GamerPro64 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention too that one of the shows cast members, Ice T, has stated on his podcast the show adapts and heavily embellishes these plotlines for the sake of ratings. Last I checked, nobody has been kidnapped or raped by anyone in the hashtag, Bernstein, nor has the group managed to hack Time Square, let alone a light switch.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll take solace that my suggestion seemed equally unpopular all the way across the ideological spectrum! Dumuzid (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


At some point this subsection seems to have become vaguely muddled, but I remember someone asking what I'd like to add and why. I'd like to expand the lede, because it's incredibly hard to adequately sum up Gamergate in two small paragraphs. There are multiple aspects of it which the proposed shortened lede doesn't cover at all. We've got nothing on what Gamergate does outside of harassment, (e.g. email campaigns, notyourshield/TFYC stuff). We also don't explain where this whole Gamergate thing came from and what sparked this whole mess. There is also nothing about the effect Gamergate has had on the gaming industry (Intel's multimillion diversity program and stuff like that), or on online harassment prevention (Katherine Clark, Crash Override etc.). These are all things would should be mentioned in a full and adequate summary to explain what Gamergate is and why it warrants a Wikipedia article. Brustopher (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, this seems tremendously overdone for a lead. All the reactions you mention, to me, belong in the article but are out of place in the lead. I believe the lead is intended to be a basic summation, but that does not mean it includes every detail in the article. It seems you would like to recreate the entire article in the lead. Come to think of it, have you every read On Exactitude in Science? Just curious. Of course, if the consensus is that we should have a much longer lead, so be it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I think due to the sheer complexity of the subject, a longer lead isn't going to be a bad thing in any way. Keeping sentences to the point and straightforward will prevent bloat, but it should at the same time cover all the bases such as what Brushtopher mentioned above. From there it can congeal. I would be lying if I said I wasn't pleased that the current form still goes out of its way to ignore any supportive articles and instead focuses on statements of harassment, but that's still an issue with the article as a whole.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it's a complex subject. But is it more complex, say, than The Thirty Years' War? I am not in any way saying we should excise information from the article (not right now, anyway!). But to give someone unfamiliar with the subject a basic outline, is it necessary to go in to the creation of Crash Override? For me, the answer is "Dear heaven no!" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Funnily enough, Thirty Years War failed a Good Article review in 2008 due to not having a detailed enough lede. Also I'm not necessarily advocating mentioning Crash Override in the lede, but instead discussing more generally how various schemes to tackle harassment arose out of the controversy. I do think it is however to note that one of these schemes reached the US congress. Brustopher (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Brustopher--fair enough! I still think brevity is called for. In my opinion, the basics of gamergate and its first order effects are not that large or complex. I tried my hand (unsuccessfully, I admit!) at crafting a lead. Why not attempt it yourself? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I probably should do that instead of just complaining about other people's proposals. I promise to stop being lazy and come up with something Soon™. Brustopher (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The priority here is not brevity, but clarity. If brevity means providing a less effective summary, then it isn't brevity that we should be striving for. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Bilby, I believe we should strive for brevity above all else. With that in mind, I'd like feedback on my latest draft of the lead, which you can find here:
"G."
Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Reminds me of the Reader's Digest version of War and Peace - "The once was a Russian who tried to kill Napoleon, but didn't." - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Working on the Lede

Proposed Edit: The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014. It concerns sexism and progressivism in video game culture. It is most notable for a campaign of misogynistic harassment against feminists in the video game industry. The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, of mass shooting, and of murder.

Gamergate is described as a manifestation of a culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity. Some of the Gamergate hashtag users alleged conflict of interest and unethical collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics; some of these users used these allegations as a front for the campaign of harassment. These concerns have been widely dismissed by commentators as trivial, based on conspiracy theories, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

Concerns:

1. Arbitrary shortening. Comments from @Bilby, Duzumid, and Aquillion:

2. "a front for harassment" Comments from @Ryk72, Rhoark, Bilby, Brustopher, and Aquillion:

3. Regarding email campaigns, in a lede this size it is perhaps not needed, but the lede should expand the cover all the important and major facets of Gamergate we cover in the article. Comments from @PeterTheFourth, Brustopher, Aquillion, and Bilby:

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: Arbitrary shortening: I think there is cruft in the lede that needs removing. I thought removing as much as possible and adding things back as people suggested would work. Some of the removals I am suggested have not been objected to, so I think that's working to some extent.
Re 2: "a front for harassment": I'm open to other phrasing, but I don't think this idea is too far from what we say in the main body.
Re 3: email campaign: I think this is not a detail to keep in the lede. There's a lot of detail not in the lede, justifying keeping this opens the door to adding many other details better left in the body.
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the draft. Two things jump out at me: (1) I would personally leave out the sentence starting with "The campaign of harassment was coordinated...." and include a sentence or two about the Zoe post and the beginning of things. It strikes me as more important to talk about where this came from as opposed to the methods of coordination. (2) Instead of "Some of these users used these allegations as a front...." I would, again, just for myself, frame it more objectively. "These allegations were widely seen as a front...." or something to that effect. The 'some' language sounds to me like we can distinguish said "users" from the others, and for me, at least, that's impossible. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi ForbiddenRocky, Please add me to the lists at point 1 & 3. I share the concerns articulated by Bilby, Brustopher & Kung Fu Man w.r.t these points. I also suggest that they are interlinked, in that selective removal of information from the lead section evokes concerns about neutrality; there is an unbalanced focus and an implicit support for one side of the controversy in what has been proposed.
I also have (previously articulated) concerns on the it is most notable... phrasing, which (ab)uses a Wikipedia term of art; we would be better served by using plain English here. And similar concerns on the It concerns phrasing, which doesn't seem to say much useful to the reader; a conjugation of the verb to be and a noun would be preferable in the initial sentence. These are, of course, also issues with the current lead section, and you may decide if they deserve a fourth or fifth point.
In terms of aspects of the controversy that I believe should be included in the lead section, I again concur with thoughts of Bilby & Brustopher, but also suggest that there should be some, brief, mention of the "Death of Gamers" articles and the 8 million tweets.
Finally, w.r.t point 2, the issue is not with including this, but with stating it in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:NPOV. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I endorse the "campaign of harassment" wording and would deplore in the strongest terms any attempt to minimize the widespread employment of #Gamergate to harass many women by emphasizing only he first victim. The "some users" language seems to be a fairly transparent effort to claim that Gamergate isn't responsible for its actions: if Gamergate wished to disavow the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Day, and many many others, it had ample opportunity to do so. Instead, it launched a year-long PR campaign to justify and excuse those attacks. Until we can point to a consensus of reliable sources reporting that people writing as #Gamergate opposed harassment and tried to stop it, "some users" is an entirely unjustified effort to excuse a failed criminal conspiracy because some of the conspirators pretend, a year later, that they didn’t agree. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein, I am assuming the suggestion you are deploring is mine, but if so, you seem to have misapprehended it. I, too, endorse the "campaign of harassment" language. You'll note that it appears twice in ForbiddenRocky's draft. I just don't think the fact that said campaign was coordinated on 4chan and IRC is particularly worthy of inclusion in the lead. I do think the nascence of the 'movement' merits inclusion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Not sure how to get around "some users". The metonymic and polysemetic use of Gamergate for the controversy and many of the users of the hashtag needs to teased apart in some places. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"People writing on Twitter on behalf of Gamergate"? "Harassment signed by Gamergate?" "Terrorist threats signed by Gamergate?" "Murder and rape threats issued by Gamergate and applauded by Gamergate supporters?" "Threats discussed on Gamergate chat boards, issued in social media and elsewhere, and ascribed to Gamergate?" Better solutions will occur to you; the trick is to make the threats the subject, not the Gamergaters. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Some culling was in order but the real problem is the lede is still not doing a good job of explaining things. Here's my take:

