Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 57

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 50

←

Archive 55

Harassment, not Journalism Ethics

@Bilby: I can't agree with "and" instead. emphasis mine

while Gamergate supporters claimed to be interested in journalism ethics, their "misogynistic and threatening" behavior belied this claim.
claim to be challenging the ethics of game journalists through patently unethical behavior
Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics
more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists
"perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism"
"the movement's much-mocked mantra, 'It's about ethics in journalism'"
while ignoring many large-scale journalistic ethics issues
Vox writer Todd VanDerWerff highlighted an essay written by game developer David Hill, who said that corruption, nepotism, and excessive commercialism existed in the gaming industry, but that Gamergate was not addressing those issues.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can go with the section heading just being Harassment. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been very selective in that list. Most of the quotes in that section are arguing that the ethics concerns in GamerGate were minor, misplaced, or of lesser focus than the harassment, but they are not arguing that there were no ethics concerns. The subheading "Harassment, not Journalism Ethics" is not in keeping with the bulk of that section, as it says that it was not about ethics, in spite of the quotes that follow. You can only make the claim in the subheading if you can show that ethics was not a concern, and that's not what the bulk of the sources are saying. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the heading implies that nobody claimed they were focused on ethics concerns. But the section is about the dismissal of those concerns as a driving factor in the controversy. In other words, it answers the questions raised in the first part. Also, important distinction between "did anyone express ethics concerns at all?" - which is what you're focusing on - and "what was Gamergate about; taken as a whole, what was driving it, what did most of the people involved want and what were they trying to accomplish?" The section is answering the second question, not the first, and the header accurately summarizes what it says at the moment. That isn't to say that the section couldn't stand to be cleaned up and reorganized a bit, of course... I disagree with your reordering (which I reverted) since I'm leery of giving too much weight to claims that essentially all our sources dismiss to one degree or another, but really... it might be best to lead with the Ars Technica and Heron, Belford and Goker refs (which go into the most detail on Gamergate's origins and the roots of the 'it's about ethics' claims, analyzing it extensively from several angles) - specifically focusing on the analysis of the 4chan logs and the sources that detail how it grew and where it was focused, add the caveat from Heron, Belford and Goker that some well-meaning people were eventually pulled in, and cut out most of the rest, which are largely back-and-forth and mostly dependent on smaller quotes pulled out of context. If we did that, we could trim the entire larger section to the point where subsectioning isn't necessary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In regard to "I don't think the heading implies that nobody claimed they were focused on ethics concerns. But the section is about the dismissal of those concerns as a driving factor in the controversy." Yes, that is what the heading implies. "Harassment, not Journalism Ethics" is a clear statement that GamerGate was about harassment and not about journalism ethics, which is not in keeping with the content that follows. The content that follows is very much about how the harassment was a bigger part than the ethics, but doesn't deny that ethics was a factor. We don't need the subheading, and it is misleading. It seems to make more sense just to drop it.

As to the reordering, at the moment the reader would be very lost when reading the section. Our first line is now:

"Journalists who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, these motivations were part of a culture war to suppress views with which Gamergate supporters disagree."

However, until then we've never really claimed that GamerGate's motivations were purported to be about issues with gaming journalism ethics. Ethics is mentioned in the lead, but only a couple of times after that, and only in different sections than the one discussing ethics. It isn't until the second paragraph where we say:

"Some Gamergate supporters contended that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues, leading to conflicts of interest."

That explains the first paragraph, but it is after we've read it. It makes far more sense to lead with the claim that GamerGate supporters contend that their actions were in regard to journalism ethics before we explain that they were wrong. At the moment we have things backwards - we claim they were wrong before we tell the reader what they were claiming. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bilby, why do you think "the bulk" of the section is about ethics in journalism? Isn't it because a lot of things have been said, the quotes then added here primarily by users sympathetic to the male gamer side of the issue? I think we should have a much more representative balance, one that sheds the bulk of these evasive statements. Once we do that, your argument against improvement suggestions being "not in keeping with the bulk of that section" would fall away. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we need to remove the sources because they don't take the stance you think we need to take? I suspect that the reason why the bulk of the sources are on journalism ethics is because the section is on the topic of journalism ethics. - Bilby (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am arguing WP:UNDUE emphasis has been placed on that stance. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here, I'm afraid. This may sound like a stupid question in context, but which stance do you feel has undue emphasis? I think that I may have been unclear earlier. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually think that a couple of sentences with regard to the 'self-description' of "ethics in games journalism" is warranted at the beginning of the section. To my mind, Bilby is right that we need to reference the claim before knocking it down, though with all due respect, the paragraph as it stood strikes me as a bit much. Just a bit more sniping from the sideline. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not been following all the changes in this article in the past few weeks. The whole section is talking about the debates about "ethics in game journalism". It's not clear to me why a subheading is needed at all. I have removed the subheading for now. We can decide whether one needs it or not, and/or what it should be called. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In the whole section, I think paragraphs one and two should be swapped. One should first say what on Earth the "ethics" allegations were all about, before knocking them down. The section is incoherent as written. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kingsindian & Bilby on this ordering. I think some pruning of the ethics claim paragraphs is needed.

The reason I think the heading is needed is because there are so many paragraphs on the topic. I actually think some pruning there is needed; those paragraphs repeat the same theme over and over.

The reason I think the heading should be "not" instead of "and" is that it's clear the ethics claims are being "dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics".

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As with the lede, I would prune those two paragraphs severely, probably more than consensus would support. Actually I would make them into one:

Some Gamergate supporters contended that their actions are driven by concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues, leading to conflicts of interest. Journalists who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, these motivations were part of a culture war to suppress views with which Gamergate supporters disagree.

I am open to discussing what would be need to create consensus: what compromise is between my severe edit and the existing edit. (note: My edit used existing sentences. I just rearranged and deleted things.)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have swapped the ordering of paragraphs one and two in the section, based on the comments by me and others above. Feel free to revert/edit/discuss etc. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No

Harassment is the most noteworthy facet of the controversy, but it is still one facet among several. That was the consensus evident in journalistic sources mid-2015, and it was the consensus of academic sources as of late 2016. Not to disparage any editors, but work on this article continues bike-shedding while remaining grossly out of step both with the actual content in sources it chooses to cite as well as the corpus of WP:BESTSOURCES that are available to be used. There is a great deal of insinuation and punditry about the ethics question that could be dispensed with, but replaced with precise and sober discussion of what views were held, by whom, and what rebuttals they received. Following the recommendations resulting from last year's RfC I will soon begin incorporating better sourcing and structure to the article in an incremental fashion, but stay tuned for the details on that matter. In the meantime, by all means excise material that seems undue, out of date, or misplaced in the article. Just don't do so under cover any general principle that the parts of the controversy unrelated to harassment are false or not seriously dealt with in the reliable sources. That would be a severe misapprehension. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes

Harassment is and remains the most noteworthy facet of the controversy, and it is true that it is but one among several. In earlier versions of the article, it could be (and was) argued that these secondary facets would receive coverage commensurate with the coverage of those facets. However, context and times change as does coverage. At this point in time, there are very few sources who believe that "ethics" was in any way a real part of the controversy, and those "pundits" who said otherwise are just that: pundits. The coverage within the article should and will reflect what the overwhelming majority of real, reliable sources say and not that of a few alt-right types.--Jorm (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we're on the same page with this. Rhoark (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we disagree vehemently. I don't care about the hurt feefees of your alt-right pals. Gamergate was about harassment; the fact that we even mention such a small part of it (the "ethics" concerns) as much as we do is probably too much.--Jorm (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think I have "alt-right pals" or am concerned about the feelings of anyone short of those who have been made by threats to fear for their safety. Perhaps we should simply discuss content rather than contributors. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Just another side note: there's a new article in the New York Times with some Gamergate thoughts. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs)

An interesting read, but clearly an opinion piece, and doesn't pass the context test for inclusion of anything in this article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the New York Times Magazine has no business near this article. Dumuzid (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable opinion sources have every place near this article, when they publish pieces which are primarily about the article subject. When the context of their content on the article subject is tangential to or a minor component of the source, they are not reliable. Is it still Friday there? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, since I have received word from on high, I can hardly quibble, can I? Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it pretty remarkable that the NYT showed such an even hand, not obviously favoring Elam or Futrelle. It seems to support David Auerbach's theory that the mainstream is out of patience with both sides of the culture wars. Anyway, all of that is coatracks with respect to this article. The one bit of Gamergate-specific information seems to be that Gamergate forms a subpopulation that's distinct from prior Elam-style MRAs. Not sure that needs to go in right away, but it's something to chew on. Rhoark (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

for the time being

No header is better than this debate. The info is there. I'd rather spend energy on getting the article in shape, than spend too much energy on this. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Some positive or neutral coverage from non-insane media sources that could help make the article more even-sided

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/ http://observer.com/2015/10/blame-gamergates-bad-rep-on-smears-and-shoddy-journalism/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNKvF5jOXUk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguanaray (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as the Kain pieces go: discussed and rejected as a non-RS: Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_27#Review_of_Reliable_Sources. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All of those are opinion articles. They are not reliable sources on anything. Next. --Jorm (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the sources currently referenced are WP:RSOPINION tier only. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Except the sources list is full of opinion pieces about whether it's doing more "bad" than "good", which is not something that is objectively quantifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iguanaray (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Perreault, Tim Vos - The GamerGate controversy and journalistic paradigm maintenance

The second in my series of papers to digest:

User:Rhoark/sandbox/PerreaultParadigm

Even though I set this one as second on my list months ago, it fortuitously speaks directly to some of the main open questions on the talk page right now. Right out of the gate it identifies journalism ethics as a main strand of the controversy.

(As matter of fact, it identifies it as the main strand, though we can chalk that up to the fact it's appearing in the journal Journalism. As I have argued in the past that we should modulate claims in light of the author's interests and field of study when it comes to gender studies journals, I would advocate no differently here. Another paper operating from a journalism background is here[2] That one will be worth breaking down as well, but in the interest of balance the next paper on my list approaches the topic mainly through the lens of sexism.)

The claims here are operating on several different levels. First off, it's a top-tier source that is principally about game journalism in the Gamergate controversy, immediately putting to bed any claim that this is not part of recent or high-quality coverage. It explicitly states that the ethics angle was a significant part of journalistic coverage in the controversy as well, putting editor claims to the contrary now more than ever in tension with the RS's. Finally, it shows that meta-level claims about journalists' motivations for covering or not covering the ethics claims are a subject of serious, scholarly interest.

