Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 52
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
RfC: Should Gamergate be referred to as a movement, and to what extent?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok. It's time to get this question settled once and for all, instead of arguing over it with no agreement as we have for the past few months. Greetings, soon to be very miserable uninvolved RfC commenters! This article is about a controversy that broke out over the twitter hashtag #Gamergate. A group of loosely associated people emerged on this hashtag and began coordinating all sorts of stuff. Most notably some pretty extreme online harassment was coordinated, but also email campaigns ostensibly about journalism ethics, campaigns against feminism, donations to video game fundraisers and the like. The question you need to answer is this: should we refer to these people as part of a 'Gamergate movement?' Do the secondary sources support such a description? If not what would be more accurate to refer to this grouping as? Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No more than it already is in our article. As I mentioned above, we do have a few references to it (since the term is occasionally used), but I feel it is clearly not the main way the topic is discussed in most of the highest-profile coverage, so it would be WP:UNDUE to use it to structure significant parts of the article or to inform the article's entire tone by eg. using at every opportunity or anything of that nature. Our current "activities" section (which goes into depth using sources that have analyzed exactly what it is) strikes me as mostly ideal; there is a quote from someone who uses the term, but it is balanced with broader coverage of the difficulty journalists have had defining the scope of the debate and the people involved. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment if you ctrl+f you will find we call it a movement several times. Per Aquillon I would be against any general shift in tone, since the harassment campaign is the most notable aspect of the controversy, and against a separate Gamergate Movement article since it would constitute a POV fork. Artw (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, use the word movement when talking about the movement. The term "movement" is used overwhelmingly in the reliable sources. Columbia Journalism Review,[1][2] New York Times[3] CNN,[4] The Guardian,[5] BBC,[6] TIME,[7] Washington Post.[8] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[9] These are just top-tier sources, not even stepping down to the likes of Salon or Polygon. It is hard to accept that anyone against the term "movement" could be arguing in good faith. As for how the sources talk about the movement they discuss what it is, who's in it, and what they stand for. They present harassment as a cornerstone of the controversy, but present the connections between the movement and the harassment as complicated or disputed. They do not discuss the movement only in the context of harassment. Let this put the question to rest. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be noted also that the reliable sources note there are people who say it should not be called a movement, and that there is nothing but harassment. These are attributed opinions embedded in RS's that call it a movement and discuss things besides harassment. These views should all be discussed per NPOV with proper weight. Rhoark (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Rhoark, nobody is arguing that we should remove the term 'movement' from the article entirely; but the handful of sources you've presented do not support your assertion that it is "used overwhelmingly", and they definitely do not support your description of "connections between the movement and the harassment" as if these are clearly-defined separate things. Most devote a sentence to the concept at best, often with scare-quotes. The core issue is that the bulk of coverage in all those sources is not on the concept of Gamergate-as-a-moment; most of them use the term in passing, mentioning it as part of the numerous ways people have referred to the controversy, which is exactly how our article uses it currently. Therefore, I feel that those sources support my opinion, above, that the article as it is now reflects the way reliable sources use the term. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- If no one is arguing against using the word "movement", why do we have an RFC on exactly that question? If the question is about the organization of the article, it should come out and ask "Is the article reflecting the reliable sources with neutral point of view and due weight?" The answer to that is "not by a long shot". A short list of only the best sources is dismissed as a "handful". When an exhaustive list was given last year, the response was just ankle-biting at the reliability of the lower-tier sources. A persistent refusal to actually engage with source text has derailed article improvement for over a year now. The article only reflects the reliable sources that certain editors imagine or would like to exist. Rhoark (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Rhoark, nobody is arguing that we should remove the term 'movement' from the article entirely; but the handful of sources you've presented do not support your assertion that it is "used overwhelmingly", and they definitely do not support your description of "connections between the movement and the harassment" as if these are clearly-defined separate things. Most devote a sentence to the concept at best, often with scare-quotes. The core issue is that the bulk of coverage in all those sources is not on the concept of Gamergate-as-a-moment; most of them use the term in passing, mentioning it as part of the numerous ways people have referred to the controversy, which is exactly how our article uses it currently. Therefore, I feel that those sources support my opinion, above, that the article as it is now reflects the way reliable sources use the term. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be noted also that the reliable sources note there are people who say it should not be called a movement, and that there is nothing but harassment. These are attributed opinions embedded in RS's that call it a movement and discuss things besides harassment. These views should all be discussed per NPOV with proper weight. Rhoark (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. A “movement” has leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto. Gamergate has none of these. The term “movement” is used occasionally in the press, and we can use it where sources use it even if it is not strictly accurate. What is unquestioned, and widely attested, is that Gamergate is a conspiracy– a secret and anonymous collaboration to do things that are illegal or harmful. The notable actions of Gamergate are without doubt harmful and intended to do harm, and no one doubts that Gamergate’s membership is secret and and its leaders secretive. “Conspiracy” is the word we’re looking for. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, which very often use the term movement. —Torchiest talkedits 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to
leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto
, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[10][11][12][13][14][15]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture thatGamergate has none of these
is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals and manifestos. Given the dearth of reliable sourcing, "Conspiracy" theories are perhaps best left to conspiracy theorists. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to
- Yes, of course. The phrase is literally textbook usage. That we are really having an RfC to allow the usage of a phrase which is commonly used by many reliable sources is astounding... Rhoark's many examples alone (above) should make this an automatic accept. Marteau (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Highly preferably yes as most of the recent reliable sources acknowledge it is a movement albeit with questionable goals and ends, and acknowledging that it is a far different structure of a movement as other previous ones (such as Occupy Wall Street). I also would see it possible to make the claim that they consider themselves a movement (even though "movement" has been used by the press by the pen of the authors) and then subsequent using "movement" to simplify the language of the article and stay neutral to the controversy. Avoiding calling them a movement factually or as a claim is ignoring how this is stated by numerous sources even those that proceed to critically analyze their actions. As a side note I would not however consider changing this article to "GG movement" nor creating a "GG movement" page; the topic is still the controversy, with the movement far too intertwined to consider a separate article on it. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - Article after article refers to it as such, with plenty of caveats. We can do the same here. —Torchiest talkedits 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both? - I'm not sure being exclusionary either way is the terms to go with. Like, the original "events" are the controversy while the resulting hashtivism is the "movement". On the subject of article naming, drop the word "Controversy" if we have to do something about it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No - Coverage of it (especially more contemporary pieces) focuses on the 'controversy' and harassment side of it, which is where our coverage should focus as well. If we were to define it as a movement, we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying notable features of a movement in Gamergate, such as goals, a leader, or any sort of structure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to
goals, a leader, or any sort of structure
, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[16][17][18][19][20][21]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture thatwe'd have a great deal of trouble identifying
these features is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals. The question of where the article should focus is perhaps outside the scope of this RfC, but more interesting - I would respectfully suggest that it is possible to document both the harassment and the conglomeration of persons, though diffusely and with loose organisation, collectively acting in pursuit of a shared goal or interest and in doing so to maintain compliance with our policies and guidelines. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's important to note that your response here completely sidesteps the main point of my vote: Sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Abundant independent, reliable sources use the term - as evidenced in the links above, and in those previously provided by Rhoark. To assert that
Coverage of it (especially more contemporary pieces) focuses on the 'controversy' and harassment side of it, which is where our coverage should focus as well
is a valid argument against the use of the term is to misunderstand both WP:NNC and WP:UNDUE. It is also original research to suggest that becausewe'd have a great deal of trouble identifying notable features of a movement in Gamergate, such as goals, a leader, or any sort of structure
, we should not use the term. Even if the quoted text were verifiable it would be irrelevant; it is, however, in addition, demonstrably false. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- Ryk72- the links you provided above are to dictionary entries. They don't even mention Gamergate... PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- So above
Columbia Journalism Review,[22][23] New York Times[24] CNN,[25] The Guardian,[26] BBC,[27] TIME,[28] Washington Post.[29] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[30]
; it is below[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
. Abundance of "movement" is not mitigated by location. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)- I see you've stepped up your game from dictionary entries to Clickhole of all places. You do know that site is satirical, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, unless this is an April Fool's joke, in which case- you got me. I truly believed you meant what you were saying. I have been fooled. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps Rhoark's words were prescient -
When an exhaustive list was given ... the response was just ankle-biting at the reliability of the lower-tier sources.
Yes, Clickhole is a satirical site, and they are clearly lampooning aspects of the Gamergate movement in that piece, but the term "movement" is used unironically; as it is in all of the other sources linked. That some of those sources are satirical websites, that some are generally supportive of the movement, and some clearly opposed does not negate or refute that those sources are comfortable in using the term "Gamergate movement".
Other than: "notability should determine content", despite WP:NNC; goalpost shifting definitional arguments, which are clearly ill-founded; and a general "follow the sources", despite no policy basis and despite examination of the sources showing wide use of the term; what exactly is the objection? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- A request: Instead of copy pasting arguments from other users in the hopes that you can WP:FILIBUSTER me to resignation, actually look at what you're linking and pick out what demonstrates your case. Give reasons, not assertions. I can't argue against somebody dumping a bunch of dumb links to Clickhole on me. Pick the ones you think are best, explain why they demonstrate your case... try to convince me? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The position I am outlining is that objections raised in the initial !vote and subsequent comments are not supported by either policy or sources. The first sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because content should be determined by notability, which is contrary to policy (WP:NNC). This is refuted by reference to that policy. The second sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because of issues (about goals, leaders, etc) which do not align with any known definition of the term. This is refuted both by reference to definitions of "movement"; and also by asserting that the issues raised are not valid - leaders, goals, etc are all easily identifiable. If either of these are inaccurate descriptions of those objections, it would be helpful for them to be clarified.
