Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 25
(Redirected from Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 25)
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Don't use disambiguation titles as actual names
The title of the article has an added "controversy" to disambiguate it from gamergate. It's a basic dab title, like English language, which makes perfect sense. It makes no sense bolding it, though. This is usually referred to simply as "Gamergate" by almost everyone. "Gamergate controversy" is a description, not an actual name.
Peter Isotalo 22:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- That isn't the only reason. Another reason was that the only noteworthy part about Gamergate is the surrounding controversy - almost the entire article is about that. 109.152.100.135 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Or rather in the early days of the article people fought hard to move the goalposts in order to keep out things they didn't like. Rhoark (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- The IP user is correct. It used to be "Gamergate (controversy)", the consensus was to remove the brackets. The problem was that the article was about Gamergate, but the only coverage was some controversy around it. There was very little discussing the movement per se. So it was decided to make it about the controversy. HalfHat 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Brackets don't really matter here. Again: English language. There are plenty of similar examples. Like Springfield, Massachusetts.
- I'm not exactly sure how you're reasoning here. Focus is still on the notable aspects (controversy, not movement). News articles refer to this as "Gamergate", not "the Gamergate controversy". If the latter, it's descriptions like "the Gamergate death threats" or "the Gamergate media coverage". Or why not "the Gamergate movement"?
- Peter Isotalo 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've put arguments (though not forced the issue) that we could really make this article about the movement since it is really about them and the actions they have caused (directly or indirectly) and the criticism that resulted. The term is used enough in sources (equal or more to "gamergate controversy"). However, there is a hesitation there because while sources will say that GG is a self-described movement, they will follow that up claiming they aren't a movement due to their lack of organization, etc. As such, calling it a movement in the prose in the past has been controversial by some editors. But I will argue that nearly every source recognizes that it is a self-described movement even if they criticize it harshly in the same article. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- any coverage of the "so called movement" is entirely secondary to the coverage of the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've put arguments (though not forced the issue) that we could really make this article about the movement since it is really about them and the actions they have caused (directly or indirectly) and the criticism that resulted. The term is used enough in sources (equal or more to "gamergate controversy"). However, there is a hesitation there because while sources will say that GG is a self-described movement, they will follow that up claiming they aren't a movement due to their lack of organization, etc. As such, calling it a movement in the prose in the past has been controversial by some editors. But I will argue that nearly every source recognizes that it is a self-described movement even if they criticize it harshly in the same article. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is strictly an issue of wording and WP:COMMONNAME to me. The scope of the article is quite neatly defined by the actual article title.
- Peter Isotalo 11:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
History
"Quinn began to receive hate mail over the game upon its release and criticism from some parts of the Steam user community, receiving enough harassment to cause her to change her phone number. This elicited further outrage from others and by September 2014,"
- What elicited further outrage and by whom? Changing her phone number? I'm sure that's not what the fuss is all about, but it reads that way. This sentence is poorly constructed. --Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 12:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it. It was a pretty fuzzy statement and it's unclear why it needed to be mentioned in a paragraph about the plight of Quinn.
- Peter Isotalo 20:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the trailing phrase was attached to a statement that noted that DQ was about to be released when Robin Williams committed suicide, and Quinn opted to continue the release commenting on the issue of depression. That would lead to additional harassment as left over. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Appeal of Protection Level
The current protection level on this page is being appealed at Arbitration Enforcement for being in violation of the current Protection Policy. Those Editors who wish to make a comment on the appeal may do so there. --Obsidi (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
4chan largely coordinated the attacks
This is directly stated in the Washington Post. Are there other sources that state otherwise? If not, to imply others had more influence is OR. Regardless it should be noted that 4chan is mostly responsible for getting this harrassment ball rolling.--Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Gamergate has been banned on 4chan since mid-september, while august attacks may have been coordinated by 4chan Gamergate has been going on for 4 months since then. See this washington post article for details on more recent Gamergate coordination.Bosstopher (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this changes that the organization started on 4chan, though. We should clarify that they were banned from 4chan, surely, but it definitely started there.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Bosstopher: that article only supports the fact that 8chan made attacks. Absent a source being provided that contradicts the first source stating that 4chan was the stated and was largely responsible for organizing the attacks, I intend to restore the text you reverted.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Two kinds of pork: if you did it would be a major case of WP:RECENTISM (but a past version, there should be a better way of phrasing it). None of the sources since mid September have mentioned 4chan being involved at all (unless referring to the beginning of the controversy, and instead focus on the involvement of 8chan and other forums. Since that was only a one example i'll give you the other sources too. Here are articles noting KiA, Escapist forums and 8chan are the new hubs of GG since 4chan shut it down.[1][2][3][4][5][6] also pretty much all articles about Brianna Wu mention that the doxxing happened on 8chan not 4chan, and if you read the wiki article on 8chan the sources used there also point out that it's now a central hub of GG activity instead of 4chan. I'd suggest if you want to include it in the lede, use the phrasing the IP editor suggested noting it started in 4chan. Bosstopher (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Bosstopher: that article only supports the fact that 8chan made attacks. Absent a source being provided that contradicts the first source stating that 4chan was the stated and was largely responsible for organizing the attacks, I intend to restore the text you reverted.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this changes that the organization started on 4chan, though. We should clarify that they were banned from 4chan, surely, but it definitely started there.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the lede is wrong
I'm pretty sure "Gamergate" is described in the RSes as a movement or a campaign. I get this article is focused on the controversy around it, since the actual structure and workings or the movement/campaign gained little attention, but the current lede is just misleading. HalfHat 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see above there being discussion of it up there and I'm not sure if this was linked to a change so I made this a separate section, if in fact it was, please merge this in. HalfHat 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- As a "movement" its non notable. If you want to call it a "harassment campaign" I am good with that being supported by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 12,500 google news hits pretty much proves the movement is notable. It's just also so tied to the controversy that it does not make sense to consider it a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:GHITS and there is zero evidence that it is notable outside of being a harassment movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 12,500 google news hits pretty much proves the movement is notable. It's just also so tied to the controversy that it does not make sense to consider it a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- As a "movement" its non notable. If you want to call it a "harassment campaign" I am good with that being supported by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- The sources in the article (which are what we have to go by) are ambiguous; some describe it as an amorphous movement, some note that it describes itself as a movement but qualify that, and some describe it purely as a controversy or purely in relation to the hashtag. I think the simplest thing for us to do is to focus on people relative to the hashtag in the lead, since that is universal among sources -- any other characterization should probably be qualified by citing it to someone (eg. so-and-so describes it as such-and-such.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom article
Mentions of the wikipedia edit warring have been appearing in news articles about GamerGate for a while, but usually just in passing. Although more focused articles about Jimbo's role exist [7] [8]
Today Guardian has published a piece on the Arbcom case, which i think given that events on wikipedia are very much part of the Gamergate controversy avoids MOS:SELFREF. But there are two problems. The first one is that the article is incredibly inaccurate. First of all its based only off of the original version of the Proposed decision, and doesnt note any of the changes made. It claims bans have already been put in place, this is incorrect. It claims 5 anti-GamerGate editors were proposed topic bans regarding all feminism topics, this is incorrect only 4 were, (and only 3 have had the topic ban pass). While Masem who claims to be anti-GG was proposed a topic ban later, it did not mention prohibiting edits to Also given that the article is pretty much just based off of a blog post by MarkBernstein who's accused Masem of running an evil cabal of 8channers, it seems unlikely the author was referring to Masem. So given how much of a wreck the article is and how much of it is just plain wrong, is it useable?
