This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Feminism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Template:Gamergate sanctions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

Looking over the draft (while we're still at draft, and presuming it will not be moved in soon), I really think there is a need to reorganize the material better but without changing the content. And right now, I'm simply talking about text cut and paste moves, no language change outside of necessary sentence flow.

Currently the article structure is this:

• History
  • Gamergate hashtag
  • Subsequent harassment
• Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and antifeminism
• Debate over ethics allegations
• Gamergate organization
  • Activities
    • The Fine Young Capitalists
    • Operation Disrespectful Nod
    • Operation Baby Seal
    • #NotYourShield
• Industry response

I would propose the following:

• History
  • Background (everything prior to August 2014)
  • Onset (this would be the activities within the first ~couple weeks of GG, encompassing Quinn/Sarkeesian; the only major text addition would be to explain that both ethics calls and harassment came from those using the hashtag)
  • Ongoing harassment (From Sarkeesian's bomb threat, Wu, and anything else ongoing including the swatting)
• Gamergate movement (or "organization" if we're still not comfortable with that).
  • History/makeup/organization (what is presently under "Gamergate hashtag"; this also includes, for example, Singal's observations on the lack of organization)
  • Ethics allegations (less any of the "but ethics" broad criticism like the current first paragraph; specific criticism of the specific ethics claims should stay with this)
  • Other activities (same sections as above, but I think we can look to trimming those down too)
• Criticism of Gamergate
  • Debate over ethics allegations
  • Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and anti-feminism
• Industry response/reactions

I suspect that there will be some with issues with putting the Gamergate movement/organization somewhat higher in the article, and doing some reordering around that, but when it comes to the narrative, it makes it much easier to explain the criticism (the sections I've listed above) once you've explained the makeup of GG and their stated desires. Right now, the way this is ordered, the narrative thought is difficult to follow, and this might be part of having too much focus putting the predominate view before the minority view/information. I am not proposing getting rid of any of the predominate view, but just reorganizing the points so that certain facets of the predominate view make more sense or are easier to explain after you've explained the minor view. (For example, the whole "but ethics!" line that the predominate view uses is difficult to understand until after you explain what the ethics claims are, why the press doesn't think those claims can be acted on, and then the complaints about the use of harassment to threaten/silence others.) Again, to stress, the only language change at the start would simply be wording for information flow; most of what I proposed is just moving the right blocks of paragraphs to the different sections.

For sake of minimal disruption, if there's even a reasonable belief this might work better, I would propose that I make the ordering change in the draft article and then revert myself on that change, only so that I can provide a fixed url that would show the skeleton of this re-ordered list to be clearer (and to avoid creating a draft of a draft of info that borders on BLP). --MASEM (t) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CRITICISM, The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Additionally, a separate section titled "Criticism" implies that criticism should be pigeonholed into that section only, which is similarly not a best practice. I oppose creating a section entitled "Ethics allegations" because it avoids entirely the issue that most of the purported "ethics allegations" are widely viewed as not actually having anything to do with ethics — which is why the section is currently titled "Debate over ethics allegations" to present the fact that almost all external commentators see the allegations as both meritless and not actually involving questions of journalism ethics but rather simply furthering a culture war. I'm not necessarily opposed to some reordering, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We could leave readers with a false impression if they only read a single section. In general Masem's outline could work if we drop the criticism section and incorporate it into the prose of the Gamergate movement section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind CRITICISM is an essay; further even within that, WP:CRITS states "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Here's the problem - there's no "positive" criticism to include. Reading through the rest of CRITICISM shows that separating out the larger criticism against GG as a whole as I suggest does not contradict that essay considering the nature topic at hand.

