Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20151007/Feature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Thibbs' work on this is nothing short of monumental. I've shared the Gamergate feature in a few off-site locations where people might be interested to take a gander (namely, the r/WikiInAction sub-reddit and Wikipediocracy). Kudos to Thibbs for this commitment! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Salvidrim on the much deserved congrats to Thibbs' work for the Feature. He's been letting me know about the whole process beforehand and the outcome turned out better than I anticipated. We really should bring these Postmortem's back. GamerPro64 21:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have shared it with /r/gamerghazi for some balance in feedback. Brustopher (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thibbs: Someone on gamerghazi has asked a quite interesting question about your lede analysis methodology if you want to respond. Brustopher (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Brustopher: The comment at gamerghazi ("...edits that introduce the word 'misogyny,' for example, by saying 'some people claim it's about misogyny but really...' would be considered 'anti' by these criteria.") seems to only be considering the "pro" and "anti" categories. A third category ("neither") is also described in the note to cover cases where the lede said, for example, 'some people claim it's about misogyny but really... it's about ethics'. I split this group into "neither" and "both" for the timeline (second chart) so this may have been confusing to the commenter. -Thibbs (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thibbs: You should consider submitting this to the Signpost for this week, if you haven't already done so. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 'controversy' is damaging any credibility of wikipedia as a whole. Any neutral or positive coverage of the Gamergate controversy has been systematically driven off of wikipedia through abuse of the editors of the article. Any new edits that speak of gamergate in even a neutral light are discarded and any sources are considered 'not good enough.' Your own chart showing the takeover of the article by the anti side proves the point. How can an article about a controversy be anywhere near balanced if only one side gets to write the article? Ryulong is a huge culprit in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.224.57 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Ryulong has been banned from Wikipedia. Personally speaking, I find the article to be lacking in quality while it ironically being overtly sourced. Basically what I'm saying is, I'm not expecting a bronze star or even a green plus sign on it in the future. GamerPro64 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, can you imagine Gamergate being TFA? *shudders* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wholeheartedly agree...as said above even GAN would be a royal nightmare for this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was taken to GAN in July. It failed miserably. GamerPro64 01:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concluding thoughts state that the article wasn't formed in a vacuum without input from both sides, but if you look at the chart showing the pro/neutral/anti edits of the page and the history of driving neutral or pro voices away, icing them out of making comments and other exclusionary tactics, you can clearly see in the chart that the narrative for the last several months has been ENTIERLY one sided. The pro/neutral sides have simply thrown up their hands and don't even try, knowing that this article is completely one sided and biased beyond redemption. 131.247.224.57 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the (lack of) a ping! The only plausible explanation for the vast amount of harassment -- some performed at considerable personal risk -- directed against Zoë Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Randi Harper, and other women in the software industry is that Gamergate wishes to make an example of them, to drive them out of the industry and to deter other women from entering it. The playbook is an elaboration of that practiced previously against Kathy Sierra and others, and the rationale is well attested in the literature -- see The New Yorker for one famous example -- and has been prominently discussed on Gamergate’s planning and coordination boards. Gamergate apologists are fond of claiming that the harassment cannot be proven to originate from the real Gamergate but stems instead from some shadow organization that uses the same name and organizational channels. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean MarkBernstein? Who performed what harassment at what personal risk? The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The person who used Wikipedia to send a murder threat to Zoe Quinn? The persons who sent Sarkeesian's dozens of Twitter threats? The person who threatened to kill Brianna Wu's family? The person who outed a Wikipedia editor as gay? The charming fellow who just left me a talk page message wishing I would die a long, painful death because I granted this interview? Beyond the obvious risks of civil and criminal liability, all these face the humiliating prospect of being identified as Gamergate supporters to their framilies. Would you like me to continue, Bob? OR will that do for the moment?MarkBernstein (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBernstein, sources that the first three both happened and came from GamerGate organizational channels would be nice. 97.103.154.125 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "organizational channels" because Gamergate is not an organization. It is a discussion, not a movement, it has no structural organization, there is no criteria for membership or participating. There are no official spokepeople and most individuals who use the hashtag or participate in a discussion about Gamergate do so anonymously. Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you contest that "GamerGate" could not have done these things, via not existing as a coherent entity, contrary to MarkBernstein's claims of organized attacks? By extension, that would mean that GamerGate never did anything. Whether terrorist organization or consumer revolt, I think that it is clear that it exists as more than a Twitter boogeyman. 97.103.154.125 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said. I said that there were no "GamerGate organizational channels". It isn't a coherent entity. It's a cause, a debate, not a group. That doesn't mean that GamerGate supporters didn't take actions against people they view as ideological enemies, that is still happening although it's much, much better than a year ago. I was doxxed on a GamerGate discussion board last year (hell, I was reading the thread when I saw it!), and I'd call it a disorganized attack, in my case. It's impossible to tell if there is organization going on behind what is visible on-line. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reasonable view, though contradicting MarkBernstein's claims of organization. I am sorry for misreading your explanation. 97.103.154.125 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This reply is my first time editing a wikipedia page, so please forgive me if I'm doing it wrong. But, in response to "The only plausible explanation for the vast amount of harassment [...] is that Gamergate wishes to make an example of them": wouldn't an equally plausible explanation be that these individuals are receiving disproportionate amounts of media coverage compared to others who are harassed?
I mean, just speaking personally, a number of women I know who ended up taking "pro-GamerGate" stances have received comparable harassment, but their experiences very rarely get acknowledged. Similarly, as a minor internet celebrity myself, I can say from experience that the abuse people like Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, and Ms. Wu receive is pretty normal for their level of social reach. Their harassment is not excusable, but to call it "vast" strikes me as incredibly erasive toward myself and other public figure minorities.