The second problem is: if it is usuable who's allowed to put information from it into the article? Would it mean that everyone who took part in the Arbcom case would have to keep WP:COS in mind when editing anything referring to it? Would it just be parties to the case? Bosstopher (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do we have a reliable source saying that The Guardian is inaccurate? If The Guardian writes about it, with their history of Pulitzer prizes, reliability, and editorial oversight, than I am pretty sure we should report it exactly as Guardian says. Obviously we have to mention this is the Guardian's opinion, and cite it as such, unless you think that's WP:UNDUE. I'm not completely certain. In all seriousness though its probably just undue unless we have more articles writing about the ArbCom case in particular. I vote for passing the buck. Ries42 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- We know the Guardian article is wrong because the ArbCom case is still open and all remedies have yet to be voted on completely. Trending towards the conclusions made, yes, but not there yet and some remedies can still flip on votes. Even given that, there's still not a heck of a lot appropriate to the GG topic here from these articles - a topic about the criticism of Wikipedia in general, possibly, but I yet to see any real point of substance of what WP's role has been in GG to date. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- We are under no obligation to use reliable sources that still get things wrong. If the Guardian chooses to publish something asserting the moon is made of cheese, we wouldn't include that in an article either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe everyone here missed the fact that Ries42 was being sarcastic. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. I thought the "In all seriousness" afterword would have indicated that. I was indeed being cheeky. Ries42 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies. To be fair, it's been impossible to tell as of late here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. I thought the "In all seriousness" afterword would have indicated that. I was indeed being cheeky. Ries42 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I believe everyone here missed the fact that Ries42 was being sarcastic. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the arbcom really merits inclusion in the article based on one source (which printed prematurely.) Argument might be made for including something about Jimbo based on multiple sources, but I'm not convinced. Seems like a minor detail at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The arbcom case is definitely not a minor detail. Copulative (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, no aspect of how Wikipedia has handled GG - short of Jimmy Wales' statements and even then to a small degree - has affected the GG situation, or at least what has been reported in RS. The case is important to WP, but from the topic of GG, it has little immediate relevance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would disagree with you, considering how much controversy the Wikipedia article itself has generated. Copulative (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I know in GG circles there is a lot of controversy, and here, I'll just point to the archive page count, but we have nothing from reliable sources that say that WP's article has had any role in the GG controversy. If anything, the stuff about Jimmy talking about the GG's try at their own version of a GG article, that's all about criticism of Wikipedia that involves the GG issue, but not a topic of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- What about this portion from the The Guardian article? "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate" Copulative (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- How has the actions we have done here in the long-running debates and through ArbCom have had any direct influence on the GG controversy/movement? The only thing I think that even approaches a point of use is an explanation of how this and other GG-related articles have seen an influx of people likely siding with GG to try to change the way these articles are written, as part of the activities of the GG group -- but there's zero sources for that at all. To GG, this is a non-story, but it is a possible story in discussing WP in the media or criticism of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It has direct influence because when someone doesn't know what Gamergate is, they're going to Google it and the first thing that pops up will be a Wikipedia article called "Gamergate controversy." Copulative (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's definitely the issue the GG side has with WP, that's very clear, and that's why we've had lots of new editors trying to participate. But this is not at all documented in any reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It has direct influence because when someone doesn't know what Gamergate is, they're going to Google it and the first thing that pops up will be a Wikipedia article called "Gamergate controversy." Copulative (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- How has the actions we have done here in the long-running debates and through ArbCom have had any direct influence on the GG controversy/movement? The only thing I think that even approaches a point of use is an explanation of how this and other GG-related articles have seen an influx of people likely siding with GG to try to change the way these articles are written, as part of the activities of the GG group -- but there's zero sources for that at all. To GG, this is a non-story, but it is a possible story in discussing WP in the media or criticism of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- What about this portion from the The Guardian article? "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate" Copulative (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I know in GG circles there is a lot of controversy, and here, I'll just point to the archive page count, but we have nothing from reliable sources that say that WP's article has had any role in the GG controversy. If anything, the stuff about Jimmy talking about the GG's try at their own version of a GG article, that's all about criticism of Wikipedia that involves the GG issue, but not a topic of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would disagree with you, considering how much controversy the Wikipedia article itself has generated. Copulative (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, no aspect of how Wikipedia has handled GG - short of Jimmy Wales' statements and even then to a small degree - has affected the GG situation, or at least what has been reported in RS. The case is important to WP, but from the topic of GG, it has little immediate relevance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The arbcom case is definitely not a minor detail. Copulative (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- As I noted on the Arb page, the article is essentially correct; all they whiffed on was quoting Mark Bernstein saying "No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts", as there was only one; TDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2015
- A diff of Tarc's comment for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any big problems in article accuracy, sadly. Artw (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I literally listed all the factual errors in the article, at the top of the section. There's a substantial number even excluding the Bernstein quote.Bosstopher (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm seeing those as pretty minor quibbles or subjective on your part, TBH. Artw (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I literally listed all the factual errors in the article, at the top of the section. There's a substantial number even excluding the Bernstein quote.Bosstopher (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone who didn't take part in the ArbCom case can add info from the article without breaking Wikipedia rules. Copulative (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's really sad a source as respected as The Gaurdian published something that poor. Anyway it seems undue to go into any of the specifics anyway while there is only one source. HalfHat 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- You know what, I actually think this article is very good for something. Specifically, its factual errors point out that its author may not be deserving of the amount of weight this article has given him, and it seriously brings into question his reliability. Currently the Draft has three articles written by Mr. Hern. I believe there may not be anything directly questionable about those articles in a quick review, but perhaps they are not as rock-solid reliable as previous discussions have led us to believe. Ries42 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the following in a separate section before I noticed this discussion:
Some people are saying it's inaccurate but I think that, nitpicking aside, this is as fair an account of the political dimension of the case as I could expect.
This one-off article probably doesn't merit mention in our article yet, because in the grand scheme of things Wikipedia hasn't been a big part of the controversy. That may change if many reliable sources start discussing the arbitration case. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --TS 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not an accurate news piece at all. If you have particular feelings about Gamergate and this article, you might think the whole thing is being handled in a fairly one-sided manner, but as far as I can tell they're handing out various bans, admonishments, or other punishments to both sides pretty readily. I think Halfhat is on the topic ban list, the Devil's Advocate is on the ban list, Loganmac is there, and other users have had their existing bans confirmed. Anti-GG editors seem to be getting sanctioned, but there's politicking about it - especially for Ryulong. It looks like the article is being written based on Mark Bernstein's statements - and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he involved with this whole mess? It's like if the Guardian did an article after an interview with Ryulong or NorthBySouthBaranof, which honestly would have made more sense because those two have done a lot of editing to the article.