Additionally, denying a section title like "Ethic allegations" because it doesn't address the predominate view is not a neutral approach. In documenting what we can about the movement, we are not to care if the predominate view says what GG says is bogus when discussing the GG supporters/group. We need to write about the facts of the GG cause without any bias from the predominate viewpoint per FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no positive criticism then uncritically stating their claims is giving them WP:UNDUE weight and could violate WP:FRINGE by making the claims appear to be more notable or accepted then they really are. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind what I said about how the ethics section would be changed: the specific issues raised by the media about some of the ethics claims (eg how unwieldy asking for "objective reviews" is) would be kept with these specific claims as these are best where those aspects are discussed; the broader criticism that "using ethics claims to cover up harassment" factors would be later when criticism of the movement as a whole is presented. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. Specific claims by GG alongside the specific criticism for those claims, with the broader criticism later. Although I think that we could work the "cover up harassment" criticism as part of the Ethics section, perhaps in a wrap-up paragraph. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That goes back to the point of the reordering: the criticism of "but ethics" relies on knowing the ethics claims, knowing the criticism of those claims, and knowing the backlash that the harassment has gotten and how some press see harassment is believed to be considered a tool used by GG to intimidate critics; only then the "but ethics" argument clearly make logical sense. The ordering I present makes those points ll in order before hitting on this core "but ethics" aspect. Trying to put it earlier is part of the reason the current narrative is very clunky. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current Ethics section starts out with a brief description before the criticism already "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists." I just don't think we need a separate Critiscm of Ethics section, we document their claims (with an eye to WP:FRINGE) and the criticism, and wrap it up with the broader commentary. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree with any suggestion to have a criticism section. I don't feel it would improve the article, its readability, or its neutrality at all to try and separate coverage into "supportive", "neutral", and "critical" and divide it up accordingly; those categories are obviously very important to many people involved in the controversy, but they are not encyclopedic divisions -- coverage is coverage, and should inform our entire article in accordance to its representation in reliable sources rather than being divided up based on our personal feelings about whether it makes the subject "look good" or "look bad". In particular, I find your assertion that the "political views" section should be a subsection of the 'criticism' section to make no sense at all; that should be its own section, with "Gamer identity" and "Misogyny and anti-feminism" as subsections of it, since those are the coverage of the politics behind GamerGate as covered by reliable sources. Likewise, it strikes me as bizarre to want to separate 'ethicla issues' and 'criticism of ethical issues' into separate sections -- we must cover the topic in one place as reported by reliable sources; if the ethics claims are generally dismissed in reliable sources, then the ethics section itself must make this its core thesis. Criticism sections are generally, I think, agreed to be terrible things, and I don't see anything in your arguments above that would change it here -- they generally end up serving only to provide dumping grounds for unrelated criticism (stripped of context, and therefore less useful), or to move any aspects of the article someone deems 'negative' out of the rest of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "Criticism " section does not always mean negative criticism (you can have positive criticism); however, it doesn't have to be called criticism but it should be focused on analysis and criticism of the broad issues of GG. (Perhaps "Responses" as is done on Westboro, for example). There's a better way to gather the information in the article to put most of the broader analysis in one cohensive section. And let me stress - a criticism section has to be kept with this main article because that is what makes up 75%+ of the notability of GG; this is not an attempt to segegrate this off and then prime it to be moved, because I would be fully against that. (Barring anything major in the next few months, I can't see this article growing any more to necessitate a move).