A caveat on my own editorial involvement in this particular breakdown is that more than half of the paper is about its own methodology and theoretical underpinnings. I saw no way those claims would serve any use in our Wikipedia article, so I broke with my intention of fully rendering the entire paper. What I've summarized starts about halfway in with the "Background" section and leaves off a few paragraphs from the end. If you see anything left out that would be relevant on the wiki, do say so.

Rhoark (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Using journalism as a fig leaf for harassment is the actual main strand of the majority of RS. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This paper is trying to make a point of limited interest to the historical events around GGC: journalistic paradigm maintenance
That it has an ethics selection filter on the events of GGC isn't surprising. But that selection bias isn't actually support that those points should have more prominence in the GGC article.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As a point of fact, there are discussions happening right now on this page to the effect that RS coverage that is especially recent and high-quality should be more prominent in shaping the article. For the rest of it, you're reiterating the point I just made about how sources will approach the topic from a pre-existing area of interest. Rhoark (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(as a side note: "you're reiterating the point I just made" this is a good thing. It means there's some consensus around some things. Echoing/confirming things is a good thing in communication.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just as long as we apply consistent standards in interpreting the significance of the author or journal's scope of interest, regardless of field. Rhoark (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

topics first then details: Debate over journalism ethics allegations

"Debate over journalism ethics allegations" section has points related to the sides of the debate. The section is long. Present the major sides. Let the later paragraphs provide details. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the first paragraph doesn't even present the major sides accurately. That whole first part needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect the sources, and we still face the problem of describing GamerGate's argument after we say they are wrong. It isn't as pronounced now, but remains present.

I'll tackle the wording first, and then we can revisit order, though. It is more uncomfortable that the sources currently don't match what is being attributed to them. - Bilby (talk)

Original order is better. Also ForbiddenRocky, the article is under 1RR which your two reverts (1, 2) violated. Please be more careful. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I'll revert. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If the section is about the debate, then question of the debate should be presented first. Not GGC's claims. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There are three things happening in this section:

Explaining GG claims
Refuting GG claims
Criticizing GG

The first two things form the debate. The last item could be separate out, and put into it's own section, perhaps? I'm not sure this is a good idea, but I think the mix of criticism with refutation makes presenting the debate more difficult. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, this isn't about refuting or proving their claims. This should be about presenting and discussing based on the sources. Perhaps part of the problem is that we are too focused on refuting as the goal? - Bilby (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the RS refute the GG claims. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Then that will come out in the discussion. Our goal isn't to refute or prove, but to present neutrally. - Bilby (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The refutation is already there. And is given due weight given the RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But that isn't the goal. Perhaps because the goal seems to have been refutation, we seem to be misusing sources to make general claims that they don't really support. For example, the line "Many of Gamergate's claims have been rejected as ill-founded and unsupported. The Week, Vox, and Wired, among others, stated that discussions of gender equality, sexism and other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue." has seven references, but it is only partially supported by those sources. I suspect we've been looking for sources to support claims we want to make a little more than what was probably best. - Bilby (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the goal was refutation so much as context. Which is the refutations are part of the context. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not how you described it just above. You stated that we explain then refute. At any rate, I am concerned that the desire to show how wrong an group is - not just here, but elsewhere in WP - can lead us to use sources and structure to present that view over presenting the information in a more balanced manner. It isn't necessarily the case here, but it need to be handled carefully. - Bilby (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the RS that the GG claims are refuted strongly. How we present them right now is in the debate format - the format is just structure. The content is the same. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they aren't strongly refuted. I'm arguing that our goal should not be to refute them, but to present the argument. However, our urge to refute them can lead to questionable use of sources and structure, which is a potential problem. - Bilby (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. I think though, the problem is that the refutations and claims are entwined in the RS. If you look at our quote farm, you'll see that a lot of them (and the other RS) are in the form of "claim x belied by behavior y". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's an issue, but not the core one. At any rate, when I get the chance I'll go through the sources again and see how we can reword to better match them in that section. - Bilby (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

adding criticism of gg section?

How about this outline?

History
1. Further harassment
2. Coordination of harassment
Gamergate activities
1. Efforts to impact public perceptions
2. Targeting advertisers
3. Sad Puppies
Criticism of GG (here)
Debate over journalism ethics allegations
Criticism of GG (or here)
Social and cultural implications
1. Gamer identity
2. Misogyny and sexism
3. Law enforcement
Gaming industry response
Gamergate representation in media
Reducing online harassment

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, criticism should be in the context of what aspect its criticizing. If it's criticizing sexism, it belongs in the sexism section. If criticizing letter writing campaigns to advertisers, it goes with that; etc. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that GG as a whole has been criticized. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be best to phrase such a section (if any) in terms of what is being criticised. E.g., we have a 'further harassment' section, which some people may view as criticism of GG (criticism of how much they kept harassing people). We could have a catchall section for whatever criticism doesn't fit in any other section, I'm just wary of the title 'Criticism of GG' over something that may be more descriptive. I do appreciate the work you've done so far and continue to do! PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

I've lingered through this page for a while, and I come to believe that this article is the least neutral on this Wiki. I say clean up the article so it can be seen from a neutral point of view. Hopefully I'm making sense here.

-- Hug0905 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please was more specific about where you see the article failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Artw (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely Fluoroantimonic acid is less neutral? Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide some RS to support some edits. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Piss off, dearest friend. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth:You should perhaps delete this yourself... -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I will never log off. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This article remains one of Wikipedia's most notorious articles to this day. Could we completely rewrite it from scratch to remove all the POV and accuracy issues (and hopefully upgrade it to GA status)?

If we can't WP:STARTOVER with this article, we'll just add all the important mentions of the Wikipedia article into the article itself. Zakawer (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You could do a replacement article on a sandbox and then try to merge with or replace this one with that, but that might be hard because this article as it stands is a pretty good summary of the sources, which is normally all articles have to be to achieve Good Article status. However, the critics are right, most of the sources are either parties to the dispute or rely on ones that are, so their reliability on this topic might not be the same.

As I see it, people like you should first work first on getting their side of the story published somewhere WP:RS. A peer-reviewed article in a prestigious journal could trump many news media sources. Once that happens, then would be the time to turn your attention to this article.

Another idea is that there might be another referent to the term "Gamergate", a scandal among the games media, that would be different from the referent of this article.

Interestingly, major Wikipedians, including Jimbo Wales, have agreed in principle that if there is enough published about a particular Wikipedia article, we could actually have an article about another article on Wikipedia. He said specifically that having a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia's article on Gamergate might be doable at this point. I haven't checked in a long time, but as I recall, there might be enough out there at this point to create such an article about this article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems unlikely to result in anything useful. Feel free to make suggestions for improvement of the article but please remember they should be grounded in sources and, well, reality. Artw (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I would love a start-over, if only because the tidy up process is starting from a poor position and constrained by a few years of trying to pacify serial complainers. The debacle could be summarised, and should be summarised, more effectively. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you specify what's inaccurate? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Tim Soret

Tim Soret apologized for participating in gg? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources so far

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall if The Sun is RS. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm against mentioning that whole kerfuffle at all unless it attracts way more coverage than it has so far. Right now it's only tangentially related - in most situations, we wouldn't mention every single person who eg. got in trouble for using a label or whatever and then apologized for it. It might get a mention on a page for him or his game, but I don't think it belongs here. Eventually there might be a enough broader "where are they now" retrospectives on Gamergate as a whole that could support a paragraph on how people involved in it changed and evolved over time and where they ended up afterwards, maybe, but (unless this incident attracts way more coverage than it has) I doubt he would be worth mentioning even in that context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be too soon to include it. But I mention it for completeness, and a heads up. This kind of thing tends to draw interesting people to the GGC page.

Also, https://www.polygon.com/e3/2017/6/11/15779448/the-last-night-xbox-one-pc

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Another tangential data point from an RS: [3]. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So, there are a few things here Soret's history brought up, Soret's apology, the reaction to the apology, and the meme. They are part of the wider effects. The Last Night (video game) does link to GGC. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Trimming down the RS (part 1 of x)

So the first place references appear in the article there are five of them. That seems a little excessive. There are several places where there are a bajillion references. Should trim these down, if possible. And some of the references should perhaps be used in more places.

But first, a list of the just publishers:

list of ref in the article

BurgessMatamoros-Fernández2016 cite journal|last1=Burgess|first1=Jean|last2=Matamoros-Fernández|first2=Ariadna|title=Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: one week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr|journal=Communication Research and Practice|volume=2|issue=1|year=2016|pages=79–96|issn=2204-1451|doi=10.1080/22041451.2016.1155338|quote=Our findings show that, even when initially approached from as partial a perspective as the ‘gamergate’ keyword and hashtag represents, GamerGate’s issue publics are absolutely not concerned only or even primarily with ‘ethics in games journalism’
Chess 2015> cite journal|last1=Chess|first1=Shira|last2=Shaw|first2=Adrienne|title=A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity|journal=Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media|volume=59|issue=1|year=2015|pages=208–220|doi=10.1080/08838151.2014.999917
DustinTurner2016 cite encyclopedia|last1=Kidd|first1=Dustin|last2=Turner|first2=Amanda J.|title=The# GamerGate Files: Misogyny in the Media.|encyclopedia=Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age|year=2016|pp=117–139|publisher=IGI Global
HeronBelford2014 cite journal|last1=Heron|first1=Michael James|last2=Belford|first2=Pauline|last3=Goker|first3=Ayse|title=Sexism in the circuitry|journal=ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|volume=44|issue=4|year=2014|pages=18–29|issn=0095-2737|doi=10.1145/2695577.2695582
http://abcnews.go.com
http://apgnation.com
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/
http://blogs.wsj.com
http://edition.cnn.com
http://espn.go.com
http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu
http://fortune.com
http://gamepolitics.com
http://herocomplex.latimes.com
http://i.wow.joystiq.com
http://iowapublicradio.org
http://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/3/clark-calls-for-investigation-and-prosecution-of-online-threats-against-women
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com
http://kotaku.com
http://metaleater.com
http://metro.co.uk
http://money.cnn.com
http://nymag.com
http://o.canada.com
http://reason.com
http://recode.net
http://spectator.org/articles/63898/happy-anniversary-gamergate-love-adam-baldwin
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com
http://theweek.com
http://thomas.loc.gov
http://time.com
http://venturebeat.com
http://wgbhnews.org
http://www.bbc.co.uk
http://www.bbc.com
http://www.boston.com
http://www.bostonglobe.com
http://www.bostonmagazine.com
http://www.businessinsider.com
http://www.businessweek.com
http://www.cjr.org
http://www.cnet.com
http://www.cosmopolitan.com
http://www.csmonitor.com
http://www.ctvnews.ca
http://www.dailydot.com
http://www.derbund.ch
http://www.develop-online.net
http://www.diplomaticourier.com
http://www.engadget.com
http://www.escapistmagazine.com
http://www.eurogamer.net
http://www.fastcodesign.com
http://www.firstthings.com
http://www.gamasutra.com
http://www.gamesindustry.biz
http://www.gamespot.com
http://www.ibtimes.com
http://www.inc.com
http://www.inquisitr.com
http://www.latimes.com
http://www.macleans.ca
http://www.marketplace.org
http://www.mcvuk.com
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com
http://www.newsweek.com
http://www.newyorker.com
http://www.nordicsts.org
http://www.npr.org
http://www.onthemedia.org
http://www.pastemagazine.com
http://www.pcmag.com
http://www.pocketgamer.biz
http://www.polygon.com
http://www.psmag.com
http://www.salon.com
http://www.seattletimes.com
http://www.slate.com
http://www.sltrib.com
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk
http://www.stuff.co.nz
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.thedailybeast.com
http://www.themarysue.com
http://www.thestar.com
http://www.theverge.com
http://www.torontostandard.com
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180
http://www.vanityfair.com
http://www.vice.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.wired.co.uk
http://www.womenactionmedia.org
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25207-permalink.html
https://arstechnica.com
https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-218/feature-brendan-keogh/
https://vault.fbi.gov
https://www.fastcompany.com
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate
https://www.nytimes.com
https://www.theatlantic.com
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.vox.com
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-reception-honor-womens-history-month
https://www.wired.com
Internet Monitor 2014 Cite conference|last1=Gasser |first1=Urs |first2=Jonathan |last2=Zittrain |first3=Robert |last3=Faris |first4=Rebekah Heacock |last4=Jones |title=Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World: Platforms, Policy, Privacy, and Public Discourse |accessdate=January 26, 2015 |year=2014 |page=18 |url=http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203011123/http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |archivedate=February 3, 2015 |df=
Massanari2015 cite journal|last=Massanari |first=Adrienne |title=#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures |journal=New Media & Society |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=329 |year=2015 |issn=1461-4448 |doi=10.1177/1461444815608807 |url=http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |format=PDF |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128005809/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |archivedate=January 28, 2016 |df=
Mortensen2016 cite journal|last=Mortensen|first=Torill Elvira|title=Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of #GamerGate|journal=Games and Culture|year=2016|doi=10.1177/1555412016640408
prominent 1 cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Gender at Work: Theory and Practice for 21st Century Organizations |quote=According to Anita Sarkeesian (2014), a prominent feminist critic of video games, ... |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102103216/https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781317437079 |author1=Rao |first1=Aruna |last2=Sandler |first2=Joanne |last3=Kelleher |first3=David |last4=Miller |first4=Carol |date=2015-11-19
prominent 2 cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Digitized Lives: Culture, Power, and Social Change in the Internet Era |quote=Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent feminist pop culture critic |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102072840/https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781136689963 |author1=Reed |first1=T.V |date=2014-06-05
ShawChess2016 cite encyclopedia|last1=Shaw|first1=Adrienne|last2=Chess|first2=Shira|title=Reflections on the casual games market in a post-GamerGate world.|encyclopedia=Social, Casual and Mobile Games: The Changing Gaming Landscape|year=2016|pp=277

I spot these possible problems:

I note, that the might be ok, but they jump out as things that should be looked at (blogs, problematic RS, etc)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources I don't recognized immediately (as good RS (e.g. Time) or problematic sources (e.g. blog.*)):

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Many are sources for their own opinion, or for their more technically / culturally aware summaries (compared to the often unintentionally hilarious and out of touch Telegraph and co). Slightly wary of the removal of sources without clarifying the subject matter should be re-written to better reflect those remaining, and those remaining should hold the critical information used as the basis for the initial inclusion unless the matter itself can be seen as crufty. There are plenty of otherwise unimpeachable sources so I doubt culling some will be an issue on that front.

I would say, Joystiq (now folded into Engadget) is definitely an RS, but obviously what and how it is used is a different matter entirely. Metaleater was a source for the self-published Liana Kerzner piece that notably itself became notably notable for having an opinion on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Two basic issues with the listing of sources in this way. First, reliability of sources is always in context. Second we use not only for to support facts, but also for getting an idea of the relative weight one should devote to each aspect of the phenomenon. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Per our policies, more reliable sources are apportioned more relative weight. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's novel. Which policies would those be? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS AGE, WP:DUE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest doing a little more legwork yourself to understand what these publications are before raising any red flags. Almost all of them are the subjects of their own Wikipedia articles, which could be a good place to start. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note:

There are over 100 sources.
I only listed a few I think have problems. I've done some legwork; there is more to do in some case. Take that as a heads up that I might remove some these sources as failing to be RS. If someone thinks they should remain; they might want to provide a reason.
And then a few that are quite new to me as RS. Not bad out of 100+ RS, I think. Perhaps someone would like to help with the task of checking RS. Or not.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

More than happy to assist (as time permits); though, as other editors have mentioned, reliability is always contextual; and each source will need to be evaluated in the context of the content (of the article) that it verifies, and how the verifying content (of the source) is included in the source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also as PeterTheFourth mentions, evaluating the reliable sources has implications of weight.

This is a quick first pass. If there's low hanging fruit that can be dealt with here in this quick pass, then there's some benefit. That's a lot of sources to go through, over 200. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Having previously reviewed all but 2 or 3 of them, most of the 200 are WP:RSOPINION tier only. I'm genuinely not sure where that leaves WP:WEIGHT. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are way more than 2 or 3 that are more than RSOPINION. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, we can cut out the sources that are both 1. blogs or otherwise not RS, and, 2. are only used to cite a statement that already has a better source. Even if we could make an argument to use them in some cases or for opinions, there isn't really any reason to when we have a better source already. Then we can look at what's left and figure out if we can / should find better sources, rewrite the section in question, remove it, or if we can justify using a marginal source there or whatever. But having a low-quality source next to a high-quality source doesn't accomplish anything. --Aquillion (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. That, too. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I have a problem with http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ . It's a blog. It hasn't gone through an editorial process. I think it should be removed. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/11/07/new-online-tool-lets-twitter-users-report-harassment/ This is behind a paywall. I can't see it. The whole "blogs" part of the url makes me suspicious. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Got the archive to open finally. Dunno what to think about the blogness. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/12/limiting-the-damage-from-cultures-in-collision/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To Do: I'm planning to replace http://blogs.wsj.com ref with https://www.wired.com/2015/05/wam-twitter-harassment/ . The wired source is more current and has less crystal ball than the blogs.wsj one.

I may also use it to replace some of the http://www.womenactionmedia.org refs. I don't think we should use a self-ref for " was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet" but the wired ref will work for that. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Another note: WAM probably deserves it's own article. They have moved on from GG. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done I'm planning to replace http://blogs.wsj.com ref [etc.] -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done "replace some of the http://www.womenactionmedia.org refs" I had to find another source. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Some removed refs:

There was one http://www.derbund.ch ref. The way it was used out of context implied something about GGers, but it was actually about gamers in general. I removed it and the part it was supporting in the article; as a statement about gamers in general it wasn't interesting.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz: I removed this one, too. The site doesn't have an editorial policy. The site is a marketing newsletter. The person making the opinion doesn't make the opinion notable (not an expert or academic).

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure http://www.mcvuk.com passes the sniff test.

The first ref (GG and Blizzcon) could be dropped. There are three other refs.
- removed this ref as redundant -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The second ref (GG and Arkham Knight) could be replaced with: https://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8846691/batman-gamergate-easter-egg-arkham-knight
- replaced this ref

Oh yeah the reason to remove McVuk: McVuk doesn't pass the sniff test - no editorial process listed, no editors listed, is a business newletter. Also, redundant for first use, and better RS For second use. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nordic Journal & a quote & DiGRA

So I found this quote sitting in the reflist: "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women's rights as citizens." I moved it to the main article near the related citation. Not sure if that was right. I'll let someone else evaluate that.

The ref NJSTS mentions DiGRA. However, I note there's no mention about what happened WRT DiGRA and GG. Should we add that to the activities section?

https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/6/6901013/whats-happening-in-gamergate

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/11/11/gamergate-supporters-attack-digital-games-research-association

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/13/silverstring-gamergate-adhd-compelling-games

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11289690/Dyson-rejects-Gamergate-returns-advertising-to-Gawker.html

Or add more info to the influence section re: "operation firefly" "operation digging digra" "operation disrespectful nod"?

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I think this should be added. I'll get around to it some day. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

looking back? wider effects?

https://www.cnet.com/news/gamergate-to-trump-how-video-game-culture-blew-everything-up/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly combine with the CNN material above? We're going to need a "legacy" section at some point and this looks like the foundation of it. Artw (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/magazine/hunting-the-manosphere.html -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/18/steve-bannon-learned-harness-troll-army-world-warcraft/489713001/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No direct mention, but many GG related names here: https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate Artw (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

could be useful as a backgrounder on games culture but its central thesis, that everything was fine until OMM, seems very questionable and I'd be uncomfortable including something with that in it without a bunch of other sources backing it up. Artw (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

moved this section into wider effect? ection -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another complaint about the lack of neutrality

Well... When an article irks me to such a degree that I have to come back to editing the English WP after two years of inactivity, that's usually a good sign that something's pretty bad. I see that others have also commented on how seemingly one-sided this article is, but they haven't really described in detail what their problems were, so I guess that's what I'll have to do. For this purpose, I'll take one segment (3. Debate over journalism ethics allegations) which should highlight the underlying problems of the entire article.

Since this is gonna be really, really long, I'll start with a TL;DR version:

Though the quotes are from reliable sources, their inclusion is unnecessary in most cases, as they only repeat what has already been said.
Said quotes are often worded in a questionable manner, describing the arguments as "toxic sludge" in one case, making the article look unencyclopedic and biased.
The constant repetition of the same points makes the article bloated and unprofessional.
The sheer quantity of quotes from articles against Gamergate make the entire article look like it's biased towards that side.

Ok, with that out of the way, let's go.