- My guess? It's politics. They're sounding the word that the article needs more anti-GG editors because a few of the current ones may get banned. Emphasis on the "may" part. YellowSandals (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that this article is extremely insulting to the arbitrators, who are volunteers, not Chief Justices, and have worked very hard to pursue a just resolution. If anything this is good evidence that newspaper sources are untrustworthy, and that this article won't really be decent until a greater number of neutral, uninvolved accounts are available. Shii (tock) 01:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's an article about it from the beloved Gawker: http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331/+cushac Copulative (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- If enough sources report on it, we'll have to cover it here eventually, but for now I think it'd be best to wait until the ArbCom decision is finalized, at least (which should produce most of the coverage if there's going to be more) -- it doesn't seem like something pressingly relevant or high-profile enough that we have to rush to add it on these few sources, anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the drama, but I just read the news and it's disappointing to hear that a determined group of trolls is pushing away a good group of editors. Sorry I don't have a solution to propose, it's just sad to hear. --Frybread (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please do not call arbitrators "trolls." They have had to deal with this case for several weeks and are trying to find the best solution to multiple groups of editors whose actions might be deemed problematic. This case isn't a win for anyone, so I will apologize if that sounds snippy. To get back on track, do you have an opinion as to what we should do with the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not the Arbitors he's calling trolls, it's certain editors involved in the dispute. Just to clarify for him. HalfHat 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Whose to say he wasn't. And whose to say he might not be right?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 07:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not the Arbitors he's calling trolls, it's certain editors involved in the dispute. Just to clarify for him. HalfHat 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is the following: I do not believe that the article should be included as a source at the present time. It appears to make several mistakes: Implies that the case is over, implies that there was a preliminary decision, states that arbcom has sanctioned anyone, etc. It fails to disclose that Mark Bernstein has an indefinite topic ban on discussion and edits to Gamergate related articles. I feel that the author of the article should have confirmed a few things before this could be a reliable article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in total agreement with this statement by Super Goku V. We can dismiss even reliable sources articles on a case by case basis and this is one of them. The article has several factual errors and sources statements from an editor who has been topic-banned for his involvement in the dispute. There is little doubt in my mind that at this point this Wikipedia article itself, ArbCom, and the history of this article have become a part of the controversy, but this source is not accurate enough for inclusion about it. Reporting about a controversy over a Wikipedia article on the article itself is also a tricky situation that I think would require more community oversight before it is attempted, if a factual reliable source comes up about it. Weedwacker (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia does not then further investigate whether a source provides "evidence" — we are encyclopedia editors, not investigative reporters. If reliable sources say something is true, for our purposes it is true." So which is it? Do we have to check if a source is telling the truth before using it or do we not? Or do we decide that based on which narrative we're pushing now? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are conflating two different issues. On this topic, we have only a single reliable source thus far presented and it is reasonable to discuss whether we should write an encyclopedia section based upon only a sole source, or whether we should wait to find out if other reliable sources chime in on the issue and what they have to say. We don't have any reliable sources saying that that source is wrong, but we don't have a consensus of reliable sources to say it's right, either. The more sources we can cite on a particular issue, the more likely we are to avoid issues of undue weight and the more likely we are to appropriately reflect the prevailing mainstream viewpoint of an issue. On the other hand, the issue you cite in your post is not a matter of a sole source, but of a clearly-established and overwhelming consensus of multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- So if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- We are not truth finders. — Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- And we are not obligated to put falsehoods in the article simply because traditionally reliable sources decide to promote them, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- And the inclusion of any material is subject to editorial discretion, and using a single source for anything this controversial is not best practices at any rate, thus I agree that we should avoid including this issue until we have a wider array of reliable sources from which to support an encyclopedic section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- And we are not obligated to put falsehoods in the article simply because traditionally reliable sources decide to promote them, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- So if you have any reliable sources to support your claim that something is a lie, then you'd present them here. That you haven't suggests that you don't have any reliable sources to support your claim, and that it is little more than your unsupported personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion, nor is it a platform to right great wrongs. I believe that you have a deep-seated and good-faith belief that it is a lie, but that's not how we write encyclopedia articles. It just isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- NBSB is correct. Even if normally reliable sources are wrong, Wikipedia operates on verifiability and not truth. If sources continue to get the facts wrong and the notability of the ArbCom decision in relation to this article rises enough, we will have to include the factually incorrect information in this article. Lignos (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- We are not truth finders. — Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- So if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are conflating two different issues. On this topic, we have only a single reliable source thus far presented and it is reasonable to discuss whether we should write an encyclopedia section based upon only a sole source, or whether we should wait to find out if other reliable sources chime in on the issue and what they have to say. We don't have any reliable sources saying that that source is wrong, but we don't have a consensus of reliable sources to say it's right, either. The more sources we can cite on a particular issue, the more likely we are to avoid issues of undue weight and the more likely we are to appropriately reflect the prevailing mainstream viewpoint of an issue. On the other hand, the issue you cite in your post is not a matter of a sole source, but of a clearly-established and overwhelming consensus of multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia does not then further investigate whether a source provides "evidence" — we are encyclopedia editors, not investigative reporters. If reliable sources say something is true, for our purposes it is true." So which is it? Do we have to check if a source is telling the truth before using it or do we not? Or do we decide that based on which narrative we're pushing now? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
IT KEEPS HAPPENING. [9] Bosstopher (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously, this is funny. I think at this rate the GG ArbCom case will become so notable, that we'll have to report on it. And then... wait, do we have to post information that is factually not true because its been reported on so much. I mean, this is The Guardian we're talking about. Even if we KNOW its wrong, for instance, the Arbitrators themselves can say it was factually wrong, are our hands tied? Ries42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given that the Guardian article utilizes only one source on the GamerGate article, that being a person with multiple bans re: the GamerGate controversy, it would almost be pro-GG to use the article itself as a "reliable source". Indeed, it almost comes across as a means to inject that person's PoV back into the article by way of getting a news organization to quote him about it. Calbeck (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pro GG in what sense exactly? Mr. Bernstien, the quoted source, was not Pro GG. If you mean "it proves the Pro GG narative," well, that doesn't really mean anything. Plus, if The Guardian felt it was reliable, we are supposed to not question that. This falls out in one of three ways. 1) Its not notable enough, and thus, no inclusion. 2) It gains enough notability and it is included as the Guardian says. WP:VNT takes precedence, where despite some things not being completely "correct" we report it as The Guardian sees it. 3) We agree that the falsities in the article outweigh its notability, and we challenge the reliability of it. Most likely the target of the unreliability would be the author, not The Guardian itself. Ries42 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the sense that histrionics tend to actually go against a person in the public arena. Bernstein's claim that this decision is "worse than a crime" is an example of something that would tend to set an otherwise neutral reader wondering why such hyperbole was in play. I concur, however, that challenging unreliable sources should go to including sources used by otherwise reliable sources, such as the Guardian as an institution.Calbeck (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pro GG in what sense exactly? Mr. Bernstien, the quoted source, was not Pro GG. If you mean "it proves the Pro GG narative," well, that doesn't really mean anything. Plus, if The Guardian felt it was reliable, we are supposed to not question that. This falls out in one of three ways. 1) Its not notable enough, and thus, no inclusion. 