Things like "gamer identity" and "misogyny and anti-feminism" are not political views, that's part of the problem. I'm rereading that section now, and it just doesn't make a lot of cohensive sense, because it feels like we're crowbarring in some thoughts that are better elsewhere in a logical order. I know where the "gamer identity" text came from (I had that as background material months ago), but it doesn't talk about any political views, for example. Maybe if it was "Analysis of Gamergate", discussing the "culture war and gamer identity", "misogyny and anti-feminism" , "lack of GG organization/structure", etc. that might make it clearer without calling it directly as criticism. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what you're saying here; the section discusses the forces that shape the political views driving GamerGate, which (according to our sources) are primarily the gamer identity, anti-feminism, and misogyny. Certainly anti-feminism is a political view if anything is; but misogyny and gamer identity (when driven by identity politics) are also political views. Regardless, these are not primarily commentary sections, or analysis sections, or criticism sections; these are sections describing the subject of the article and its views, as objectively and thoroughly as we can (using, ideally, the most reliable sources we can.) That is something that an article on a subject like this badly needs. I do not see any gain for the article by transforming them into "commentary" sections -- remember, we're trying to keep people from using the article as a dumping ground for random commentary, since that was a problem in the past. "Analysis of gamergate" (when it comes from reliable sources) is something we must depend upon for every single section of the article -- it is absolutely not something we could confine to just one section. (As my example, above, of the problems we would encounter trying to separate the section on ethics into 'ethics' and 'debate over ethics' shows.) Ultimately, I see no improvement from your proposed reordering -- I think that the current ordering accurately expresses the history of the movement, then the politics behind it, which are by far the most important subjects here. I would strenuously oppose moving anything in the current politics section lower in the article; it feels to me like you feel that the GamerGate Organization section is more 'objective' or that you can write a section that will accurately depict 'what GamerGate really believes' to be contrasted with people's commentary, but note that the organization and hashtag sections also rely on commentary, since there is no central GamerGate organization. To the extent that there is a broad agreement about what GamerGate wants and what it stands for, it is covered by our current politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not every section needs analysis. In fact, we should start off with what information is not analysis and move up from that into the more secondary modes later. So starting with the current history and the history of harassment - which is all factual, no analysis needed, moving into what GG is and their claims, which is reporting what they say, though including some commentary on specific issues, and then moving into broad analysis of the situation, including why GG came about, the make up of the people, etc. - following the concept of Bloom's taxonomy in the presentation of this topic as it is very non-standard. And remember, I'm not talking about ridding sections, just reordering to make the narrative and logic flow better. And yes, we should be aiming to accurately represent what GG believes without any attempt at judgement in WP's voice - that's the primary impartial nature we need. We know we have tons of criticism against GG to include, but we can't let the volume of that public opinion sway the approach we talk to writing on the details specific from the GG's mouths. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your implicit assertion that we should give critics who claim to be speaking from within some "GamerGate organization" any particular precedent over those who do not when it comes to analyzing and characterizing what is behind the controversy. For one thing, GamerGate is structureless, and therefore such critics' opinions can never be more than their own personal opinions (which must be weighted according to their prominence and usefulness as a reliable source); for another, in situations where these viewpoints conflict, our duty is to focus on things in proportion to their representation in reliable sources -- not to portray "what these random commentators, who arbitrarily claim to be part of some hypothetical GamerGate organization, say their movement is really about." Beyond that, you are still making a false distinction between "criticism against GG, and what the analysis of these supposed critics says it believes" as opposed to "what GG actually believes, according to Real True GamerGators". This is not a meaningful distinction(note that you have to source your statement on what GG actually believes to somewhere, which is, inevitably, analysis.)