The Gamergate controversy is an ongoing set of cultural debates, as well as the online harassment and threats of violence that these debates have motivated. At issue are sexism in video gaming, the status of video games as art, and rules of conduct for video game journalism. The controversy is most widely known for threats of violence directed at game developer Zoe Quinn and critic Anita Sarkeesian, among other individuals. The term "Gamergate" was coined by actor Adam Baldwin in August 2014 as a Twitter hashtag critical of Zoe Quinn and perceived social justice warriors, and its proponents also make use of Reddit and 8chan to discuss and organize. Users of the hashtag describe its purpose as being a watchdog for journalism ethics and freedom of expression, while critics describe Gamergate as a reactionary and anti-feminist campaign. Some critics allege that other supposed concerns serve only as a distraction to excuse misogynist harassment. The degree to which a typical user of the hashtag is involved in or culpable for harassment is a subject of dispute.

Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, thank you for the suggestion. As you might guess, I have some issues, but let me start with two thoughts. Is the term "debates" really appropriate? I know what you mean, but to me, that implies a reasoned back-and-forth, which does not accord with my experience. Argument, contretemps, shouting match, sure. Secondly, I would suggest that you find a better term or phrase to use than "social justice warriors." At best it's a bit of insular argot, and at worst, an ideological dog whistle. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to synonyms for either, though in the case of SJW's that's from Baldwin's own words so least in peril of misrepresenting his intent. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a problem with the debate framing. And with the UNDUE over-detail re: Baldwin. And with using SJW is not informative at this level of summary. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, not sure why need to mention Reddit and 8chan etc at this level of detail. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, ForbiddenRocky, for your work in putting together a lede that more accurately summarises the Gamergate controversy. I think Dumuzid's suggestion of changing the phrasing of 'some of these users used these allegations as a front' to 'these allegations were widely seen as a front for' is a good one, and flows better into the later sentence on trivial, conspiracy theories, etc. Again: thanks for the effort. It's not exactly easy working in this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shifting from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion is a necessary one, but the sourcing is still weak to say it was "widely" seen as such. The interpretation that ethics were overshadowed by harassment is much more common in the reliable sources than the view that it was a ploy. It should not shift at all into those further statements about level of acceptance in the lede, inasmuch as there are many claims with many levels of acceptance that are too dense to unpack in the lede. Rhoark (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It mostly seems like an improvement to me, but I am not 100% certain about removing the mention of Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian -- especially Quinn, who is mentioned prominently in the vast majority of sources and covered by a large portion of the article in terms of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty I'm having with including Quinn et al is similar to MarkBernstein's: it leaves some impression in the lede that it was only these three women. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

More Lede: Working Forwards or Backwards

I feel like we're working backwards - trying to work out what needs to be removed, rather than working out what needs to be said. Towards that end, as far as I can tell the main points in the article are:

  1. History
    1. Quinn and Sarkeesian were victims of harassment before Gamergate started
    2. A series of allegations about a developers' private life were released by an ex-boyfriend
    3. Some used those to incorrectly infer a conflict of interest between the developer and a journalist, leading to further online harassment, including doxing and rape and death threats and forced her to leave her home
      1. These allegations of a conflict of interest were soundly disproven
    4. Various publications chose not to cover the allegations or to close discussions, leading to complaints of censorship
    5. "Gamers are Dead" articles led to claims of conspiracy and collusion between journalists
    6. Baldwin coined the term "gamergate" to describe alleged censorship and conflict of interest claims
    7. The harassment was widely condemned, but some of those who spoke out (Phil Fish) became targeted.
      1. When Sarkeesian released a video during this process she was further targeted
      2. Sarkeesian cancelled a speech after threats of a gun massacre were made if she spoke
      3. Brianna Wu was targeted with death and rape threats, and had to leave her home
      4. Felicia Day was targeted after speaking out
    8. Some Gamergate supporters have also been harassed and threatened
      1. This includes bomb threats on at least two occasions
  2. Coordination
    1. No core leaders/spokespeople
    2. Coordinated on 8Chan, Reddit, Twitter
    3. Group is not clearly defined - has conflicting goals and ideals. No mission statement, etc
    4. Some self policing occurred, kicked off 4Chan, moved to 8Chan
    5. Appears to have been initially coordinated through IRC
    6. Large activity on Twitter
    7. Harassment opposed by some Gamergate supporters
  3. Implications
    1. Seen as a culture war against diversification of gaming to involve more women
      1. Increasing number of women buying games led to increased criticism of game design
      2. Targets have generally been women over men
    2. Driven by anti-feminist ideologies
    3. Exploited by some right wing and conservative individuals and groups
    4. Led to increased accusations of sexism and misogyny within Gamergate and gaming
      1. Again points to targeting of women over men
    5. FBI is investigating threats
  4. Ethics claim
    1. Supporters claim Gamergate is about improving ethics in game journalism
      1. Concerns about conflict of interest between developers and journalists
      2. Claims regarding collusion between journalists (GameJournoPros)
      3. Allegations journalists are unethically focusing on progressive social issues over traditional gaming concerns
    2. Some argue that there are valid concerns, but lost in the harassment
    3. Some draw a contrast between the actions (harassment etc) and the claimed ethics focus
    4. Ethics concerns are often dismissed as minor (conflicts of interest) or not unethical
    5. Some claim that the ethics concerns are a cover, and the real issue is to do with the focus on progressive social issues, not ethics
  5. Activities
    1. Harassment over Twitter, email, etc
    2. Dehumanising of some targets ("Literally Who")
    3. Support of Fine Young Capitalists for PR
    4. Created #NotYourShield to claim diversity and broad support
    5. Targeted advertisers of selected publications through email campaigns with varying success
  6. Responses
    1. Condemnation from some professionals in industry
      1. Open letter, ESA response, Blizzard, etc
    2. Formation of Crash Override Network and Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
    3. Clarification of policies for Kotaku and Polygon due to COI concerns
    4. Congressional briefing and calls for the justice department to crack down on online harassment
    5. Episode of Law & Order: SVU
    6. Sarkeesian named in Time
    7. Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies
    8. Criticism of Twitter, role of WAM
    9. Documentaries, other mainstream coverage

Clearly it would be foolish to cover all of that. But, presuming nothing major is missed out from my list, we need to know which points are the ones that are significant enough to make the lede. (I should note that the article needs work on structure - we have a tendency to repeat the same point, mostly concerning harassment, even in sections where they don't fit the points being raised).