The first paragraph is actually pretty alright. The first half of the paragraph describes the argument of Gamergate supporters (relationships between developers and journalists may result in unbiased reviews), the second half describes the argument of journalists (that argument's just a facade to facilitate a culture war). Both sides are supported by 4-4 sources (although said sources can be pretty informal and kind-of opinionated against the movement, as is the case with [9] (New York Magazine)). It's not perfect, but with such a vitriolic topic, no one expects that.

Paragraph #2 is also OK. It first presents the argument of Gamergaters (Depression Quest/Gone Home got far more praise than the public thought was warranted, which set off alarms that something's fishy), then presents the journalists' argument (just because reviewers praise a game for its message and put less focus on its subpar gameplay, it doesn't mean they're biased). Source ratio is quite a bit worse (3-7 to anti-Gamergate), but the text itself is fine. These two paragraphs could easily be used as a blueprint for what the rest of the article should be like.

The third paragraph is where problems start becoming very apparent. It contains one singular sentence that is kind-of on Gamergate's side (the original intent behind GG was good and the problem was its hijacking by harassers), then the entire paragraph consists of journalists bashing GG. 2 lines somewhat in favour, 7 lines against. Even though the arguments are from reliable sources and are technically acceptable, most of them are unnecessary and repeat concerns already mentioned (The Verge's quote is already covered by paragraph #1, Columbia Journalism and New York Times echoes paragraph #2, only the Washington Post's excerpt says anything that's not already covered) and all they do is make the article look completely unbalanced and off-putting. Source count is 3-4.

The fourth paragraph is not all that bad. It consists of Milo Yiannopoulos' argument, followed by the mailing list's creator's response, followed by observation of journalists. I find it odd that the Breitbart article that the entire paragraph is about was not linked and only discussions of it were mentioned, but that's probably because Breitbart isn't considered a reliable source.

Paragraph #5 is well-sourced, but again, pretty one-sided and partially unnecessary. First two lines just repeat what we already know; next four are presenting a new argument, but their wording is very questionable (describing a conversation as "toxic sludge" doesn't sound like something that should be included in an encyclopedic, neutral article). The first sentence of the professor's quote is unnecessary and could easily be removed.

Paragraph #6 is similar; all it does is rehash concerns already mentioned. The entire paragraph could be replaced with something like "The analysis of public posts and tweets related to Gamergate, done by Newsweek and Ars Technica, also supports the argument that ethics were not the movement's primary focus.", appended to paragraph #1, and nothing of real value would be lost.

The seventh paragraph is like a mix of the third and fifth paragraph in a way. Wording is very questionable (especially Jessica Valenti's), "was seen by others" is a textbook example of weasel words. Vox quote is doubly unnecessary; it rehashes what Columbia Journalism has said, which in turn echoes paragraph #2. Leigh Alexander's quote sort-of repeats what has already been said, but it also says something new ("meaningful reporting requires journalists to develop professional relationships with sources") so it should just be trimmed. Also, it's out of place here, and would be more suitable in paragraph #2 as reinforcement of the journalist's stance regarding collusion between critics and developers.

Finally, the eighth paragraph, once again, only represents one side of the debate. However, now the sources repeat others in the same paragraph. All the sources say one thing: "Followers of Gamergate only target women in the indie games industry, while ignoring triple-A game publishers, thereby throwing the validity of the claim that Gamergate is truly about ethics into question." If you look at the quotes from On the Media, Wired, Vox, and The Verge, all of them say the same thing and only one of them is really needed to make the point. The rest is just filler that makes the article look bloated, unbiased, and unencyclopedic.

And that was the end of section 3. I could describe the problems with the rest of the article in such detail, but that'd probably take more than a day of continuous typing, this is already so long that I doubt most people will even read this (if you did, thank you), and most of that analysis would just consist of repeating the things I've mentioned above.

Despite all this, I don't think we need to WP:STARTOVER. The building blocks are all there, this could be formatted in a way that is far more neutral. However, it definitely has to undergo very extensive rewrites before it meets the expectation of a neutral representation of both sides, which is expected and should be expected from an article about such a delicate topic.

I await your opinion on this matter. (For better readability, I'd like to ask you to put your comments under the horizontal line after my signature. Thanks.)

HamukaKong (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! You have many complaints in here about repetition and bloat, and essentially what I would call "stylistic issues." By that term I don't mean to diminish them. And with these I mostly agree! I have for quite some time been saying that a dramatically shorter article would be preferable, brevity being the soul of wit, and whatnot. If you want to suggest some cuts, edits, rewordings and the like, I think that would be a great service. I'll do what I can to help with that effort. The complaint about "bias" is simply a tough one, especially when presented, as here, without recourse to reliable sources. It's my belief that where the majority of reliable sources take a certain view on something, Wikipedia can and should represent that. Seeking a balance not found in the reliable sources strikes me as simply original research. That being said, I certainly have not seen every RS, and they change over time. Decrying a lack of neutrality is pretty hard to respond to in the abstract; it's rather like someone saying "edit better!" But if you want to point out reliable sources, and/or specific edits based thereupon, I think it would be a tremendous help. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, some of my main problems with the article stem from the way it's written. I will try to check through the entire article and find ways to trim it down to the best of my ability, but given its sheer size (~8,000 words by my count) and the amount of other tasks I have to do outside WP, it will definitely take a while. (Plus, due to me not meeting the 30/500 requirement (by a long, long shot, regrettably), I can't perform said edits myself, which would mean I'd have to list all suggested changes here and flood the talk page.)

Of course, if a large majority of reliable sources form the same opinion, that should obviously be pronounced to some degree. But the key words here are "to some degree." The section I've analyzed above contains 3 paragraphs which represent roughly 50/50 of either side, and 5 paragraphs that represent one side either 100% or, at best, 25/75 (as is the case with paragraph #3). The section in its entirety contains roughly 20% pro- and about 80% anti-GG arguments, which is a pretty ridiculous ratio, in my opinion. (For every paragraph of pro-GG sentiments, there are 4 against it.) A ratio I'd be happy with would be around 33/67 (1 pro-2 anti) or possibly even 40/60 (2 pro-3 anti). These would require pretty extreme measures, though (either adding at least twice as many pro-GG sources or removing at least half of one side's arguments), so that's not really going to happen. Even worse ratios than those would be better than what we have now, though, and again, repetition and bloat should at least partially solve this.

I've tried looking into reliable sources for the other side of the debate, and while it was a bit difficult, and there were few results, and the sites aren't considerable mainstream in the slightest, they still exist, at least. GameZone is one of them, and probably is the most popular; it has its own WP article (albeit that has numerous flaws and is short) and has been used as a source in ~100 pages, so using it shouldn't be much of an issue. TechRaptor has been used 8 times on WP, which is a very small amount, but better than nothing; they also have a page dedicated to their journalistic practices and ethics. I'll try finding more sites, and will links to their articles which could be used tomorrow. It's extremely late over here (about 1AM at the time of me writing this), so hopefully that delay is understandable.

I realize that this issue is tough to resolve. One side of the debate is represented almost entirely by anonymous/pseudonymous Internet users, after all, whose arguments cannot be included, due to them being completely unreliable and potentially even more opinionated than the sources I've criticized for being that. (There's also Breitbart, as mentioned before, but that also doesn't count for obvious reasons.) And without that, the representation will inevitably look skewed towards one side, because... well, it kind of is. But, in my opinion, it still needs some sort of resolution, even if only partial.

...And I wrote about 12 thousand words again. I'm sorry. HamukaKong (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a short comment on the sources and their proportions. We had discussed GameZone before and decided not to use it for claims about living persons, which require high-quality reliable sources. It does look like WP:VG/RS considers GameZone a reliable source, so it may be time to revisit that discussion. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is specifically considered an unreliable source, so we definitely won't be using that here. (TechRaptor was also involved in GamerGate from early on, but that's another issue entirely.)

And about the ratio: the references we (currently) use are simply the best sources among many that say essentially the same thing. Editors have gone through and removed redundant references several times. (If you look at some older version of the article, you'll find passages with 4-5 references after each sentence. It had really gotten out of hand and was making it difficult to actually edit the article.) With a few notable exceptions, virtually all reliable sources are critical of GamerGate, so the article is going to reflect that unless or until the sources change. After all, WP:DUE requires that we summarize viewpoints according to the available sources, not to the sources that we choose to reference. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Grayson's mention of Depression Quest in Rock, Paper, Shotgun

I'm not familiar with the long edit history of this article, but it is somewhat incorrect to state in the History section that "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games". He had never reviewed Quinn's games for Kotaku, but he had written an article in the blog Rock, Paper, Shotgun that gave prominent mention to Depression Quest in January of 2014, three months before he became romatically involved with her.

The article is still visible here: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games

I tried editing the main article to add a mention of this, but my edit was reverted by someone claiming I needed a "secondary source" to back this up. What kind of secondary source should I look for, which would carry more weight than the actual article written by Nathan Grayson himself (which mentions Depression Quest as one of the three "standouts" in a new release of 50 games by Steam)?

If an acceptable secondary source cannot be found, would it be okay to edit the line: "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games" to the more factually correct "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games for Kotaku", seeing that none of the cited sources for this claim go so far as to say he hadn't reviewed Quinn's games for anyone anywhere?

