This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games C‑class Mid‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Feminism C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture C‑class Low‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-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

Archives

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

Gamergate claims to be a movement started essentially as a loose-knit advocacy group against a number of journalists alleged to have engaged in dishonest behavior and collusion. Regardless if one thinks the points are valid, it seems a bit asinine that the very same journalists being criticized by this movement AS dishonest essentially get to be the sources used to write the wikipedia article. Imagine if there was a scandal in the mainstream press where some random blogger got a whole bunch of (alleged) dirt on corruption at the WaPo, and the the article was written using the WaPo as the primary source. "There is no evidence of corruption at the WaPo!" Lasati (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the literally dozens of previous threads on this issue. In short, no, you don't get to throw out literally every mainstream reliable source because you believe they are "biased."

Making your movement center around a conspiracy theory that The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, etc. are all colluding and corrupt is not helping your quest for credibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey! You guys are too "unreliable" to tell me what your movement is about, so let me show you these articles from bigger news sites, which you have no connects to, that tell me what you guys really are about!". Yes, perfect logic. Derpen (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read them. The problem is that some freelancer involved in this thing can actively seek out, and write an article for Time, Guardian, etc... which explicitly defends their position. That doesn't really mean "according to Time..." It just means according to that person. In fact, that is the heart of the matter -- the allegations that journalists using their megaphone inappropriately and with explicit bias, and the claim from normal people who feel they have been libeled having no recourse. I would suggest if we want to genuinely be unbiased, we not cite articles written by people directly involved, regardless of the venue. Like anything Eric Kain writes is fine, because he's not involved in this. But a lot of journalists are, as are a number of gaming sites. I think in general we do need to be picky about sourcing articles when the topic is corruption in journalism. Wikipedia should not be a forum for taking sides, even implicitly. I hope you agree with that. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that when you say "YOUR SIDE" you are admitting to your own bias. Also, it's a strawman that you are attributing to me some conspiracy theory that I never talked about. Also, again with the ad hominem "your quest for credibility." Please leave personal attacks out of these things. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered. We're not going to remove every reliable source because you think they're biased. Time to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is another strawman. I never said "remove every reliable source." I said don't source articles written by people who are personally involved. That's it. Or at least, move them to a different section. I don't know why you find that such a dangerous statement. I suspect on the OWS page you wouldn't agree to sourcing an article written by an investment banker in the WSJ and using his or her definition of what OWS stands for (regardless of which side you were sympathetic towards). This is essentially the same. Lasati (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then list the sources used in the article that you believe to be biased. Please note that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and we do not remove sources merely because someone thinks they're biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in and raise two articles: Leigh Alexander's Time article, and Jenn Frank's Guardian article. Leigh writes for many of the sites that are under fire, Vice, Kotaku and RockPaperShotgun among them, and is the editor of Gamasutra. <redacted per BLP> I've questioned their inclusion before, and no one seems to be able to defend it.

Frank's article will have to be included since she's now become a story all her own, but it really shouldn't be included as a reliable source in this article. Also, she hasn't really retired, since she did write a new piece for the Guardian recently. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've literally been over those same two sources dozens of times now and the answer is the same every time. We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian. The fact that someone writes for websites that are criticized is not remotely sufficient grounds to reject that person's writing as a reliable source. This can be hatted now.

I have redacted an entirely-unsourced and unfounded allegation about living people from your post. Do not make allegations about living people you cannot support with reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a third edit conflict ... "We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian." That's an unwise attitude to have. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also our policy. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and Time and The Guardian are both indisputable reliable sources. Your personal opinion that they are biased has no impact on whether or not they are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the Jenn Frank thing, didn't a Guardian editor make some statement apologizing for not including the conflict of interest? It's not my personal opinion there was a conflict of interest, it's actually a fact. But like, clearly this is the problem with using an article written by a freelancer (who is personally involved in the issue!) in the online arm of a respectable publication, as tho it represents the publication as a whole. Lasati (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that Frank included a disclosure in her column, but it was removed by Guardian editors who believed it was unnecessary. We discuss the issue in the article, and it does not render that source unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a compromise: how about we note that Alexander is the EIC of Gamasutra, and that she's written for RockPaperShotun, Kotaku, and Polygon? The beginning of the paragraph would read:

Leigh Alexander, Editor-at-Large of Gamasutra and writer for Kotaku, Polygon, and RockPaperShotgun, described the campaign in Time as ...

That gives better context. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem noting her specific current title at Gamasutra, but laundry-listing every media outlet they've written for is basically without precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Alright. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From this article which neatly summarizes both major sides http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/457868/Gamergate_Escalates

excerpted. Note that the perspective of GamerGate is inherently the original accusation against game journalism. this seems to be a fairly neutral summary of major viewpoints.

The #GamerGate Points include:

1. They think the gaming media is corrupt. Specifically, they think that gaming journalism is a clique that chooses what to cover and how to spin it based on their shared politics and relationships.
2. They think the big publishers buy positive coverage outright and that the little indies sleep/schmooze their way to positive coverage.
3. They are outraged at having their criticism misrepresented as misogyny
4. They strongly object to having their movement characterized based on the misbehavior of a tiny group of trolls and jerks.
5. They are angry that attempts to discuss the topic get blocked, censored, deleted, etc.
6. They are outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media openly attacking gamers as a bunch of “nerds” “gamers are dead” “basement dwellers”, etc.
7. They have evidence demonstrating double standards in how the gaming media treats different issues based on their politics
8. They believe that the gaming media has become infested by “Social Justice Warriors” who are using their platforms to jam their politics down the throats of people who just want to read about video games.