I'm thinking:

  • Harassment is constantly raised, and is the main focus of the article, so should remain the core part of the lede. Harassment of GG supporters is only mentioned briefly, so might regard a passing reference, but doesn't warrant a lot of focus. Death and rape threats are raised repeatedly.
  • Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu are covered a lot in the article, so probably should make the lede as principal targets.
  • Organisation - lack of a leader, clack of a clear mission, conflicting goals and coordination over 8Chan, Twitter and Reddit - are covered in some depth.
  • The culture war issue is covered a lot, so needs to be highlighted. As does the anti-feminism, or anti-social criticism, and the tendency to target women
  • We mention a few times that the ethics issues may have been valid, but are lost in the harassment, so I don't feel we can dismiss them in the lede. However, we still should emphasis that they are seen as minor at best.
  • Responses, in particular US Congress and professional responses.

Thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I like this approach. I did it the other way because I thought it started with what was there and might be less controversy prone. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your structural approach, Bilby, especially since, at least when I was checking on the talk pages months ago, battles raged, hundreds of words were spilled over whether one particular word should be used or if it should be omitted from one sentence. It was like the article was debated sentence by sentence. I'm not a content creator but I think your version is the way articles that have some depth are commonly created. If editors can come to a general agreement on the skeleton of the structure, and we could post the final version in a subpage, we can see what material in the current article still fits, what can be edited out and what areas need some focus.
I don't think that there is anyone who is completely happy with the article as it is written but debates can occur over small nuances of words. Maybe working from the top down than the ground up will be the new approach that helps the article get over some of the hurdles it has faced. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The ethics issues were never more than an excuse and fig leaf for harassment. No reliable source considers them to be "valid", most consider them a risible excuse for bullying, misogyny, and domestic terrorism. If they are mentioned in the lede at all, it must be unambiguously clear that the specific allegations against Gamergate targets were false and the general allegations about ethical lapses were unfounded. Despite the current clamor at Gamergate HQ to rewrite the article to be more favorable to Gamergate, and despite the scars that Gamergate has inflicted on the current lede, it’s the result of a lot of work and it's still a good place to start. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is incorrect. A number of reliable sources - including Heron et al - regard the ethics concerns in general as being a valid issue, and state that there are those in Gamergate genuinely concerned about the issue. However, all the sources we use are clear that, at best, the ethics concerns are significantly overweighed by the harassment and overall behaviour coming from the movement. - Bilby (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I do think that "Not Your Shield" is now seen as a failed astroturf PR campaign; we can probably drop it. The affair of The Fine Young Capitalists is interesting -- I'd like to restore the old discussion of the use of that donation to insert rape imagery into shipping video games under the Gamergate rubric -- but it's just an (alleged) purchase of a service from a software developer for an undisclosed price; I think we might drop that, too. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There are allegedly people on this talk page who would like to erase and punish women's contributions to the game industry in such a way as reducing a game conceived by a woman and implemented by a team of women[2] to a bit of salacious tripe sourced from knowyourmeme, but I don't think we should allow the article to stoop to that level. I may be provoking waves of vicious harassment if I dare to defend the reputations of living people, but the ongoing attempts to weaponize Wikipedia are a real and lasting detriment to Wikipedia's credibility well beyond just the sphere of Gamergate.[3] As Catlin Dewey puts it, what is being tested is Wikipedia's ability to "actually present facts in a fair and neutral way" (emphasis mine). Rhoark (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that #NotYourShield was a failed astroturf campaign, it is still a significant part of Gamergate's history, and was well covered. Accordingly, it is worth including as an aspect of the controversy. I have not see sufficient coverage of the rape imagery claim, and we don't currently cover it in the article. - Bilby (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I think #NotYourShield is noteworthy in that it was a failed astroturf PR campaign, but do the RS cover it as such? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not especially, but the do cover #NotYourShield. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
On #NotYourShield: provided we cover is as a failed astroturf campaign, I agree it's a significant part of Gamergate history. Of course, Gamergate will constantly try to assert it was a a wonderful success; it might be better, all in all, to leave it out than to offer an attractive nuisance. Rape imagery: [4] [5] [6] [7], or just read the Gamergate chat boards. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The rape imagery claim seems too fringe to be worth adding. It might be true, but a claim seems a bit too "out there" to rely only a couple of sources, one of which is relying on Know Your Meme. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Working backwards from the body is the way ledes are supposed to work in theory, though I do agree with your criticisms about the structure of the body. Rhoark (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Elections, Trudeau, Gamergate

I ran across this tidbit as I was following the Canadian Elections: “The things we see online, whether it is issues like gamergate or video games misogyny in popular culture, it is something that we need to stand clearly against.” from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/justin-trudeau-the-self-declared-feminist-and-pro-choice-prime-minister-of-canada-who-wants-to-a6700976.html

I looked for more information, but I'm not sure if I'm getting limited search results because I'm not in Canada. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Another example of Gamergate as a byword for juvenile conspiracy of online bullies, as noted above regarding the CSI SVU episode. It's clear that a broad consensus exists on this matter. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There are so many examples of GG as example, but it's OR/SYNTH to include the idea because no RS has said anything explicit. Stupid RSs. ;) However, this bit with the PM of Canada speaking up about GG is interesting. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well not technically the PM yet. The Prime minister-designate, not an official title though. Westminster systems can be a bit odd at times. I don't think it's really enough to add to the article, seems like just an off-hand remark. — Strongjam (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Structure

Spurred by Bilby's breakdown of the structure above w.r.t. the lede, I think its time to revisit said structure. Much of it is simply ossified placement from as much as a year ago. A more intentionally organized outline could go as follows:

Suggested structure
  • Background - several things in the 2011-2014 timeframe that multiple RS's have identified as setting up the conditions for Gamergate to happen
    • Demographics of who plays games, who calls themselves gamers, and how that has changed over time
    • Feminist criticism, particularly Tropes vs. Women, and the angry mobs that object to it
    • The rise of indie games / art games / altgames / notgames and the backlash against these (particularly Gone Home and Depression Quest)
  • The Zoepost and its immediate fallout
    • Nobody really needs me to recap that.
  • The transition from Quinnspiracy to Gamergate
    • Early decisions not to cover the Quinnspiracy in the gaming press
    • Patreon
      • (proto)Gamergate objections about Patreon
      • reactions / level of (non)acceptance of these objections (including ethics policy changes)
      • related harassment of Jenn Frank
    • Creation of the hashtag
    • "Gamers are Over"
    • GameJournoPros leak
  • The nature of Gamergate - organization, members, goals, or lack thereof
    • main coordination / communication channels (ie Twitter, IRC, KiA, 4chan, 8chan)
      • Twitter datamining results
      • 8chan migration
    • decentralization, deliberate lack of leadership, and the resulting epistemological uncertainty
      • third-party troll theory
      • IRC/4chan astroturfing theory
    • selection of representatives for SPJ
    • goals as stated by supporters
      • neutral mainstream assessment of these claims
    • goals as stated by detractors
    • political identification - conservative / liberal / libertarian / etc.
  • Verifiably/undisputably attributable activities
    • TFYC
    • Letter-writing campaigns (including Intel/Gamasutra ad incident)
  • Online harassment
    • general statements about prevalence
    • criticisms about carriers / governments not doing enough
    • initiatives
      • WAM
      • Crash Override
      • blockbots
      • GG self-policing
    • individual cases
      • Wu
      • Felicia Day
      • others (chronological?, alphabetical?)
  • Threats of mass violence
    • Utah State
    • PAX
    • GGinDC
    • SPJ Airplay
  • Reactions - as needed, not much changed from the status quo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 October 2015‎ (UTC)

I believe @Rhoark: created this section? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't agree to most of this particular outline. I would suggest rearranging the existing outline first without edits. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with ForbiddenRocky. Seems to bury the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand this objection. The lede will be at the top by definition. Rhoark (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologize, it's a North American idiom. Much of this outline puts secondary details ahead of what most of the coverage has been about. — Strongjam (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm American myself, but never heard the idiom. It's rather inapplicable to Wikipedia, since we have ledes at the top as a matter of course. The body is then free to organize chronologically or pedagogically, without fear the reader has missed the most notable factors. Rhoark (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
To bury the lede is an old and well-established newspaper term. It asserts that the natural thesis or primary draw of the article -- the lede -- is not placed at the head of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


This appears to place wildly WP:UNDUE weight on Gamergate’s public relations efforts, while hiding its actually notable actions. It's interesting, for example, how the vicious harassment of Anita Sarkeesian is to be covered up. The current organization is far preferable.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It hides nothing. That's the point. It's impossible to evaluate whether a bullet point is undue, since being undue entails coverage that is disproportionate or misleading about levels of acceptance. You'll be welcome to provide feedback on fleshed-out segments of text. Rhoark (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. You're devoting entire bullet-points here to aspects that have very little coverage in reliable sources relative to the controversy as a whole; and you divide some things up in weird and unacceptable ways (eg. "goals as stated by supporters" and "goals as stated by detractors", which implies dividing up coverage of who represents Gamergate, who can talk for it, and analysis of what they're stating according to our personal judgment of which "side" they're on rather than weighting sources according to their reliability and reputation.) Nothing in this suggestion strikes me as an improvement; the current structure is generally pretty good, and while I could get behind a small amount of reorganization, you're suggesting sweeping changes without really indicating anything about what about it you're trying to fix beyond a vague statement that you feel your proposed version is more "intentionally organized". I don't see it. With a lot of parts of this, it basically feels like you're taking about a year's worth of talk-page disputes from the talk page about what to focus on and how to structure the article, and suggesting that we reverse direction on all of them, all at once, with very little discussion for each. --Aquillion (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
With a lot of parts of this, it basically feels like you're taking about a year's worth of talk-page disputes from the talk page about what to focus on and how to structure the article, and suggesting that we reverse direction on all of them, all at once, with very little discussion for each. This. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I think there's been misunderstanding about what a bullet point above represents. It's simply an assessment of where in the article material on a topic belongs, not an assertion that anything given a bullet point should comprise a complete section. in some cases it may consist of only a sentence, and the article already has claims pertaining to all of them.

The overall rationale is comprehensibility - a place for everything, and everything in its place. By contrast, the present article spends most of its time in thread mode or alternatively places related claims so distantly from one another that the relationship is obscured. My suggested ordering puts many details about harassment near the end, and I can understand why some would consider that "burying the lede". The position of the harassment section belies the prominence I envision for discussion of harassment integrated into the narrative threads of which it is a part (for example discussing Jenn Frank in the context of Patreon controversies.) The separate section is for cases where no such connections are drawn in reliable sources.
Beyond that, however, I imagine the concern over burying the lede stems from the fact that so many of our sources themselves bury the lede, emphasizing specific cases of harassment - since that both sensationalizes and humanizes the story in ways that work for those respective publications. Wikipedia however, is not one of those kinds of publications. While recognizing that these sources highlight certain incidents as particularly important, we shouldn't regard that as an unshakeable mandate for synecdoche. Beyond these sorts of stylistic choices, the best and most reliable sources very succinctly tease apart the ambiguities and precisely constrain their attributions. I would like everyone to very carefully parse these passages, for example:

Also pay attention to what these sources say about why these events are important and how they came to occur.

