This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Video games B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-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 B‑class Low‑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. Low This article has been rated as Low-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 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 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. 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:CollapsedShell Template:Copied multi

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

That's a phrase that gets bandied about a lot, but I think as the months run on the memories of what actually was said have dimmed, and people have begun to project their assumptions. A refresher is due. There are a lot of minor points with a broad spectrum of positions, so for now I'll just focus on two questions. First, what is GamerGate? Second (in service of the section directly above), what was the nature of the harassment Quinn received right after the zoepost?

This is just what I had bookmarked, so please do post more. Rhoark (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I value the contributions of Mr. Bernstein so greatly, I'll do his legwork for him. A few more sources for the list. Rhoark (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those are blog posts and opinion pieces, looking over them. Remember, we can't cite blogs or opinion pieces for statements of fact, only to say eg. "so-and-so believes this" (and even then, we have to establish that their opinion is noteworthy; most of the people there don't look particularly noteworthy.) Others, like TechCrunch, metaleater, and CinemaBlend, have been brought up several times but don't really pass WP:RS, at least not for any controversial statements on a topic with this level of coverage, since they either lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, are low-profile enough that it would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight to focus on any WP:FRINGE views they express when they contradict mainstream coverage, or both. The others vary wildly in quality, prominence, and relevance. Of the sources we can use, I'm not seeing anything in them that isn't already covered in the article, and nothing that particularly supports your assertion that people are losing sight of what the reliable sources say -- these are all sources we discussed in depth, and I assure you anyone who has been editing the article for any length of time is well-acquainted with all of them. --Aquillion (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources in this list, replete with right-wing sites, are unusable, and many top sources (New Yorker, Boston Magazine) apparently absent. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for your comments. W.r.t the connection between a source being "right wing" and it being "unusable"; if this is suggested as a causal relationship, that they are unusable because they are right wing, then it is certainly a novel approach. Would you be able to provide policy or guideline supporting this? WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources would seem to suggest that there is no prohibition on using "biased" sources, provided we write the article in a neutral manner. WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements suggests that this can be achieved by attributing statements from biased sources. Thanks in advance for your additional thoughts on this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these are considered reliable sources but thank you for putting together a list that can be considered, Rhoark. So many different lists of possible sources have been posted in the talk pages that there should be a running list somewhere so we can easily see which have already been considered and which ones are new sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Thanks for raising this important point. While we require a very strong standard for sources supporting statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, opinion sources are inherently "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"; so this is not as big an issue as it would seem. As Aquillion suggests, the question of WP:DUE remains, but, given that this is an article on a controversy, it would not seem undue to document a range of views on the subjects. (It may be useful to think of this article as analogous to the "Flat Earth" article, not the "Earth" article). Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, we have frequently been asked to skew the article to give preferential emphasis to WP:FRINGE or simply fantastical opinions that are poorly represented, or unrepresented in the sources. We won't do that, of course.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarkBernstein, Many thanks for your comments, as always.

Looking at the content guideline WP:FRINGE, it covers two separate but related aspects of determining what is appropriate content. The first is a reiteration of WP:NOR, which is covered by having sources (even if these are sources for opinion, provided they are attributed as such). The second is a rephrasing/clarification of WP:DUE as it applies to an article about a mainstream idea and suggests that a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight. While a number of opinions are expressed in a great deal of sources, it would erroneous to suggest that any of these rise to the level of "scholarship"; far less academic agreement on the subject.

Additionally, this Article is about A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife[35]; and I cannot concur that it is WP:UNDUE to document those opposing opinions; nor can I, looking at the range of sources (some of which are listed above) concur that any of the wide variety of opinions is legitimately a Fringe theory within the common meaning of that term.

For these reasons, WP:FRINGE, like WP:RS before it, is not a legitimate basis for objection to inclusion of the spectrum of opinions on the subject matter, as covered in the sources listed by Rhoark above.