I know my own experiences do not a valid wiki source make, but there are definitely articles out there where women discuss their positive experiences with GamerGate. Their stories do not get passed around as much or appear in as many sources as people like Ms. Quinn, but it is not right to treat these womens' experiences less valid because of their low social reach. I feel Wikipedia (and any other article, for that matter) has an obligation to treat one woman's experiences as one woman's experiences, whether she appears in a thousand sources or just two. When "pro-GamerGate" women are given equal weight, the "GG wants to scare women out of tech" angle strikes me as less plausible. Kmyriad (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBernstein, that theory fits the claims which have been laid out by the likes of those developers, Gawker, and Vox, but if your theory were true, then high-profile developers such as Jade Raymond and Corrinne Yu would also be GamerGate targets. But all the references to Raymond on KotakuInAction are positive: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=jade+raymond&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all. I don't see any posts about Yu specifically, but there is this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2vt0g2/lets_celebrate_female_game_developers_and_game/ which seems to be the exact opposite of the mindset you're talking about. We can also look at interviews with GamerGate supporters who say explicitly that they support women in the gaming industry (at 6:30): http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gamergate-and-women-in-video-game-culture/543c686878c90a71ff000157 and also here: https://archive.is/WtzJN. Also, I'm very curious as to which sources show that Anita Sarkeesian was ever in the software industry; I can only find reference to her producing teleseminars. Mracidglee (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • whoa, I did NOT expect someone to actually go digging into the GG article's history like this and even go so far as to actually interview four major editors of the page. Very well done! Even if I disagree with Ryulong and MB's view on GG I wanted to at least see whether they're interested in removing their personal view. It doesn't look like they want to, sadly, and it's even more disheartening to see Ryu call GG supporters like myself on par with truthers and birthers. But I still prefer WP to hold discussions like this as opposed to ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with you. That said, great work person who did all this! Sethyre (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this was a very interesting peek into the editing process, but I'm left with more questions. So many of the sources to back up the claim that GG is a hate campaign are just opinion pieces not research pieces, and yet it's stated in the article as if the "fact" came from research. Some research is done to be sure, but it is the vast minority of sources. Yes, the NYTimes is a reliable source, but only in their news articles and reporting. It doesn't make the editor or guest writers' musings on the opinion page fact. If you want to qupte Krugman on economics, that'd make sense. It'd be folly to quote his written opinion on rock music as a fact, even if he wrote it in the NYTimes. One source held up as proof that GG is all about harassment is a Newsweek story that outsourced the work of analyzing a sample of tweets (and only tweets, because that's all of the internet you know). The complexity of the issue that a hashtag (and the "organizational channel") of the internet could be used by literally anyone is hand waved or ignored, why? And why pretend that the only ethics GG is concerned with involve Zoe and what some would call poorly made games, when gamers have long suspected that AAA producers and the critics were too close since before game journalism went digital? Begrudgingly, a paragraph here or there will deign to mention that yeah GG supporters get harrassed too (this, mysteriously, doesn't make anti-GG a terror group) or that GG works to find doxxers, set up charities, and largely spend their time talking to each other about the state of gaming, while the other 90% of the page cites opinion pieces against GG. Something is very wrong here. I don't think wiki needs to be a tool for either the left or the right. I think this article can do much much better. Keep trying.Dare3000 (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's dubious just how the GamerGate Controversey bullies (Mark Bernstein, Ryulong et al.) along with the help of a few shambolic admins have been able to systematically attack and ban their political opponents. They should be banned from Wikipedia, permanently. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
77.97.24.152, almost all of your edits are to User Talk pages and you have very strong opinions. If you are logged out from your account, I encourage you to log in and we can see how you came to your stance on the subject. If you don't have an account or your primary knowledge of the dispute surrounding this article comes from off-wiki sources like reddit, you would do well to look over the talk page archives or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate to fill in your gaps in knowledge. And I don't see how you can see Gamergate as "political"....I thought it was about ethics in gaming journalism. Liz Read! Talk! 14:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Politics and journalism are not completely divorced. 97.103.154.125 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon to see articles edited frequently by dissidents of the Gamergate Controversy's WP:GANG to come up abnormally often for deletion or speedy deletion, User:Liz. I'm sure the former article on Men's Rights in Syria that was deleted by User:Bishonen less than three days after User:Sitush, a frequent editor for that article made comments on the one sided nature of the remaining editors for the article.86.150.152.171 (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can say without qualification that I am glad that my Wikipedia editing decreased dramatically long before GamerGate was a thing because I can see a younger version of myself at the frontlines of this bloodbath. Thanks for the fantastic writeup, Thibbs; I'm so happy I'm just an observer on this one. Screw Flanders. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted). 67.42.180.219 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 67.42.180.219 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are mendacious personal attacks, presumably from banned or blocked accounts, permitted and encouraged here? Is this page exempt from Wikipedia policy? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then report him instead of complaining about it. Start up a Sock puppet case or something. Grief. GamerPro64 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As administrators, if we witness such behavior we should feel obligated to act, not demand the victim do so. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
(Redacted). 67.42.180.219 (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I had to ask an admin to unprotect this comments section to allow IPs to comment here. I don't want to ask him to lock it up again. GamerPro64 21:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted). 67.42.180.219 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for the primary sources that would prove the hostility of GamerGate or the disingenuous reporting of secondary sources. More civility would be nice. 97.103.154.125 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) 67.42.180.219 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Civility would be appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP Comments above include personal attacks (e.g. calling me a fascist) and, more significantly, the above comment -- dated four days ago -- alleges that a specific living person committed a felony. This is a prima facie BLP violation, obviously. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 67.42.180.219 (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter/20151007/Feature&oldid=1039089192"