A third objection is raised which suggestsSticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR
; which may or may not be the same as the first "notability" objection. This is refuted by showing that multiple, independent sources, of various types, with varying views on the Gamergate controversy, all comfortably use the term "Gamergate movement" - that is, that the "reliable sources" do use the term, and they do so in abundance. The number and variety of those sources serves to demonstrate that abundance. If there is a suggestion that inclusion of the term "movement" would constitute WP:OR, it would be helpful if this could be explained.
I do not hope to convince; merely to highlight to closing editors that the objections raised in this !vote appear poorly founded. If there are any further objections to the use of the term "movement" which editors should take into account, other than the three described, and rebutted, above, it would be helpful if those further objections were clearly articulated.
I also note continued focus on contributor in the comments above; including an accusation of WP:FILIBUSTERing, and a clear misrepresentation ("a bunch of dumb links to Clickhole"; there is one such link, and it is included to demonstrate the variety of sources). I invite the editor to strike these. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Essentially: If one or more of your links are patently ridiculous (again: Clickhole! Pay more attention), it calls into question the reliability of the rest of your sources, no matter the breadth of them. Give me a list of good, reliable sources and I'll happily read through them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- So you're essentially saying that you consider unreliable The New York Times, BBC, CNN, Time magazine, The Washington Post, The Guardian, plus Polygon, Gawker, Re/code... because the language they use is so widespread that other less reliable sources also use it? The argument that one reference taints the rest is ludicrous, the reliability of each source is to be evaluated on its own merits.
- BTW, didn't we have administrative sanctions in place that severely admonished anyone commenting on other editor's behaviors instead of their arguments? What has become of them? Diego (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a pretty inaccurate summary- I'm saying it lowers my motivation to read through sources to determine to what extent we can use them if the sources include 'Clickhole' and such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- On reflection & review of the latter comments above, I fear there is a disconnect both in the meaning of "reliable sources"; in the intent of list of sources provided; and in the intent of this RfC section.
Firstly, the Wikipedia term of art, "reliable sources" appears, to my reading of the above, to be assumed to mean roughly "publishers whose works we would almost always regard as reliable for verifying facts" or similar; the term as I intend it means, roughly, "a work which reliably verifies a particular piece of information", and is therefore in the context of that "piece of information" - I suggest that this is the meaning aligned with WP:RS, explicitly so at WP:RSCONTEXT, and the meaning generally understood in discussions at WP:RSN. NOTE: The objection to "Clickhole" is certainly more easily understood if the first meaning of "reliable sources" is intended.
Secondly, the list of sources provided serves only as a rebuttal of an implied suggestion that "reliable sources" do not use the term. If "Clickhole" causes conniptions, then it should be easy to simply ignore it (and any others that cause concern); the sources provided include many which easily fall within the first ("publishers whose works ...") meaning of the term "reliable souces" - including: Columbia Journalism Review[49][50], New York Times[51], CNN[52] The Guardian,[53][54], BBC[55] TIME,[56], Washington Post[57], Le Monde mouvement[58], PRI[59], Business Insider[60], Cinemablend[61], International Business Times[62], The Verge[63], The Establishment[64], Digiday[65], Forbes[66], The Observer[67], Metro[68], Re/code[69], Bustle[70], Polygon[71], Deadspin[72]; Clickhole, Breitbart & Gawker removed from original list.
Additionally, the context for the list of sources is the RfC "Should Gamergate be referred to as a movement, and to what extent?"; more a consideration of WP:WEIGHT - other than rebutting a suggestion that the term "movement" is not used to describe persons aligned under the #Gamergate hashtag, there is no suggestion that these sources should be used or need to be evaluated for any other purpose (although some of them are already used for inclusion of information in the article). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- On reflection & review of the latter comments above, I fear there is a disconnect both in the meaning of "reliable sources"; in the intent of list of sources provided; and in the intent of this RfC section.
- I think that's a pretty inaccurate summary- I'm saying it lowers my motivation to read through sources to determine to what extent we can use them if the sources include 'Clickhole' and such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Essentially: If one or more of your links are patently ridiculous (again: Clickhole! Pay more attention), it calls into question the reliability of the rest of your sources, no matter the breadth of them. Give me a list of good, reliable sources and I'll happily read through them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- The position I am outlining is that objections raised in the initial !vote and subsequent comments are not supported by either policy or sources. The first sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because content should be determined by notability, which is contrary to policy (WP:NNC). This is refuted by reference to that policy. The second sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because of issues (about goals, leaders, etc) which do not align with any known definition of the term. This is refuted both by reference to definitions of "movement"; and also by asserting that the issues raised are not valid - leaders, goals, etc are all easily identifiable. If either of these are inaccurate descriptions of those objections, it would be helpful for them to be clarified.
- A request: Instead of copy pasting arguments from other users in the hopes that you can WP:FILIBUSTER me to resignation, actually look at what you're linking and pick out what demonstrates your case. Give reasons, not assertions. I can't argue against somebody dumping a bunch of dumb links to Clickhole on me. Pick the ones you think are best, explain why they demonstrate your case... try to convince me? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps Rhoark's words were prescient -
- Ah, unless this is an April Fool's joke, in which case- you got me. I truly believed you meant what you were saying. I have been fooled. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see you've stepped up your game from dictionary entries to Clickhole of all places. You do know that site is satirical, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- So above
- Ryk72- the links you provided above are to dictionary entries. They don't even mention Gamergate... PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Abundant independent, reliable sources use the term - as evidenced in the links above, and in those previously provided by Rhoark. To assert that
- It's important to note that your response here completely sidesteps the main point of my vote: Sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to
- Yes It's a movement with a subset of anonymous harassers. There is nothing that ties the harassers to the movement except the unprovable association assumed by victims (even though harassment/swatting/doxxing has long preceded gamergate). Anti-gamergate activists have sought to discredit legitimate complaints raised by the movement. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, none of which has any idea of whether the harassers are a subset or the entire set, because none of them report any notable activities beyond harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can name people that argue pro-GamerGate and it has nothing to do with harassment. They are named are covered in mainstream press. Anti-GamerGate critics exist as well, but their argument lacks specificity. They call themselves "anti-gamergate" but they don't categorize the named "pro-gamergate" people they debate as "harassers." It's their argument that lacks specificity. They argue against harassment and I've yet to hear anyone argue for harassment. That makes their position a straw-man argument with invisible boogeymen they associate to their perceived nemesis. Their nemesis points out that is an insane method of correlation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes The vast majority of contemporary articles from high-quality reliable sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Gamergate fits every definition of a movement. Movement is a neutral term applied to groups with positive and negative aspects and lends the group absolutely no legitimacy. The article name should be changed to Gamergate (social movement), because the article as it stands is more about the movement and the actions of the movement than it is about the initial controversy that spawned the term. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- You know, funnily enough, I don't have strong feelings on using the term "movement," but using "social movement" strikes me as very wrong. I suppose it's because there's no focus on social change, but I have some thinking to do. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree here: I have not seen anything calling it a "social movement". It is considered part of an ongoing social and culture war, but that doesn't make it a social movement. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just trying to clarify the type of group action at play here. Just calling it a "movement" without some kind of identifier seems far too ambiguous. It's certainly not unheard of to call Gamergate a social movement, as has been done in WaPo (and again), Salon, Gawker, The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, and Business Insider. From what I can tell it's a neutral term, assigned to both positive and negative group actions (mostly negative in the case of Gamergate). The focus of Gamergate seems to be a reaction to progressive (social) concerns. Most sources don't consider it a true consumer movement, and social movement is used as more of a catch-all. It certainly fits the definition: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". For this change to take effect we'd need to answer the question: "What kind of movement is Gamergate?" A hate group? A hashtag movement? A leaderless movement? An online social movement? I'd like to weigh the sources pointing to each of these options to see which one fits best, and is used most often by the most reliable sources. Movement, on its own, doesn't really mean that much. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would also second ColorOfSufferings comment regarding an actual contextual review of the sources to properly qualify the movement. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still uneasy with this particular terminology (which of course should not and does not trump the reliable sources!). Many of those citations, even while using "social movement," qualify it in a way that makes it seem not quite appropriate without the qualifier. "Ersatz social movement," or "freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob," or even "not your grandmother's social movement." To use the term without qualification just feels misleading and wrong -- but of course that's nothing but my subjective opinion! So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would also second ColorOfSufferings comment regarding an actual contextual review of the sources to properly qualify the movement. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just trying to clarify the type of group action at play here. Just calling it a "movement" without some kind of identifier seems far too ambiguous. It's certainly not unheard of to call Gamergate a social movement, as has been done in WaPo (and again), Salon, Gawker, The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, and Business Insider. From what I can tell it's a neutral term, assigned to both positive and negative group actions (mostly negative in the case of Gamergate). The focus of Gamergate seems to be a reaction to progressive (social) concerns. Most sources don't consider it a true consumer movement, and social movement is used as more of a catch-all. It certainly fits the definition: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". For this change to take effect we'd need to answer the question: "What kind of movement is Gamergate?" A hate group? A hashtag movement? A leaderless movement? An online social movement? I'd like to weigh the sources pointing to each of these options to see which one fits best, and is used most often by the most reliable sources. Movement, on its own, doesn't really mean that much. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree here: I have not seen anything calling it a "social movement". It is considered part of an ongoing social and culture war, but that doesn't make it a social movement. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- You know, funnily enough, I don't have strong feelings on using the term "movement," but using "social movement" strikes me as very wrong. I suppose it's because there's no focus on social change, but I have some thinking to do. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. As Rhoark has pointed out numerous times, sources calling it a "movement" are ubiquitous. Let's put this issue to rest indeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The analysis put forward by Ryk72 above really should be dispositive of this question. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - It makes sense to call GamerGate a movement. GamerPro64 06:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - But let us be clear that this RFC is not asking the question "should this article be renamed as Gamergate movement" which is a whole new kettle of fish. However the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's). Arguments regarding NPOV fork and the fact that the harassment is the only notable feature are clearly mistaking the fact that within the context of an article solely about the harassment that is likely to be the case. The existence of an article solely about the harassment does not preclude the existence of an article discussing the movement if RS's support it. Other things existing isn't a strong argument. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes per the reasonings given by GamerPro64, Rhoark and Starke Hathaway. "Movement" has been used in reliable sources and we should use that word in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- We already do refer to GamerGate as a movement, both quoted and in Wikipedia's voice. Should we always use the term, especially when many reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases? Of course not. And likewise, should we remove the term, when reliable sources use it without a problem? Again, not at all. Like anything having to do with GamerGate, it's complicated. NPOV has to guide us here, not an RFC. Woodroar (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- What reliable sources expressly reject the term, i.e. explicitly say that the Gamergate should not be called a movement? If those are prominent, we should say that the term is controversial, and attribute that rejection to those sources. Diego (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its more nuanced than just a weight/undue issue. There's a combination of many claims of what the group of people in GG should be called beyond just "movement", including "harassment campaign", some which are being stated as fact in WP's voice in the present article. Because many of these are claims or other aspects that meet cautions outlined at WP:LABEL, we need to figure out the best factual term to refer to the group in writing the structure around the facts that are being stated in WP's voice that meets NPOV. This might mean going against what might be the perceived weight in sources for what is being said in WP's voice. "Movement" appears to be the best term that is a neutral word nor a LABEL, and can be factually sourced and well-repeated in the RSes, even when it is pointed out by the same sources that what GG behaves is very atypical of other movements, they still use that word to simplify their discussion. It is clearly okay when discussing the claims of what GG is, such as labels like "Harassment campaign", to still use those terms there when stated in the sources' voices or similarly claimed. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Masem has made this argument on this page many, many times before. It has attracted little support outside the bevy of Gamergate fans that daily coordinate their plans to take control of Wikipedia. That it has no support is unsurprising, as the principle it advances is deeply incompatible with the project. Adopting this view would allow tendentious editors to "reskew" reliable sources to compensate for what they believe (in this case wrongly) to be bias or to take advantage of information they believe (in this case, again wrongly) they possess but which has been withheld from or ignored by the biased main-stream media. Incessant repetition of the same argument is disruptive. This page’s infamous history AN, AN/I, AE, ArbCom, and in widespread coverage of Wikipedia's humiliating appeasements of Gamergate, can largely be traced to the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of words this editor has dedicated to this precise point. We have already spent thousands of hours of volunteer time to no useful effect, lost many dedicated and useful editors, and exposed the project to ridicule and derision. Let’s stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its more nuanced than just a weight/undue issue. There's a combination of many claims of what the group of people in GG should be called beyond just "movement", including "harassment campaign", some which are being stated as fact in WP's voice in the present article. Because many of these are claims or other aspects that meet cautions outlined at WP:LABEL, we need to figure out the best factual term to refer to the group in writing the structure around the facts that are being stated in WP's voice that meets NPOV. This might mean going against what might be the perceived weight in sources for what is being said in WP's voice. "Movement" appears to be the best term that is a neutral word nor a LABEL, and can be factually sourced and well-repeated in the RSes, even when it is pointed out by the same sources that what GG behaves is very atypical of other movements, they still use that word to simplify their discussion. It is clearly okay when discussing the claims of what GG is, such as labels like "Harassment campaign", to still use those terms there when stated in the sources' voices or similarly claimed. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mark, every single word you just levied at Masem can be applied to yourself. You are equally motivated, and have produced equal sums of content any time someone has expressed an opinion you do not agree with. This is not about you or Masem, this is about a carbuncle of an article. If addressing Masems concerns opens the door to "reskew" then perhaps the article edifice is more of a facade. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- A cursory review of the hundreds of thousands of words of the archives will disprove the silly assertion that I have produced "equal sums of [talk page] content". MarkBernstein (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer, I was referring to the point - counterpoint balance. I have seen Masem hold several threads of conversation which will cause his total volume to be exponentially higher, but I am reasonably confident that your own responses to Masem are relatively equal. However, and I may be wrong, I don't think I have ever seen someone be so specifically vindictive as to lay all blame at one users feet as you did here. How long are you going to keep the axe to that grindstone? Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- A cursory review of the hundreds of thousands of words of the archives will disprove the silly assertion that I have produced "equal sums of [talk page] content". MarkBernstein (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mark, every single word you just levied at Masem can be applied to yourself. You are equally motivated, and have produced equal sums of content any time someone has expressed an opinion you do not agree with. This is not about you or Masem, this is about a carbuncle of an article. If addressing Masems concerns opens the door to "reskew" then perhaps the article edifice is more of a facade. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your response here, Masem. Of course it's more nuanced than WEIGHT/UNDUE, which is why I wrote "it's complicated" and "NPOV" (and not "WEIGHT/UNDUE"). This is about accurately summarizing and attributing what our sources say. I agree that "movement" is a generic label and I've said so in the past. But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading. Remember when ArbCom stressed that "[f]ailure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia"? That's why we need to follow NPOV. An RFC doesn't let us misrepresent sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Woodroar, W.r.t.
But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading
andmany reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases
, would it be possible to provide details of those sources? It would be helpful to editors to be able to weigh the quantity and quality of those sources against those which do use the term. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, quantity has nothing to do with it. This isn't purely an issue of WEIGHT. Look at The New York Review of Books and The Christian Science Monitor, for example. Both sources are currently being used in the article. TNYRoB avoids using the term "movement" for GamerGate, even though it uses that term for other movements. TCSM goes one step further, not only avoiding "moveement" but instead using words like "online horde". The issue here is that an RFC doesn't give anyone carte blanche to find-and-replace "Gamergate" with "Gamergate movement", because we still have to consider what the referenced sources say. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clarifications: TNYRoB did not 'avoid' using the term 'movement'. A "contributor" to TNYRoB avoided it. Here's a page of the contributors to TNYRoB... just the M's look to number close to a hundred. In addition, "The Christian Science Monitor" did not 'avoid' using the term movement. Fruzsina Eördögh, a "Correspondent" there did in a piece she wrote. She's not even on the masthead where they list their reporters. Please do try to be more precise in your attributions and don't make it look like a style guide issue for a publications when it's the preferences of individual contributors. Marteau (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Avoiding the use of the term is not the same as "expressly rejecting" it. If a few reliable sources prefer to use a different term, but a significantly higher number use it, that's not enough to support the idea that the term is controversial nor that using it is a failure of NPOV. IMO this RFC is not about using "Gamergate movement" every time it is used as you suggest, only for defining the term when it is being described as a whole. Diego (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- After (re)considering my comments above, I'm not sure that bringing sources here or debating the extent that they "reject" the term is productive. If a source doesn't use the term "movement", then we shouldn't use "movement" when referencing that source. For the same reason, we wouldn't write "the harassment campaign known as Gamergate did [this]" and reference it to a source that doesn't, in fact, call Gamergate a "harassment campaign". It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, "movement" is widely used and WEIGHT suggests that we can use that term generally and even specifically when supported by a reliable source. But neither WEIGHT nor this RFC can direct us to always use the term "movement" or "harassment campaign" or any other label. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's still more nuanced than that. There are actually two different "areas" in our writing where we have to figure out how to address the group of people that support GG. The first area is speaking in the non-WP voice, documenting what others have said about GG, and here is where WEIGHT has to remain king. We can't flip anything on its head to bury the negative and critical take that GG has gotten, so claims that GG is a "harassment campaign", "misogynistic trolls" or whatever other similar language, quoted or paraphrased and attributable to sources, will be more predominate than things like "consumer revolt".
- The second part, and where the nuance comes in, is how to refer to the group in WP's voice, made all the more difficult by the fact that "Gamergate" can refer to the controversy, the hashtag, and/or the group of people, depending on what you read. If there was zero ambiguity about what "Gamergate" meant without any other context, this might be less an issue, but instead we have a term with at least three possible definitions in context. We need, to write with clarity for the reader, a term that describes what "the group of people that support GG" should be called, providing the reader with a legend to help understand what aspect of GG we are speaking about. And to that end we need a consistent term in WP's voice, a fully separate issue from the non-WP voice aspect. And that is where comprehension takes more value than WEIGHT; if we use 20 different terms in WP's voice to maintain equal balance with the weight in source, no reader is going to understand this article. So we have to identify the term that is most commonly used and reflects a neutral stance that we can always rely out in WP-voice prose, which "movement" seems to be the best fit based on recent sources and the previous analysis Rhoark has done. It may not be universally used, but it is far and away the most often used term. Note that the sourcing aspect Woodroar raises is not an issue here. If we have a line "'XYZ News' reporter John Smith says the movement is "most clearly a harassment campaign"", even if the source does not use the word movement but clearly speaking to the group of people that support it, we are not introducing any bias, OR, or weight problems - it is using the WP-voice selected word to normalize out how the group has otherwise been referred to, but still keeping their opinion aspect sourced to them. This is, in essence, about figuring out the common name to refer to the group, which does ignore WEIGHT in favor of readability as determined by consensus. (But please note by no means do I support changing this article's title to "Gamergate movement"; just for the same reason "movement" is the common name for the group of people, "controversy" is the common name for the entire mess.). --MASEM (t) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- After (re)considering my comments above, I'm not sure that bringing sources here or debating the extent that they "reject" the term is productive. If a source doesn't use the term "movement", then we shouldn't use "movement" when referencing that source. For the same reason, we wouldn't write "the harassment campaign known as Gamergate did [this]" and reference it to a source that doesn't, in fact, call Gamergate a "harassment campaign". It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, "movement" is widely used and WEIGHT suggests that we can use that term generally and even specifically when supported by a reliable source. But neither WEIGHT nor this RFC can direct us to always use the term "movement" or "harassment campaign" or any other label. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, quantity has nothing to do with it. This isn't purely an issue of WEIGHT. Look at The New York Review of Books and The Christian Science Monitor, for example. Both sources are currently being used in the article. TNYRoB avoids using the term "movement" for GamerGate, even though it uses that term for other movements. TCSM goes one step further, not only avoiding "moveement" but instead using words like "online horde". The issue here is that an RFC doesn't give anyone carte blanche to find-and-replace "Gamergate" with "Gamergate movement", because we still have to consider what the referenced sources say. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Woodroar, W.r.t.