-- Rogermw (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have clarified the sentence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't clarify anything really. Grayson never reviewed the game so the "for Kotaku" qualifier is unneeded. If the single sentence given to Depression Quest is relevant then there should be a secondary source that gives it some weight. — Strongjam (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That article is not a "review" by any meaningful interpretation of the word - mentioning a game briefly in the context of a number of other games without giving it a score or a significant critical analysis cannot possibly be construed as a "review." If you want to somehow further qualify it, "Grayson had briefly mentioned Quinn's game in an article about Steam Greenlight games," that sort of inclusion might be supportable - calling three words in a broader article a "review" is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We still need reliable, third-party sources to support the claim that Grayson reviewed the game anywhere. Multiple sources say that he did not, like The Guardian, Time, Ars Technica, Bustle, and The Mirror. (And that's just searching for a couple minutes.) ~~Several of them specifically mention the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article and say things like "briefly mention" (Time) and "mentioned it in passing" (Ars Technica) but not a "review".~~ After all, it was five words and an image in an article about 50 games. No reliable source is going to consider that a review. Woodroar (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a review. It probably doesn't need any clarification after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Since Time and Ars Technica did bring up the brief mention of the game in Rock, Paper, Shotgun, would it be appropriate to change the sentence that currently begins with "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games" to begin with something like "Although Grayson briefly mentioned Quinn's game in an article about Steam Greelight games<citations go here>, Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games"? --Rogermw (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Woodroar is mistaken. Neither of them mentioned the RPS blog post. They were both referring to the piece Grayson wrote in Kotaku about the Game Jam stuff. Some phrasing with a "brief mention" may or may not be appropriate. I don't know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I swear some articles specifically discussed RPS as well, but you're right, those aren't it. I struck that sentence above. No time now for anything beyond that! Woodroar (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "although" is appropriate — it sets up a narrative tension which doesn't really exist, and it adds unnecessary complexity to boot. If we include anything on this, I prefer adding it to the already-existing discussion of Grayson's previous writings: Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only article for Kotaku mentioning her was published before their relationship began. We could say Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only articles mentioning her games — one in Kotaku, another in Rock Paper Shotgun — were published before their relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say "mentioning her or her games" instead of "mentioning her games", because the Kotaku piece he wrote about Game Jam doesn't discuss her games. But since those Time and Ars Technica articles don't mention the RPS article, and we don't (yet) have other secondary sources that do, the only source we'd be able to use as a reference to the RPS mention of DQ would be the RPS article itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we didn't have to rely entirely on a primary source; it makes the statement look too much like Original Research. --Rogermw (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like grasping at straws TBH. Artw (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason I was interested in having this RPS article mentioned was to avoid the potential hint of bias that might come from not mentioning it. The RPS article is clearly just a little blog entry where Grayson happened to mention one of his buddy's games (something just about any blogger would do), and I don't think any reasonable person would consider it a conflict of interest. But it has been used as ammunition by the Gamergaters (c.f. for example http://gamergate.wikia.com/wiki/Nathan_Grayson ). Not addressing it at all may give a false air of untrustworthiness to the WP article, if someone were to hear an argument by the Gamergaters and came here looking for a neutral perspective. --Rogermw (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not really how we write articles. Our goal isn't to try and convince everyone; depending on their perspectives, there will always be people who take issues with an article. Our goal is to present an accurate and appropriately-weighted summary of the sources. I agree with the people above who said that this is undue, and as you said, it's certainly not something we can cite to a WP:PRIMARY source - in context, it reads as if it's trying to push someone's personal argument using primary sources, which both violates policy and hurts the credibility of the article as a whole. Beyond that, I disagree with the interpretation implied here (which is part of the reason we have to be careful with primary sources) - the RPS blogpost isn't a review, so both the sources and our summary of them are factually accurate. If you disagree (if you think it does qualify as a review or whatever) you should contact the sources we cite there and ask them to update their articles, but right now we have to go by what they say. Also, just as as a small point of accuracy, you said that Grayson "happened to mention one of his buddy's games"; this is inaccurate. By my understanding of the timeline, Quinn and Grayson were not acquainted at that time. Their relationship started later. (Again, this is why it's important to be cautious about using primary sources - in trying to dispel a common myth pushed by Quinn's harassers without using a source that provided full context, you came close to inadvertently validating it.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Just two nitpicks: (1) I'm not trying to say, or imply, that the mention of the game in RPS was a review (although I've heard Gamergaters incorrectly classify it as such); and (2) My understanding is that, although their romantic relationship didn't start until April 2014, Grayson and Quinn were professional acquaintances before then. I don't know whether they knew each other back in January 2014 when Grayson wrote the RPS article, although pictures exist of the two of them in the same room together (along with other people) in March 2014. --Rogermw (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Internally replicating dumb conspiracy theories to head off criticism from dumb conspiracy theorists would probably be considered WP:OR. Artw (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. "I think I saw a picture of the two of them in the same room on an imageboard once" isn't really enough to justify what you said above (and is already stepping back from what you initially accused him of - replace "one of his buddy's games" with "a game made by someone he was in the same room with once, along with other people" and the silliness becomes obvious.) The wording matters - in this context, "buddies" is a more serious accusation than it seems at first because similar accusations were used to justify much of the harassment against Quinn. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The notion that the two of them were professional acquaintances prior to their romantic involvement is supported by the Kotaku article at https://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346 , which is already being cited as a source in the main article. This Kotaku article only makes it clear that the two of them began being professional acquaintances no later than 31-March-2014, however; it doesn't say when their professional acquaintanceship actually started, or whether the two of them were professional acquaintances when his Rock, Paper, Shotgun article appeared in January of that year. --Rogermw (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH) as well as WP:BLP. We don't edit based on "article #1 kinda says this and article #2 kinda says that". Sources need to make that connection explicit. We also don't speculate about living persons, in articles or on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance Notice: Neutrality

I am somewhat scared to even ask about this considering the restrictions and warnings on this page, especially because I haven't read everything. But I'm going to assume that asking a question on the talk page in good faith isn't against any policies and just cross my fingers that I don't get in trouble.

I see that neutrality remains to be an issue with this article, so I'm wondering if there should be a maintenance notice on the page since consensus hasn't been reached on whether or not the article adheres to neutrality standards? CeraWithaC (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're literally going to come in here and say "I haven't read any of this but I don't think you have consensus?" Wow. Just... wow.--Jorm (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance notice are not meant to be used as badges of shame. They're used to draw discussion when an editor has articulated a specific and actionable concern. — Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello CeraWithaC and thank you for your interest in improving this article.

An article on Wikipedia is normally considered good and unbiased if it simply summarizes the available reliable sources well.

Among all the articles on Wikipedia, it seems reasonable that at least a few are biased because the available sources are themselves are wrong or biased, and we transfer that bias from the sources to the article.

What to do when such things happen? Is that the case here?

It seems to me reasonable that this may be the case in this article, because so many of the sources are either parties to the dispute themselves or rely on others which are. However, we have to go with the sources we have. We have to get our information somewhere, and we have to have standards.

If this is what is happening here, the solution might be for someone to publish a more unbiased account, or more accurate, or present some other side, in reliable sources.

For example, one such article published by an involved third party with a good reputation for scholarship in a respected, peer-reviewed, academic journal would help immensely, because most of these sources are mere news articles and while still WP:RS, not nearly as reliable as as that kind of thing would be, so it would be hard not to keep it out of the article.

Until then, it's not clear what if anything can be done about inaccuracy or bias in this article, or even which if any warnings or notices might be appropriate. Wikipedia basically only knows what is in its sources, so there's not much we can do if the sources fail us. That better sources be published would seem the only hope. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources say the earth is is a sphere, but it is reasonable to think otherwise."--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Being, as they are, located on the Earth, these sources are biased when discussing the shape of the Earth. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Would think that if a user feels there is a problem with an article, they would come with concrete examples here, and suggested solutions. I really do not get the point of the various types of banners that can be put on top of articles in this project. From what I have read on other talk pages and in archives of old discussions, the banner itself tends to become the locus of argument, alongside with the topic. ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe we need to add stuff related to GamerGate's ties to the alt-right: http://www.salon.com/2017/08/16/they-came-for-the-nerd-girls-first-ignoring-gamergates-weaponized-trolling-carried-a-price/ - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

On a more serious note, we probably add more current views of GG. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

From the recent stories linked above this probably does not mean the article going in a direction that will make the complainers happy. Artw (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a bad idea. Talk me out of it.

There is a serious over citation problem on GGC. I was thinking of removing any RS that is only used once AND only used where there are 3 or more good RS. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the storm has largely passed and that may be appropriate - might want to keep track of anything removed somewhere though. Artw (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We used to have a commented out 'reference graveyard' on the page where people would place references that were removed. Might be of use? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth Could you provide a pointer to a 'reference graveyard'? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Sure. It's not the most high tech solution. If you look at the page source, we have a bunch of sources no longer used that are commented out and at the bottom of the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth did you put the wrong link? Or am I missing something? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: I was not super clear- edit the source of the diff I linked, and scroll down to the bottom. There will be (above some categories) a bunch of commented out references. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Could we use template:refideas at the top of this talkpage and put the graveyard sources in there? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a fan of this method. Even if they never come back it would be a great place to keep 'em. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If there were only a few, I'd prefer this. We've removed dozens of duplicate reliable sources, though. And we already have a page of notifications, imagine having to scroll past two or three! I would argue for a single template pointing to a subpage, like we link to Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oo. Oo! I got something for that too! The refideas just leads to another page. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly that. Funny, I don't remember ever seeing that page before! Woodroar (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I like that approach Zero Serenity. I guess that, on the subpage, we can explain why the sources were removed from the article. Otherwise, it might give the impression that we are confident that those sources have useful information in them that isn't already in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Reference_Info -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I added info from the last time I worked on the references. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The new page needs templating... bleah. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Added some templates. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

TBH, I think that all those templates distract from the important one - about the purpose of the page. I would leave them off as people will be adequately warned on the parent page. In the unlikely event of trouble on that page, semi and user-talk warnings should do the job, or in-extremis, ECP. Yaris678 (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the amount of rules lawyering that has happened, I'm inclined to leave them. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have BOLDly made this change. Feel free to undo it if you don't like it. Yaris678 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS on "source said"

A while ago I mention that there was a lot of:

what The New Yorker characterized
Ars Technica and The Daily Dot reported
Wingfield of The New York Times referred
etc

Is there a MOS or something to guide me on removing this stuff? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT and WP:YESPOV. Be warned, here be dragons, most of the cases where we attribute in the article are pretty well litigated in the talk pages. I'm not looking forward to reading another debate over a few words... — Strongjam (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unsurprisingly, but in cases where there is a strong consensus amongst RS I am in favor of moving to Wikipedia voice. Artw (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Gender ID

I saw that an editor had changed the gender pronouns for Quinn to gender-neutral ones. However, her own page uses female pronouns, and the consensus discussion on that talkpage was that female was most appropriate. Since the neutral-changing edit on this page preceded that consensus discussion, I don't think my changes will be seen as controversial and were intended to simply increase consistency. And, honestly, were initially prompted by a weird gender switch that occurred in the middle of a sentence. :) Grandpallama (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, per the discussion at Zoe Quinn, this seems totally appropriate to me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty Low Standards for an Intro Here: Lack of Sourcing and maybe WP:NPOV

This might as well be someone's blog post for the intro. The intro is completely unsourced and should certainly be source in some areas. See this partial sentence

#gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson.

Clearly a controversial claim with no citations. Beyond that this seems either badly written or untrue. Nathan and Quinn did have a relationship someone may read it and gain that they had no relationship, even more so, because what is ethicial is in a matter of opinion if you write it like this. There isn't a specific line of professional ethics being stated like law, medical, or journalistic ethics which are more defined so it seems absurd to label a statement of opinion false.