2) It gains enough notability and it is included as the Guardian says. WP:VNT takes precedence, where despite some things not being completely "correct" we report it as The Guardian sees it. 3) We agree that the falsities in the article outweigh its notability, and we challenge the reliability of it. Most likely the target of the unreliability would be the author, not The Guardian itself. Ries42 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Has there ever been a precedent where the press is so obscenely lazy, political, and unwilling to do research on a subject that there was no way to write to accurate article? For example, imagine James Cook comes back from Tahiti and and a scholar on his boat says that everyone in Tahiti is beautiful and willing to have romance with any European. Afterward everyone began reporting on that and spreading that lie because it was juicy and sexy, and for years people thought Tahiti was some island of nymphs. Is it possible that maybe a lot of the news doesn't actually care that much about video games or video game culture and they just want to report on the juicy stuff? We've had people both pro and anti-Gamergate say they were harassed and sent death threats, but the press has only talked about the women - we can't really report anti-Gamergate harassers because it's only being discussed in social media and not on the BBC. Maybe there runs a possibility a lot of sources are just off-handedly reporting a sexy narrative that's vaguely based on reality, but as with the stories of Tahiti, have much more mundane, banal origins. YellowSandals (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A thing to keep in mind: all the articles that I've seen about the ArbCom decision all extend/source directly the Guardian article and then subsequently MB's blog posts. It is effectively the same single article, just in the telephone-game of slight variations from message to message. Let's not yet throw the baby out with the bathwater though we should be aware that the article and its small mutations are creating a stir on the social media that we might have to deal with. --MASEM (t) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not "involved", nor am I a regular Wikipedia editor (I was active in some specialized and unrelated articles about a decade ago, but I have completely lost the login details and can't recover them as I no longer have the associated email address). I have, however, been closely following the issues associated with this article, and have often been stunned at the disconnect between what was actually happening, and what was reported (the "GamerGate is dead/over/old news" drumbeat every week was particularly amusing). Now, I realize that Wikipedia has to use reliable sources, but it is a delicious irony that the same style of reporting (using only one biased viewpoint for sources, and presenting their allegations as facts without further research) that has characterized the entire episode has now, in a beautifully meta moment, wrapped around to the Wikipedia article about the whole mess and the ArbCom case it spawned. Now, for all that the overwhelming majority of RS being of a particular tone and presenting a particular group of facts, you may want to consider, how many of those "facts" were independently derived, and how many of those sources were sourced from each other. 150.167.144.14 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if the information in the article is 100% accurate (I haven't read the article, and I haven't cared enough about this issue in several months for it to be fair for me to comment) and even if we view the source as reliable, we still can't use it in this article because doing so would amount to our article indirectly citing itself (albeit through an article quoting a participant in an arbitration regarding the Wikipedia article citing). I forget the acronym, but I seem to remember it being a rule here that we can't cite reflexively. If it isn't, it should be. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd also just like to point out that all of this goes to the point I made October 23rd. We're being used by the Guardian as a primary source in a controversy we're ostensibly reporting on. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That said, I think the Guardian article is important and should be included on Wikipedia, even if not here. Is there an article on discussion of Wikipedia in the media? Quodfui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- As the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, I don't see it getting any play here currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article reflects very real concerns about the effect of the ArbComm on Wilipedia and the claims of falsehood are massively overblown. Artw (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- And as those concerns are based on very real falsehoods, including who is getting banned and the attitude of Wikipedia toward specific points of view, it's not worth discussing at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much every sentence about the Arbcom decision contains some factual error. The headline of the article is "Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles " which is factually inaccurate in that only 3 (possibly 4) are being banned, and from articles on gender related disputes not on gender altogether. This means the 3 (not 5) editors have not been banned from making corrections to feminism articles. Also none of the editors have actually been banned yet. Then quoting Mark Bernstein it says only throwaway GG accounts were sanctioned, which is incorrect, and that there will be no feminists left editing the article, which is also incorrect because I consider myself to be a feminist (although Bernstein admits this is by his own rough count). Everything from that point onwards about wiki-politics being super toxic seems fair enough. While whats written written may sound vaguely true all the specifics of fact are completely wrong. Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Argh...please read all of what I wrote before responding to part of it. I do not think the Guardian article should be used for a source here, and I said as much above. I have no reason to doubt that the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, but factual inaccuracy isn't in and of itself a reason not to use a source - this article is on the #Gamergate controversy and the vehemence of the debate here and the article's wide use as a source elsewhere on the internet say it has become part of the controversy. We can't use it because its content derives from the article we'd be citing it on (WP:CIRCULAR). I think it could be included in a different article on controversies regarding Wikipedia's editing policies. I'm sure such an article exists. I think I've read it before. Quodfui (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry that was meant as a response to Artw's claims of factual innacuracy being overblown. Bosstopher (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming that the case itself becomes notable enough to spawn an article, the place you're probably thinking of is the Criticism page, on a new subpage thereof like other past incidents that became notable. If consensus is that it should be referenced here somehow, we could link to the specific new criticism subpage page from here to avoid WP:SELFREF issues. Sappow (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I knew there was a better spot. The list of controversies is where you want to be. There's already an entry for this event there, and I'm sure there will be a fair number of additional reliable articles about it whenever the ArbCom case closes. Sappow (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Argh...please read all of what I wrote before responding to part of it. I do not think the Guardian article should be used for a source here, and I said as much above. I have no reason to doubt that the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, but factual inaccuracy isn't in and of itself a reason not to use a source - this article is on the #Gamergate controversy and the vehemence of the debate here and the article's wide use as a source elsewhere on the internet say it has become part of the controversy. We can't use it because its content derives from the article we'd be citing it on (WP:CIRCULAR). I think it could be included in a different article on controversies regarding Wikipedia's editing policies. I'm sure such an article exists. I think I've read it before. Quodfui (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much every sentence about the Arbcom decision contains some factual error. The headline of the article is "Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles " which is factually inaccurate in that only 3 (possibly 4) are being banned, and from articles on gender related disputes not on gender altogether. This means the 3 (not 5) editors have not been banned from making corrections to feminism articles. Also none of the editors have actually been banned yet. Then quoting Mark Bernstein it says only throwaway GG accounts were sanctioned, which is incorrect, and that there will be no feminists left editing the article, which is also incorrect because I consider myself to be a feminist (although Bernstein admits this is by his own rough count). Everything from that point onwards about wiki-politics being super toxic seems fair enough. While whats written written may sound vaguely true all the specifics of fact are completely wrong. Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- And as those concerns are based on very real falsehoods, including who is getting banned and the attitude of Wikipedia toward specific points of view, it's not worth discussing at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article reflects very real concerns about the effect of the ArbComm on Wilipedia and the claims of falsehood are massively overblown. Artw (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- As the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, I don't see it getting any play here currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That said, I think the Guardian article is important and should be included on Wikipedia, even if not here. Is there an article on discussion of Wikipedia in the media? Quodfui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
So I've heard it go back and forth between not using the source because it's factually inaccurate, but then there are some voices saying that factual inaccuracy does not mean we should not use the source. So I have 2 questions in regards to this.
1. If we use sources that we know to be factually in accurate, what does that say about WP? Is it just a reflection of popular opinion or potentially even just propaganda? I know that WP doesn't consider the "truth" of sources. But if we know an article to not be true, then don't we have a responsibility to avoid using that material? All of the guidelines of WP:RS AND WP:BLP are in regards to material being used in WP. But does that mean we can't use facts to avoid using overly falsified or misleading articles? In other words, we can't use facts to including unreliable material to an article, but can and should we use facts to exclude seemingly reliable source material from an article?
2. Reliability is based on accuracy, honesty and/or achievement. Does this not mean that factual inaccuracies detract from reliability? If an article is factually inaccurate, would that not mean, at the very least, that this article is not reliable and therefore not a proper source of material for WP?