- Masem's has made this argument on this page many, many times before. Here's another 3000 characters worth. The quality of Masem's is not strained. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are personal attacks Mark. Koncorde (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Complaining about how someone says a thing, rather than addressing what that person says says, is a logical fallacy and a common debating tactic with those who have no other defense. Marteau (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Masem's has made this argument on this page many, many times before. Here's another 3000 characters worth. The quality of Masem's is not strained. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as most sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Per WP:UCRN:
Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above.
sst✈ 04:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC) - Yes, it is a neutral term commonly used in the sources. The definition of "movement" doesn't imply that there should be leaders and central coordination, in fact our references for Social movement describe the term as a "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". Usage of this term doesn't preclude also including at appropriate points in the article some other terms like "harassment campaign", which has also been used by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - generally throughout the article as a short descriptor for the group of persons collectivising under the #Gamergate banner; with inclusion in the lead section. Whether we regard this group of persons as collectivising against progressive cultural imperialism, against diversity/women in video games, for misogyny, or for ethics in video games journalism, movement is a neutral term for such a collectivisation - a term used not only by high quality, independent sources (links as provided by Rhoark, above), but also by proponents and opponents alike, by observers making casual, passing mention or deeper analysis/comment alike.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]. Use of the term in these instances is in the overwhelming majority unqualified by adjectives or "scare quotes".
Goalpost shifting arguments as to "leaders, goals, manifestos", above, are as uncompelling as they are logically & factually unfounded. Arguments that notability should determine content are similarly unsupported by policy (see WP:NNC). Claims that sources reject the term movement are, as yet, unsubstantiated, and in any case would be a small exception to the general usage of the term.
It is clear there is a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people ... tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal[91], and that the overwhelming preponderance of sources use the term "movement" to describe them; we should be unafraid to follow such usage. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Analysis - Fellow editors, I have performed an examination of the sources referenced in the article; seeking to evaluate the proportion and nature of the use of the term movement. Of the 252 sources deemed sufficiently reliable to verify information within the article, I was able to examine 244, finding that of those 95 use the term "movement" to describe the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner, and use that term in the source's voice. "Movement" is overwhelmingly the predominate term used to describe this group of persons across all sources; other terms (e.g. campaign) are used in only a handful of sources; it is indeed "daylight second". No source was found which states that the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner is categorically "not a movement".
NOTES: A) Included in the count are sources using qualifiers or adjectives which do not fundamentally alter the movement nature - misogynistic movement, inchoate movement, loosely organized movement are all in, though this is not the majority usage. Excluded from the count are sources using qualifiers which cast doubt on the movement nature - ostensible, self-described are out - or which attribute the use of the term to another party - described as a movement by X is out; there are a handful of these. B) The following sources have not yet been considered: DOI sources (5) (I have copies of only 2 of these); Video based sources (2) (Comedy Central & MSNBC); Der Bund (1) (Spreche ich nur ein bischen Deutsch).
It should be noted that, of the 149 examined sources which do not use the term "movement", a good, but as yet unquantified, proportion do not provide any documentation or coverage of the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner; 39 of those sources do not include the text "Gamergate" at all (focusing on SciFi book awards, Sea lion webcomics, etc). I also noticed, but have not quantified, that sources which provide a broad coverage of the controversy are more inclined to use the term "movement"; sources which focus only on smaller aspects are less inclined, largely due to not documenting the group of people .... Full details to follow in a "collapse". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Analysis - Fellow editors, I have performed an examination of the sources referenced in the article; seeking to evaluate the proportion and nature of the use of the term movement. Of the 252 sources deemed sufficiently reliable to verify information within the article, I was able to examine 244, finding that of those 95 use the term "movement" to describe the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner, and use that term in the source's voice. "Movement" is overwhelmingly the predominate term used to describe this group of persons across all sources; other terms (e.g. campaign) are used in only a handful of sources; it is indeed "daylight second". No source was found which states that the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner is categorically "not a movement".
Analysis details in .csv format
|
|---|
|
Number is the reference number from the article (at the time the analysis was performed); Date is in UK format; "Gamergate" is Yes if the source includes that text string (in the main part of the source; so links not included); "Movement" is Yes if the source uses that word to describe the group of persons aligned under the Gamergate banner (as described in the comment above); other columns should be, hopefully, self-explanatory. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
|
- Yes -- I agree fully with the comment for "Yes" as given by Koncorde, here, above. Specifically, the comment that: "the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's)." -- this analysis by Koncorde is most appropriate per Wikipedia site policy. I did a search through reliable sources and we have hundreds that refer to this social movement phenomenon as the "Gamergate movement", verbatim. Per numerous reliable sources, it is most certainly a form of social movement. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes: per Rhoark. Plenty of reliable sources call it a movement, and one should reflect this. One should also reflect the sources which call it nothing but a harassment campaign. There are plenty in the former category, and it should be emphasized more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was summoned by the bot. I would prefer "campaign", as used in this article from The New York Times, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Washington Post, and this article from the BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a note, three of those sources are from the first few months of the GG situation (starting in August 2014; those are from Oct 2014), and reflect the reactionary WP:RECENTISM of the news cycle when they were first covering the situation. The same sources (and in some cases, the same authors) today more commonly use "movement". (The BBC one uses both, incidentally) --MASEM (t) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Eh. There should be no problem referring to it as a movement so long as the sense is clear. But the questions Woodroar raises above are the appropriate ones. Clearly we shouldn't bend over backwards to work the phrase "movement" in there, nor should we allow the decentralized nature of this "movement" be downplayed. And we certainly shouldn't replace other phrasings used in the reliable sources, such as "campaign" or even "harassment campaign" if they more accurately follow the sources.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The whole reason I raised this issue is because the word movement was systematically removed from the article a few months back (including from quotes until someone noticed). I feel Woodroar's "we already use it" argument is merely a half-truth in this scenario. Brustopher (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of how it looked a few months back, the article now uses the term "movement" several times, including in quotations. Woodroar's questions are good ones - we shouldn't feel obligated to either insert the phrasing or remove it, we should follow NPOV and what the sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Woodroar has a very valid point relating to UNDUE, but as I note in my comment at 00:18, 22 March 2016 above, you can break the issue between what sources say or claim and how we'd quote those outside of Wikipedia's voice, which must follow UNDUE/WEIGHT issues as per Woodroar, and how we refer to the group in a neutral, Wikipedia-voice, which should be overall consistent for sake of reading comprehension. The long-standing issue has been broadly on the latter aspect, how to refer to the group in a neutral Wikipedia voice when trying to summarize information- basically, finding a neutral term that is different "the group" or "they" to word sentences that refer to the people that support GG. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of how it looked a few months back, the article now uses the term "movement" several times, including in quotations. Woodroar's questions are good ones - we shouldn't feel obligated to either insert the phrasing or remove it, we should follow NPOV and what the sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Voting no in response to Masems comments above. I was going to remain neutral on this, since we use the term and we should probably continue to use the term, but I am fully in opposition to the use of this RFC by underhand or sloppy editors to push through sweeping changes to the article and currently it is worded in such a way that would allow that. So no, "movement" should not be the primary thing we refer to Gamergate as. Artw (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Battleground tactics not based on policy. Rationale such as this infests this article, and is a perfect example of why this article needs special treatment and attention at the highest levels... perhaps selecting ten trusted editors who have never touched the article or any of the ancillary articles, and re-write it from scratch. This is getting ridiculous, though, and something must be done. 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Battleground tactics are precisely why I oppose this RFC becoming part of the arsenal of sticks that never get dropped. Artw (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Battleground tactics not based on policy. Rationale such as this infests this article, and is a perfect example of why this article needs special treatment and attention at the highest levels... perhaps selecting ten trusted editors who have never touched the article or any of the ancillary articles, and re-write it from scratch. This is getting ridiculous, though, and something must be done. 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but. First, I assume we are not trying to rename the article, to which I'd object. Second, it is clear the term "gamergate movement" is used, and this probably should be discussed in a dedicated section. As a social movement scholar I will also note that is is common for members of a movement (as they would be identified by scholars) to not consider themselves to be members; people think they need to be full time activists for that - no, just posting a few comments online is enough to make you a (small part) activist/member of a movement from a researcher perspective. Anyway, it is a bit unclear to me what is the purpose of the discussion. Can the term be used in the article? Yes, preferably with a section explaining it. Should the term be the only way to refer to this incident/members? No. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
BLP and redaction
The "new normal" for this page about BLP is all out of whack. Above, a passage from an article in the Washington Post by Caitlin Dewey, quoted verbatim, was unilaterally redacted based on vague WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM grounds. Apparently I am not even allowed to mention what it was about, because I had earlier opened a discussion about this, but my edit was revdeled, when I did not even quote the passage, only what it was about.