The opponents of #gamergate points include:

1. Any legitimate points the #gamergate movement might have had are far outweighed by the harassment and threats against outspoken women in the industry that is done in the name of #gamergate
2. They (gaming media) are outraged at being called corrupt
3. They (gaming media) are upset at the suggestion that the gaming media has some sort of organized conspiracy
4. They (general) believe gamers are inherently insular and want to shout down any attempts at reforming it.
5. They (general) believe gamers are entitled and thin-skinned, unable to show empathy or accept even mild criticism of their hobby.
6. They (gaming media) are angry that their entire profession is being mischaracterized based on poor choices made by a few
7. They (general) are very skeptical of new #gamergate claims because of the misrepresentations made during early claims
8. They believe that the “sane” people who support #gamergate are being used/tricked by the vile, misogynist core that is at the heart of #gamergate

--DHeyward (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Before anyone jumps in to say it's not a reliable source: Brad Wardell is an industry veteran. Edit: this contribution is not mine; I don't know why it wasn't tagged with the user's IP or handle. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed sig. Sorry. Yes, Wardell is a long time game developer. --DHeyward (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an acceptable source for presenting Wardell's own opinion about the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a neutral view from a third party with knowledge of both sides of the dispute and fairly assesses each party's views. It should be a model outline for the article as a NPOV description of the controversy. The only question, really, is how to get there. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. It's not remotely a neutral view and it's a self-published source to boot, which makes it entirely unacceptable as a source for anything except Brad Wardell's own opinion. It contains statements such as "In my mind, the balance of wrongdoing is heavily weighted on the opponents of #gamergate. Mainly, because its opponents have had a long head start of character assassination and harassment," "For that, the anti-#gamergate people started smearing me. (SJW logic: Make up allegations, use allegations as evidence, repeat)" and "You want me to quit throwing in the misdeeds of the SJW crowd in SJW faces? Then tell them to quit character assassinating me." This is literally the opposite of a neutral, reliable source. And no, sources don't have to be neutral but they do have to be reliable, and for them to be reliable they can't be self-published.

What you linked is nothing more than Brad Wardell's own personal blog, which has undergone no fact-checking or editorial processes. I remind you that we reached agreement that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was not an appropriate source for this article even for Quinn's own perspective. If that post cannot be used in this article, then there is most certainly no grounds for using this one. You cannot possibly argue that one personal blog by a game developer outweighs the literal mountain of mainstream reliable sources available. If you don't see that, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and it is certainly not representative of how the mainstream sources have presented it, which is what we must be striving for, per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is less important than the outline I excerpted. He wants to be peacemaker from his statements but his outline of the controversy (above) is a neutral outline of points held by both sides. It's a concise list of what each side is articulating and neutral coverage would articulate those points. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The outline does not represent the mainstream coverage and so it is a non starter as a basis for anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say what is considered "mainstream" and what "isn't"? What? Are you not supposed to gather facts from the other side of the argument because these apparently "bigger, better" journals say it isn't? And since when were restricted to news sites? Whoever said any of them weren't biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpen (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In a post on his personal blog, Brad Wardell argued that the GamerGate movement is outraged at what they see as collusion in the gaming media." I'm fine with using the source in that manner. (And frankly, given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog, I think I'm being nice here.) Using it as a framework for what the article should say instead of using the umpteen squillion third-party mainstream reliable sources presented here? Not a chance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"given the fact that Zoe Quinn's Cracked.com blog was rejected despite it being closer to a reliable source" Cracked is not anywhere near a reliable source. They're sensationalists. At least this source is trying to be sober. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked has an actual editorial staff with at least some level of editorial review and content control. Brad Wardell's personal blog has literally none at all. So yes, Cracked is closer to what we consider to be a reliable source than Brad Wardell's personal blog is. You can't have it both ways — it is literally self-contradictory to argue that Cracked fails WP:RS because it lacks sufficient editorial controls while also arguing that Brad Wardell's personal blog meets WP:RS despite its lack of any editorial controls. That is a very obvious double standard.

And you must be kidding about Wardell "trying to be sober," right? The language used in his post speaks for itself; it is not sober, neutral or dispassionate in the least. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked may have an editorial team, but it's a terrible one. They pick a salacious topic and then craft the article around it. Many, many of their articles have factual inaccuracies, too. They're not in any way reliable. Anyway, we're not here to debate Cracked's merit.

As a source on Wardell's opinion, this suffices. "Sober" is not the same as "passionless". He's obviously got reasons for his tenor. I agree it shouldn't be used as a template for the article, but I see no reason to exclude it altogether. That's all I was saying. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're only focusing on one aspect. He characterizes views of each side. It's relevant because in articles about living people balance and getting it right is more important that just publishing. Do you disagree with the any of the statements that the points reflect each side? If that's the neutral perspective, then the goal should be to find the sources. Is there any statement or idea expressed, from either side, that is foreign to editors here? I took those 16 points because it appears all 16 are supported views. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the opposite of the correct approach. We don't pick a narrative we like and then find sources to support that choice; when done with intent we call that POV-pushing. Rather, we simply look at what the best sources say and summarize their narrative(s). And this blog cannot credibly be asserted to be amongst the "best sources". CIreland (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask is that list a neutral presentation of the issue given the sources people have read? This isn't a "narrative we like", it's a sum total descrition of the issue. It's also not weighted so it isn't POV pushing. Just those 16 points, 8 from each view. Does anyone disagree that those are the main points expressed from each side? --DHeyward (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen all those points covered in reliable sources except:

• point 7 of the pro-GG side -I've not seen any mention of double standards nor what the GGs would consider evidence in the articles I've read-,
• and point 6 of the oppose-GG side -I have not heard about that "part taken for the whole" with respect to the journalism profession itself).

Also point pro-7 should say "they 'believe' they have evidence", and points 4,5 of the opponents side should say "'some' gamers".