Of course, if your reference was to opinions other than those expressed in the sources above, I would be please to address these should they be raised.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reliable sources above are journalism pieces, not opinion pieces. The NYT, WaPO, CNN, etc., all have opinion sections, which is part of what makes them reliable sources (i.e., separating news from editorials). These articles were not published in their opinion sections. Woodroar (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark says of the New Yorker, "Zoe Harassment [not described]". This continues a disturbing trend on these pages of assertions that are incorrect, readily demonstrated to be incorrect, that their authors should have known to be incorrect, but were stated anyway. In this case, The New Yorker ran an entire profile on Zoe Quinn’s harassment: [36]. This reference could have been discovered by reading the article page -- as I recall there's a long and memorable quote, one that was mentioned right here yesterday. Or there’s the Zoe Quinn page, which refers to it. Or there’s always Google, not to mention The New Yorker’s capable full text search. The spectrum of positions, once we sort out the wing nuts, is not very large, and is adequately represented in the article (although, as I say above, most sources outside Wikipedia treat Gamergate as either a criminal or terrorist conspiracy, and so our present treatment is generous to the point of violating WP:FRINGE). MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that link now, too. This is why if anyone thinks a significant source has been omitted from the above list, it would be better they specify it precisely. I have not made any claim that every significant view is represented in the list so far. After some more time has passed for people to point out omissions, I'll respond to the matters of the sources' reliability and the overall implications of this list. Rhoark (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the press is not a legal authority, even if the entire press body considers GG as criminal, we cannot present that as fact if no legal case has been established. (The only legal aspect we have reported is the restraining order Quinn got towards Gjoni). "Terrorist" also is a term with legal connotations, same with "hate group" (as there are different sets of laws that can be engaged if these was legally labelled as such). We can explain with attribution this is how the press feels, but we can't state it as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One night some time ago, someone broke into my house and made off with, among other things, a television and a bottle of bourbon. The burglar was not apprehended; we cannot identify him. But my television was stolen, a crime was committed. We do not know, yet, who use Wikipedia to threaten to murder Zoe Quinn, but we know this happened, and we know it was a criminal act. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No question that the crime here (harassment and threats) are illegal, barring any result of that SCOTUS decision (which involves motive). But we have no idea of the identity of the people that did it, outside of it being done under the name of GG. No specific person has been identified, arrested, or tried, as best we know, so to say that GG supporters are criminal or terrorists or a hate group is WP's voice but only based on the press's stance would not be proper. There has been a crime done by one or more people using the GG hashtag, but that is purely an unknown group at the present time, as opposed to the GG supporters who claim their motives are about ethics. These sources (particularly the higher ones on the list, the more reliable ones) do make this difference between hashtag users and GG supporters clear, even if they dismiss the ethics claims given by the GG supporters and suggest that their group encourages/enables the harassment. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are still wrong Masem. when the only thing that identifies a gamergater is the use of the hashtag, crimes done under the hashtag are crimes done by gamergate. "no true gamergater would commit illegal harassment" does not stand up in court. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Milo and Christina - who have now fully identified themselves with gamergate - should be charged with the crime of harassment? Obviously, no, it doesn't work like that. Yes, the crimes are attributable to some subset (which perhaps may be all, but as sources suggest, probably is more likely a small subset) of those using the hashtag, and if law enforcement can figure out that subset with proper evidence, I'm sure criminal justice would be served. But no source - and certainly not WP - assigns the criminal act to the whole of the GG movement, and the highest reliable sources in the list do suggest the criminal aspect is only a small portion of those using the hashtag. The sources do infer that the movement does not do enough to stem harassment and in fact its nature of anonymity and leaderlessness encourages that harassment to continue, but they do not call out those that state they are just trying to address ethics as criminals, just misaligned and sometimes conspiracy theorists. Until there is proper legal case made to treat all of GG as criminals, WP cannot take that stance, period. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, this is an infeasible burden to place on a statement about any group endeavor on an encyclopedia. If we follow your suggestion, we would need a criminal conviction for each and every member of a group in order to make any colorable statement about the group itself. This from an insistence that we treat commonly understood and wikilinked terms as specific legal accusations simply because they have a negative connotation. Neither the unanimity this proposal demands nor the interpretation of terms used broadly across reliable sources can be supported. I should note that both of these elements to this proposal cut toward gamergate. Just as the months long discussion over how to consider sources beyond reliable sources in the totality of an article also circulated around a proposal whose core elements were more favorable to gamergate. Protonk (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - you'd only need it for things that carry legal weight. There is no issue with the pressing calling GG out as a bunch of conspiracy theorists, because there's no laws against holding conspiracy theories (by itself). There's no issue calling the group misogynistic, or anti-feminism, or whatever (with appropriate sourcing). But as soon as you bring in terms that do have legal ramifications, that's where we have to be extremely careful when no case has been made, and absolutely make sure that it is a claim stated to sources and not a fact. This is what WP:LABEL states, so this is not anything new. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that they have encouraged people to identify them with Gamergate, Masem’s friends Milo and Christina, upon whom he is apparently on first-name terms (how nice for him!) might indeed be said, by the many who regard Gamergate as a criminal conspiracy, as writers who are identified with a criminal conspiracy. I am skeptical that these people are chiefly identified with Gamergate. But this is not immediately relevant: my point is that if new, zombie, IP, and brigaded account demand that we reexamine every adjective in the article, the result will be a great deal of additional work, and may well be an article that is still more critical of Gamergate than the article we have today. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks. And the issue is simply that when we are using words that fall within the scope of WP:W2W that, to avoid NPOV and NOR, we are making sure that either the wording selection is completely obvious from the bulk of sources (such as describing the harassment as misogynistic) or that we include inline sources that use that wording if it is sufficiently but not obviously common, or that we quote or attribute in prose to the speaker if the word is only used by a single source. The OP here had a fair point that we had an unsourced sentence that used contentious languages, but sources were found to show that is the exact wording used and those sources were added. Most of the other sentences in the article have their own inline source, so this should not be an major issue. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Implications