I suggest some perspective. The Washington Post is a newspaper with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. To redact something from a Wikipedia talk page with the claim of avoiding victimization makes no sense at all. Distasteful material is not the same as a BLP violation. It is fine to wait for a consensus to form on the talk page before inserting it into the article, but to even redact the text from the talk page is idiotic. Such redactions only inflame matters and make the discussion confusing because other people cannot follow what's going on. People start bickering about whether the redaction was correct or not.
This is not a partisan matter: the original post was by Mark Bernstein, who is "anti-GG" for lack of a better word. In the earlier part of the controversy this kind of stuff was used against "pro-GG" people. I suggest we get over ourselves. To merely link to or discuss claims widely repeated in the press on the talk page is not victimization. Talk page is for discussion. Keep the material out of the article, not the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's oversighted. Good luck in adding material to the article that was oversighted on the talk page. The story devolved and the story of a single individual is simply not representative. It is impossible to cover as being broadly "GamerGate" when the details are more salacious than the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: I am not talking about whether the material should be added to the article. For the record, I am against adding anything about Rapp to the article. I am talking about talk page practice. I see the oversighting as a wild overreaction, which has somehow become the normal for this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't think it should be added to the article, then why are you advocating for it being discussed on the talk page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly there is no difference between what I think should be in the article and what should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article in question is linked just above the place where it was quoted, meaning anyone can click it and read the entire thing. WP:BLPTALK indicates that linking sources with potentially problematic content is the proper way to handle touchy subjects, to wit: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating
This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?
" Quoting the particular section was not necessary; it's possible to discuss the content without directly quoting it, as can be seen from the extensive discussion above. —Torchiest talkedits 13:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)- Since you were the one who carried out the original (unilateral) redaction, your view is known. The guideline you quote is rather woolly and in fact does not apply. Whether to include the passage in the Wikipedia article is an editorial/consensus decision, not a BLP one. Do you think the Washington Post editors would allow that passage to appear if it was defamatory? Indeed it is the opposite of defamatory - it is casting doubt on / debunking the allegations. Who exactly is being served by redacting such things? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Kingsindian here. Simply as a matter of collegiality, redacting someone's comment on a talk page should be a very last resort. And while it's possible to envision a link to the Washington Post being a BLP concern (if they were reporting on a rumor, say), in general, even what might otherwise be considered scurrilous accusations are not a BLP concern on a talk page when strongly sourced, as to a newspaper of record. In general, I think it's worth everyone simply thinking about dialing back a notch, so to speak. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I only felt the need to respond because you called my action "idiotic". And beyond that, I count at least three other editors who agreed with the redaction, so it wasn't exactly unilateral. Perhaps you should bring this issue to WT:BLP if you'd like the policy to be clarified. —Torchiest talkedits 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since you were the one who carried out the original (unilateral) redaction, your view is known. The guideline you quote is rather woolly and in fact does not apply. Whether to include the passage in the Wikipedia article is an editorial/consensus decision, not a BLP one. Do you think the Washington Post editors would allow that passage to appear if it was defamatory? Indeed it is the opposite of defamatory - it is casting doubt on / debunking the allegations. Who exactly is being served by redacting such things? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article in question is linked just above the place where it was quoted, meaning anyone can click it and read the entire thing. WP:BLPTALK indicates that linking sources with potentially problematic content is the proper way to handle touchy subjects, to wit: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating
- Clearly there is no difference between what I think should be in the article and what should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't think it should be added to the article, then why are you advocating for it being discussed on the talk page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: I am not talking about whether the material should be added to the article. For the record, I am against adding anything about Rapp to the article. I am talking about talk page practice. I see the oversighting as a wild overreaction, which has somehow become the normal for this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Editors are reminded that WP:BLP explicitly states that contentious material that is unsourced, or poorly sourced must be removed summarily. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly linked to a published, reputable secondary source. The statements being discussed (and RevDel'd) are directly attributed to an article in the Washington Post, one of the most reliable and highly-regarded print media outlets in the world. Unless there is evidence that the Washington Post did not actually publish it, then it would seem that BLP concerns are satisfied and the use of RevDel is inappropriate. The material may be discussed here, provided that editors remain focused on the content in the source itself and do not stray into speculation or gossip. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Historically, this article talk page has had overzealous responses to linked sources even if the content isn't repeated. "That do you think about this source? http:/reliablesource.com/story has been met with blocks, revdel and oversight. Personally I think it's a direct violation of WP:BLPTALK where links are expressly allowed but I have no ability to undo rev del and repeating oversighted links would lead to a block. I prefer links to language until a decision is made. Language can come later. --DHeyward (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- You can read the discussion on Newyorkbrad's talkpage where nary a mention of the subject was made but the oversight brigade was notified and they oversighted a single word (the word in the WaPo article). Read the rationale of the oversighting Aritrator there. The argument was made there and the request was by another editor to the arbitrator through email, I believe. Incidentally, my first block, ever, was for a link on a talk page that was a reliable source. It was overturned. Second block was overturned along with the rev del as it was not a violation (not on this article but along this topic, though) That's how nutty it's been. --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
A quick correction to those above referring to oversight—I revision-deleted the edit per RD2. It was not oversighted. I do not understand the arguments for discussing this in detail on the article talk page, but not including it in the article. If it satisfies the BLP policy's requirements for inclusion and is relevant to this article, it can be included in the article and discussed here in more detail. If not, I see no reason to go into detail about the allegations, particularly when per WP:BLPTALK they can simply be linked and discussed more vaguely to avoid repeating allegations that may not be suitable for the article, or per BLP policy. I disagree that not mentioning specifics will confuse the argument, as anyone discussing whether this should be included should certainly be reading the source used to support it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your response. Do tell us how it violates WP:BLP. The passage is from the Washington Post. Therefore, it is not "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for removal without consensus - and it was removed unilaterally without consensus. Distasteful material is not synonymous with "violating BLP". And again, to state the important fact: it is in fact debunking/casting doubt on an allegation.
- The broader point has been laid out by DHeyward, and is visible to all people who edit on the page. Because the BLP policy allows one to act without consensus, it is used as a weapon, even unconsciously. In the above, note that Mark Bernstein redacted some of DHeyward's comment. In retaliation (or just in the interests of fairness), Torchiest redacted Mark Bernstein's comment. Mark Bernstein got pissed and got topic banned shortly thereafter. Are they connected? Maybe. Is this healthy? No. In fact, this has been going on for more than a year now.
- And for what? Redacting something from a Wikipedia talk page (not even article page) which appears verbatim in a mainstream newspaper with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. If this is a BLP violation, the policy has jumped the shark. Luckily, it is not the policy: it seems to be confined to this page and related ones. In my work in Israel-Palestine, I have not encountered this level of nonsense. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- When the single reliable source refers to the allegations in the context of "evidence" from "self-styled investigators", or "claims" where there is "no indication that [the allegation] is real" (not scare quotes, just actual quotes from the article), I think it is reasonable to err on the conservative side when it comes to this matter. If a consensus of uninvolved administrators feel my revision-deletion was inappropriate and that the specifics can and should be specifically discussed here, I won't agree with it but I will abide by their decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI about this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- When the single reliable source refers to the allegations in the context of "evidence" from "self-styled investigators", or "claims" where there is "no indication that [the allegation] is real" (not scare quotes, just actual quotes from the article), I think it is reasonable to err on the conservative side when it comes to this matter. If a consensus of uninvolved administrators feel my revision-deletion was inappropriate and that the specifics can and should be specifically discussed here, I won't agree with it but I will abide by their decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Removal of paragraph on Rapp
I removed the paragraph on Alison Rapp but it was reverted by Jorm. It's currently unacceptable as it claims Walton only cared about her paper. That is incorrect. It was tweets such as that prompted Walton to contact Nintendo. Specifically, Rapp criticized [92][93]that prompted Walton to contact Nintendo. Specifically, Rapp criticized the arrest of Kraig Stockard a the arrest of [Kraig Stockard a and made numerous other comments that Walton felt were inappropriate for a person marketing products for children. This is all in reliable sources and we could flesh it out so that we don't portray Walton falsely as being concerned solely about a school paper. Or we can just remove the entire paragraph. If Rapp is never heard from again, that paragraph will serve only to immortalize her firing, document her tweets, document Walton's concerns, document Nintendo's response, etc, etc. If she remains in the news and Nintendo continues to receive negative publicity for the firing, anyone that's ever worked for a large company knows that the next step is to disclose the outside employment she was fired over, and then that would added. Neither Rapp nor Nintendo have released that. Rather than keep that paragraph and perpetuate/immortalize this event, the decent thing to do is delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It seems far more reasonable to delete the discussion of Walton, who (as far as I know) is not particularly notable. Walton was not harassed by Gamergate, after all, though Rapp was. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Walton is mentioned in essentially all the reliable sources. She's notable for this particular incident because all the sources are talking about her involvement. Outside of that, though, I'm not seeing anything in the Guardian, Mirror, and Kotaku sources saying Walton was complaining about any of Rapp's tweets. They all seem to be focused on criticism of the essay. Are there other sources you're thinking of, DHeyward? —Torchiest talkedits 19:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, NY Mag mentioned the tweets and there are others, but the progression was Walton informing Nintendo of the tweets (with a phone call), investigation of the tweets by Nintendo, removal of Rapp as spokesperson (the job transfer in early March) based on tweets and weeks later the firing for the second job. Walton co-founded the foundation with Kevin Smith. Nintendo only talked about the events in the month prior to her firing which were Walton's complaints. Rapp says that the company learned of her second job as part of its investigation spurred by Walton. My argument is not to flesh out the harassment, child pornography or firing which means removing the paragraph. The rest of her life is more important than scoring point in gg debates. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're timeline seems off. All of the sources attribute the controversy to some combination of GG supporters (or some splinter group, which is interesting, but I've never heard of before), or white supremacists (not sure why they care about a Japanese game localization.) I think you're over emphasizing Walton's part in all of it, which seems to be limited to a couple of tweets and a phone call. Rapp also doesn't say the investigation was spurred by Walton in any of our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're missing it. This has more timeline and it's published when Walton got involved. If you can find a reliable source published before Walton got involved you have more information then me. Walton triggered the coverage in RSs, not GG or white supremacists. Similarly, the firing statement from Nintendo says "last few weeks," not months. Rapp blames GG for months of harassment and bringing the scrutiny which Nintendo doesn't even seem to be aware of. Nintendo is notoriously shy about speaking publicly which seems why they transferred her to a non-public role and very surprised that twitter was even happening. GG might be mad about localizations (and have more in line views with Rapp regarding how adolescents are portrayed) but but it's quite the opposite from what upset Walton. It's an interesting dichotomy in feminist thought that on the hand, opposition to sexual objectification supports removal of "boob sliders" where other views object to heteronormative male and western stereotypes and is open to ideas regarding adolescent sexuality. They both hate GG but I'm not sure they would all agree with each other, whence the criticism by someone with Walton's background. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're timeline seems off. All of the sources attribute the controversy to some combination of GG supporters (or some splinter group, which is interesting, but I've never heard of before), or white supremacists (not sure why they care about a Japanese game localization.) I think you're over emphasizing Walton's part in all of it, which seems to be limited to a couple of tweets and a phone call. Rapp also doesn't say the investigation was spurred by Walton in any of our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, NY Mag mentioned the tweets and there are others, but the progression was Walton informing Nintendo of the tweets (with a phone call), investigation of the tweets by Nintendo, removal of Rapp as spokesperson (the job transfer in early March) based on tweets and weeks later the firing for the second job. Walton co-founded the foundation with Kevin Smith. Nintendo only talked about the events in the month prior to her firing which were Walton's complaints. Rapp says that the company learned of her second job as part of its investigation spurred by Walton. My argument is not to flesh out the harassment, child pornography or firing which means removing the paragraph. The rest of her life is more important than scoring point in gg debates. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Walton is mentioned in essentially all the reliable sources. She's notable for this particular incident because all the sources are talking about her involvement. Outside of that, though, I'm not seeing anything in the Guardian, Mirror, and Kotaku sources saying Walton was complaining about any of Rapp's tweets. They all seem to be focused on criticism of the essay. Are there other sources you're thinking of, DHeyward? —Torchiest talkedits 19:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You're missing it. This has more timeline and it's published when Walton got involved
. I'm missing what? That says exactly what I said. And it wasn't published when Walton got involved, it was published after Rapp was fired, and it doesn't attribute Walton as the reason for any investigation. Maybe you can point to a passage that you think supports that? If anything it seems to indicate that weev was much more active in trying to get Rapp fired then Walton. — Strongjam (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're in the UK? That Kotaku article is from March 4, not April 3, well before Rapp was actually fired. —Torchiest talkedits 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- ahh thanks, stupid date formats. Strongjam (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Here are some sources that could be used (or may in fact, already be in use) that were provided to me on my talk page by Torven (who can't post here himself.) Sorry for being so late in relaying them.
- Ars Technica: Nintendo fires harassed staffer but denies caving to trolls’ demands
- The Guardian: Nintendo denies Alison Rapp firing is linked to harassment campaign
- New York Mag: Gamergate May Have Just Won Its Most Disgraceful Scalp Yet
- News.com.au: Nintendo employee Alison Rapp fired after #GamerGate campaign
- Wired: Nintendo Firing a Female Gamer Only Makes the Trolls More Rabid
- The Verge: Nintendo fires staffer who faced sustained harassment
When discussing whether or not the harassment campaign against Alison Rapp was related to gamergate, I think sufficient reliable sources conclude that that it's worthy of inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- No one has said GG didn't harass her (and Nintendo's "weeks" vs. "months" indicates how tone deaf Nintendo was or how exaggerated the harassment was). Any sources before Walton became involved with the complaints regarding pedophilia and her tweets regarding it? The question is whether to include all the reasons for her firing or just remove the paragraph. I vote to end her victimization and delete it. What say you? --DHeyward (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- In case it isn't clear, I'm fine with removing it. I think there are BLP issues here we should consider. Do we really think Allison Rapp wants to be included in this article in this way? I doubt it. Consider the policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Torchiest talkedits 00:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My position on this is either "simple" or "complex" depending on how you want to look at it. Simply, I see no reason to drag Ms. Rapp's name around this in explicit detail. On the other hand, I think that the events are a fairly good example of the kind of harassment that is attributed to Gamergate. Removing the information completely can be seen as attempting to whitewash the behavior, which I'm not entirely hip to. I wonder if we can't simply include a single sentence or two elsewhere that basically says "Gamergate also blah blah blah, resulting in a Nintendo employee being terminated." (without using names, but citations pointing to various articles that may or may not name her. It's not our job to rocket people into the public eye. I'm also fine with it being gone entirely (because seriously, the litany of sins committed by Gamergate is pretty long and one more or less doesn't change the nature of the beast). --Jorm (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is there is no coverage before Walton. There is no reason to think Walton is GamerGate (or Stormfront for that matter and they Godwin'ed it early). Despite the "guilt by association"/yellow journalism coverage in the likes of Kotaku, Walton's actions stand apart from Gamergate. The press blindly criticizes Nintendo but the press, like Nintendo and IGDA, also did nothing until Walton got involved. To me, that says the GamerGate component is negligible and not notable because there is no independent coverage of that harassment before Walton. That's much different than the coverage afforded Sarkheesian and Wu as they received coverage of their harassment as it occurred. After Walton it centers on the pedophile aspects. Even Nintendo doesn't acknowledge anything prior to Walton. Therefore delete as having minimal gamergate connections and large potential for harm. --DHeyward (talk)
- My thoughts mostly mirror that of DHeyward, that we would be stretching to make a marginal link in some very choppy waters, and that it would be original research to mention the allegations against her in the context of the gamergate article. I'm thinking that the article would best be served with the whole section on Alison Rapp to be eliminated, or at best to go with something like "Proponents of Gamergate claimed victory when Nintendo fired a member of their Treehouse marketing team. Nintendo denied that the allegations made by Gamergate proponents had anything to do with the termination of the employee." (with links to the Wired and ArsTechnica stories). Just my 2 pfennigs. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- And User:DHeyward's prediction has now come true. At least one reliable source is reporting on what Rapp's second job was. I'm not going to link it here because, as I said, I think there are WP:BLP considerations. Rapp has no article of her own; this is a BLP1E for her that is becoming extremely unflattering. Let's just axe it. —Torchiest talkedits 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow. That fills in a lot of gaps. Yes, nuke it from orbit. --DHeyward (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- And User:DHeyward's prediction has now come true. At least one reliable source is reporting on what Rapp's second job was. I'm not going to link it here because, as I said, I think there are WP:BLP considerations. Rapp has no article of her own; this is a BLP1E for her that is becoming extremely unflattering. Let's just axe it. —Torchiest talkedits 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My thoughts mostly mirror that of DHeyward, that we would be stretching to make a marginal link in some very choppy waters, and that it would be original research to mention the allegations against her in the context of the gamergate article. I'm thinking that the article would best be served with the whole section on Alison Rapp to be eliminated, or at best to go with something like "Proponents of Gamergate claimed victory when Nintendo fired a member of their Treehouse marketing team. Nintendo denied that the allegations made by Gamergate proponents had anything to do with the termination of the employee." (with links to the Wired and ArsTechnica stories). Just my 2 pfennigs. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is there is no coverage before Walton. There is no reason to think Walton is GamerGate (or Stormfront for that matter and they Godwin'ed it early). Despite the "guilt by association"/yellow journalism coverage in the likes of Kotaku, Walton's actions stand apart from Gamergate. The press blindly criticizes Nintendo but the press, like Nintendo and IGDA, also did nothing until Walton got involved. To me, that says the GamerGate component is negligible and not notable because there is no independent coverage of that harassment before Walton. That's much different than the coverage afforded Sarkheesian and Wu as they received coverage of their harassment as it occurred. After Walton it centers on the pedophile aspects. Even Nintendo doesn't acknowledge anything prior to Walton. Therefore delete as having minimal gamergate connections and large potential for harm. --DHeyward (talk)
Even if the (very badly sourced) speculations I see in the game media are true, they are irrelevant. Alison Rapp was a female game developer who Gamergate supporters believed (falsely) had worked to tone down the sex in US versions of some games. To punish her, they pored through every record, tweet, and photograph they could find, and claim (bizarrely, in my opinion) that an undergraduate essay that endorses Japan's right to enact its own laws and to respect its own traditions is incompatible with employment by a Japanese company. They have now launched a second accusation, apparently containing further speculation about her personal life. Neither the undergraduate essay nor her personal life are germane but of course the harassment is germane. And while it's one event for Rapp, it's just another in a long chain of terror for Gamergate. As {{ping}SirFozzie}} suggests, we should (and indeed must) describe the campaign of intimidation, but I agree we can ignore the details of the smear campaign. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your account is still wrong. The undergraduate essay wasn't the problem. It was the tweet criticizing the arrest of a person caught in the U.S. with child pornography (see the first Kotaku story). That tweet is what got Walton involved and what prompted Nintendo to transfer her out of a job that had contact with the public in the beginning of March. Walton is not Gamergate and it is false to portray her as part of Gamergate. She works to stop child pornography and was concerned about Rapp marketing games to children, not for anything related to the games themselves. This is not a "bizarre" flip in GamerGate, it's two seperate entities. Nobody gave any ink to it until Walton got involved so gamergate is not the reason Nintendo started looking. They ignored gamergate but they didn't ignore Walton. Nintendo:
Alison Rapp was terminated due to violation of an internal company policy involving holding a second job in conflict with Nintendo’s corporate culture.