I think it would be beneficial for the article to ensure that all those points are attributed to the people making them, instead of described in general, and that we make sure that WP:RSOPINION, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LABEL are made the core rules of style we use to write each claim. Diego (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while most of the points on both lists are addressed, the amount they are addressed is far in weight of latter (the journalism side), and to try to use this list (even with the two points removed) to try to present an equal balance can't work. Yes, the source attempt as best a level-heading analysis, but as a SPS of a non-notable or someone not established as an expert in the field, this doesn't work for us to start with. That doesn't mean we can't touch on all the points that can be sourced, just don't expect we can do equal balance of the two sides. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point as I see it is not to present an equal balance, is to use the bullets as a checklist to ensure that we have some coverage for each, even if it's minimal; I'd say currently we're missing 'any' mention at all for many points in the pro-GG side, even if they appeared in RSs. A single short mention could be enough to cover several of them at the same time, but it has yet to be added for some. Diego (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to use this as a guide for your personal approach to the article, feel free, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it to be formally adopted by all editors as some kind of a 'gold standard.' We're not going to include poorly-cited or minority opinions purely because they're on this 'checklist.' "Neutrality" here does not need to mean 'treating all perspectives as equally valid' but 'presenting the issue the way our sources do without injecting our own personal beliefs by giving preference to sources who present the issue the way we want it presented.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not thinking "gold standard" as much as "conversation starter". Diego (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That was my intention. These are major points of contention between both sides. It doesn't minimize the attacks generated by the controversy which have received the bulk of the attention. It does show what a neutral would likely cover as a complete article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think point 6 part taken for the whole has been expressed through adoption of more ethical requirements. Grayson's employer, for example, instituted more disclosure requirements following the disclosure of the relationship - not so much that they characterized Grayson's actions as improper but they also didn't like being blindsided. Also the Google group of professional game journalist also was listed (the list founder issued an apology for an email he wrote where he proposed an open letter supporting Zoe where all the journalists would sign it. This was ultimately rejected on ethics, whence the concerns of the few vs. many ). I have not seen evidence outlined in pro-gg 7.

Just as a quick correction, Grayson's employers did not change their policy as a result of Grayson. The (relatively minor) changes which were made happened because of issues unrelated to Grayson. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a great outline / overview of the situation and should be incorporated into the article if possible. But as it stands, that's not possible. A self-published blog is not a source adequate for citation in a wikipedia entry (much less an entry so contentious as this one). I think a list or table like this would be great for inclusion, and I think this list is accurate, but I don't see how it could be included until the list is cited, used, or a similar list is published/used in a non-self-published news outlet. I disagree with User:NorthBySouthBaranof's claim that his isn't neutral. The article/post is certainly not neutral, but the list itself seems like a neutral and accurate accounting of the two sides. Someone can be on one side or the other, but still be able to produce an accurate description of what each side's view happens to be. Nevertheless, User:NorthBySouthBaranof is right that this list has a bigger problem because of it's origin as a self-published blog post rather than an article from an edited news source. Try and find sources for each claim from different citable sources or maybe a similar list from a citable source, then a list or table containing this overview of the dualing positions would be a great addition to the article. As for: "it is certainly not representative of how the mainstream sources have presented it." That seems like a very troubling view to take, given that one of the central claims for one side of the debate is that they are being shutout and silenced by mainstream sources. Of course, we need to cite mainstream sources for this entry, but the side with the view portrayed by the "most" mainstream sources shouldn't be the only one represented. - Atfyfe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is "very troubling" is expressly what our policy requires. We weight article content based on the predominance of reliable sources, full stop. This is not "bias" - this is fundamental to the concept of Wikipedia as a tertiary-source encyclopedia rather than an alternative media outlet. If a position is not supported by reliable sources, our answer is not "all the sources are biased against that position." Our answer is that our content is based on what reliable sources say. Hence, we have repeatedly removed various claims about the shooting death of Michael Brown, even when there are claims that "media bias" has prevented that information from being published more widely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding my point and I am sorry if I expressed it as a criticism of you (i.e. my use of the term "disturbing"). Of course the claims in the entry need to be backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia really can't be a place for positions that view all reliable sources as biased and against them (e.g. many conspiracy theories). But my point is that we should be careful about how we treat "the predominance of reliable sources". I mean to point out that a view of this controversy is worthy of inclusion in this entry if it is be backed up by several reliable sources. But this is a weaker standard that requiring a view of this controversy be backed up by "the predominance of reliable sources" before inclusion. When there are conflicting depictions of the controversy, both backed up by reliable sources, we should not and need not just include the depiction of the controversy by "the predominance of reliable sources". We can include both, citing the reliable sources on both sides and note in the article that there are conflicting views of the controversy being reported by reliable sources. I just don't want us to be counting reliable sources to determine which side's view of the controversy shapes the article. We can neutrally include both, if both have sufficient reliable sources. But it's not a numbers game. Right? But since we are just talking in the abstract and not about a specific claim or article, we are probably talking past each other. I am not sure if we'd even disagree about a specific case, I was just reacting to the word "predominate". - Atfyfe (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. According to policy, it is a numbers game, in a sense, in terms of the weight that we allot to each point of view.

WP:NPOV states Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

It is trivial to demonstrate that far and away the most-discussed aspect of this controversy in reliable sources is the misogynistic harassment that has occurred and which apparently continues. The predominant point of view in reliable sources is that this controversy is an exemplification of long-unresolved issues of misogyny and sexism in gaming — and in American culture as a whole. Accordingly, that must be the predominant viewpoint in our article. That does not mean we exclude other viewpoints; it simply means that they must be subordinate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

There's a lot to unpack here. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the article is probably a good summary of what to take away. Quote:

I’ve attempted to dispel some of the myths that one side has been able to successfully promote in the media, and outline some of the more moderate complaints of GamerGate. To briefly summarize, they are:

• The rise of moral crusaders, with little to no opposition from the gaming media.
• Accusations that gamers are “anti-inclusive,” despite ample evidence that this is not the case.
• Demonization, mischaracterization, and abuse from members of the press.
• An inability to discuss any of the above issues on many popular online communities.
• A press that fails to report on both sides of a contentious story.