I posted this list not so much as a resource, but as a message: "Your recollection of the sources is faulty."

About half of the list is already cited in the article. 100% of the list is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia in some capacity. Reliability, as you well know, is always in a context. Some sources can be ruled out based on the publisher alone, but the reliability of even the flimsiest in the above list must take into account the nature of the claim. Then, there's the New York Times; let's start there.

"#GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage"
CNN? "a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them"
NPR? "#Gamergate is about two key things: ethics in video game journalism, and the role and treatment of women in the video game industry"

Tell me, is this the consensus of reliable mainstream sources that's being defended? Because when I look at this article, I see something different entirely. There's no question that mainstream reliable sources consider harassment the most important part of the story, but when it comes to how centrally harassment figures in the controversy, there's considerably less unity. Some describe a majority concerned with ethics and a minority that are misogynist. Others say it's the people concerned with ethics that are harassing due to their vociferousness. Some simply name ethics and harassment with equal weight. A lot say its impossible to tell. Even taking only the most reliable sources, or only taking left-leaning sources, you cannot escape nuance and ambiguity. From where, then, does this article draw the self-assuredness to open, "The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture"?

WP:NPOV states, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis mine) The article as it stands does not even represent fairly, proportionately, or without bias the views contained in sources it already cites. At one place or another the article gives lip service to certain nuances, but this is inadequate. A revision is required, stem to stern, emphasizing impartiality, editorial distance, and the uncertain authorship of violent threats.

The specific ethical allegations, so far as reliable sources describe them, must be described in sufficiently complete terms for a reader to understand what these allegations are - not only that they are rejected by Gamergate's detractors. There is no justification to be found in WP:FRINGE to do otherwise. "Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." These views are central to an understanding of the topic. Usual notions of proportionality, false balance, or necessary assumptions must be significantly modulated with respect to views that are the subject of the article.