Some writers in opinion magazines have criticized these kinds of statements as false balance, and that is itself an opinion that must find its place in the article, along with the rest of the full range of views in reliable sources that NPOV calls for. However, let's beware of reductionism in identifying what is false balance. It's tempting to fall into a pattern of thinking - oh, Gamergate is fringe - therefore, whatever information accords with Gamergate's point of view deserves less space. That's not how it should work, though. Gamergate is not simply a spate of harassment that came out of nowhere like a thunderclap from a blue sky. It comprises a lot of people and a lot of issues going back years, of which harassment is one important part, but not the only important part. That is the mainstream view, as exemplified by the sources above, and the Voxes and Mary Sues of the world set themselves up as minority views against it just as surely as do the TechCrunches and Breitbarts. They all need to get their place and proportion. Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah -- we're going to rebalance the consensus of reliable sources? Where have I heard that before? (Gamerghate is simply a spate of harassment. That’s what we know. We don't know that Gamergate comprises a lot of people. We don’t know that Gamergaters have done anything besides (a) harass women in order to drive them out of the computing industry, and (b) assault Wikipedia so they can improve their image and use Wikipedia to harass women. And -- right on cue! -- we're proposing that Wikipedia should rely on Breitbart! MarkBernstein (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, we're going to describe the consensuses in the reliable sources, with priority given to the most reliable sources as typified above. I'm not surprised that you above all people salivate at the prospect of deflecting this to a discussion of Breitbart, but let me nip that in the bud. In my source list I have identified precisely two claims as necessary and permissible to source from Breitbart. One is an ABOUTSELF claim about Milo, the other is an opinion almost exactly parallel to the one that caused so much controversy at America: Imagine the World Without Her. That opinion, after several months and multiple RfCs, was found to be reliably sourced and due; it stands on the page today. In any case, they will be afforded only the limited prominence due a minority viewpoint, and further discussion of them at this juncture is premature. You see, I take source research and the application of policy very seriously. A television dramatization may serve as a template to explain the controversy on your blog, but as for Wikipedia - The New York Times, Guardian, and Washington Post are more appropriate. You will kindly restrain your soapboxing to more appropriate venues. Rhoark (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark: what you're doing here is POV pushing. Stuff you've tried before. Put down the stick. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What I'm doing here is NPOV pushing. It's true that I've also brought reliable sources and relevant policies from time to time in the past, but tell me - which is the more serious indictment: that I persist in making cogent arguments, or that you persist in refusing to heed them? There have been distractions in the past - scandals, outsized personalities, filibustering, socking, and off-site coordination. There has been the persistent lie that POV pushing at this article is somehow defending women. All that is done now. The available sourcing has expanded substantially. 500/30 has done a fine job at keeping out the rabble. No one's sex life is the subject of active editing. Most editors that have passed through this page have lost interest, if they haven't been banned. There are no more diversions, and I present a question you will not evade:
Why should this article be the sole exception to the second pillar, neutral point of view WP:5P2? There are many sources, but I have shown you three of the best - The New York Times, Guardian, and Washington Post - who say there is more to Gamergate than harassment, and that those things are also important. Do you have a source whose reliability or noteworthiness puts these to shame? Do you feel Gamergate is such a WP:OUTRAGE to merit an exception where Islamic terrorism or female genital mutilation did not? @ForbiddenRocky: @MarkBernstein: @PeterTheFourth: if you have anything better to offer than we have seen from you heretofore, be it a source, thesis, manifesto, or poem - this is the time. Rhoark (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't even participated in this section. Seeing as you pinged me: I doubt your assertions as to your 'neutrality', and I think your proposed section is more than slanted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how to include missing perspective on the etiology of the controversy, while addressing good-faith concerns like those from Strongjam and Aquillion that other important aspects not become obscured. There are ideas that should preface the controversy, yet must not push other material too far down the page. I think the most workable solution is to make greater use of WP:SUMMARY style. Pointers to spinouts or landings in existing pages will not overly delay the appearance of particulars in the main article, and the more that is spun out, the greater the relative prominence of what remains. Preparation of those landings will be the focus of my near-term efforts, and hopefully it can be done collaboratively. Rhoark (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We had this discussion before (I recall you bringing up these exact same quotes and arguments earlier in a push that decidedly failed to gain consensus), and it doesn't feel like you're bringing any new arguments to the table, just repeating the same ones again. None of the quotes you highlighted above contain anything that is not already well-covered with appropriate weight in the current article; I completely and strongly disagree with your assertion that you have identified any sort of "missing perspective". I feel the current article touches on all noteworthy aspects of the controversy with the weight and tone reflective of how they have been covered in mainstream reliable sources; from that perspective, it feels like what you are doing is pulling a few quotes out of context and demanding that they get more focus and attention than they currently have, while asking us to ignore WP:DUE weight and WP:VALID. Obviously any changes will require consensus and collaboration, but given your repeated and clear failure to convince anyone that the problem you, personally, seem to see here actually exists, I suggest that you start with smaller, more limited suggestions for changes rather than sweeping rewrites. It's not reasonable for you to expect to get consensus for a sweeping rewrite when the core reason you're trying to make them is something most editors on the talk page dispute; you need to either marshal better arguments for your case in hopes of persuading people, or you need to come up with more nuanced and subtle suggestions that people can agree with despite their fundamental disagreement. Nobody, though, is likely to agree with a drastic rewrite of the article to fix a problem that they don't believe exists. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I should have expected that behind every unspecificed detail everyone would assume the worst. For example, under the bullet point for "goals as described by supporters" that's not pulling out a chair for Breitbart soapboxing, but simply the place for the reliably sourced claims about what supporters say - that are already in the article. As you said, most of what I called for is already in the article - it's mainly a matter of presentation.
I am not asking for due weight or false balance to be ignored, rather to be followed. It is not as if I canvassed the sources for a favorable quote. I could have gone to TechCrunch or RealClearPolitics for a friendlier opinion. I went to the top shelf and reported what they had to say. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because Gamergate is a minority opinion that opinions friendly to Gamergate are false balance. It's the sources that have to be balanced. The mainstream view is that there is more to Gamergate than harassment. Contrary opinions will be covered, but using the likes of Ars Technica to blueprint coverage is what is undue and false balance.
I can understand that you won't get behind a complete rewrite, so let's narrow to two propositions for now:
  1. Anyone continuing to make claims resembling "Gamergate is only notable for harassment" needs to be treated with the same seriousness as if they showed up at Sharks and said "Sharks are only notable for biting." Just as it does not fall only to editors openly hostile to Gamergate to screen vandalism, it should not fall to me alone to make clear that certain peoples' soapboxing does not accord with the reliable sources or due weight policy. Everyone should show them the door.
  2. The present article content should be preceded by a section concisely describing issues in the 2011-2014 timeframe that top-shelf sources have identified as having a causal role in the controversy. Notability is not the only consideration governing article order; it should be designed to inform. The lede amply serves to identify the most notable aspects, and the article should begin at the chronological and causal beginning. WP:SUMMARY style will prevent the volume of coverage from becoming undue. Rhoark (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not; you haven't presented anything that supports either of those points. I wouldn't quite say 'only' (and we do cover other aspects, with the weight appropriate to them according to the coverage they received), but Gamergate is absolutely primarily notable for harassment; I don't think that that can seriously be in dispute. You can argue over whether it should be, whether it's fair that that's how it is, and so on -- but a simple reading of the sources and their focus makes it clear that the harassment is the most notable aspect; even the sources that talk about other things do so either as a side-note or from a perspective that clearly assumes the reader will know about the harassment as the core part of the story. None of the sources you provided contest that -- if anything, they acknowledge it. Likewise, we already cover the cultural background further down, but I would strongly oppose moving that up to before the history of Gamergate itself; the sources for the core history concerning Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian are simply vastly deeper, broader, and higher-profile than the sources anywhere else -- the harassment of those three figures is unquestionably central to most coverage and by a wide margin the most notable aspect of the topic. Putting the cultural background first would be confusing and generally more difficult to read, especially since, realistically, the cultural background goes all the way back to Pong (if not before). The first section of the article should be the broad timeline of major events as covered in most of the high-profile articles providing histories, with broader discussion of cultural implications and such going back to the roots of videogames covered further down. That's, basically, how the article is structured now. --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"Primarily" - sure, fine, whatever. There's a huge gulf between "primarily" and "only". What's confusing to the reader is starting with Quinn as if Gamergate came out of nowhere, for no reason other than Quinn's sex life. That's misleading, and being misleading is the core of WP:UNDUE. The most reliable sources recognize that, and its why they discuss the background of the controversy early and give it weight that's only a close second to harassment. It's not by accident or error that the NYT even discusses Raph Koster earlier and in more detail than Quinn. None of this is to say that Gamergate concerns are generally correct, that it's more important than harassment, or that the harassment was worth it. I'm just saying that what is true and what is verifiable are largely in agreement with one another, and I'm incredulous at the resistance to following either.Rhoark (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this and over this and over this: WP:DROPTHESTICK. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not alone in saying that Gamergate is only notable for harassment, though the above is clearly intended as a personal attack. That deserves sanction, but of course Gamergate is permitted to make personal attacks with impunity, while defenders of Wikipedia’s policy against harassment and extortion. Anyone who reads about online bullying, whether in the press or in academic journals, will recognize that the term "Gamergate" is widely used as synonym for rabid online sexual harassment. I will grant in addition that Gamergate is notable for launching an effective attack on Wikipedia that culminated in the infamous Gamergate decision, a decision that received a good deal of press coverage. The rest of this WP:FORUM diatribe should be closed, as it has no chance of achieving consensus. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