Here is another one.

These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

Again no sourcing when sourcing is needed. This also needs the word 'some' before commentators as I find others commentators who didn't find it groundless. I think it should be just removed because the weight of commentators lacks relevancy as opposed to journalist or professionals in the news industry. I am certain if this is needed to be kept you can add people who are actually relevant or add in words like 'gaming commentators'.

I am not here to push any narrative since stating that since this is a controversial article most of this can be kept with different wording. The current version is very loose.

Edit: I also don't find the statements supported by the article.Contentcreator (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I find that this article is often biased towards one side. Although it can be argued that it reflects the general opinion of most reputable sources, the article's tone and eagerness to give and favour contradictory statements right after stating the opinions of GamerGate supporters is an issue and should be resolved. The removal of information is unnecessary, but a rewrite for tone should be conducted.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ledes (the intro) tend not to have sources provided they can be backed up in the following text. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

They aren't when they don't make largess claims. It is very common to have it sourced in a controversial article. The main point is because they are so badly written they need to be sourced. I see discussion over journalist ethics in this page that maybe false but Quinn wasn't accused of violating those and they are statements of opinion. The commentator claim is also not supported in the verbiage that was used and again I think it is irrelevant for "commentators".Contentcreator (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is the purpose of a Wikipedia article, that it, quote, "reflects the general opinion of most reputable sources". ValarianB (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Emphasis on reputable. The standards for reputable sources here appear to be rather lax.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that a source is not reputable, then the place to ask for a 3rd opinion would be the Reliable Source board, at WP:RSN. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Would suggest reading WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE on why the article isn't giving equal weight to conspiracy theories. At the end of the day the article should reflect the available reliable sources, and if anything leaks to far into taking the GGer claims at face value. Artw (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I question if you read anything I wrote. Please elaborate on what 'conspiracy theories' I wanted here. Also see this "I am not here to push any narrative since this is a controversial article most of this can be kept with different wording."Contentcreator (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC).

What conspiracy theories? Please point to where he mentioned any such thing.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, the fringe opinions you have given at Alex Jones, opinions that have been near-unanimously rebuffed, appear to belie an agenda. This is a controversial topic, I personally have only weighed in briefly on the talk page, but it appears the Alex Jones conflict is much the same; you want the "side" that does not view Jones as a far-right individual to be represented in the article, just as the "side" here that is critical of Ms. Quinn's actions should be represented more fairly in the article. I don't think the Wikipedia is about fairness, it is about representing the reliable sources fairly and accurately. Articles certainly should not be hagiographies, but they should not introduce false balance for the sake of a misguided sense of "fairness" either. ValarianB (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is in this case that I wish to distance my concerns regarding the usage of less than reputable sources to back up opinionated claims from whatever goals and motivations the OP of this thread may have.

Edit: Do note, however, that his activities in another article do not prove that he has an agenda, and neither does it invalidate his opinions.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have also criticised the general style and writing of the article which is overly wordy, massively over detailed and filled with maximum prurient content to sell the controversy (it's a lot of content for a bun fight on the internet). In short, most of it is dross barely fit for publishing and reads like a laundry list of he said she said. Any attempts to edit generally go nowhere because any significant scale of edits reveal another level of bias one way or another, or get bogged down in neeeeeeding to include everything less someone gets the wrong idea about being succinct (I haven't bothered for a long time). Despite which, Ilikerainandstorms is talking utter codswallop. Meanwhile the criteria for inclusion about a pissing contest on the internet which is pretty much the sum of a twitter popularity contest is remarkably low. Opinions published are cited to such an extent that asking each word to be cited in the lede (which is where this kind of piss poor criticism is leading) is redundant navel gazing. Koncorde (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So you make a claim that shows you have not read this and now you go through then you go through my edit history instead of addressing anything I wrote and make loose connections be articles not worth addressing and indicative of you not reading what I wrote in Alex Jones and just skimming it. If you learn to read what I wrote at some point you can find:

I never took a 'side' I even made suggestions on how to keep these things.
I took issue with the lack of clarity of how it was written.
My issue was with no sourcing and article sourcing not matching up.

Contentcreator (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This does seem to be a case of Ad Hominem/Tu Quoque. You opinions should not be dismissed out of hand due to what uninvolved viewers think of your previous actions. Howwever, being defensive and accusing others of not having understood the situation or read it correctly is not only distracting, but also threatens to bog this thread down in unrelated arguments.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I find your suggestion both there and here to be baseless. This is a complex topic with, judging by the voluminous archives, a great deal of discussion over the years. As with many famous or infamous topics, the Wikipedia articles are a long process of consensus-building. Also, pleas stop suggesting that I or other editors have "not read" what you write. I am fluent in English, and assume others here are as well. It verges on a personal attack to keep suggesting otherwise. ValarianB (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack you bring up 'conspiracy theories' and saying it should represent the sources claiming I am 'taking a side' when all I discussed was the lack of sourcing and lazy wording. Like replacing 'commentators' with 'gaming commentators' or journalist gives actual meaning and accuracy to what the article said. Then you claim I am biased and wanting to be fair towards Alex Jones when my issue was with only two results in google even refer to him as Far Right and far more saw him as just right. I am the one who suggested that Alex Jones should have the Category of Propagandist. The only side I take is accuracy and the readers.Contentcreator (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

ALthough I agree with you on many points, please back down. It was incorrect for others to mention your previous activities. However, by getting into an argument you are allowing this thread to be boggged down in petty nad futile disputes. Please stay on-topic.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your sourcing claim was addressed: the sources are in the body of the article, and it's not required that they be repeated in the lead, provided that the lead accurately summarizes the body, which it does. I also find your nebulous claims of "lazy wording" are a pretext to introducing a very narrow POV; to wit, one which supports the spurious Gamergate adherents' claims that they're into "truth in gaming journalism", and not the actual actions that comprise Gamergate, which was the harassment of various females that gamers decided they didn't like. Your two strawman claims, combined with your edit history, makes me comfortably sure that you have exhausted WP:AGF, so I'll just come out and be the one to say: your purpose here is clearly not what you state it is. In other words: You're a liar, and you won't get your opinion published in this article, no matter how hard you try, because it isn't supported by reliable sources. Good day. Rockypedia (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

rgree++ --Jorm (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your reference to sources being "in the body" is actually nebulous without pointing them out. What you go into after actually is extreme nonsensical and loosely strung along about how x is pretext for POV with no evidence and thereby, what? A narrative to support the harassment of females? Your next part is a clear violation of WP:TPG#YES which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and calling me a liar is a clear WP:NPA. Consider this a request to stop your Personal Attack.Contentcreator (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Contentcreator: It's not unusual for lead sections to omit inline citations, as long as the material is cited in the body of the article. You're correct, however, that sometimes more controversial topics should include sourcing inline. There is of course room for good-faith discussion on that point. In the meantime, if you're looking for sourcing on a claim in the lead on an article that does not include inline citations, the easiest way to find it is to look for where the claims in the lead are repeated in the body of the article. Regarding your concerns about your first quote, ctrl-F for "Grayson" will bring you to the second paragraph of the "History" section. You'll find that claim supported by The Telegraph (cite 7), PC Magazine (cite 9), and Canada.com (cite 10). For sources for your second quote, I'd recommend looking at the Debate over journalism ethics allegations section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok this I wanted. For the first part of it, I thought it should be clarified because as I thought it could be read that they weren't in a relationship and ethics seemed general and opinionated. I thought it might be about the falsity of the review but adding ethics without description seemed misattribution of 'ethics in journalism' to Quinn instead of Nathan. I still think ethics is vague and should something that clarifies like(being basic here) "Quinn was falsely accused of using a relationship with Nathan to gain a favorable review on her game". For the second part on commentators, I read it and I feel two things from a writing perspective. 1. Why are commentators being addressed when I see journalist making similar accusations who seem to have more weight? 2. Not stating 'some commentators' instead of some or a majority. I was taught to do in college writing classes and it seemed like a juvenile writing but I think was interpreted as some sort of siding.

My post was meant to be minor wording(clarifications) while I think some of it could be better worded I won't get a consensus but I am more happy with the article after reading this. I am good. Thank you for your response.Contentcreator (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Personallyy my issue, independent from his, is that this article has somewhat lax standards regarding what constitutes a reliable and objective source. Although it is correct to argue that the article should reflect the opinions of most respected and reliable sources, the sources citied are often neither reliable nor objective. Many of the news sources cited are not objective and reliable, non-editorializing sources within the context of the topic of this article, which is not entirely unexpected considering how controversial a topic it is.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have objections to particular specific sources used, this would be the place to raise them for discussion. Merely baldly asserting that a source is unreliable is not productive. Please review the Reliable Sources guideline and see if you can support any of your arguments with policy and guidelines. If not, you're not likely to convince anyone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll chime in here. I have observed that this article often cites opinion pieces, which bring special challenges and guidelines regarding their usability. Although, as per WP:BIASED, this does not invalidate the claims made by them, and neither does it make them unreliable sources, it does mean that we must be discerning and careful when citing them. Such a source may well be reliable and a valuable repository of information. However, we must be careful to try and not reproduce as stated fact the opinions presented within them. Taking the example of an opinion piece regarding the redefinition of scientific standards by the BIPM, we may cite the factual information the writer presents there, but must appropriately mark the opinions of the author/s of the article as being the opinions of someone else, and not accepted facts or the stance of the Wikipedia article. I'll try and post some examples tomorrow, since I'm a bit tired right now. Thanks!--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Here @Ilikerainandstorms maybe this pertains to your case see WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact".Contentcreator (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is very interesting butut, this is not a forum for shopping vagaries. If there is a statement somewhere not attributed to a personal opinion that you believe is not masquerading as "fact" then please identify it. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Biased sources.