At this point I think there are enough sources for each of these points that they each deserve to be addressed. Perhaps we need another heading, "Gamers' concerns" or something, as a prelude to "Legitimacy of concerns". Willhesucceed (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I think the history and origins of GamerGate need to come before that in the article though. Since many of the criticisms relate to GamerGates origins and activities a fair amount of critisism is probably going to come before the second section you propose. Artw (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article from a tech blog that claims to 'dispel myths' published by high quality, mainstream sources is enough to merit a whole new 'pro-gamergate' section. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you guys want to believe that the "bigger, better, reliable" news sites accurately portray this entire movement because of their titles of "bigger" and "better", makes me believe you guys are quite biased to this entire issue. It isn't like we, the activists of this movement, have any PRs, leaders, or main public speakers to officially say what we are for. We are just simply a faceless movement. But to simply dismiss other smaller sources as "farce" for the much larger news sites because they're opinion speaks the loudest just shows how, again, biased you guys are with this entire subject. We are just regular people. We don't pour our money and lives into a movement of anonymity. So, again, I don't understand this refusal to leave this "safe bubble" of the bigger news sources, who, of course, cannot be simply claimed without sin of bias because of their status.Derpen (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand Wikipedia, then. Our mission isn't to dispel some perceived "bias" in mainstream sources. Our policy, in fact, dictates that our content reflect the positions taken by the majority of mainstream sources. We are not an alternative media outlet designed to promote or disseminate ideas or positions that are out of the mainstream. Our reliance primarily on reliable, secondary sources is fundamental to the concept of Wikipedia as encyclopedia, not as alt-media.

tl;dr: It is not "biased" to believe that Wikipedia must adhere to its core content policies in discussing the Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...as well as the views taken by those opposing mainstream sources, if those positions are identified by reliable sources as is the case here. Never forget that neutrality does require us to cover *all* significant viewpoints, even if they don't need to be given the same weight, they still have to be given *some* weight. That's policy too. Diego (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they shouldn't be covered and I think this source has a place in the article. I simply noted the fundamental conflict between what Derpen believes and what our policy demands. We can't "leave the safe bubble" because 1. we are required to use reliable sources and 2. in articles relating to claims about living people, we are doubly required to use reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, as lone voices, we must be careful not to give their personal perspectives excessive coverage and weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't lone, so much as minority, voices. That'll be shown when the section's written. I'll try to cobble something together. Edit: I'd also like to note that this tech blog has been referenced elsewhere, and without objection, in the article already. TaraInDC is doing that thing again where she tries to block sources she doesn't like. That's not very sporting of her. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I tried to 'block' this source? I don't think that this source is enough to make the perspective you're advocating anything other than a minority position, and I don't think it's enough to base a new section on. We can't treat the information sourced to mainstream press outlets as 'myths' as this author does. You're benefiting very much from other editors' assumptions of good faith considering that you are a blatant SPA: please at least try do give others the same courtesy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to codify what the concerns are, since specific points appear over and over, and readers should understand what's being refuted (or, more accurately, being ignored in favour of the topic of sexism). Of course this is going to be the minority position. The sources dictate it's so. But you're right. I should offer you the same courtesy I'm being given. I apologise, again. I just notice you're often at hand to note why article X isn't that great, article X always (?) being an article that focuses on more than the sexism. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link. The main thrust is that gamers want games to remain apolitical, and that a cabal of cultural Marxists has taken over the video games press. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any article referring to those with legitimate concerns about the depiction of women in video games as "femnazis" and "cultural marxists", and recommends Milo Yiannopoulos as a good account of the subject, can be discounted as a reliable source on anything other than the author's opinion. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectator is a long- and well-established, and respected, magazine. If we're going to use as sources pieces that refer to gamers as bigots, we can use this, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an opinion piece, by someone with a highly biased opinion. It can potentially be used as such, but not as anything more. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that the Spectator article is used, this rebuttal in the New Statesman may be relevant. - Desine (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That actually doubles our reasons for including it. Diego (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including that. I came across it last night but got the impression it was some random blog. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted this to my talk page. I don't know if it's worth including. Thoughts? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community. The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

So, no. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kain's article is summarised as so under the subsection:

According to Erik Kain, writing at Forbes.com, the #GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. He explains, "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant."

However, Kain concludes in his article:

GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once.

In the end, it’s about gamers upset with the status quo and demanding something better. It’s about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. And it’s about the ad hoc, messy series of uncoordinated events that got us here.

? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources practicing a bit of revisionist history in the face of the many sources that highlight the misogyny and harassment of the affair do not matter. You've been trying to ram this narrative into the article for weeks now, and it just ain't gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of what you wrote have to do with the above? Kain's piece would appear to maybe be mischaracterised in the Wikipedia article. I'm bringing it up so we can discuss it. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists" is simply untrue. Tarc (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, somebody else discuss this with me, because Tarc's off in his own world. Is the summary that's attributed to Kain accurate or should it be reworded/clarified somehow, or removed entirely, or what? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Tarc has pointed out, several weeks of "discussion" with you have shown that your only interest is to misrepresent gamergate as not primarily about sexism and harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kain also said that GamerGate isn't about conspiracies or ethics, didn't he? He very clearly stated that he believes that Gamergate is driven by anti-feminism. His closing comments don't disagree with that assessment: he states that gamergaters feel their 'identity is being threatened' and that they are not well represented by the industry. Given that he's already made the argument that GamerGate is a backlash against progressive voices in the gaming industry, I think the summary is perfectly apt. And re: your comments about what 'world' Tarc is in, you really should stop attempting to discredit people who disagree with you like this: focus on the discussion, not the participants, please. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the summary is perfectly apt." Then that's that. Thanks, Tara.