No specific edit is proposed here, and this can all be done with impeccable adherence to BLP. Those already preparing their straw men can just stow them. I'll be following up with specific edits as time goes on, but wanted to open the conversation with an explanation of why these changes are coming and are necessary. As WP:NPOV warns, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Rhoark (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been trying to argue for several months, and this post summarizes the issue very well. I've previously proposed a version (probably 3-4 months old) that simply was a re-arrangements of the existing sources primarily to group everything directly associated with "GG movement about ethics, and the criticism towards that" and then having a separate criticism of the harassment and larger culture war issues, and that was outright rejected for continued version that biased strongly against any objective coverage of GG even though it was possible with the RSes we had. As well as establishing the more conservative tone that is the middle point of all the possible claims of what GG is made up of from the various sources - that there's those involved in the call for ethics, that there's some that are using harassment as their tool, but the overlap of those two groups is not clear - it may be zero, it may be 100%, but most high RSes claim it's likely a minority of the first group that falls into the other. Again, no changes in sources, just adopting the objective, neutral, non-soapbox approach to this situation. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you arguing that the article should state "Gamergate is about ethics, but most people don't think so" or "Most people think Gamergate is about harassment, but they claim ethics?" Is that an order change? Because I don't think that's true, nor that sources say that (ethics first over harassment). Most sources seem to say that it's about hating women first, hating people of color second, hating any other kind of social progressiveness third, and then trying to apply a veneer of sophistication (ethics!) overtop all of the previous in order to whitewash. What are you actually suggesting here?--Jorm (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason GG has any sort of notability is the continued harassment. There is no way that cannot be presented first and foremost, nor can we dismiss having a section that harshly criticizes the harassment tactics and why harassment is being seen as a tool for silencing the opposition. But that's all general facts that are hard to dismiss that have happened and commentary that exists far and wide. It is then how the controversy is presented after that point that becomes how an objective, neutral, impartial encyclopedia should "teach the controversy", in considering the breakdown of sources Rhoark provides. There is a side of GG - regardless of how much it has been considered secondary or conspiracy theories or a front for harassment - that claims to be about ethics in journalism, which while it cannot be documented to the letter that GGers would want to see it simply because we cannot violate NPOV/RS, it can be documented from the RSes listed above. Points about ethics issues have been presented in these RSes, but for the most part they have been determined inactionable (such as "objective reviews"); that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover them because as Rhoark said, this is not a FRINGE aspect, this is central to the controversy. All this is already in the article, but not organized in a manner that makes this clear. The organization, along with some wording choices, is aimed to sweep up any objective coverage of the GG claims that already exist in this RS list under the rug that comes from the weight of the charges involving harassment; this is through salting all the GG stance throughout the article so they are buried among negative statements towards this, which is a classic way of biasing any argument. Based on Rhoark's analysis and list above, I disagree that "most" sources - particularly when you narrow down to the most reliable sources - bury the ethics aspects. Some sources certainly do, but some talk about the ethics first and then the harassment. Or establish why this is a negative situation and then go into the ethics. WP should be taking the most conservative, median view here as a starting point, and then adding claims from the off-center points to expand how the controversy is seen in the press. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source have found no ethical concerns that were well founded, grounded in reality, or anything other than a shield for threatening blameless software developers with injury, rape, and murder. Many, many reliable sources -- unimpeachable sources like the CJR and The New Yorker -- have found otherwise. This should not surprise us: groups seeking to reform newsroom practice do not often advance their cause by threatening to rape anyone -- especially not by threatening to rape people who aren't involved in journalism!

That Wikipedia is still discussing this is astonishing, and deeply dismaying.

Our article is already far too sympathetic to misogynistic harassment. Masem urges us to take "the most conservative...view" and then "add claims from the off-center points" -- an approach that would be a right-wing extremist's fever dream. The encyclopedic approach, quite clearly, is to express the consensus of the best and most authoritatively reliable sources. They agree without exception that the purported ethics concerns are unfounded, miasmic, vague, mistaken, or illusory, while the threats of rape, murder, and personal injury are, everyone agrees, repellent. (Masem just took this argument for a month-long expedition to WT:NPOV. After that huge discussion did not go his way, his promised dropping of that particular stick has apparently become inoperative.)

Wikipedia's continued indulgence of this disruptive and highly organized crusade to whitewash Gamergate's reputation is shameful, and its continuance long past the point when it's intent and malice has been made abundantly clear to all is a further shame -- and a very real threat to the project itself. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with MarkBernstein, the ethics is clearly marked as a figleaf for harassment in the RS. Presenting it "first and foremost" is UNDUE for what's going in in GG. We have covered the figleaf in detail; making it the keystone of the article is the FRINGE part of Rhoark & Masem theory about how GGC should be written. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ForbiddenRocky, Many thanks for your comments. Looking through the list of sources above, and through those used in the article, I am not certain that "the ethics is clearly marked as a figleaf for harassment" is an accurate summary of them. Would it be possible for you to list the sources that you see supporting this? Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ryk72! Many, many thanks for your comments! Wow! The reality of "ethical" concerns was definitively dismissed by CJR early on -- they're the gold standard for analysis of ethics in journalism. No respectable sources have identified any genuine ethical concerns whatsoever, nor has any source explained how the ethical concerns, real or imagined, are addressed by threatening to maim, rape, or murder various software developers who happen to be women. So, no significant reliable source identifies any real and specific ethical concerns, and many, many sources dismiss those concerns as a fig leaf. But thanks for commenting again! Have an extra-special cuddly day! MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence and sentence's references pretty much cover it: "These purported concerns have been rejected by media critics and commentators as ill-founded and unsupported. Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, The Week, Vox, NPR's On the Media, Wired, Der Bund, and Inside Higher Ed, among others, stated that discussion of gender equality, sexism or other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue." Admittedly I wouldn't use "figleaf" in the entry itself as I don't think any RS says it that way, but I think the idea is clear enough for the talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No specific edit is proposed here". Please suggest one.