I do realize though that there are some times when facts don't matter in a source, but it seems like those are usually just going to be opinion pieces or other special circumstances. And I guess there's some question to the autonomy of editors too. For WP not being a bureaucracy it sure seems very bureaucraty... Thanks.TyTyMang (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is a fair enough argument and we should trim down our use of the Guardian on this specific topic. Shii (tock) 16:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The article should not be included, even after the proceedings are done. Wikipedia's stance on this is that the decisions have nothing to do with wikipedia taking a side in the gamergate issue. Since it has nothing to do with it, we can't now say it DOES have something to do with it by including it. The article is a bit of a trap anyway. If we DON'T include it, some people will take that to be confirmation that we have a bias. If we DO include it, we could be seen as using Wikipedia as its own source, as the article references a wikipedia editor. It's circular. As a result, leaving it out of this page and placing it (if at all) in the criticisms page is the most intellectually honest thing we can do. Vygramul 01:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Survey
Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent the Arbcom decision are not part of the Gamergate controversy and don't belong in the article at this time.
- Support. Leave it out for now.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 07:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to stick my head above the parapet. But it seems to me that this is what everyone has said. The Guardian and Mary Sue and others have decided that ArbCom (and hence Wikipedia) are part of GamerGate - and the nasty "misogynist" GamerGate at that, not the nice "ethics in gaming" GamerGate. And of course the dominant narrative is either that the nice "ethics in gaming" GamerGate doesn't exist (it's part of the nasty Gamer Gate", pretending to be nice - just like Wikipedia and ArbCom), that it's vanishingly small, or (per User:Jimbo Wales) that they should "leave GamerGate" and start something troll free (Good luck with that!).
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC).
- Eh, I don't think they're making that claim, more just that the ArbCom (and absolutely not "hence Wikipedia") buried its head in the sand and allegedly valued politeness over the quality of the wiki or protecting its editors from harassment. The articles aren't advocating that Wikipedia is like, plotting on KiA or anything, more just that its overseers tried to irresponsibly sweep things under the rug.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
1RR self-report
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was the one who reverted Altenmann's pending change mentioned above. I reinstated the Intel 2020 date change right afterwards, though.[10]
I also reverted[11] an edit that I viewed as a rather unnecessary skewing of wording soon afterward. I realized moments later that this could technically be a violation of the active discretionary sanctions. I've never edited an article with these kinds of restrictions, so I'm not really familiar with how strictly 1RR is interpreted. Does it literally mean one revert of any kind per 24-hour period? Does it apply to pending changes?
Peter Isotalo 01:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Peter Isotalo:. Yes it applies to pending changes as well. Anything that isn't BLP or vandalism. Probably best if you self-reverted yourself. I don't see those changes sticking anyway as violations of WP:SAY. —Strongjam (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about I accept revert of my text as a non-controversial, and Peter is off-the-hook? -M.Altenmann >t 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but if everyone is reasonably happy I'm sure admins are reasonable people. — Strongjam (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shadowrunner has already edited the relevant section so I think it's up to that user to decide whether to re-add the previous wording or not.
- Peter Isotalo 02:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but if everyone is reasonably happy I'm sure admins are reasonable people. — Strongjam (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about I accept revert of my text as a non-controversial, and Peter is off-the-hook? -M.Altenmann >t 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cherrypicking
| I think this long discussion ran its course in productivity. I'm started a alternative related proposal. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This finding of principle has unanimous support in the proposed ArbCom resolution: "The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia." We presently cite this article: http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 to support this statement: "Newsweek/Brandwatch performed an analysis of about 25% of two million Twitter messages with the Gamergate tag from September 1, 2014 onward, and suggested from the results that "contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists". Reading the article, one finds they based this conclusion on tweets directed at a whopping six twitter accounts. It was also unable to determine the sentiment of more than 90% of tweets in the sample. This analysis is obviously utter garbage, and falls under the remit of my post directly above in that reliable publishers are not reliable when making gross errors. Failing that, its rampant cherry-picking and against the above ArbCom finding to cite the conclusion of this farcical analysis without mentioning how the analysis directly contradicts itself - no synthesis required on WP's part. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly Wikipedia editors attempting to use their own analysis to discredit a reliable source that has a decades long history of analyzing popular culture and who hired a professional social media analysis firm is PRECISELY the the type of disruptive behavior the ArbCom has noted is not acceptable.
To note, I originally had problems with the Newsweek article but as tRPoD has pointed out and as I came to recognize, to counterargument that does require SYNTH and OR we cannot include. As such, we have to accept that this is what the editors that analyzed the tweets and wrote the article concluded. But I will also note that that sentence in our article was written by me (or at least its start), and that it properly puts their conclusion (which they did state in with "seemingly"-type language) as just their conclusion, and not as an absolute fact, thus keeping what is included simply stating "this is their study, this is what they concluded", and letting the reader determine if the study is good or not. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I find it impossible to parse this section on cherrypicking. I'd say that cherrypicking is when you dig deep into an article to find a sentence that supports what you want it to say, as opposed to reading the first sentence that defines the conclusion and use that to summarize the source. In this case, it appears people want to use the source to say "Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment," which appears approximately 9/10ths down the page as opposed to "an analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." which is the first statement summarizing the study made. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I know I said I was done with this never-gonna-happen section, but to rephrase, you believe we need to include a few specific sentences from the article so that readers can figure out on their own that the main point of the article is wrong, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
These are the options as I see it:
Rhoark (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Candidate languageBefore making a contribution to the effect that "The status quo is fine" or "This looks like OR" please review the preceding section. I propose that the claim sourced to http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 which presently reads
be replaced with
Rhoark (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Editing the page to your version when consensus was against was -way- out of line, rhoark, especially when multiple editors have given you reasons citing policy for why your vetsion is innapropriate. That you disagree with their interpretation gives you no right to ignore them.66.87.77.218 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Consensus is an important part of the Wikipedia project. However, the most important part is to build an encyclopedia. I have enlisted a ream of policies and essays in support of my position. The most central is WP:EP:"a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". No secondary source would be necessary to establish that Newsweek is misleading, but as it happens one by Andy Baio is already cited. Unless a consensus forms that it is justified to Ignore All Rules in this instance, any other consensus towards "no change" must be disregarded. Rather than fighting change, editors' attention would be better spent discussing the best wording for the change. Rhoark (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
Citations in the Lede
My previous stance was we don't need them as it's a summary and they can be found in the body, but I'm finally tired of the {{fact}} tagging. Any chance that consensus could change on adding citations to the lede? — Strongjam (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't care either way. It'd be fairly trivial to add them, thought it might impact readability a small amount. Are there any relevant policies about adding citations to the ledes of articles? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:LEADCITE. Which is best summed up with this bit "
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
" — Strongjam (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)- In the particular case of {{cn}} the statements in the lede are fairly simple, noncontroversial (whether some sources said something) and easily found in article by text search. -M.Altenmann >t 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion is the same from a few days ago:
Since we're summarizing material based on 159 sources (at current count), we could theoretically require 159 sources in the lede. We probably wouldn't need that many sources, I hope, but I'd say about a third of them are cited multiple times, which means they're probably critical sources. So let's call it 50 sources in the lede, which for 4 sentences is 12.5 sources per sentence, all of which would have to be checked every time someone wants to add some nuance to a sentence or tighten the language, maybe juggle some phrases around to make it flow better. To me, that's the single best reason.