MarkBernstein, WP:CONSENSUS is based on policy, not !votes. If Rhoark's proposal better aligns with policies than the current state of the article then it should prevail. If necessary, someone can open a Request for Comment and if that happened then I suggest that all of the regulars here butted out of the discussion because there doesn't seem to be even one of you that is capable of seeing this stuff neutrally. You, in particular, use this place as a soapbox. I have no opinion on the proposal myself - it is too much of a wall-of-text to digest in my current state. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Gross ignorance and ignoring history is not encyclopedic. Comment on content not editors. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
As you know, Sitush, I did my time at Swarthmore and I'm familiar with consensus. Rhoark’s proposal, alas, has been extensively discussed before, it aligns less well with policy, and it has been revived here after its previous rejection. We recently had a long RFC on a related topic which concluded that no, policy does not require us to deskew all the reliable sources because reliable sources are all bias. If I sometimes write stridently on Wikipedia because, on Wikipedia, it can be necessary to write stridently to be heard; this is a lesson I have learned from masters, and interested readers may consult the preceding paragraph for a masterful example. Unlike the personal attack above, which cannot be based on policy because its author has not read the current proposal, much less its previous incarnation or the 40+ pages of archives of this page, my opinion is based on a neutral assessment of the consensus of reliable sources, unswayed by any desire to excuse sexual harassment or exculpate individuals for sending threats of rape, assault and murder to my colleagues. Have a great day! MarkBernstein (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what Swarthmore may be/is/was, nor was there any personal attack. "Stop being a dick" is the gist of my message, and the suggestion that you have conducted a "neutral assessment" is so risible that I've nearly fallen off my chair. You should do as Masem did and take a break from this. At least they had honour. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You're certainly not alone, that's why you're one of three I called on the carpet. As I previously noted at AE, if describing your behavior looks like a personal attack, that says something quite damning of your behavior. It seems the talk pages have become too long for your recollection of what's been said, though. There has been no RfC on any thesis I put forward. I can only assume you refer to Masem's appeal to make exceptions to due weight policy. I am not Masem. I defend policy, while you stew in rabid froth about how we can't really know anything. Well, we can know, because the reliable sources tell us. I pointed out several months ago that they say something different from our lede; the community responded that the lede must reflect the body. I therefore extended my source review to prepare to improve the body. The review is done, and editing will soon commence. It's unfortunate that in the meantime you had imagined a victory, but now just as then I say "this is what the reliable sources say" and you have no recourse, because the sources are not with you. Rhoark (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't go down the road of WP:IDHT. Mark isn't the only person that disagrees with you. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark: WP:KETTLE² There. That cannot possibly be topped. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've hardly dipped into the well of passive-aggressive essays to link. Rhoark (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The current proposals you've made in this section are unworkable. If all you have to offer now is passive aggressiveness, it may be time for this section to be hatted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I know you're not that humor-impaired. In any case, my proposals are so workable that I'm working on them. Per Sitush's suggestion, I will prepare an edit and call an RfC. Rhoark (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(Asbestos Suit) Milo Yiannopoulos

So as I was looking into SXSW I noticed that Milo Yiannopoulos is doing stuff that people are commenting on. Is it notable enough to include in the GGC article? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think so. Adding it to his own page might make his article better too. Also, Asbestos suit? GamerPro64 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Review of current view of GG

The SXSW articles give many current views of GG a year after. We should probably update the article to include the present summaries of what GG is considered to be in the RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be helpful. The views of GamerGate one year later. Might have the same summaries or offers new perspectives. What is there in the selection that stands out? GamerPro64 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I started working on pulling the summary from each article that had one, but OMG that list in long, and I don't have a block of time that big right now. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think my views on this are well known. I look forward to seeing what conclusions everyone comes to. Rhoark (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate at SXSW