This article often references opinion pieces and editorials, which are subject to bias and are not trustworthy sources. I would suggest removing such sources. An example of what I'm talking about. --Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIASED - sources are not required to be unbiased. Indeed, essentially every single source has some sort of a bias inherent in it; true objectivity is virtually impossible. Rather, we strive to reach neutrality by presenting a wide array of reliable sources with different biases, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. We weight viewpoints based upon their prevalence in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I realise that I could have phrased my edit better. However, as you have yourself stated, we should aim to provide a variety of sources with different biases, whereas a cursory reading of the text shows the prevalence of sources with similar biases. Would it not then be appropriate to add biased sources from other perspectives and opinions?--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if there are reliable sources which aren't represented in this article, they could most certainly be added. Note the requirement that they be reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards for sourcing - you can click on the link for more information about what that means. Generally, it means a source must have been published in a reputable publication with established editorial policies, fact-checking systems, etc. If you have any questions about what is and isn't a reliable source, you can ask here or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

However, I will warn you that what you perceive as "the prevalence of sources with similar biases" is, in this case, a simple matter of reliable sources generally having similar points of view with regard to this issue. If most or all reliable sources take a similar tack toward an issue, Wikipedia's article on that issue will inherently primarily represent that point of view. This is a feature, not a bug — we weight material in articles based upon its prevalence in reliable sources.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

My issue with this is that many of the sources linked are not reliable sources, either due to being opinion pieces or coming from websites with known biases. I would be fine if the sources scited were not opinion pieces and treated the subject matter in a non-opinionated manner. However, even if it comes from a reputable publication, an opinion piece has, depending on context a different level of reputability. Let's suppose that I cite the INYT. Normally, reporting in it would be considered reliable and factual. Howver, the standards would be different if I were referring to a column or opinion piece.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict, but as above. Koncorde (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The only place where that Vice article is used as the sole source is for the statement:

Mike Diver wrote in Vice that threats against Gamergate supporters had been neglected in press coverage.

I suppose we could consider removing that single sentence, but it is phrased with in text attribution. What do you think, Ilikerainandstorms, do you think this sentence gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to fringe perspectives? CIreland (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I realize that I gave a rather poor example of what I was talking about.This reference would be a much better example of what I was talking about.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That source is used only once in the article, to support the factual statement that Grayson never reviewed Quinn's games. What is your objection to the source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece, and should be used in tandem with less opinionated sources.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Something like the two sources cited directly along side the source you question? Honest question. I'm trying to figure out the contours of the objection. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean from the first line. As for the second, tl;dr this article often cites opinion pieces as the sole sources for certain statements. Opinion pieces, unless when reported via a "He expressed his opinion that something something." or "Some people reported that something something.", should be accompanied by non-opinion-pieces, instead of being presented as factual an reasonably unbiased sources. Sorry for getting a bit off-track in the discussion.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

He means that the source you are pointing at has two other sources for the same subject.

All sources have opinions... also, the source references the horses mouth (kotaku itself). It is possibly, quite literally, the apt form of sourcing you could ask for? Gjoni then clarified and made clear that he was not making that claim, which again agrees with the sources? Que? If there is something factually untrue, or if you think the sourcing can be improved, then provide the source? Koncorde (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

All sources are not opinion pieces. There is a big difference between a normal report and an opinion piece, namely that in the latter the author explicitly and intentionally provides his or her own spin/analysis. Also, Kotaku isn't a good source because it's personally involved in the subject matter.

Let's suppose that I want to cite the INYT. The opinion pieces section should and hopefully would be considered, depending on context, less reliable than the normal reports/articles.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Kotaku is a perfectly valid source, particularly for uncontroversial factual statements about its own works (that Grayson did not review any games for Kotaku). We don't discount sources for being "personally involved," as you put it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

With regards to other sources being provided, in that case I fail to see the need to include an inferior source alongside them.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

An opinion piece is just as valid a source for an opinion, as a not-opinion piece is valid for the same opinion. There are very few news articles that are 100% objective fact. Even at the most objective level, some degree of an assumed correct position and expression of an opinion must take place if it is to expand beyond a ticker tape feed. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Welp, I guess this sort of thing was going to be the result of reducing the oversourcing[4]. Do we want to go back to doubling up? Artw (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a result of that. Your link references reliable sources, whereas I am arguing that further reduction in sources is necessary, due to the presence of unneeded and unreliable sources. In fact, your link states that reliable sources should be removed where they are not needed, whereas I am arguing for the removal of unreliable sources.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm talking around you a little rather than with you. I'm afraid I don't consider your complaint to have merit.

The oversourcing I referred to was in part a response to the volume of meritless complaints, trimming it may mean we get more. Artw (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, User:Ilikerainandstorms, Can you fix your indenting Si it doesn't look like I am replying to a statement I'm not? Cheers. [5] Artw (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Artw (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Artw: I don't think anything will slow the "OMG BIASSSSED" brigade, so no need to revisit. Reducing the sources listed was the right thing to do; we will always have trolls and gators complaining here. Let's just hat this discussion and move on.--Jorm (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right and GamerGate

I'm going to add a section under "social and cultural implication" about alt-right and gamergate. Sources:

Already in article:

+ Milo Y. the connection— Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have been doing some gathering of sources that may help with this but have been a little lazy about making the actual article changes, so your taking the lead will be appreciated! Artw (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Advise please

So as I poke at the sources, I find that many of them connect Gamergate, Alt-right, and Trump. Is that the more likely subject? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Enough sources mention Bannon, Breitbart and the Trump campaign that bringing them in seems inevitable. I'm not sure to what extent we want to bring Trump himself in, though if the_donald gets a mention it seems inevitable. Artw (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Milo's book chapter on Gamergate controversy

Milo's new book Dangerous has an entire chapter dedicated to explain the GamerGate controversy from his POV. Should someone mention that on this page and/or page on Dangerous? Maybe also add Dangerous to the References? Mattdruid (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be included. Not until there is secondary sourcing and enough coverage to justify giving it any weight. — Strongjam (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is included, it must essentially be considered a primary source, not a secondary source. That is, it could be used to cite Yiannopoulos' opinion, but as a directly-involved and engaged figure, we should avoid using his own writings as a source for claims about other people. The fact that the book is self-published means it may not have gone through any significant editorial or fact-checking process. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

probably not The only reason to mention the book would be mention he has a chapter in it about GG? That's not compelling. Could use it for his opinion, but we have better RS for his opinion than a primary source, and a self-published one at that. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

RS? metaleater.com

Is metaleater.com RS? I was unable to find its editorial policy. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: I remember vaguely some contention over it being used in the past- probably like most things fine as a source of opinion(?), but given the glut of opinions we have I'd sooner remove it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We're not really hard up for sources unless it's bringing something pretty unique. Artw (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, removed one (MetalEater1) as non-RS (and overcite). Left the other (MetalEater2); it's being used as citation for an opinion. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Some more updates and sources

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html - Zoë and the Trolls

Video-game designer Zoë Quinn survived Gamergate, an act of web harassment with world-altering implications.

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-gamers-seinfeld-joshua-green-donald-trump-devils-bargain-sarah-palin-world-warcraft-gamergate-2017-7 Here’s how Steve Bannon used angry white gamers to build himself up to Trump’s chief strategist

The gamers organized themselves on these “World of Warcraft” message boards. They put so much pressure on the video game companies, that they decided to basically ban gold-farming, which killed Bannon’s business, but it awakened him to the power of what he called “rootless white males” who spend all their time online. And five years later when Bannon wound up at Breitbart, he resolved to try and attract those people over to Breitbart because he thought they could be radicalized in a kind of populist, nationalist way. And the way that Bannon did that, the bridge between the angry abusive gamers and Breitbart and Pepe was Milo Yiannopoulous, who Bannon discovered and hired to be Breitbart’s tech editor.

Possibly less usable:

http://warisboring.com/how-internet-trolls-became-terrorists/ How Internet Trolls Became Terrorists

And helped to elect Donald Trump

And more for shits an giggles than anything...

http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/trent-reznor-nine-inch-nails.html In Conversation: Trent Reznor

For a long time, you were one of the real avatars of white male angst and anger. Have you noticed a change in how those feelings get expressed culturally? There’s a toxicity and meanness in the air now that I don’t think was there when you one were, for lack of a better term, a poster boy for alienation. I never thought about Nine Inch Nails in that context. From my perspective, I was doing what Morrissey and Robert SmithSteven Patrick Morrissey of the Smiths and Robert Smith of the Cure. Icons of 1980s English-rock melancholia. had done, which was expressing a sense of “I don’t fucking fit in anywhere.” It was never about any larger cultural sense of oppression or disenfranchisement. I was thinking if we can take music that embraces and toughens up the sound of electronics, brings the aggression of Throbbing GristleThe confrontational English group widely credited with creating industrial music, originally active from 1976 to 1981. and hard rock, and also instills an honest lyric — we might have something. I don’t think what we were tapping into was at all similar to the absurdity of whatever Gamergate represents, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

Artw (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

https://qz.com/822246/marvels-chelsea-cain-author-of-mockingbird-leaves-twitter-because-of-harassment-and-bullying/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/google-cancels-meeting-james-damore-memo-alt-right-gamergate Google cancels staff meeting after Gamergate-style attack on employees Artw (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, saw this in the tech news today, thought I'd pass it along if it can be used in the article, The DeanBeat: Intel’s 2014 Gamergate mistake paved the path for Google’s memo mess. ValarianB (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/16/they-came-for-the-nerd-girls-first-ignoring-gamergates-weaponized-trolling-carried-a-price/ “They came for the nerd girls first”: Ignoring Gamergate’s “weaponized trolling” carried a price

Laurie Penny interview and coverage of a book of essays that may itself contain material of interest. Artw (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2017/08/donald-trump-was-steve-bannons-creation-what-happens-now-hes-gone Donald Trump was Steve Bannon's creation. What happens now he's gone?

As the former chief of the far-right news site Breitbart, Bannon was one of the key figures in the online radicalisation of the cluster of more-or-less white supremacist Hentai-fetishists who have come to be known as the “alt-right”. He is the thread that links Gamergate, the misogynistic troll campaign against female influence in video game production and industry news coverage, to what became Trump's rabid online following of lonely, racist white guys. The masses who became keyboard-warriors for Trump from their parents' basement, hanging out on The_Donald subreddit and 4chan's /pol/ board, were an army built by Bannon and Breitbart Artw (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Parties are reminded to discuss the topic, not opinions of the media or each other. ValarianB (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Although most of these sources lean left, they may be useful in adding further information. However, in order to prevent the article from becoming even more biased against Gamergaters and Trump supporters than it already is, you also need to find reliable right-wing sources presenting the other viewpoint (the Gamergaters) as well. But remember that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is intended to offer a neutral point of view, not some shitty leftist liberal SJW libtard propaganda outlet. Zakawer (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no we don't. There aren't those sources to find. It's amazing how everyone says that there's "bias" when the bulk of sources say what the article says. We won't be stretching and scraping the barrell to find some weird set of quotes just to create false equivalency. Gamergate is on the wrong side of history, regardless of what they want to believe, so there's nothing to do here.--Jorm (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to butt out, Jorm. You are far too vested in this subject area. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to butt out, Sitush. Your expert opinions are needed elsewhere. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Says you, another who is pretty much an SPA? Look, seriously, the biggest problem these articles have is the circling of the wagons by the same people, time and time again. I do actually think there is some off-wiki stuff going on because Jorm in particular comes out of prolonged states of hiatus at the most peculiar times to interject his often irritating commentary as if he is some sort of know-all god. And the irritation is not just mine - it has been mentioned at ANI etc.