The lede is currently more than 4 sentences, but the sentiment remains. Every time we want to, say, rewrite three sentences into two, or move phrases back and forth, we'll have to check each source and move it accordingly. It's going to end up being a huge pain in the ass. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)- The whole point is that the lede is a summary of our article, kinda "quaternary source". And each time you "juggle some phrases around" you must check whether the lede is faithful to our article. If for some phrase in the lede it is hard to find the corresponding article text, this means the lede sucks, references or not. -M.Altenmann >t 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's not quite what I'm getting at. Let's say our theoretical lead has 3 compound sentences: "[Statement A], while [Statement B].[12 sources] [Statement C], but [Statement D].[12 sources] [Statement E], though [Statement F].[12 sources]" But maybe someone suggests that the lede would flow better if we wrote it as "[Statement A], even though [Statement D]. But [Statement F] and [Statement C]. This means [Statement B] leads to [Statement E]." We've had some fairly drastic restructuring of the lede lately, so that's not even a "what if?" situation. It's going to happen. And right now there's not a big issue with that, because all we're doing is summarizing the article itself. But with a fully-cited lede, every time we rephrase it, we have to go through and move each source with its associated claim. Changes start to become prohibitive because of the work involved. Maybe that won't happen, but the history of this article has been citing and backup citing and backup backup citing to the point where controversial statements have a string of citations on them, and I see the lede just compounding that issue. Just my $0.02, though. Woodroar (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The whole point is that the lede is a summary of our article, kinda "quaternary source". And each time you "juggle some phrases around" you must check whether the lede is faithful to our article. If for some phrase in the lede it is hard to find the corresponding article text, this means the lede sucks, references or not. -M.Altenmann >t 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion is the same from a few days ago:
- In the particular case of {{cn}} the statements in the lede are fairly simple, noncontroversial (whether some sources said something) and easily found in article by text search. -M.Altenmann >t 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:LEADCITE. Which is best summed up with this bit "
- Considering the lead will have few or no specific stats or anything like that, it will always have to be some sort of aggregate summary. Anyone who wants to edit it should be expected to read through the entire article, or at least the relevant sections. Citations will not make this process easier.
- Adding fact tags to a heavily cited, highly controversial article like this amounts to careless editing. Good faith should be assumed, but all such attempts should be reverted since communicating through fact tags in a case like this is pretty disruptive. Competence should be required in regard to this.
- Peter Isotalo 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
explanation of lede change
I've made this change: [13], which basically means to address this statement which is not supported as a fact in sources: The leaderless, amorphous group that acted under the hashtag became known as the "Gamergate movement". The movement came simultaneously to the harassment attacks and did make it clear in their statements that harassment was bad. Of course there's a great deal of opinion that the movement was a cover for the harassment attacks, but we don't have sources that affirm that as a fact. As such, rewording this Simultaneous to these events, a leaderless, amorphous "Gamergate movement" grew, using the #gamergate hashtag to identify issues of ethical concerns they had towards these video game professionals. points out the various Occums razor reasons that many think that GG movement is just a cover (happened at same time, targetting the same people). (and of course avoids introducing the BLP issue that started this in the lead) Further, this is a point that the article and our sources supports, in that many many sources doubt the true nature of the GG movement, and have criticized the group for enabling the harassment. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Simultaneous to these events, a leaderless, amorphous "Gamergate movement" grew is worded in a way that supports the idea that the "Gamergate movement" had no involvement in the harassment, which seems equally unsourced (and in some cases, opposed to sources). Can I suggest an alternate (and simpler) wording change, such as The leaderless, amorphous group that formed under the hashtag became known as the "Gamergate movement"? It seems this is a simpler change, and it removes the earlier implication that the movement was formed by those "acting" in regards to the harassment. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I notice you added the sentence These commentators have expressed doubts to the true intentions of the movement, and claim that the movement's unorganized nature has created an environment that has enabled the ongoing campaign of harassment. I'm not certain a review of our sources from the listed commentators show that all, or even most, of them have expressed doubts of the movements true intentions. Unless you mean to say that they often say they doubt the movement's stated intentions regarding ethics and journalism. Either way, I'm not certain that the additional sentence is needed, or warranted. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- My difficulty with ... to identify issues of ethical concerns they had towards these video game professionals is that this is only half the story. Gamergate is about ethical concerns and anti-feminism/anti-social critique. Highlighting half the story in the first paragraph seems misleading - the second paragraph seems to better expand on their issues. - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with Bilby above: what is meant by "ethical concerns" by those that use the term in this context is far broader than what common usage denotes. I would suggest substituting "ethical and ideological concerns" to communicate this breadth of meaning. CIreland (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Which sources are you using to support "Simultaneous to these events"? Kaciemonster (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted the change until a consensus is formed, since a few people raised concerns. I think that's the correct protocol, feel free to revert my revert if it isn't. Kaciemonster (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Black Kite, may I hear your reasoning? It seems like most people so far are disagreeing with the language, which is why I reverted it in the first place. Kaciemonster (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe our sources support the claim that there are two gamergate movements, one of which is completely harassment free and only concerned with ethics, and one of which is notable only for being made up of sexist harassers. When looking at amorphous, leaderless groups, we cannot label any who reliable sources claim are part of the group as separate to it- this would be original research on our part. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. The vast majority of sources treat GamerGate as one thing; there are some talking about how it is hard to determine who supports what, and about how some people pushing the hashtag are using it for harassment while others are not, but I don't think there are significant number of sources that would separate them into two distinct events or movements the way the "simultaneous to this..." wording does. Most sources seem to basically use 'GamerGate movement' to refer to everyone using the hashtag, including people who are responsible for harassment. --Aquillion (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Some sources for the above, from the article:
- Univerity of Wisconsin center for Journalism Ethics: "While many claimed this movement was about calling out ethical lapses in videogame journalism, I was astounded and appalled by the misogynistic and threatening nature of some posts. People — particularly women — were attacked for speaking out, often getting “doxxed” (slang for having your personal information documented or published online). I, like many, have had and still have hope that the participatory nature of digital media will help more people engage with news coverage, counter bias and correct errors. But GamerGate is challenging those hopes of mine. Much of the conversation — if I can even call it that — has been a toxic sludge of rumor, invective and gender bias. The irony comes from people who claim to be challenging the ethics of game journalists through patently unethical behavior."
- Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows
- Here: What does GamerGate want? We don’t know. Attempts to engage with those involved often turn into rambling, cyclical shows of defensiveness with no concrete reasoning. Reasonable party lines are drowned out in the conversation. One thing is clear: when members of the games industry are being driven from their houses and jobs, threatened, or abused, it makes GamerGate’s claim that it is engaged in an ethical campaign appear laughable.
- (Describing why GamerGate behaves the way it does, here : There is also an identification with the mob and its chaotic, dynamic nature – consider the delight Anonymous took in being an inchoate, implacable enemy of whoever aroused its ire (“Because none of us are as cruel as all of us”). As the MIB says, “Chan culture considers personal reputation meaningless but collective identity sacrosanct”. Deliberately trying to stand out is in the eyes of this subculture and in the rules of its discourse uncouth. To claim that the consensus is wrong and that one’s personal experiences can refute a point breaks the rules of discourse. To have a mass of people respond with rude invective to any statement (including statements they actually agree with) is how you have an argument: if you do not want a wave of hostility, why did you invite it by making a claim?