As an aside, I note that you have repeatedly said that you want GamerGate covered the way the Westboro Baptist Church is. If you go there and read its Church views section, you'll see it is sourced almost entirely to pieces that are clearly critical of the church; we do not simply rely on the first-hand accounts of the church's own beliefs, but on analysis and interpretation from reliable sources. We must describe GG's beliefs, goals, and politics in the same way, according to what reliable sources have said about them, without regard for what side you (or they) feel they are on; this is what the current politics section does. And in fact it is particularly important here, because unlike the church there is no central GamerGate mouthpiece, meaning that there are almost no concrete and reliable primary sources; but regardless, even if that were not the case, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources and their analysis when discussing eg. what GamerGate is actually all about. In this light, virtually all reliable coverage of GamerGate has said that it is about a culture war centered around people moved by gamer identity politics, gender-politics, and anti-feminism, who have either -- depending on your point of view -- used discussion about ethics in journalism (as it relates to the vast ideological conspiracy that many within GamerGate allege) in order to advance these goals; or who has discovered a vast unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents on those axes. This is, therefore, what we must lead with in describing it, and it is what the current politics section says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued before to avoid SPS sources for proGG statements - most of what we can say about the GG's claims about ethics, etc. are from sources that are critical of GG. We should rely on these sources to put the GG statements in context, but we also should not forget to include what the original statements are. Those people are one side of the controversy and we should be earnestly trying to document it within our RS policy in as neutral and non-judgemental a manner as possible, as is done on Westboro. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody is saying "the Westboro Baptist church isn't really about opposing gays." If there were people who claimed to be members of the Westboro Church and who argued that it was really about (say) ethics in games journalism, yet the vast majority of reliable sources dismissed that as tangential to its purpose and said that it was about opposition to gays, we would focus on its opposition to gays in its 'political views' section, and make that the focus of the article; this is especially true, of course, if that was what it was notable for. (In fact, the Westboro Church does have many views other than its view on homosexuality. The article notes them, but puts them very far down the article and gives them little attention, because they are not what it is notable for and not what most commentators say is the main driving force behind it.) Additionally, it's important not to fall into the trap of saying that "these people are a side in the controversy" as if that means we need to give them particular weight; our job is not to present all sides equally, but to present them in proportion to their representation among reliable sources. I would actually go so far as to say that they are not a side in the controversy as reflected by reliable sources; as far as I can tell, we don't have any reliable sources -- among those that describe them in any depth, or which give them any credit at all -- that describes the ethics issues as something distinct from the culture-war issues. (That is, there are some sources that argue that GamerGate is part of a legitimate culture war opposing a vast unethical conspiracy by feminists and other ideological opponents in order to control the media; but this is, indeed, already covered by the current political views section, though we cover it in a neutral fashion and therefore without giving undue credence to it. I think it's reasonable to describe it as a fairly WP:FRINGE theory, after all.) At this point I think that there is broad agreement among our sources -- on all 'sides' -- about what exactly GamerGate's ethical issues are about, what they mean, what perspective they come from and how they relate to the larger culture war. They disagree only on whether those accusations are accurate or whether the individual claims amount to proof of this broad conspiracy. Obviously it makes no sense to cut out the arguments that it does amount to proof of a broad conspiracy and try to present them separately, since, again, the media conspiracy allegations are a WP:FRINGE theory, which therefore must be given less prominence than the prevailing view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "equal" coverage, this is talking about impartial and neutral coverage, and writing an encyclopedia article that can be understood. If I was a reader with no idea about GG but wanted to be informed to learn what the GG movement is, this article does a poor job in its present state because its focused too much on making sure the predominate POV (that GG is bad) is shown, and does not present the GG side with what sources we have in any form of coherent, non-prejudgemental organization. Everything we can factually state about GG, including elements that could be seen as negative aspects like their unorganized, anon nature or their ethics claims, as well as their activities that can be documented, like the various operations to ad agencies, should be kept in one single section; after which we can then include the broad criticism of the group that builds on all those facets. (All this after we've run through the most visible facts of the harassment that has occurred). Keep in mind - in the topic of a Gamergate controversy , the GG movement is not a FRINGE view. If we were talking about gaming journalism, heck yes what GG claims is extremely fringe and likely would not be include, but to the core of this article which is about what has happened because of the actions of this movement, their views are not trivial. They're difficult to document, for certain, and very difficult to find anyone that agrees with them, but we still need to use whatever means to present the GG side as a legitimate part of the controversy as the key party of interest. This article has that information already, but in such a disorganized manner as to create the non-partial approach. Reorganizing in the manner I spoke of, without adding or removing any sourced content and only adjusting sentence for flow, goes a long way to present the GG side in a more encyclopedic and less judgemential light. That's the whole point when you come to Westboro, or Scientology, or any other group/person that has a broad negative public opinion out there; we don't base the article on the negative public opinion but around the group itself in as much a factual manner as possible and then include the criticism. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here to find out what the gamergate movement was, you came to the wrong place asking the wrong question. this is the article about the controversy created by the vile vile harassment under the gamergate hashtag and the underlying antifeminist/anti-woman culture war in the gaming world that the vile vile harassment brought into the view of mainstream culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Obviously, we are not going to have an article that separates the harassment facets from the movement (the notability are far too tied together to even consider that), and there is legitimately a question of coming to WP to learn about the movement and trying to understand their motives as to learn about how harassment became an issue. This is the right page on WP to discuss the movement and we are not doing a good job of that due to the current organization. And no, we're not here to talk about the "vile vile harassment" but just the "harassment". WP is amoral in that regards. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per all the sources , as it relates to the subject of this article - gamergate the so called movement is a NOTHING that accomplished NOTHING other than perhaps attempt to act as a transparent cover for vile vile harassment against women. and aside from the vile vile harassment is a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists who dont know what either "ethics" or "objective" actually means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular opinion/criticism, but not fact. We have facts about the movement we can discuss, and which are necessary to discuss, to understand why criticism is as harsh as it is. We should be earnestly trying to use what we can take from the reliable sources to document clearly what factual information there is about the GG movement to explain the people and their stated goals that are at the centerpoint of this controversy, to be encyclopedicly complete, and should not be ignoring the GG movement because of the claimed "vile vile harassment" they've done. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion whatever "facts not opinions" we may have from reliable sources about the "so called movement" are in fact almost entirely devoid of any relevance to the subject of this article, the controversy. WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the GG movement is is absolutely key to this topic and in absolutely no way a coatrack argument. Refusal to cover what the GG movement claims to be (the group that is responsible, directly or not, for the controversy) in a non-judgemental manner, even with as limited an amount of sourcing from reliable sources as we have to do that from, is a direct violation of NPOV, because you are refusing to cover a major facet of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT for any article you can provide that has any measure of focus on the "so called movement" i can produce a dozen that have only a passing mention or directly comment on its actual meaninglessness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the key thing is - there are many highly reliable sources that cover GG as a movement, with most then within a paragraph going on to criticize that for the rest of the article. That means that what GG is is important to their criticism and we should of course cover what GG is and their motives and goals so that the criticism of GG makes sense. You can't introduce "But ethics!" criticism without describing the ethics claims. We don't need dedicated articles that are solely proGG to provide this information, there are plenty of very critical articles against GG that do provide sufficient details for us to explain the GG side of the equation briefly, which we already effectively do, but just with poor narrative or logical progression that can be improved by simply reordering what we have without changing the balance of the article/sources. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said the sources for this are in the article sourcing what we know about the movement, such as the words by Singal, articles like [1], and [2], albeit briefly because there's not that much they can figure out but they try to at least. They talk about what the GG movement is from the view the GG movement, and then move on to analysis and criticism. So yes, there are sources. There are also sources that completely ignoring what GG wants to write one-sided approaches, but we don't follow tone, we are looking to summarize the whole story, so ignoring what we can source that we know about GG is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main article has been protected for many weeks now and it's rather out of date. The Arbitration Committee has published its draft proposed decision so those who were holding their breath and expecting an unorthodox content-related decision can now breathe out.