The second job information was given to Nintendo by unknown persons with no evidence that they are gamergate related. Rapp said her second job wasn't disclosed to Nintendo and was under a pseudonym. So if there is anything germane that is not related to Walton and or her firing, there should be reliable sources discussing it before Walton and before her firing. This is the difference between coverage of Sarkheesian, Wu and Quinn that had coverage in RSs as the harassment went on. Not so with Rapp and it's inseparable from Walton, her second job and her firing. Nuke the paragraph as her future is worth more than scoring points against GamerGate. If we don't do it now, it will just grow with reliably sourced additions that all lead to the place we don't want to go. --DHeyward (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)- You keep talking about this arrest issue, but I haven't been able to find anything in the sources that makes a clear link from Walton to Rapp to Stockard. They quote a Walton tweet complaining about Rapp, but the context provided in the articles all seem to go back to the essay. This might be a moot point now, but can you quote the source that is drawing that connection? —Torchiest talkedits 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- This sourcecites this tweet as relevant. It's from early March. It's pretty awful as far as journalism goes (i.e. the quote from Walton was a polite "No comment" and she declined to comment for the story, but he quoted her as if she was dismissive. Rapp and nintendo also declined to comment and no quotes appear.. You can google what she thinks of the author). You have to wade through the Godwin stuff (I wonder if he ever quotes Stormfront for anything else) but the associative guilt is pretty bad. He does cover most of the details (like it was Walton, not GamerGate, the essay and tweets - not just the essay, he links to a specific tweet). He even touches on that it's not GamerGate but dismisses the identity for a new, broader definition. There's more tweets from all involved. None of it changes the need to delete the paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- You keep talking about this arrest issue, but I haven't been able to find anything in the sources that makes a clear link from Walton to Rapp to Stockard. They quote a Walton tweet complaining about Rapp, but the context provided in the articles all seem to go back to the essay. This might be a moot point now, but can you quote the source that is drawing that connection? —Torchiest talkedits 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your account is still wrong. The undergraduate essay wasn't the problem. It was the tweet criticizing the arrest of a person caught in the U.S. with child pornography (see the first Kotaku story). That tweet is what got Walton involved and what prompted Nintendo to transfer her out of a job that had contact with the public in the beginning of March. Walton is not Gamergate and it is false to portray her as part of Gamergate. She works to stop child pornography and was concerned about Rapp marketing games to children, not for anything related to the games themselves. This is not a "bizarre" flip in GamerGate, it's two seperate entities. Nobody gave any ink to it until Walton got involved so gamergate is not the reason Nintendo started looking. They ignored gamergate but they didn't ignore Walton. Nintendo:
- I've removed for now. Genearlly I think it's worth a mention, but as SirFozzie and Jorm suggest, I think a brief overview without going into details or names would be fine. — Strongjam (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No. People are going to read this article, and see the part about Rapp. If we are going to include mention of her, we absolutely have to include Nintendo's official response, as nearly every RS reporting on this has quoted it. If we do that, a non-zero number of people are going to go looking for what her second job was. It is unconscionable for us to contribute to tarnishing her reputation. Read WP:AVOIDVICTIM and try to see how mentioning her at all doesn't violate this policy. —Torchiest talkedits 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The harassment campaign is part of Gamergate and must be reported here. Nintendo is not part of Gamergate and, if you feel strongly about that, can be omitted. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- You can't pick and choose content like that. Essentially every reliable source that has reported on this has included Nintendo's official response/reasoning with regard to Rapp's termination. Per WP:NPOV, we can't only report Rapp's side of the story without including Nintendo's, precisely because all the sources are doing so. —Torchiest talkedits 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The harassment campaign is part of Gamergate and must be reported here. Nintendo is not part of Gamergate and, if you feel strongly about that, can be omitted. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Of course we can pick and choose. There's a name for that: editing. And this isn't a he-said, she-said: the harassment and smear campaign is a fact, one directly pertinent to the Gamergate controversy. We can and must report it. Subsequent events and allegations do not involve Gamergate; we need not concern ourselves with them. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Cherrypicking. It's an essay, but it's firmly based on, and references, core policy. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nintendo's response is also a fact, reported on by reliable sources. And my point is, we obviously wouldn't include what the second job is, but we must, per WP:NPOV, include that it was Nintendo's officially stated reason for the termination. And that puts Rapp at risk. —Torchiest talkedits 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Of course we can pick and choose. There's a name for that: editing. And this isn't a he-said, she-said: the harassment and smear campaign is a fact, one directly pertinent to the Gamergate controversy. We can and must report it. Subsequent events and allegations do not involve Gamergate; we need not concern ourselves with them. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Has anyone found a source that exists before Walton? If not, then I don't think the cherrypicking/editing goes anywhere. Even if there was, the harassment includes comments by IGDA condemning Nintendo for firing her. We can't ignore that part of the harassment even if we cover just the harassment. We cannot let the criticism in without disclosing why Nintendo fired her. So remove the whole paragraph. --DHeyward (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post
Caitlin Dewey in The Washington Post reports on This horrifying and newly trendy online-harassment tactic is ruining careers [94]. “Critics wrongly assumed,” she writes, "that Rapp, an outspoken feminist, was involved, and launched a very public investigation into her personal life. In between deconstructing her Amazon wishlist, surfacing anonymous social accounts and circulating copies of her undergraduate thesis, the self-styled investigators also found evidence that Rapp was working a mysterious second job — for which she was fired from Ninetendo on March 30.”
- (Redacted)
Dewey concludes that the use of opposition research against a marketing employee constitutes harassment, and that the harassers “fail to recognize that just because someone makes a product that is publicly accessible — or worse, because someone is tangentially and distantly involved in the making of a product that is publicly accessible — does not mean that they themselves should be, in their entirety, accessible to the public. And the mere fact that something can be publicized is not ethical justification for doing it.” In contrast to the report discussed above, which apparently relies entirely on reporting by an individual blogger (and banned Wikipedia editor), this report from the Post’s Digital Culture critic is carefully sourced. Note that the story here is the use of opposition research techniques in an attempt to ruin the careers of Gamergate’s targets; that is the story of the Gamergate controversy, and deserves (brief) coverage in our article. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is "opposition resource" intended to be Opposition research? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is. Thanks.MarkBernstein (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am often impressed by the work of both WAPost's Caitlin Dewey and her colleague, Hayley Tsukayama. I this case I am particularly impressed by the careful, one must assume intentional, absence of attribution of these opposition research activities to any "Gamergate" boogieman. Dewey indeed explicitly notes that the activities appear to have been carried out by "several dozen" persons; even if all of these were also part of the wider "Gamergate movement", they would be a tiny, lunatic fringe. We should be careful of saying "Gamergate done this", without a source which says "Gamergate done this". NOTE: I personally consider such opposition research activities, both in online culture wars and in their original political context, to be deplorable; and broadly condemn them. I do, however, concur that the noteworthy aspects of the Gamergate controversy include things like the use of opposition research in online culture war contexts, far more so than building a list of atrocity propaganda; it is also interesting to note that so many of the dramatis personae appear to have experience with opposition research for shits and giggles. I'd also consider noteworthy the use of the tactics of outage culture as a weapon against a culturally imperialistic progressive outrage culture. I look forward to reading the research into these aspects, once written. But maybe that's just me. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
| Comments not directly related to the improvement of the article may be removed or collapsed. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- If you make another bad faith accusation like that, I'll be forced to report you for violating the discretionary sanctions on this page. This is WP:NOTAFORUM either. —Torchiest talkedits 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- MarkBernstein, Please take your personal attacks, aspersions and uncivil misrepresentations elsewhere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Than you for the opportunity to clarify.