P.S. I posed this question as a result of a query on my Talk page. Thanks for the good faith, folks. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am previously uninvolved in gaming matters and I think Willhesucceed does have some legitimate concerns which I think Tarc and TheRedPenofDoom could have better addressed instead of focusing on whatever narrative Willhesucceed could be trying to ram into the article. Reading Kain's article conclusion, Kain does say that GamerGate isn't about (conspiracies, scandal and corruption, feminists or misogynists) but rather it’s about all of them all at once. My interpretation is that Kain wishes to convey that it's not just about one of these issues, but a combination. Does the current quote used reflect this combination or just anti-feminism? I believe that the most important point in Kain's conclusion is actually [gamers] believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. This should be reflected somehow too. TaraInDC would you be willing to comment again? starship.paint ~ regal 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo, yeah, Kain is really being misrepresented. I am not sure why people above are getting hung up over whether what Kain says is true or not, since the real issue seems to be that we are twisting his words.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone have anything to add? I'd like to get this resolved before the bot archives this thread. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willhesucceed and The Devil's Advocate, I have edited the article. While I now believe that Kain's views are fairly represented, I am not sure whether the last sentence of Kain's views belongs in the "feminist" section. Perhaps either of you would be better placed to move the last sentence to another section of the article. starship.paint ~ regal 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint's edits to the page are also heavily misrepresenting Kain's words. He took a statement saying that "it's not about [issues], but then again it is at the same time" to be "it's totally about these issues". He notes the anti-feminism, but then allegedly justifies it at the end. This needs more input from editors other than you three at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong reverted my edit. I'm not sure where I went wrong. #GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once. So, GamerGate isn't solely about X, Y or Z by themselves, it's about the combination of X, Y, and Z all at once. Also, the justification is entirely Kain's, not mine, when he says that gamers believe that the gaming industry is becoming cliquish and remote. starship.paint ~ regal 02:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryulong. It is not about any of those things, and yet people keep talking about it. That is what it means. Kirothereaper (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong didn't say that. He said "it's not about [issues], but then again it is at the same time". Essentially, you (Kirothereaper) are saying that it's not about [issues], and yet people keep talking about it. Your conclusion seems rather far-fetched to me. If you maintain your position, this would mean that "it's not about feminists". starship.paint ~ regal 05:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was heavily paraphrasing the Forbes piece, from which you are pulling a single sentence from the ass end of the article You took

#GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once.

to say

However, Kain acknowledged that the movement was not solely about feminism, rather, it was about "conspiracies ... scandal and corruption ... feminists or misogynists ... all of them all at once".

I think that's a big stretch and change in voice. ALthough Kain's statement

#GamerGate doesn’t have an end goal. Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases. Others simply don’t want to be talked down to by the press, which I think is a reasonable request without a clear solution.

may have some use in the article, or in fact this very talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, I appreciate the change in your tone regarding my edit. Now, if there is a problem with my paraphrasing of Kain, why can't we just use the direct quote "It isn't about..." then? starship.paint ~ regal 05:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that particular quote has much to add to the article as a whole because it relies on a lot of our own interpretation of what he means. We should strive to use more explicitly stated opinions he holds.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Escapist is posting over the next week or so a series of interviews with developers. I'll update this list as more are published:

• Female game developers on Gamergate

Willhesucceed (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you need to keep maing new threads on each bunk source that you find that will assist your case into changing the topic of this article to not include the issues of sexism and misogyny?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read the article, did you? It bolsters the case for sexism and misogyny. Again, thanks for the good faith, folks. Edit: as to your question: I'm posting each source under a new heading 1) because I don't find the sources at the same time; and 2) in order to be discussed. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It runs into the same problem of being opinion, though. In a sense most pieces are opinion, but that one especially - where the authors are all anonymous developers - is going to be difficult to use. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's useful as evidence of some developers' opinions? We don't seem to need it at the moment, but who knows where this article/event's going to end up. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps reverting my removal of the reaction articles. I wish they would engage with me and explain their reasoning. I've explained mine; reposted from the Archive 5:

I read through the articles again. I really don't see justification for including the Polygon one. Sommers is talking about the criticism leveled at gamers, but [the article] uses Anita's videos about games to criticise Sommers. Moving it to Tropes vs Women or Anita's own page would be better. [...] Kotaku has the better article. I'll see what there is to include from it. [...]

The more I reread that section, the more apparent it becomes that the response articles aren't appropriate to this topic. The only actual criticism in the Kotaku article, which I've included, still focuses on the content of the games, not on gamers. I'd really rather remove it entirely.

It's turned into an edit war. Whoever it is, please explain your reasoning for referencing response articles to Sommers' video. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's obviously relevant to this article that's why.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explain why it's not relevant. You're just asserting that it is. Please explain the reasoning that leads you to conclude they're relevant to this article. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It directly concerns this article as it concerns Hoff Sommers' opinion regarding Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my points. Assertion is not justification. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a better source for us to use.

"Several users note that the question is not whether video games 'make' gamers sexist, but whether they express and maintain a negative portrayal of women, already present and unconsciously accepted."

Now let's please stop warring over the other two articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this source is a good one, and it makes the point of contention more explicit and clear. I'm fine with the Le Monde source being used there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Christina Hoff Sommers the only one whose political affiliation is noted on the page? It's also noted incorrectly. She's a democrat with libertarian leanings. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's because Hoff Sommers is a highly polarizing semi-anti-feminist figure. Also libertarianism isn't necessarily a political affiliation as much as it is a philosophy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other polarising figures mentioned in this article. Their political affiliations are not noted. I'm going to remove "Libertarian" from the description yet again. Please don't revert it. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more because she works at a political organization. A politician or someone at a think tank or PAC is generally linked with their political organization or affiliation ("Democratic candidate so-and-so" or "so-and-so of the NRA"), whereas a journalist is linked with their publisher ("so-and-so of MSNBC News"). If a journalist also worked at an organization or served on their board of directors or something, that might be relevant to mention. That's not to say that journalists can't have political beliefs or biases—everyone does, obviously—but in the case of journalists they're not often explicitly mentioned. Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that, personally, I feel information beyond "so-and-so of organization" is probably unnecessary if that person also has an article and we're linking to it. The article on that person will (or should) go more into their background and beliefs than is appropriate in this article. (We are a wiki, of course!) It seems more factual to present it that way and less apt to draw accusations of a POV. That goes for anti- and pro- positions, of course. Woodroar (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise fair points. If someone feels strongly that we should include her political leanings, I'm okay with it, provided that those leanings are described accurately. She's a Democrat with libertarian leanings, as the Kotaku article on her notes.