I propose that:

1. Wikipedia being of its nature a perpetual work in progress;
2. The current draft (timed as above) being our current best effort and containing no glaring defects;
3. The current main article being protected from editing owing to frequent edit wars;
4. Stipulated on consensus (to be obtained) that the current draft is of no lesser quality than, and more up to date than, the current main article:
5. We agree that the named draft article revision (this one) should be moved copied over the current main version by an administrator, thus updating the article.

Your thoughts on this, please. --TS 06:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This isn't a proposal to unprotect the article. Editing of the draft can continue during and after this discussion. The proposal pertains to a particular revision of the draft. --TS 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Yes, I think this works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have issues still (see reordering above) but it's fine to move into place for now. --MASEM (t) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This version seems good to me. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.Avono (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The draft continues to have far too many issues, and many editors have been waiting to see the results of ArbCom before contributing significantly to fixing them. We'll have a ruling within a couple days, the proposed decision is up. Then we can fix the draft and article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Draft version seems better to me. Editors who have been waiting for ArbCom can collaborate if they wish, we shouldn't hold up Wikipedia on the chance that someone might contribute in the future. — Strongjam (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering a number of the supporters as well as people contributing are facing possible topic bans, the idea that we need to move on this now appears more than a little premature. We've waited this long, waiting another few days isn't going to make the situation worse while inserting a draft proposal that lacks input from many editors for a variety of reasons would. It will almost certainly result in edit warring on the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one weighing in is at this time under any sort of restriction. Topic bans are not retroactive, and if anyone thinks votes in this discussion will be stricken down the road, they are in for a bit of disappointment. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is "grave dancing." The issue that brought the page and its topic to ArbCom is still tendentious, and trying to push in a draft page that has limited interaction and reserved discussion because of the ArbCom case and the players involved (on both sides!) seems premature. There is absolutely no harm whatsoever in waiting until we see the results of the case before moving on the draft. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Cautious Support The Draft is better, but the article still needs significant work. Suggest following the draft being implemented that the new page continue to be fully protected and a new draft environment be created for future edits. Ries42 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To iterate, this is my thinking - we have a reasonable decent draft that still needs improvement but better than what is presently at main page, so let's fix that, and then allow more broader sweeps of the draft article to take place. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - No issues. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The reading is better, and while it still needs work that defines pretty much all of wikipedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with Ries42's above statement entirely. I understand Thargor Orlando's reasoning but the pending decision is no reason to not introduce a better version of the article and continue to work to improve it. Weedwacker (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are you advocating for the full replacement of the current article by the draft version? Couldn't it just supplement the current version for aspects that are out of date? It seems like the draft version is more opinionated and less neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: can you give some specifics about what issues you see? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is currently a sporadic editor who has edited in batches separated by days' absence. If she hasn't responded by 1200 GMT on 22nd (Lunchtime tomorrow in London) and there are no further objections, I'll put up an edit protected notice and let an admin judge whether to perform the proposed edit. --TS 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until such time as someone can create a reasonable diff between the contents that is human-understandable, or can explain the various changes. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a diff of the changes. Although I don't know if it's reasonable. I might go through it later and try to explain the various changes, but don't have time at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did that, but that's why I said "human-understandable." Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, I can review from that diff - I must have done something wrong. Reviewing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. No substantial changes are made. Don't care. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freeform discussion