- Here: Okay, enough metaphor, Jon. What is #gamergate, literally and specifically? It’s a Twitter hashtag. What else? What else indeed. While various patterns of behaviour coalesce around the hashtag, #gamergate’s protean nature resists attempts toward summary and narrative. It readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes and moralisms. Say that it began as a harassment campaign targeting a female indie developer, as reported by credible news sites, and you are subjected to contradictory objections - "No, #gamergate began after that, as a reaction to biased reporting" and "No, #gamergate has been building up for years" - as proponents jostle for the story that paints them in the best possible light
- Here: "The abuse currently polluting Twitter and other social media is largely aimed at female devs – targets include Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn and Giant Spacekat founder Brianna Wu – and often linked, though not always, to #Gamergate. The root of this self-professed‘movement’ are well-documented enough, with details of Quinn’s personal life leaked by an ex-boyfriend. But this incident has almost become irrelevant given the severity of threats levelled at victims." ... "22Cans’ head of production Jemma Harris adds that such behaviour has grown worse as the internet has seemingly bred “a faceless culture that thinks it’s okay to do this"
- --and many more like that, none of which support your thesis that the two are separate. These are the overarching way in which GamerGate is covered and described by the reliable commentators we're using in the article; the harassment and generally caustic behavior they see as originating from GamerGate is described as an outgrowth of its origins in chan culture, the depths of the culture-war passions driving it, and the deep belief the movement has that their ideological opponents are monstrous and must be crushed at any cost. I think that the chan culture analysis is particularly pointed, because (as the sources who discuss it say) it describes why so many people in GamerGate say that they are against harassment and have spoken out against harassment while, in the same posts (and under the GamerGate hashtag!) they continue to do things that the rest of the world describes as harassment. There's a sense among them that vitriol is natural on the internet, and that confronting someone with a flood of angry invectives therefore isn't real harassment the way a death threat is. I can see where you're coming from with that, anyway; but we need to go with the majority of reliable sources, and they have described what the #GamerGate hashtag is used for -- that is, what the GamerGate movement is, to the extent that that's a discrete thing they can define -- as being inextricably entwined with harassment. --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would also add that even in the case of valid (or at least discussable) criticism, it is delivered in a highly vitriolic way, not only in the choice of the language, but full with personal insults. And if the tone objected, the answer is usually kinda "Well, lady, you stepped into a snake pit. Don't whine, deal with it or out" -M.Altenmann >t 03:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
What the larger issue has been, and discussion needed on that
Related to points made above, and with new eyes (due to ArbCom's request) on this, I think we need to (re)visit a core point of debate of how this article is written, in relationship to WP:V (particularly the verifyability-not-truth paradox) and issues related to NPOV.
Specifically, because the press has largely blamed the Gamergate movement for the harassment, there are parts of this article (particularly in the lead) that wholly blames the GG movement for directly harassing, etc. The issue is multifaceted but here are points to consider/discuss:
- There is clearly different definitions of what the Gamergate movement is depending on who you ask. The press use a more encompassing definition that at its largest includes anyone that has used the #GG hashtag; on the other hand, if you look at the sites/forums that are the apparent home of the movement, they consider that much smaller, with more focus. Yes, the difficulty in defining this is a criticism of the movement to start, but point here is that we have a group that consider themselves part of the movement, while others not associated with the movement consider the inclusion much differently.
- In relationship to this, the self-stated movement has clearly stated by their public materials that they condemn the harassment, do not condone its use as part of their communication tools, and actively try to stop/report the use of harassment done in the name of GG. This is mentioned in some sources but it's spelled on their self-published sources, which are poor/unacceptable sources, though would be the truth from their side. A majority of the press do not believe this, but some do point out the harassment partols by the movement. In otherwords, I know from my own research with sources that wouldn't be acceptable on WP that this is what they claim about themselves, very much counter to what the press claims they are.
- Harassment, doxxing, swatting, and rape/death threats are criminal acts in many areas, and I'm certain at the end of the day there will be criminal proceedings on the specific individuals that did these once their identities are known. However, as best as I've read, no one yet has been positively identified for doing these outside their handles. Now, yes, BLP does not apply to pseudoanonymous identities (per a discussion on the BLP board about the articles that discussed the mods of the Reddit KIA board and their other questionable activities), but a principle of BLP - where applying criminal blame where there is no such blame - should still apply as we are a neutral, impartial source.
What this amounts to is that we have to be careful and cannot state as a fact (in WP's voice) that the whole of the Gamergate movement is directly responsible for the harassment. We can state the press believes this, we can state that the press indirectly blames them for the harassment due to their poor organization and the environment and poor attitude they have taken towards the targets of harassment, and a whole bunch of criticisms. But as a neutral source, we should be given the people that call themselves as part of the movement the benefit of doubt (even if that's not a lot of doubt) that they claim they aren't responsible and thus we cannot factually assign blame on the entire movement. This doesn't change the content for the most part of this article but it does require careful wording of our statements of fact, which was what the change above is. This is why I feel we need to be extra careful of calling the movement as a whole directly responsible for the harassment attacks as a fact, even if the press has made this claim. If anything, calling the entire movement is a contentious point (between the press and the movement itself) and we should treat it as NPOV says, present both sides of this point within the context of WEIGHT. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is a lot of original research, Masem. Your objection to us stating what the overwhelming majority of the media says is that you believe what the media says is wrong- this is not enough, unfortunately. We cannot give a leaderless movement the 'benefit of the doubt' if doing so requires us to go against what our sources say. Again, I urge you to find sources that show your point of view if you disagree with the article rather than endorse original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is not the "overwhelmingness". If any of reliable sources describe these "good gamegaters" in reasonable detail, you are welcome to expand the article. (BTW, Masem is not disagreeing with the article; he seems to say it is incomplete.) -M.Altenmann >t 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm saying they are expressing opinion more than facts. They may be (and I suspect they are mostly) right, but we don't know. This is what NPOV says when it comes to contentious statements : "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." --MASEM (t) 04:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- re "genocide": You are joking, right? The proper wikpedian way to say "genocide is a crime against humanity", not just opinion of John X. On the other hand I did understand what you mean: instead or writing "the movie sucks" it is better to write "John X says the movie sucks". Still better, there are reviewers which aggregate the reveiews and say "65% reviews say the book sucks". Coming back to gamergate, in order to handle an alleged NPOV, you have to document several POVs. If you can document only a single POV, your point is moot. So, once, again, please find good sources which speak about "good gamergarters". -M.Altenmann >t 04:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do have sources that discusses the antiharassment parts of GG [14]. And note that we should not be considering if we are talking "good" or "bad" GGers (that's biasing the discussion). It is the fact their documentation that is out there for anyone to read (but has potential BLP issues so I will not link, but it is very public) that they say they aren't harassment-based. Even if this is really a lie, we have no evidence that this is the case, and per our polices, we should be given them the appropriate benefit of doubt in terms of assigning the blame of harassment as a fact. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- re: "we have no evidence" - We have plenty of evidence from reliable sources which is why the lede correctly notes the consensus that the ethical concerns are unfounded, debunked, trivial, unrelated to ethics etc. What you seem to be suggesting is that the self-identification of any person or group must be granted a controlling interest in the article, and that is clearly not the policy on Wikipedia. Scientologists don't get to write the Scientology article. The editors who do write it don't have to give the self-description provided by Scientologists equal weight alongside the consensus view of Scientology. I'm sure you can think of countless other examples. In short it's reliable sources, not GamerGate itself, that determines content. So find reliable sources to support your suggested editing and stop relying solely on self-description. Emarkcd (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do have sources that discusses the antiharassment parts of GG [14]. And note that we should not be considering if we are talking "good" or "bad" GGers (that's biasing the discussion). It is the fact their documentation that is out there for anyone to read (but has potential BLP issues so I will not link, but it is very public) that they say they aren't harassment-based. Even if this is really a lie, we have no evidence that this is the case, and per our polices, we should be given them the appropriate benefit of doubt in terms of assigning the blame of harassment as a fact. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- re: 'expressing the opinions'. Some sources are 'expressing the opinions', while others summarize these opinions. Now what? "In opinion of John X. Random, the widespread opinion is that the opinion about gamergate is wrong"? While your generic quotation of policy is correct, you better be more specific and write clearly what is misrepresented in the article. -M.Altenmann >t 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC) -M.Altenmann >t 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The "other" opinion here is for the most part what the GG movement says about themselves - that they are not involved and also condemn the harassment. When we state "The Gamergate movement is responsible for the harassment", we are stating something that has not been proven to any degree and is a highly contentious statement in considering the GG side of the situation. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Masem: re:" GG movement says about themselves" - the CG movement shot themselves in the foot when they refused to self-organize (AFAIU). Now any moron or troll who uses the tag is automatically member of the movement. Therefore I am using the term "good gamergaters" lacking better description. By letting the horse out of the stable they lost the right to say that they are "true CG movement". Because everybody else sees a quite different "true CG movement". THerefore when we state "the Gamergate movement is responsible" we are stating something that is proven to the extent reasonable. Only when the "true Gamergaters" self-identify themselves to make it possible to weed out "impostors", we can speak of an identifiable "CG side" and protect its rights. Otherwise "what the GG movement says about themselves" is akin to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Right now "the CG side" is seen as 88% trolls. -M.Altenmann >t 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The "other" opinion here is for the most part what the GG movement says about themselves - that they are not involved and also condemn the harassment. When we state "The Gamergate movement is responsible for the harassment", we are stating something that has not been proven to any degree and is a highly contentious statement in considering the GG side of the situation. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Masem, you have posted "the press" over 55 times on this Talk page recently. "The press" is otherwise known to Wikipedia as RELIABLE SOURCES. You, once again, are twisting our policies for some strange reason. Stop it. Your collogues do not appreciate it, nor do they your flippant use of genocide, Nazism and the Holocaust. 192.187.100.10 (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've never mentioned these (outside the above requote out of NPOV), and that's also a personal attack. This is a very subtle but key detail that needs to be resolved that we have to look at the overall situation to understand how the tone is critical here. You cannot just wave away "oh, they are reliable sources, we should never question them", because our polices do allow for us to make sure RSes are used appropriately and to make sure we separate fact from opinion when contentious points are presented. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- re "genocide": You are joking, right? The proper wikpedian way to say "genocide is a crime against humanity", not just opinion of John X. On the other hand I did understand what you mean: instead or writing "the movie sucks" it is better to write "John X says the movie sucks". Still better, there are reviewers which aggregate the reveiews and say "65% reviews say the book sucks". Coming back to gamergate, in order to handle an alleged NPOV, you have to document several POVs. If you can document only a single POV, your point is moot. So, once, again, please find good sources which speak about "good gamergarters". -M.Altenmann >t 04:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- re "criminal blame" What the heck are you talking about? The threats are documented. It does not matter whether they were from pseudoanonymous identities or bot-generated. Are you saying that we must also mention the opinion that Sarkeesian fabricated these threats, or, even better, told her buddies to post these threats so that she may cry helpme? -M.Altenmann >t 04:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are documented, but who exactly carried them out is not known, nor their relationship to the self-described GG movement. They could be a part of it, they may not be. As such, we cannot assign that blame to the movement even if the press has expressed their opinion this is the case. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, AFAIU the only way CG movement is "self-described" is the usage of hashtag. If I am mistaken and you have other way to distinguish "good" users of #gamergate hashtag from evil ones, you are welcome to expand the article with this info. Clearly, the primary sources which say "we are the good ones; they are trolls" is insufficient. -M.Altenmann >t 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Masem, this has been discussed quite extensively. Do you have any specific suggestions for article changes?
- Peter Isotalo 05:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- See the section this is in, where I present the change I made in the lede, as the current issue, but this remains a larger problem in trying to organize the article in an objective manner. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- They are documented, but who exactly carried them out is not known, nor their relationship to the self-described GG movement. They could be a part of it, they may not be. As such, we cannot assign that blame to the movement even if the press has expressed their opinion this is the case. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Masem, your interpretation of the reliable sources and how they should be presented has been discussed extensively on this talk page already, and a large number of people have disagreed and continue to disagree with your interpretation. It might be time to consider that, since it looks like this same conversation has happened at least three times over the past few weeks and the consensus does not seem to be in your favor, that your interpretation is faulty. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
#NotYourShield Reversion Explanation
I've reverted an edit, seen here [15], to the section concerning #NotYourShield and the IRC logs posted by Quinn. I think it's an edit that needs more discussion before it's added to the article body (if it is), and I also think it's poorly worded (and possibly sourced) as is. They also seem to be an unnecessary skewing of the article's wording.
For one thing, as far as I can tell (not speaking French), the sources only claim that "4Chan has released what they claim to be the full chat logs from when the IRC channel that was created on August 17th." I'm also not certain that this edit (and arguably some of the rest of the paragraph) doesn't give too much weight to the chat logs, in what is ostensibly a section about #NotYourShield as a whole.
It's also worth noting that Shadowrunner56 made these edits, without explanation or discussion in the summary or on the talk page, after a reversion of previous similar (but less extensive) edits by Peter Isotalo. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The French article wrote only about logs released by Quinn. So I removed one of footnotes. -M.Altenmann >t
- re:What quinn posted: actually, she posted not logs, but excerpts from logs, which are "logs of discussion threads", and IMO may be safely called simply "logs". As for screenshots or not, it is a nitpicking. We write "This is a photo of John R", not "this is a png image of the photo of Jonh R." -M.Altenmann >t
- re:what 4Chan posted: I agree this is rather irrelevant, since there is no discussion what exactly was posted and how it is relevant to the section. -M.Altenmann >t 05:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- In summary, I support the revert of the unnecessary increase of verbosity. -M.Altenmann >t 05:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't think my small edits really needed to be discussed as I was only adding info from sources that were already in the section. But I'm alright with my edits being discussed further.
- Also, to answer some of your concerns, the Escapist says the same thing about Quinn's spotify collection of screenshots, "Quinn claims the chat logs she released proves", not just with the 4chan member released logs (and think other sources in the section state "Quinn claims"). I also agree with the notyourshield section needs work and refinement in general, not just with the chatlog bit, but I thought any more edits from me would've needed a talk page section from me explaining myself. Shadowrunner(stuff) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- We already include the sentence Members of 4chan have said that some information has been taken out of context or misrepresented. Why do you think we need to extend the sentence.
- Also, we currently have Quinn's release worded as ...which she said showed..., as you note. If we were to add more about 4chans release of logs (I don't believe we need to), we would need to word it similarly, in line with the sources. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well the full chat logs were released as a direct response to the screenshots of the IRC she released herself. I thought that would be some good information to put in, and it is supported by the Escapist article. I'm fine with wording it similarly, that's reasonable. Shadowrunner(stuff) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)