"Your recollection of the sources is faulty." Um...

"As WP:NPOV warns" That goes both ways. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really seeing anything in the usable parts of sourcedump that really goes against the current article. As I mentioned above, it feels like a lot of blogs and very obscure sources were listed alongside the mainstream ones currently used in the article; and beyond that, it feels like the sections highlighted above involve a lot of cherry-picking. All of these sources have been discussed and debated extensively to get the article to where it is, and as someone who participated in a lot of that I'm mostly proud of how it went and confident that the current article reflects the gist of what the reliable sources say. "The specific ethical allegations" isn't something that any of the usable reliable sources really agree on; to the extent that they do, they describe it as a vague and implausible conspiracy about sinister feminist and progressive forces, which is, in fact, what the article touches on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting The Pinnacle of Whimsical Delight

Reddit is all aflutter today with news of this brave new gambit. The Gamergate boards call my attention to the following, which I wrote here on February 14 during a previous Gamergate offensive, but which remains just as pertinent today as when it was written -- because Gamergate keeps returning to the same unending and unproductive disruption. I wrote:

“The proposals discussed above move from remarkable to astonishing and now arrive at a pinnacle of whimsical delight. Are we now seriously proposing that NPOV should permit editors to disregard the consensus of reliable sources because those sources are involved? This directly contradicts WP:RS and renders WP:OR a dead letter. It guts WP:FRINGE utterly: every fringe belief is convinced that the established sources are biased against it. Or is this exemption only to apply to GamerGate? How are editors to know that GamerGate is exempt from WP:RS, but Scientology, Creation Science, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not? Can any editor declare the reliable sources are all biased and require special scrutiny, or is this privilege reserved for special editors? In that case, how are newcomers to know that the instruction to disregard WP:RS in the supposed interest of WP:NPOV comes from a special editor who can authorize this? Can any group apply for a GamerGate exemption to WP:RS -- and if so, to whom do they send they petition? This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia; this discussion should be closed and should not be revisited until the preponderant judgment of reliable sources has clearly changed. If WP:CPUSH has any force at all, does it not apply here? This argument appears to be taken almost verbatim from section 2.3.3 of WP:FLAT.”

Now, has the preponderant judgment of reliable sources changed since February? Have new ethical concerns been raised, or acknowledged, or received wide coverage, or any coverage at all? No: if anything, recent coverage (Boston Magazine, ThinkProgress, The Hill) is more dismissive of the supposed concerns about journalism. Is the proposition that Gamergate concerns ethics in journalism less WP:FRINGE than in February? No. Is journalism central to Gamergate? Only if Gamergate's notable actions -- threatening to assault, rape, or murder women in computer science -- is understood to be a means of redressing grievances in journalism, a proposition that is the very model of the modern major general WP:FRINGE and one that, as best I can recall, no respectable (much less reliable) source has entertained.