As nearly always happens on talk pages of this encyclopaedia that doesn't have votes, we've got an impromptu vote on my proposal!

Well I can't make that go away, but instead I can add this discussion section. If you really want to turn this into a vote (and a vote is still a vote even with an exclamation mark in front of the word "vote") go up there and vote. But I want to encourage everybody to discuss this properly below. --TS 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make two counterpoints in response to points made against:

• Firstly, arbitration. Arbitration isn't an excuse to stop improving the encyclopaedia. I'd argue it's the reverse.
• Secondly, every revision of every article has its faults, but if we intended to wait for the perfect version of every article to come along we wouldn't have started with a wiki.

The question we should ask is: warts and all, is the draft as of yesterday afternoon an improvement and update on the current main article? If you agree that this is true, then we can in all good conscience improve Wikipedia at a stroke by copying that revision over the main article. No ifs, no buts. The article would remain protected so there is no risk of edit warring. --TS 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be anything objectionable or controversial in the recent edits, apart from the now-indef'ed sock contributions that were quickly reverted. If people have objections, IMO they should be raised at the time the addition is made. That's why we have a draftspace version at all. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been issues, but they have been at times railroaded over; further, it made sense to see which if any issues on the content the ArbCom made before addressing them in the draft. Further, the story still changes as we get farther out from the original onset, so like the rest of WP , these remain living documents. The key with the draft now is simply to get a version that at least avoids some of the major issues on the main page ( like quotefarming), but we still have much more to address once that's done. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the FAQ info box says:

A2: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (ex, Vox, Wall Street Journal, etc). The article and its talk page is under protection due to constant edit warring and attraction of people with negative comments prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP).

However this is contradictory, since Vox says that Gamergate is not just about sexism in video culture but also about ethics in game journalism. See: #GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting (Todd VanDerWerff, VOX) Like all hashtags, #GamerGate has come to mean about 500 different things to thousands of different people. But at its heart, it's about two topics:

Yet, the intro of the article doesn't reflect this. This leaves only two options:

Option A: VOX didn't check their facts correctly and is not a reliable source, at least for this article. VOX should be removed from infobox since it's misleading. Option B: The article does not represent a Neutral Point of View and violates the second pillar of Wikipedia. The article (especially the intro) should be edited to reflect that it is about both sexism in video games and ethics corncerns in video game journalism. 09I500 (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an uncontroversial request and your request does not outline a specific change that an editor unfamiliar with the topic can make. Please review WP:ERQ for instructions on how to make edit requests. — Strongjam (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to create Category:Women and video games as a subcat of Category:Gender and video games, as a way to group articles and link to the higher-level Category:Women and the arts. Could an admin please add this, even as a red link, and I'll then finish populating the category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ismail, co-founder of Vlambeer, spoke about Gamergate at GameCity^[1]. I thought it was interesting and could be useful in the Industry response or the Political views section, he talks about the cultural issues. I haven't added to the draft though as I don't want to start turning it back into a quote farm, and also we use The Guardian quite a bit and I'm worried we may end up (or even are) giving them undue weight. Any ideas if we can use this to maybe expand on the cultural war aspect of the controversy?

— Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good reason The Guardian turns up a lot in sources. Their reputation for editorial independence is strong. I do appreciate your recent switch from the Graun to Christian Science Monitor (another very good source) for another recent story, though. Diversity of sourcing held to ensure reliability.