I do wish whoever has been so contentious with me re: Sommers would deign to discuss her paragraph with me. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willhesucceed, you don't have consensus to remove "libertarian" from the article because you've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors other than myself (why else does it keep getting added back), so don't remove it, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a libertarian. You can't just put whatever you want in the article. I'm changing it to "Democrat"; we have a source on that. If we're going to put politics in the page, at least we can do so accurately. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well now someone (not me) has removed "Libertarian", so I'll leave it be. If you want to put her political affiliation in, fine by me, provided it's "Democrat", or "Democrat with libertarian leanings", because that's what she is. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both 'libertarian' and 'feminist;' I think we should probably include either both or neither as the connotations of just one or the other are going to give a skewed image of who Hoff Sommors is. She and The Fine Young Capitalists are the only ones the article was taking the time to label as 'feminist,' anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tara. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. I don't think this is significant to include as prose since it was proven a hoax, but I do think it might be good as a footnote on the part about where censorship on some sites were brought up, to note that the Ello social network was changed with blocking GG posts, but affirmed by its creators that they don't have the capacity to do so yet, just in case someone came looking for that here. Opinions? --MASEM (t) 15:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help feeling this puts us on the road to including ComicGate, which is literally about butts. Artw (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been putting together the "Gamers' concerns" subsection and there are enough sources that note censorship that this article isn't needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the talk page and edit comments for this article make it seem like everyone's one revert away from beating the crap out of each other. Can't we all just learn to love each other and get along? I like to think that the reason everyone on this article is so angry is because they automatically assume that the other side is part of a conspiracy and they are protecting what is right. For instance Torga and co. are assuming Ryulong and Tarc are reverting their edits out of malice and a desire to hide the truth, when it's just because they have a better knowledge of BLP Policy. While Ryulong has automatically assumed in a few cases that everything the "other camp" have been doing is for the purpose of glorifying GamerGate, the conversation about the Escapist article above being a good example. (Can anyone who feels they've been misrepresented here, please correct me) As a great poet once said "Everybody makes mistakes, Everybody has those days". None of you are going to convince the people you're arguing with by raising accusations against them. Love and understanding is what will save us all [from needless rage induced stress]! Bosstopher (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let us first look at how things are being handled between moderator and user.Derpen (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 'mods' on Wikipedia. Admins do not fill the same role here that mods do on discussion forums. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This isn't Reddit or 4chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is the Administration and the people who suggests sources and additions to the articles. There appears tobe a gap between them in terms of agreement.Derpen (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. There are people who keep suggesting bad sources because they don't fit the requirements set out by years of standing decision on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this reversion, editor User:Masem has restored the claim of there being "long-standing misogyny" in the gamer community.

I have repeatedly requested a source be added for this claim.

I demonstrated in Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_4#Misogyny removal that the first 5 articles cited as references for the introductory sentence do NOT make any such claim of misogyny being a long-standing issues of gamer communities.

Since then a sixth has been added from LA Times which only mentions the issue once:

"the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature."

This statement is in present-tense, so Todd Martens is only talking about misogyny being present in the present day (not commenting on long-standing issue) and in the industry (not in gamer culture).

So we are still waiting on a reference that indicates this to be long-standing.

The references only mention that misogyny is an issue being discussed in relation to this controversy, not that it is long-standing in gamer communities.

I would like if a moderator could resolve this problem.

For editors to merely think that misogyny is long-standing is not enough, to add that claim without a source is editors here adding in their opinion as some kind of original research. Ranze (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rampant - "happening a lot or becoming worse, usually in a way that is out of control". That's not a word to describe something that is merely recent, but rather something that has been building over time. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranze: perhaps you did not see my reply there, but I did state that several of the sources point to it being a long-standing issue, and I went into why some sources on video games may not use terms like "long-standing". Of course, you were not obligated to reply to me—we're all volunteers here, after all—but saying that you "repeatedly requested a source" insinuates that nobody is replying to you, which is not true at all. Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave several sources in that discussion that make it clear that misogyny was not something "new" by Gamergate. Per BBC: "She has been subject to misogynist abuse before, most notably in 2012 when a first-person game was published online entitled: Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian." showing at least 2012 (Which for this industry is a long time ago). There are at least two sources dating from last year that point to GDC talks that discuss the issue of misogyny in the industry. It is not original research. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years isn't long. The industry's been around for three, going on four, decades. As far as I can recall, the issue of misogyny/anti-feminism has only become a talking point in the past five or so years. If we could find sources that address it at least that far back, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GDC talks are backwards-looking pieces that clearly show more than a few years of sexism and misogyny in the industry (and that itself within just the field of the developers and games they made, not even consider the player base). --MASEM (t) 02:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you link to them here, please? Willhesucceed (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that the sources detail misogyny going to 2005 (and likely further) in the very discussion Ranze linked above. Please understand I'm not trying to be a DICK here, but these sources and statements have been asked for and delivered many times. I understand that you sometimes feel attacked, and I truly am sorry if I've played any part in that, but part of the reason some editors are brusque is because they're being asked to spoon feed answers when those answers are littering the archives. Woodroar (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry, I just spent hours putting together a new section, so I'm a little out of it. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc:: I do not believe 1 author calling something 'rampant' means that something is long-standing. Something can 'happen a lot' or 'become worse' while still being a recent rather than long-standing issue. All that is required for something to become worse or happen a lot is for it to exist for SOME duration (which all issues due) not that this duration be a long one. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar:: The question is WHICH sources. If the 'several sources' you refer to are among the first six, I believe which portions support the 'longstanding issue' claim should be explained. If the ones you refer to are not linked to in the first sentence, then please introduce them so that we can link them there. If you reread the archived, section, I did reply to you at 20:57, 21 September, explaining the problem with your analysis. You only pointed out that the articles mention 'misogyny', you did not provide any evidence of them establishing it as a long-standing issue. I am not looking for the exact term, the meaning conveyed through synonymous phrase is fine too, but that wasn't present. When I say I requested a source, it insinuates I did not get a source, not that I did not get replies. I got replies, but the "sources" provided did not actually support the OR that misogyny is 'long-standing'. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem::