Saw this on Vice's Motherboard and apparently SXSW Just Added a GamerGate Panel. Might be interesting to see how that will turn out. GamerPro64 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a bad idea to characterize a panel on Overcoming Harassment In Games as merely "anti-Gamergate" -- especially in light of recent press coverage regarding Wikipedia's own difficulties with overcoming harassment in Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the other panel it was apparently going to be run by Randi Harper, the person who created the GamerGate blocklist. I just assumed that it would have been an Anti-GG panel. And yes Bernstein, I am aware of the difficulties with overcoming harassment here. I read the editorial too. GamerPro64 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, since the panel's title and abstract concern Overcoming Harrassment, perhaps we ought to refer to it in those terms? Even if Randi Harper is the moderator? MarkBernstein (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It probably had nothing to do with GamerGate. Hard to find that out since it got cancelled. Might be the same for the other panel since it was supposed to be a discussion on the gaming community. GamerPro64 00:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As more and more such incidents accumulate, it makes more sense to collect our coverage of events disrupted by threats into a consolidated section. Rhoark (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. The bomb threats called onto Anita Sarkessian, the people at the DC GamerGate meet up and on Airplay come to mind right there. GamerPro64 01:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Being against harassment is being 'anti-GG'. I love how honest people can be sometimes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper tweeted that the panel was unrelated to Gamergate. We'll have to see what the media take is. Rhoark (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Already some stuff from Kotaku, Slate, and Polygon. That's a start. GamerPro64 01:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Now we have Giant Bomb, Mashable, Re/code, The New York Times, The Verge, GamesIndustry.biz, GameSpot. A lot of sources on this incident. GamerPro64 02:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking through this I'm seeing some interesting points and more recent summaries of what GG is. The coverage is kind of muddled. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, the quality of NYT's coverage stands above the field. Rhoark (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I fail to see why our own article doesn't have a summary as succinct and balanced as this: "GamerGate supporters have railed against what they view as politically correct critics of games and their allies in the press. Some people who have attacked games for sexism, including Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist culture critic, have been the targets of online harassment and have had to cancel speaking engagements because of threats at the events." —Torchiest talkedits 12:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Torchiest 100%. We can do better, and the New York Times is one place that IS doing it better.Rockypedia (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/after-receiving-threats-sxsw-cancels-panel-about-online-harassment/ - Ah that might explain some of the muddle - It may be the anti-harassment panel got threatened first, and SXSW canceled anything related to GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/27/sxsw-festival-pulls-pro-and-anti-gamergate-panels-after-threats ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
All right so neither of these panels were actually about GamerGate yet they both had connections to it. And both panels got threats which caused SXSW to cancel it all together. I don't think it matters which panel got threatened first as both received threats. Its not a contest. GamerPro64 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
That Guardian piece is probably the best source yet for describing the minority view that there's false equivalence in coverage. The Ars piece is useful for how #SavePoint was an attempt to create a divergent hashtag distanced from harassment; that should be placed adjacently to the opinions we have suggesting moderates interested in ethics should do exactly that. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's too soon to be saying much given the current state of reporting. Interesting way to look at these RSs. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's early to be doing much; especially to place #SavePoint in the article. While it may indeed become something from here, the fact that a proposed hashtag was included in a conference talk seems to me thin gruel. Also, just as an interesting aside, Buzzfeed withdraws from SXSW Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The tag itself is not noteworthy. The fact that a change of tag was attempted and people flipped their shit over it is noteworthy - at least no less noteworthy than the opinion that it should be tried. Rhoark (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So Buzzfeed will withdraw from SXSW if both panels don't get reinstated. Interesting. Tech Insider, a website from Business Insider, has a story on that Link. And we also have the BBC on the issue. Gaming events cancelled amid 'threats of violence'. GamerPro64 16:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Which section would this be held in, btw? GamerPro64 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC looks like the best yet. USA Today has some decent coverage.[8] A few unique claims from certain sources:
  • BBC says Harper's panel was partly going to talk about Gamergate.
  • USA Today says both groups of panelists are looking into proceeding in alternate venues.
  • The Verge[9] says Brianna Wu has two panels and has not received any harassment related to SXSW. (I expect Harper's fans will remedy that straightaway.)
Rhoark (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also in further details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/27/sxsw-canceled-two-panels-after-threats-but-did-nothing-when-female-panelists-asked-about-harassment/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - WashPo names Utah State and SPJ Airplay in the same breath, saying the main difference between these two and SXSW is the organizers' unwillingness to make security arrangements. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I'd read that. As I said earlier the reporting right now is muddled. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Daily Beast RS? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/27/this-is-not-a-game-how-sxsw-turned-gamergate-abuse-into-a-spectator-sport.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Slate: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/sxsws_gamergate_fiasco_canceling_a_panel_on_fighting_abuse_is_cowardice_and_it_doesnt_solve_anything/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see this listed yet: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2493925,00.asp ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting on Buzzfeed: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/sxsw-gamergate-harassment-austin-texas-panel-6592999.php ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Telegraphs is not RS right? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11958106/Gamergate-is-back-thanks-to-some-American-cowardice-at-SXSW.html ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is we might have to remove the links being used from the page. Though its article on this is rather silly. "American cowardice" is just too much. GamerPro64 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confusing it with Mirror. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are the two most relevant RS/N discussions I could find about it:[10][11] The general consensus seems to be that it is reliable, though a certain friend of ours apparently disagreed. I'd say it's a good candidate for use, though not as the blueprint to structure coverage. I endorse this opinion: Lumping them together in a dual cancellation sends one message: you cannot discuss anything unpleasant about computer games without it being about gamergate, and that not only divides anyone who wants to talk into pro or anti, it hands immediate victory to the trolls. Rhoark (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now The Verge and Vox Media are saying they will not attend the festival. This just keeps getting better and better. Vox Media and The Verge will not attend SXSW unless it takes harassment seriously. GamerPro64 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

SXSW is between a rock and a hard place. Contrary to my original expectations, this may last more than one news cycle. Rhoark (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just found this one from Austin 360. Adds some pretty interesting details I haven't come across yet. This includes " the decision to cancel the two 2016 panels was not run by the [Advisory] Board" and a Change.org petition being made for the Level Up panel. But not one for Save Point. Link. GamerPro64 22:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources so far

Just going to list the sources here until things settle down:

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

More: US Rep Katherine Clark: [12] MarkBernstein (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really delved in tweets as RS. Should I add this to the list? Or were you just putting a heads up for something might come of that? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
We have a source on this from NBC so we don't need to use a tweet. GamerPro64 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point going to stick to sources I'm familiar with (don't worry too much I know a great many). But my goodness there are a lot of articles. Feel free to add sources. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