I don't think this story would add much to our article's coverage. It's the opinion of one independent developer. -TS 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly have no issue with The Guardian, in fact they line up very much with my own POV. Just want to make sure we have a broad set of sources and POVs. Don't want this article to be "What The Guardian and Verge think about Gamergate" after all. On reflection I think you're right about this not adding much, I think it's an interesting opinion (probably because it just confirms my bias) but probably not notable enough for inclusion. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail has been called on before in RSes on his view of issues of sexism in the industry well prior to the events of GG (I think a 2008 or 09 GDC talk he gave), and this seems like a logical extension of his observations then. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of bring up the good old undue weight to Erik Kain problem, his article on What GamerGate is actually about seems to agree with Ismail that Gamegate's been a long time coming, but for very different reasons. "Mostly it’s about a toxic relationship that’s formed between the video game press and gamers themselves, one that’s been bubbling and brewing for years, not months." So there is more than one source taking the long term angle. Bosstopher (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, why?
When does a media source requiring to be a reliable source for wikipedia been a requirement for the usage of Template:Press? I have not seen anything where Frontpage Magazine is not a reliable source. Others may disagree with its political point of view, but that does not make it an unreliable source, just a biased one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpage is regularly determined to be less than reliable by WP:RSN - have you reviewed the archives? No comment with respect to the press template, because whocares. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The press template isn't really part of Wikipedia, it's just an adornment we put on some article talk pages to make us feel good about what we do. If you can get consensus to put the FrontLine link up, go ahead. But it's not worth fighting over. The encyclopaedia is in that other tab. --TS 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if reliable, reading it doesn't give much to work with. It says "X won" but doesn't go into a lot of specifics. I'd keep it just to show that not all the press believes that "gamergate" is a "misogynist campaign against women," but I can't quite find a place to put it in the article. Can we agree to leave it in the sources for now and figure out if it can be directly used later? Ries42 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpagemag is not a reliable source and should not be used in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Conservatism references the WP:RSN determination that FrontPage Magazine is "not RS for factual info." A Wikipedia search of the project space (beyond my capabilities at this location) would be required to locate RSN discussions on this. --TS 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The historical citation from RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WND and its associates are clearly among the least reliable types of sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment: FrontPage is a reliable source for OPINION, not FACT. That's clear. A lot of the views expressed in this article are opinion. Some editors feel that if the opinion is supported by a significant majority of sources, it should be considered a "fact". My question is this:

• Does an opinion, which has become considered a "fact" because of support from a majority of reliable sources, then become immune to opposing opinions from sources which would be reliable for opinions, but not for facts? Ries42 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section seems to be very conclusional, as if GamerGate has ended and we are looking back on it. This is not the case at all; the news continues to report on the topic, for instance. I also have some issues with some of the claims made, such as "false allegations of ethics violations" which doesn't have any citation. What false allegations? At least a news article saying GamerGate has made false allegations would be appreciated. If Pro-GG wikipedia users aren't allowed to put stuff in without context, then why should Anti-GG users? BlookerG ^talk 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The false accusations in question are detailed in the history section. The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources that have commented on them, as detailed in the history section. Please focus on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are very "conclusional". They have looked at GG's "accomplishments" and likely hood of being able to have any future impact and made their determination. We follow them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RedPen, that seems to be at odds with WP:SYNTH as I understand it. We report on the sources, but synthesizing it like that seems to be toeing the line, or maybe crossing it, seems to violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and maybe even WP:NPOV. I guess the argument I'm making is that a lot of this article might have issues with Synth, as a lot of hte article reads like the "bad example" of :The [Gamergate] stated objective is to [ethics or something], but since its creation there have been [harassment of peoples]. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What text proposed or currently in the article do you believe violates WP:SYNTH, the elements of which are 1. Multiple sources 2. Combined 3. reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please be sure to define each of the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get into specifics, but it seems like the areas this might be an issue would be things like the lede: Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. While not directly sourced, we source all of those comments. SYNTH would likely prefer something more along the lines of: Supporters of the movement say/argue they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. The majority of commentators, though, have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. Says the same thing, but separates the synthesis to remove the implication in WP's voice. (Note, I did remove some more... aggressive words, like overwhelming. I thought we took that out) Ries42 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics. There are three elements to violate SYNTH - 1. Multiple Sources, 2. Combined, 3. Reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please detail where something violates SYNTH by detailing the section and the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Ries42 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the content, not the contributors. You are alleging synthesis. I'm asking you to show it to me, using the three point test for WP:SYN. Could you please do so? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Second request. Ries42 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no syn in the single sentence as there are multiple sources which address all 4 of the components. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it does have language that falls into wording to watch, like the "overwhelming" that was removed above. It creates a tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]