- Gamergate's reprehensible, criminal and evil actions need no scare quotes. You refer to "Gamergate boogiemen", but Gamergate represents a real and immediate danger to their numerous targets and victims. Whether there exists any part of Gamergate outside what you call the "tiny lunatic fringe" of active harassers is an interesting question because the only notable action of Gamergate is harassment. Is there a "wider" Gamergate movement? How would we (or anyone) know? Since Gamergate has no leaders, no members, and no notable actions outside harassment, its continuing trail of heinous and cowardly threats are -- to the knowledge of our sources and according to the consensus of hundreds of reliable sources -- the definition of Gamergate. Wikipedia cannot dismiss or fail to discuss harassment because some editors believe that harassment is the work of a "tiny lunatic fringe"; the overwhelming consensus of our sources consider that its harassment campaigns are all we know of Gamergate, and all we can or need to know. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, we should absolutely not be bringing allegations of (redacted) of a non-public figure to this article. It simply cannot exist. This isn't point scoring. A week ago, Nintendo had this information and chose not to release it. They were lambasted for "caving." That didn't magically go away. Let's not add paragraphs that continue the victimization. Dewey does nothing to paint Rapp in a way that conforms to our BLP policy and Dewey does not bring any new methods to enlighten anyone about harassment. Rapp is being used as a foil and fodder rather than being treated with dignity and respect for her privacy. Please stop trying to contribute to that atmosphere. --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. And Mark, I'm surprised you would redact DHeyward's comment when the quote you added here is just as bad. I've redacted that as well. I'll say it again: WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Rapp should not be used as a pawn in this article. —Torchiest talkedits 02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. You redacted a direct quote from The Washington Post under the cover of BLP? Seriously? MarkBernstein (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, yes they did; in accordance with WP:BLP@WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The inclusion of the quote was gratuitous, and unnecessary for discussion here. I apologise for not having redacted it myself. I also concur with DHeyward, Torchiest & others, above, that the inclusion of the aspect, with the sources that we currently have, is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you believed this was a BLP, you would already have started a case at WP:AE. If you wish, WP:AE is thataway. Note that DHeyward's comment, which I redacted, was shortly afterwards revdeled. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The assertion above is logically invalid. It does not follow that if I, or any other editor, believes that a statement violates WP:BLP that they would (or should) file at WP:AE. Also, please take your aspersions elsewhere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another prediction: It's Monday. Lawyers don't work weekends. Other sources are trying to figure out what they can run with. It has every element of titillation these outlets love. We had a high risk RS go first, WaPo is low risk, please anticipate the flow as other news outlets vet the flow of information, ask for quotes, denial or affirmation and go through their news cycle. Lawyers, not facts, are the barriers here and we should not rush to be bleeding edge. Think of what we know from Rapp herself: second job, not safe, etc. Nintendo didn't release any of it. Turn on your brain and realize this doesn't end well. Nintendo didn't disassociate itself from the CP aspect for no reason (indeed, it would have been legally okay on those reasons alone). Both acknowledge it was a second job. Doxing is not new but this information was known prior to any public revelation. Nintendo legal didn't create a shitstorm without facts. Anyone involved in Big Corporate investigations knows how this works and it isn't pretty for Rapp. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to mentioning Rapp, I think we need to include the situation, as it was covered in mainstream media and seen as an example of how ethically-questionable opposition research and bullying tactics has been used by some parts of GG, but a precursor before I say how: recognizing the concern that the BLP implications about Rapp are being reported in reliable sources is comparable to the situation around the original Gjoni post, in which several reliable sources (like Boston magazine) also posted other accusations Gjoni made towards Quinn in his post, which we have purposely not included because they are not central to GG. Same with many of the aspects related to Rapp. So our approach should avoid stating any of the potential BLP aspects but being aware that they exist.
- With that said, we should explain that Rapp had be a target of GG-related criticism for some of her comments regarding games and localization (particularly over Fire Emblem Fates) as a member of Treehouse, among other aspects (which we should not go into). Rapp then announced she had been let go, which many gaming press agencies took to be Nintendo caving into GG, but Nintendo then put out an official statement that she had violated a company policy (not stating what that was) and in no way related to the harassment she had been getting. Following that official statement, there was still criticism from the press and others like IDGA that Nintendo did nothing to help protect Rapp and/or still blamed GG for the net result by using opposition research. We don't have to mention the other aspects about Rapp's past that came up, and we don't need to mention the exact reason for Nintendo letting her go, even though one is a click away from the sources to find this out. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've re-added some stuff, trying to be extremely careful, but it reads a bit confusingly now, since it's lacking details and aspects of the timeline. I'm not sure how to add more to it safely. Also, I didn't add anything about IGDA's criticisms yet. —Torchiest talkedits 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. It cannot be fair to Nintendo without Gamezone or the Mirror. Nuke it all. the techniques are not new and the components that led to news coverage started with Jamie Walton, not gamerGate. Find a source before Jamie Walton became involved. That has to be the standard by which GamerGate is mentioned. Walton is not gamergate. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've removed the paragraph for now, probably jumped the gun. It's true Walton is key. And I can't find any sources that mention Rapp before Walton was involved. There are sources that mention the localization issue from months ago though. This seems to be an impossible situation. How can the complete, NPOV version of what happened be added to the article without violating BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchiest (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It cannot be fair to Nintendo without Gamezone or the Mirror.
Masem proposal is fair to Nintendo, and anyway Nintendo is not a living person.Find a source before Jamie Walton became involved. That has to be the standard by which GamerGate is mentioned. Walton is not gamergate.
This is not based in any policy, find me a source that says that Walton is the reason Nintendo dismissed Rapp. We have plenty of sources that say the harassment was related to Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)- I think I am with the general consensus here that this issue is simply too fraught to be brought up. Though it has certainly received coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it demands inclusion or that a complete article requires it. To balance the delicate nature of this one with the benefit to the encyclopedia I think it's clear that as things stand, there's no reason to put this in. Best to err on the side of caution. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- This might be a reasonable approach too if we feel that there's no way to write on the Rapp situation without creating a BLP issue. I would still think it appropriate to collapse these all to include attribution that some tactics claimed to be used by the GG movement include opposition research and bullying (new facets that arose from the Rapp situation). Yes, we're still linking to RS stories that cover the Rapp situation but we're not bringing her name or situation up at all, easily meeting the BLP aspects of that. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is pretty much my point of view on the subject.--Jorm (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- This might be a reasonable approach too if we feel that there's no way to write on the Rapp situation without creating a BLP issue. I would still think it appropriate to collapse these all to include attribution that some tactics claimed to be used by the GG movement include opposition research and bullying (new facets that arose from the Rapp situation). Yes, we're still linking to RS stories that cover the Rapp situation but we're not bringing her name or situation up at all, easily meeting the BLP aspects of that. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think I am with the general consensus here that this issue is simply too fraught to be brought up. Though it has certainly received coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it demands inclusion or that a complete article requires it. To balance the delicate nature of this one with the benefit to the encyclopedia I think it's clear that as things stand, there's no reason to put this in. Best to err on the side of caution. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I take no position on whether or not this is important for the article, but I don't see a way to include it and comply with BLP. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The way to include it and comply with BLP is by stating it matter-of-factly with attribution to a quality source (such as the Washington Post.) BLP does not mean purging contentious information from the encyclopedia; it means adequately sourcing the positive and negative. The Allison Rapp scandal is an indispensable addition to the article, both in its specifics and in its relation to the controversy's through-lines of harassment and cultural relativism. If it can be adequately explained without salacious details, that would be better, but policy does not recommend enforcing taboos. Rhoark (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Another facet
Keeping in mind what has been said above about trying to avoid any further BLP issues on Rapp, this article from Heatstreet (published by Dow Jones & Co.) identifies how a different group (Kiwifarms) than GG is to blame for all this, and pointing out how GG has been seen as a boogeyman by the press. I think this can be included without any mention of Rapp, focusing strictly on how GG has been blamed by the press for activities actually done by other third parties. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Two things: first, I am not in any way sure that Heatstreet can at this point be called a reliable source. It is, as near as I can tell, on the order of two months old, and while I can find out who the editor is, I am having trouble finding out if there is any other staff or what their editorial policies are. More importantly, while this article does say that with regard to the current Nintendo issue "GG has been blamed by the press for activities actually done by other third parties," the rhetorical flourish of "another false allegation" is not enough to call this a pervasive issue. If the article were to make mention of some of these other false allegations, that would be a different story. Right now this would be a no from me, for either reason, at least as presented. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the publishing company should be enough to extend reliability to the site as part of the same media group. Newness doesn't automatically disqualify anything from being reliable either. Having said that, I think this is an interesting piece in terms of finding a clear group that has done at least one thing GG has been blamed for, but it would be helpful if there were RSes mentioning other incidents that GG falsely took blame for. This is tantalizing but inconclusive as it stands. —Torchiest talkedits 17:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I did some digging, and found a couple other sources getting into this issue:
- Young, Cathy (November 25, 2015). "When Trolls Attack & GamerGate Is Scapegoated". RealClearPolitics.
- Schubert, Damion (October 16, 2014). "On Being Doxxed and Third Party Shitheads". Zen of Design.
Both are written by authors we're already citing in the article. —Torchiest talkedits 19:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with those sources, but I would push back strongly against "the publishing company should be enough to extend reliability." Independent ventures are independent ventures, and while I agree that newness is not an automatic disqualifier, reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. As such, new ventures which apparently have little to no reputation (good or bad) would seem to not fit the bill, by my lights. For the record, I still think this entire imbroglio is better left out of the article, but I am aware that might be just me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fully independent. I think it's essentially run by Dow Jones, which is what I meant about being part of the same media group. Check this article: "Dow Jones Media Group, which is overseeing the project, confirmed it was hiring staff." —Torchiest talkedits 00:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you, and it's obviously not a big issue now. But I would still say that oversight is not enough. It's possible to have major news organizations go into less salubrious areas. The publishing unit, while associated with the Wall Street Journal, covers multifarious media outlets and is itself a venture only begun this year. My point is quite simply that independent entities have to go on their own; for instance, while the New York Times Company owned about.com for some time, I don't think it would have been proper to accord the website the same reliability status, no matter who is doing the oversight. That bit about reputation is not just empty words. That's my only real (pedantic) point. Dumuzid (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fully independent. I think it's essentially run by Dow Jones, which is what I meant about being part of the same media group. Check this article: "Dow Jones Media Group, which is overseeing the project, confirmed it was hiring staff." —Torchiest talkedits 00:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with those sources, but I would push back strongly against "the publishing company should be enough to extend reliability." Independent ventures are independent ventures, and while I agree that newness is not an automatic disqualifier, reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. As such, new ventures which apparently have little to no reputation (good or bad) would seem to not fit the bill, by my lights. For the record, I still think this entire imbroglio is better left out of the article, but I am aware that might be just me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)