We've now found thirty sources that we can use from over a dozen sites. That has to be enough to get an idea on what to add to the article at least. Because God help us this is enough for just its own article at this point. So where does this put in, the "Further Harassment" section? Or has been become too big to even be in that section? GamerPro64 00:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably too soon to say anything still. And the number of different aspects is daunting. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Though if this thing gets more complex, maybe it's own article is the right thing to do. ew. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this might be best hosted on the page for South by Southwest itself? From the skimming I've done, the coverage seems focused largely on the conference and the "heckler's veto," rather than on gamergate itself, if you see what I mean. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that. Might be best for now. GamerPro64 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, after reading all the above stuff, there are at least three topics coming up over and over - 1) SXSW x GG, and 2) Online harassment with GG as e.g., and 3) GG as a internet thing itself. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
We're definitely at a point where this has become notable, but I really don't see the need to cover it in-depth on this page; I still think it's better under SXSW itself. While your points 2 and 3 do keep coming up, I haven't seen anything that is particularly novel compared to what's already in the article. Then again, I have to confess again that my reading has not been exhaustive. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, uh: SXSW Weighing an All Day Forum on Online Harassment Dumuzid (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2) has some stuff that Masem and I were looking for earlier re: GG as example. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dumuzid, we're gonna have to wait for confirmation from SXSW before using this. We need to hear it from the horses mouth. GamerPro64 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
GamerPro64, my apologies. I thought "uh" was universally understood to mean: "this is interesting but probably premature; it's usually a good source but we'll really need a bit more. Also, this sounds like an entity facing a PR meltdown and casting about for some way to turn the coverage." Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Words have a tendency to have more than one definition but I see what you were getting at. GamerPro64 02:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed they do. And just for the record, I was making fun of my own overly laconic comment. Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Smurf me some more reliable sources. Rhoark (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Both panels have been reinstated. From SXSW. GamerPro64 16:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe not. See Re/Code, Twitter storm. WP:NOTNEWS very much in play here; this is changing by the moment. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You were right, Bernstein. Looks like more is happening now. Courtesy from Re/code once again, SXSW Bungles Announcement of ‘Online Harassment Summit,’ and Panelists Are Pulling Out. Looks like the panelists from the Level Up panel are pulling out of the summit. What's next for Gods sake? GamerPro64 03:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if anything can be added until March after SXSW happens. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
All right. Guess we'll have to hold it off until then. This is like Airplay all over again. GamerPro64 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect GamerPro64, this is getting a lot more mainstream pickup than did AirPlay, which surprises me, but I'm old, so I guess I'm easily surprised. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It is, but at the same time, imagine someone six months from now reading this article. How much attention do you think this will deserve then? Will it still be a major event in the timeline of the controversy? I suspect it probably won't be. We could mention it, definitely (possibly in the 'responses' section?), but I don't think it needs more than a sentence or two at most, at least for now. We can always expand it if it turns out to have a more lasting impact. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I think it's still a better fit under the SXSW page itself, but time may change that! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Online Misogyny Movement

Re/code, in an article on the SXSW panel controversy, turns a phrase nicely by describing “the online misogyny movement Gamergate”. [13]. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a common enough opinion to include with attribution and proper weight. Rhoark (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Proceed with caution. The article is very clear about the misogynist nature of Gamergate. I don't see the need for sharply worded quotes like this unless they're widespread or come from extremely notable sources. We should not be piling on talking points.
Peter Isotalo 09:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll add that we should not allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform to attack the reputations of women like Lynn Walsh, Mercedes Carerra, and Ashe Schow. Rhoark (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Who? We should also not allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform to attack the reputations of women like Zoe Quinn, whose reputation some Wikipedians have been attacking here, alas. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform to attack the reputations of men like Christy Mathewson, Ernie Banks, and Hugo Gernsback. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know who those men are. How about we all agree to not use Wikipedia as a platform to attack anyone and get back into focusing on trying to write about SXSW in the article. GamerPro64 16:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You should get to know Ernie Banks at least. An amazing life, and one of the few (only?) hall-of-fame MLB players to never play in the post season. Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: Luke Appling, Ron Santo, Joe Torre, Harry Heilmann, George Sisler, Al Lopez, Ralph Kiner. Interesting how many played for Cubs or White Sox. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ACLU: [14]. "Women who speak online are too often threatened and harassed by trolls desperate to veto a meaningful discussion about any of these topics. Sadly, the trolls scored another victory this week." MarkBernstein (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be the persons only blog post on there. Don't really see much going for this source. GamerPro64 16:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! I concur with what it has to say, but I think as a source it has to be weighted lightly. Rhoark (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Elle (Rachel Sklar(: [15]Ostensibly about "ethics in video game journalism"—whatever that means—Gamergate has essentially amounted to an angry online mob of deranged sexists harassing and bullying women who dare to speak out against the sexist and misogynistic culture of video games and the gaming industry. Also, Gamergate has no clear leader, but it does have a unifying goal: to silence women. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re/Code [16]: the online mob Gamergate, many of whose members are clearly misogynistic and hateful. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly misogynistic and hateful". Great writing right there. Very original too.
But it all seriousness I don't find that to be that well of a quote to put in to the article. GamerPro64 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


Huffington Post Canada (Joshua Ostroff) [17] "This week, "numerous threats of on-site violence" were laid against a pair of GamerGate-related panels planned for the sprawling SXSW Interactive conference in Austin, Texas next spring. The threats proved the GamerGate movement never went away." .... "As congresswoman — and now summit speaker — Katherine Clark wrote in a letter earlier in the week, 'By canceling the panel, SXSW has assisted those who wish to silence women by threatening violence.'" MarkBernstein (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Paige Paz

where should this be incorporated? [18]. It alludes to an arrest being made and appears related to Gamergate according to the source. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Is vocative a reliable source? It's masthead is unconventional, as is the author’s title.
  • The Gamergate connection seems thin. Some people on a reddit board frequented by Gamergaters deplored bullying attributed to SJWs. That’s interesting, but I imagine lots of other people deplore stories of bullying, too.
  • The situation recalls last summer’s Requires Only That You Hate scandal [19], perhaps a better-documented and better-publicized example of a social justice bully. Of course, Gamergate in that instance sided with the rabid puppy harassers, not with the victims.
  • I’m not sure this tells us much about Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Vocativ - their client list is impressive if accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No doubt, but that doesn't tell us if they're a reliable source. I can't find a masthead, for example. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
From their about page, it's not typical format but has responsibilities regarding content and oversight Founded by Mati Kochavi and headquartered in New York City, Gregory Gittrich is the Chief Content Officer, Danna Rabin is the Chief Operating Officer, Vivian Schiller chairs the Executive Committee. Vivian Schiller has a notable news background. They appear to be aligned more like a Palantir Technologies for news which makes them more useful in background facts than editorial opinion whence their source relationship to more opinionated outlets. No reason to think Schiller would lend her name to their "About" page and Executive Committee if they were unreliable. Gittrich has a less well known news background. --DHeyward (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The author seems qualified as news assignments journalist. Not worried about the title as that's their datamining software. [20][21][22]. --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Not enough coverage as of present to be incorporated- would be WP:UNDUE. If we had every instance of bullying related to GG in the article, it's quite likely it would be one of the longest (if not the longest) articles on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently this aspect has 0 coverage in the article. WP:DUE supports the small inclusion of bullying by so-called anti-gamergate factions. Coupled with the the SXSW threats against the GamerGate panel, there is reason for its DUE coverage. I don't recall suicide attempts by victims of GamerGate so it may deserve even larger coverage due to the extremism. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:DUE supports the small inclusion of bullying by so-called anti-gamergate factions Sorry I'm missing that bit from the source? The harassment she recieved doesn't seem to be connected to Gamergate, rather that she's received support from Gamergate forums. — Strongjam (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_48&oldid=1255760824"