I don't know if the sources mentioned above are suitable or not but what I do know is this tendency to speak from high, as if every potential source is familiar to him is not helpful. It is the demeaning tone that really irks, but since he can dish it out I see no reason why he should not take it. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No seriously, your fantastic breadth of knowledge & expert conflict handling skills are better off elsewhere, maybe an article about a lesser known area in India? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

mfw someone complains about Jorm's "demeaning tone" but says nothing about a reference to "shitty leftist liberal SJW libtard propaganda." I'm sure you're totally committed to reasoned, emotionless debate, Sitush. You just accidentally forgot to call out the chanboard garbage from Zakawer, I'm sure.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just sticking in sources as I find them, TBH, not filtering for any POV. I have noticed some prices still banging the drum for Gamergate's legitimacy but they are all A) pretty clearly beyond the pale as far as WP:RS goes and B) are so loaded with grudges, grievances and attacks they rather undermine their own point. Artw (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And in French...

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/08/24/derriere-l-alt-right-cinq-grandes-mouvances-qui-convergent_5176064_4408996.html Etats-Unis : derrière l’« alt-right », cinq grandes mouvances qui convergent

les anti-progressive gamers ou joueurs antigauche. Dans le sillon du GamerGate, mouvement antiféministe né en 2014 qui constitue l’un des leurs mots-clés, ils luttent depuis 2014 contre la diffusion des idées féministes, de défense des droits LGBT et du mouvement Black Lives Matter dans les jeux vidéo, et dénigrent ceux qu’ils appellent avec mépris les « SJW » (combattants de la justice sociale) ;

Does make a distinction between them and les shitposters de 4chan, where I would say there's considerable overlap, but it's a neat little summary otherwise. Artw (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.wired.com/2017/09/geeks-guide-zoe-quinn/ Gamergate Target Zoe Quinn Can Teach Us How to Fight Online Hate Artw (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/5/16229896/zoe-quinn-crash-override-gamergate-book-interview Zoe Quinn wants us to build better communities, joke about sex, and save the internet Artw (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Bit of a recurring theme here than maybe we should stress more: Gamergate was a precursor to modern online ideological battles, and some of its best-known figures moved from gaming to general far-right politics. Artw (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

https://theoutline.com/post/2218/gamergate-will-never-die Gamergate is never going away

Gamers will always make something up to get mad about. Artw (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-vs-twitter-building-platforms-for-online-abuse_us_59b0b1afe4b0bef3378cddb1 Amazon Vs. Twitter: Building Platforms For Online Abuse

The Gamergate mob, just like any misogynistic movement, has two main tactics. First, they want to intimidate women into staying silent. Second, they want to discredit any voices that speak out against them. In that regard, although the negative Amazon reviews are revolting, they are still better than the typical bile that women like Quinn usually have to face since they only seek to discredit Quinn as an authority by calling her a liar. What’s missing are the usual threats of violence, the crude sexual remarks, and the disgusting slurs that can be found on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, 4chan, and other forums. Artw (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

https://mic.com/articles/184731/gamergate-harassment-developers-charles-randall#.Y1w9Y4lcs Why is video game development so secretive? Online harassment, one developer says Artw (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/tracing-link-between-gamergate-trump-supporters-alt-right-w510618 NBC News Traces the Link Between GamerGate, Trump Supporters, Alt-Right Artw (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21730870-economy-based-attention-easily-gamed-once-considered-boon-democracy-social-media Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis

In August 2014 Eron Gjoni, a computer scientist in America, published a long, rambling blog post about his relationship with Zoe Quinn, a computer-game developer, appearing to imply she had slept with a journalist to get favourable coverage of her new game, “Depression Quest”. The post was the epicentre of “Gamergate”, a misogynistic campaign in which mostly white men keen to bolster each other’s egos let rip against feminists and all the other “social justice warriors” they despised in the world of gaming and beyond. According to some estimates, more than 2m messages with the hashtag #gamergate were sent in September and October 2014. Artw (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nhregister.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Milo-Yiannopoulos-just-announced-book-hits-No-2-10826901.php 'A mess of low-context writing': Milo Yiannopoulos' former book editor ripped his manuscript to shreds

He described Yiannopoulos' section on the Gamergate controversy as "a mess of low-context writing, in which you assume the reader shares your previous knowledge and point-of-view, and muddled thinking," and summed up Yiannopoulos' chapter called "Why Ugly People Hate Me" as "terrible." Artw (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Zoe + Gamergate + book

should probably split some of this info here and Zoe's entry:

http://apr.org/post/zo-quinn-gamergate#stream/0
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/5/16229896/zoe-quinn-crash-override-gamergate-book-interview (dup link from above, organizing info)
https://www.wired.com/2017/09/geeks-guide-zoe-quinn/ (dup link from above, organizing info)

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

- http://people.com/human-interest/zoe-quinn-gamergate-controversy/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/9/6/16262830/zoe-quinn-book-review-gamergate-crash-override -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the book excerpt would be useful: https://www.wired.com/story/zoe-quinn-crash-override-book-excerpt/ Terms of Service Aren't Just Annoying—they're a Failure Artw (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

we really should update with some 2017 info

just reiterating -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The article may need a major overhaul after the Brietbart emails. Artw (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart/Gamergate/Alt-Right emails

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism?utm_term=.aeMdVaP1JL#.mtkzpn50Gm Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

At the time, Yiannopoulos, who would later describe himself as a “fellow traveler” of the alt-right, was the tech editor of Breitbart. In summer 2015, after spending a year gathering momentum through GamerGate — the opening salvo of the new culture wars — he convinced Breitbart upper management to give him his own section. And for four months, he helped Bannon wage what the Breitbart boss called in emails to staff “#war.” It was a war, fought story by story, against the perceived forces of liberal activism on every conceivable battleground in American life.

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/5/16433172/buzzfeed-report-breitbart-documents-milo 2 big takeways from a scandalous report on internal Breitbart documents

Dan Lyons, a tech reporter and editor, suggested story ideas and speculated, BuzzFeed wrote, about “the birth sex of Zoë Quinn, another GamerGate target, and Amber Discko, the founder of the feminist website Femsplain.”

*David Auerbach, a former tech reporter for Slate, “passed along on background information about the love life of Anita Sarkeesian, the GamerGate target; ‘the goods’ about an allegedly racist friend of Arthur Chu, the Jeopardy champion and frequent advocate of social justice causes; and a ‘hot tip’ about harsh anti-harassment tactics implemented by Wikipedia.”

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/06/liberal-journalists-reportedly-sent-tips-to-breitbart-now-theyre-scrambling/Liberal journalists reportedly sent tips to Breitbart — now they’re scrambling

Tech’s toxic masculinity and Breitbart: Male journalists secretly leaked intel to former editor Milo Yiannopoulos

http://mashable.com/2017/10/05/tech-bros-milo-yiannopoulos/#Y0fctukisPq4 The dudes exposed by alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos' gross emails

3. David Auerbach: The former Slate tech writer, according to BuzzFeed, once passed Milo "background information about the love life of Anita Sarkeesian," who was bombarded with threats and insults during GamerGate for the sin of pointing out sexist tropes in video games.

"Inasmuch as the story concerns me, it is utter bullshit," Auerbach told Mashable.

Most derived from the Buzzfeed article, though some add extra conetext, multiple Gamergate mentions. Artw (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's all terribly hideous and shameful. Koncorde (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I collected a bunch of sources on it (although more have appeared since) on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. At the time I did a quick check to see what aspects were referenced so we could summarize it there; Gamergate was mostly just mentioned in passing (usually in reference to Sarkeesian having been a target.) We could possibly have a sentence about it somewhere on here, but most of the coverage seems to be in reference to Yiannopoulos and Bannon, not Gamergate. Actually, while thinking about where that sentence might fit, I realized that this article is awfully sparse on talking about Yiannopoulos, even though he was probably a pretty central figure in general and even though it was what initially launched him to fame. --Aquillion (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

We're light on all the alt-right stuff. I believe this could be a possible thread to bring it together, connecting a number of the previously identified players. Artw (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's mostly more appropriate for Alt Right articles, and less relevant here. Koncorde (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

https://www.cjr.org/watchdog/buzzfeed-milo-bannon-right-wing.php The beat reporter behind BuzzFeed’s blockbuster alt-right investigation What disabused him was Gamergate, the vicious online harassment campaign perpetrated by misogynistic trolls against female video game designers. When Bernstein emerged from reporting on the controversy, he saw a new digital battlefield laid out before him. It was populated by a loose coalition of mostly white, male, internet-savvy reactionaries who had, out of some angry sense of disenfranchisement, created their own online insurgency, ready to feed into a broader political phenomenon such as, say, the Trump movement—which is exactly what happened. Artw (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Seattle4Truth

https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtube-trumpkin-and-former-milo-intern-kills-his-own-dad-for-calling-him-a-nazi YouTube Trumpkin and Former Milo Intern Kills His Own Dad for Calling Him a Nazi

Sensational headline and I suspect The Daily Beast might not pass the bar for this article, but this IS an indepth profile of a promineng Gamergater's IRL self, we have a something we don't really have outside of celebrity instigators like Milo (who he is linked with and later fought with). I have a depressing feeling that outside of the murder this guy may be fairly representative. Artw (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Seattle4Truth had an interesting relationship with GamerGate, briefly disavowing and claiming to be anti-GamerGate. He was a controversial figure in /r/KotakuInAction for being a conspiracy theorist before he was eventually permabanned from the sub. I can provide evidence for this, but he's pretty irrelevant to GamerGate overall, so I don't think it will be a factor. Itsnotmyfault1 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW some of his disputes with other Gamergaters ia xovered here: Alt-righter 'Seattle4Truth' charged with killing father over conspiracy theories, though their main source appears to be Gamergate blog One Angry Gamer, which I wouldn't regard as particularly trustworthy. His being "anti-gamergate" sounds more like aninternal disputw within that community rather thsn him rejecting their tactics or premise. Artw (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)