1. As WHS has pointed out, something occuring in 2012 does not make it a "long-standing issue". Video games have been around since 1947s, 2 years is only 3% of 67 years.
2. A single woman being subject to allegedly misogynistic abuse does not make it a notable element of "gamer culture". If it were, we'd see a misogyny in gaming article.
3. It's also worth considering whether Kevin Rawlinson's evaluation of "beat-up-Anita" being misogynistic is a reliable conclusion. If a BBC writer had said that "stomp Obama" was misandric, should Wikipedia repeat that as truth? In cases of reporters taking huge leaps in interpretation I think we ought to present it as that one reporter's opinion unless there's an overwhelming consensus among multiple ones as to that conclusion.
4. Assuming the GDC talks you refer to are the Game Developers Conference, your commentary on them is not relevant to the article, and is what I mean by original research biasing the introductory statement. If you believe that the GDC talks exhibit long-standing misogyny in gamer culture then surely an article written about them. Since these have been going on since 1988, surely if these are backwards-looking then newspaper articles from the 90s (or even pre-2010) ought to be littered with "misogyny" accusations. Ranze (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 is "ancient" for the video game industry; something that has persisted since then will be considered a long-standing issue. The reason that we don't have misogyny in gaming is because it wasn't a notable topic until Gamergate happened, but it has been known. The GDC talks are well documented elsewhere, establishing it has been a problem in the industry for a while. And documentation from 2013, 2012, 2012, 2011, 2011, 2009, etc. It's been there. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Willhesucceed:: I see no need for you to apologize to Woodroar, although WR allegedly "mentioned that the sources detail misogyny going to 2005", the WR statement "The Daily Dot ref links to another Daily Dot article on misogyny going back to 2005" is not a helpful one. The Daily Dot ref in question, when it does mention misogyny, does NOT link to an article, but rather to a TAG called "sexism in gaming". As the string "2005" does not appear when I search the DD ref, it is not clear what hypothetical 2005 article WR is referencing. If such an article exists, I request that Woodroar link to it directly, because THAT (supposing it is valid, which we should discuss first) is what we ought to link here as a reference. Linking to an article that links to a different article which supports something is not how referencing works. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's described as a "long-standing issue" in the sources, or having had a history, then we describe it as such, as well. It's not just Zoe Quinn. Anita Sarkeesian was abused. Brianna Wu recalls that she suffered from sexist abuse, among others she spoke to in this piece she wrote. "Beat Up Anita" is misogynistic because the only reason people are mad at her is because she is a feminist and a woman. People wouldn't make a hypothetical "Stomp Obama" game because they systematically hate men (it would probably instead be described as racist). And simply because you can't find something in a tagging system does not mean that it has not existed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a source has yet to be introduced which describes misogyny as a long-standing issue. Your analysis on ZQ+AS+BW is original research Ryu, as is your providing an analysis of BUA being misogynistic (she has characteristics besides being female or feminist, you do not know which motivated the BUA designer). Please provide a reference which interprets these recent allegations as making misogyny constitute a 'long-standing issue' in gamer culture. I would suggest "recent issues" being applied to misogyny, as that is all the references listed has established so far. Ryu the burden is on claimants to directly link to an article. Merely linking to a tag about "sexism" and demanding critics to "find the long-standing misogyny proof" is not how sourcing works here. Tags are not references, pages are. Ranze (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The August 20, 2014 Daily Dot article links to a December 18, 2012 Daily Dot article (search for "have endured" in the first Daily Dot article, you'll find the link there). In addition to detailing a number of incidents from that year, that 2012 Daily Dot article mentions the Dickwolves controversy from 2010 and an essay from 2005 (search for "Dickwolves incident" and "argued in 2005"). I also feel that the statement in the Forbes article about the "young industry that began, like so many others, as a male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains" insinuates that this is an old issue, but I recognize that this wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An industry being male-driven does not equate to the industry being sexist, much less misogynistic, so that Forbes excerpt is irrelevant. Thank you for providing direct link to the earlier 2012 DD article and where it was linked from. Keeping in mind that the full phrase is "endured in recent years" the 'recent' adjective does not paint something as a long-standing issue, instead it is referring to these 2012 events as recent, lumping them in with the 2014 ones as current events, not distant history, which is what 'longstanding' conveys. The article in question uses 'misogyny' in this singular context outside of the main title:

The Daily Dot has spent a considerable amount of time this year reporting incidents of sexism, misogyny, and attacks on women that have occurred throughout the gaming and comics industries this year.

By saying 'this year' (which the 2014 article explains to us is 'recent') the 2012 article is NOT talking about long-standing issues, but still-current ones. So the 2012 article does not paint this as a long-standing issue, however you have provided more things to look at.

You mention the reaction to a 2010 webcomic. The 2012 article says "major blowups like the 2010 Dickwolves incident". However it does not say that this is a "misogynism" related blow-up, just that it is a blow-up that geeks have seen. Mentioning that a misogynism-related incident is a 'geek blowup' does not mean that other examples of geek-blowups mentioned are being called misogynistic in nature. When I look at the article section you link to, the term misogyny is not mentioned in any way on the Penny Arcade article, so where is this association established?

You mention a 2005 essay, specifically the 2012 article quote referencing this is:

Gillam argued in 2005 that within gaming fandom, “true gender equality is actually perceived [by male gamers] as inequality.”

Issues of gender-equality are sexism issues, but not necessarily misogyny issues. Even if 2005 were considered long-standing (9 years is <14% of 67 years) that would only support stating that sexism is long-standing in gaming, not misogyny. Misogyny is a more extreme form of sexism specifically pertaining to women and hating them, and gender inequality does not inherently mean hating women.

The phrase "argued in 2005" links to http://www.trickster.org/symposium/symp181.htm where I looked for the string "miso" and hate/hatred/hating and got no results. Where in this "Fanfic Symoposium" does Gillam discuss hatred of women being a long-standing issue? Ranze (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for further back, we've got "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior", a journal article from 1998 which is referenced in our own article on misogyny and mass media. And there's "Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny and Rape" and "Game On, Hollywood!: Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema", which both discuss the misogyny and sexualized violence against women in 1982's Custer's Revenge. Woodroar (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: regarding your revert, the issue here is not whether or not sources mention "misogyny". If you pay attention to my edit, I did not remove the term, I changed the phrasing. The issue is that the sources do not call misogyny a long-standing issue in gaming culture, this is original research by Wikipedians so far unsupported by references. Please undo your revert and restore my phrasing, your edit summary does not match up with your edit. Ranze (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction to this article it devotes a lot of space to the origins of the controversy (e.g. Quinn). Why not cut the history of the controversy out of the introduction and isolate it to a sub-section concerning GG's history/origins? The introduction is way too long, and focusing on the controversy itself rather than it's origins would help cull the intro. Also, focusing on the debate itself rather than the events leading up to it seems to make more sense for its own sake. What is the controversy about? Who are the two sides (gamers, game journalists, cultural critics, etc.)? What are their conflicting views? How/where is this controversy playing out (e.g. twitter, gaming media)? The history/origin of the controversy seems like a sub-section topic rather than a 'most of the intro' topic. Just a suggestion. I just found it odd how much the history of the controversy is being relied upon to describe the controversy rather than a focus on what the controversy itself concerns. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason Gamergate happened was long-stnading issued in the community and thus the history and origin has to be documented. Those need to be covered. There is actually very little else "happening" after the initial ~2 week period of harassment, followed by lots of media coverage, so there's almost nothing else beyond understanding why this flameout happened and , so far, the few attempts to try to avoid repeating it. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those need to be covered. I am just suggesting that they don't need to be the focus of the article. However, I take your point that there might not be much to focus on other than how the controversy came about. I am just stopping by this entry to offer some suggestions tonight since I know this entry has been having trouble. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles pends a paragraph giving background information. I don't see how that's a "focus".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a rough outline. Refer to my sandbox for more sources; I'm not sure they're entirely properly categorised because I was skimming towards the end, but I think there are enough sources discussing the points mentioned below, or some variation thereof, that a new section is warranted. I'd appreciate your help in improving this so it becomes fit to go in the article proper.

Gamers' concerns

Under Gamergate, gamers have raised concerns about the video game industry.z Among them is worry that the video games industry is unethical, which worry stems from the close relationship that video games developers and video games journalists have.abc Opportunists are seen to have usurped the press with a view to pushing a political agenda,de which is seen to have given rise to an attendant mischaracterisation of gamers as unwelcoming and bigoted.efd This is understood to have further contributed to the enthusiast press's long-standing mistreatment of its consumers, which gamers believe vilifies and abuses the consumers it should be championing.gdh Although the video games press has long been seen as self-serving, its politicisation is suspected to have even further discouraged covering both sides of contentious stories such as Gamergate.idb Gamers were also concerned that discussion of controversial issues is difficult because online fora, such as video games publications' online comment sections and social networks, largely prohibit such.jhf

Please understand that this section is supposed to discuss what gamers see as the issues, regardless of their merit. The merit is discussed in what will be the proceeding section, "Legitimacy of concerns". Willhesucceed (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "ethics" angle is give all the weight that it deserves in the article as it presently stands. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see all the sources? To one degree or another, they've all mentioned other issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of the concerns, they should at least be represented in the article if they're noteworthy. I've provided the sources. They've been discussed plenty, so they deserve mention. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we weave any of this into the 'legitimacy of concerns' section? -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option, I guess. I suggested a new section a few days ago, which is why I'm proposing it as separate, but I can't think of any reason not to include this under "legitimacy of concerns". The section may need to be renamed, though, since many of these concerns haven't really been addressed other than to note that they exist. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is a bit of excess reading of the sources (eg the complaints about forums), but I also believe most of the valid concerns are already incorporated into the article, just not in one single para. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I agree the scope of the wording's too big. Maybe this doesn't belong among the list of concerns but somewhere else in the article? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we can, about those forum points, I'm just not seeing that supported in the sources. The censorship that happened at the start of GG, that's documented and included due to the Streisand effect, but I'm not seeing enough to talk about limits on forums for gamers to discuss issues. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of disparaging language being used here that the sources aren't backing up at all: "opportunists", "vilifies", "abuses", and "self-serving" aren't to be found anywhere in these sources. The only use of "politicization" was a quotation from a 4chan member. Woodroar (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a step in the right direction, especially regarding having a section for gamers' concerns. The titling of Legitimacy of concerns is vague as to whose concerns. We can work together to iron out the language issues. Additionally, I also feel that the titling of Social media campaign and backlash is vague too. Whose campaign? Whose backlash? Is it the gamers? If so, what is the point of the last paragraph in the section? starship.paint ~ regal 04:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disparaging language is echoing this TechCrunch article, which is where I got the idea for the section, but feel free to moderate the language. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already located throughout the article. Although it may be of use to conglomerate the statements into a single section so as to get Reddit and 4chan off of our backs. I just don't think that the proposed wording here is particularly good.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the last paragraph in Social media campaign and backlash starting with Non-gaming media attention has ... until protections against threats and abuse. is misplaced. It talks about a) sexism in games and b) the harassment campaign, some of which was directed at Frank. Should part a) be directed to Role of misogyny and antifeminism and part b) to Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment? starship.paint ~ regal 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]