Enough.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're eager to relitigate old arguments, I suggest you do so on your blog. The issues I've raised are different. The pertinent question is not how sources have changed since February, but whether in that interval the article has ceased to be OWNed. I don't see that it has. Repeated reference is made to Wikipedia policies that there seems to be little interest in actually following. I have presented a shibboleth: Which editors are for following the sources, and which editors are for maintaining a maximally derogatory article by whatever arguments are expedient? Rhoark (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific edit you'd like to suggest? — Strongjam (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in due course. Rhoark (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So make it. Otherwise this isn't productive. — Strongjam (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed presented a shibboleth, but ... (sorry, everyone, but opportunities like this don’t come every day!) I don’t think it means what you think it means. This appears to be WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOXING, perhaps intended for the offsite audience to which this has been advertised on 8chan and many reddits. As there's nothing new and nothing actionable, I'd like to request someone close this.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, please Assume Good Faith; we're all here to write an encyclopedia and to produce an accurate article, even if we have different views on the world, different readings of sources, different interpretations of what they mean and so on. I've read your list of sources (naturally, I'm well-familiar with all of them!), and to me your interpretation of them is simply not convincing; you included many obscure, unreliable or fringe sources and many blogs, all from similar points of view, while weighing them against some of the most high-profile mainstream publications in the world. To use them the way you are suggesting we should would would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Likewise, your quotations and summaries read to me as cherry-picked; you took the few individual sentences from more reliable articles that could support your reading, and highlighted them. Those aspects are currently covered, but they're given the weight and prominence appropriate to their representation in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be excellent if we could all proceed under the assumption of good faith, but I'm not a stranger to the storied history of this article and the editors active within it. Assumptions are for when there is no prior knowledge. I'm beyond assuming anything. I'm not bothering with casting aspersions. I'm putting cards on the table, and those I have in mind can hold or fold. There are edits coming, lots of them, but not until they are organized, researched, and article-ready. This article came back to my attention through an unexpected ping, and quality takes time. I've learned that assumption of good faith will not be extended to me, so I will not share premature thoughts to be spun into strawmen. In the meantime, there are still meta-objections to discuss. I've stated that all of the listed sources are reliable for some use. I stand by the excerptions I have made as the most direct and pertinent answers each article offers to the two selected questions. You dispute these claims, but not with specifics. Some of these sources may inform my future edits, so it could save time to hash them out now. Or such concerns could be completely orthogonal to the claims I end up citing, and the exercise would be a waste. Participation is at your discretion. Rhoark (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for announcing your intentions to make edits, but I'm not sure what use that is. Make edits when you're ready and if other editors have issues with those edits then it will be discussed. What are you looking to get out of this discussion? — Strongjam (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've been pretty specific about my objections (especially to sources that I don't feel are usable; I've listed them specifically.) You haven't really answered any of that, you've just said that you want to use these sources. We've discussed all of those blogs and sources specifically in the past; we can go over them one by one if you want. I definitely oppose using TechCrunch, metaleater, and CinemaBlend as sources when so many higher-profile and higher-quality ones are available; it would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight to focus on them. Most of the blogs you listed don't strike me as noteworthy beyond what's currently in the article. In general, though, you obviously have to try and reach consensus for any significant changes; you have to be willing to engage with as least most of the people here and extend them a degree of trust, or we're never going to get anywhere at all. Anyway, since you invited implicitly invited me to provide more specifics, I will place my comments on each of your sources and your interpretation of them after their place in your list. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem unreasonable for you or anyone interested to mark up the list items, if signed. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've inserted comments where I think they're relevant. Apologizes for dropping them into your list, but since you want specific objections and discussion for each of the sources you listed, this seems like the most reasonable way to divide it up and avoid it devolving into just sweeping generalities. I've highlighted both sources I don't feel we can use, and areas where I feel you focused too much on one aspect of a source while ignoring the rest. Please respond to my concerns on each source before you use that source (or your interpretation or reading of it) in a rewrite; we've discussed all these sources before (I'm fairly sure we even discussed them with you), but it would be better to at least make sure we're all on the same page with regards to how everyone views them. Some objections (like opinion-posts from obscure sources) come up several times, so you might want to explain why you think we need to use those here rather than after each one; that's up to you. Even for the sources that are generally-usable and your summary is decent, I might have have additional objections later on based on how you use them and how much prominence you give a particular source (or an aspect from a particular source), but that will have to wait until you make more specific proposals. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, after going over them, my own reading of what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say (excluding the sources I indicated to not really be usable): GamerGate caused a large amount of harassment of women in the industry, and this is the main focus of the vast majority of articles. GamerGate started with a campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn based on a false accusation about her (and expanded to cover other women); this history is the second main focus of coverage, and is mostly uncontroversial history. GamerGate is a culture war over the future of games and the changing face of gaming. Some people say that it is about fighting for one variety of ethics or another, but this claim is controversial at best (in sources that don't go into competing claims) and outright dismissed by many of the most reliable sources. The sources that talk about it in depth indicate that the accusations are contradictory, amorphous, and (when there is any detail) often clearly false; most sources characterize them as a conspiracy theory of some variety. (Even some of the blogs I dismissed describe it as a conspiracy, albeit more as a "conspiracy fact" rather than a "conspiracy theory.") There is almost universal agreement among those that discuss politics that GamerGate is a pushback against progressivism; one or two of the blogs you cited disagree with this, but even there, again, most of them agree, they just take the perspective that it needs to be pushed back. That looks, roughly, like what the article currently says; we have section on each of those aspects, with weight appropriate to their coverage in reliable sources, and generally pretty good sourcing overall. What's your specific objection? --Aquillion (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with about 90% of this assessment, there is a fact missing that is clear in the most reliable sources: there are two different groupings when the word GG is used: there is the users of the hashtag, some which use it for harassment, and there is GG the movement that has expressed ethics concerns. The overlap or common composition of these two groups is vague and unknown to these sources, so the highest reliable sources do not attempt to attribute the illegal activity of harassment to the movement/ethics supporters though do express that they are creating the situation where harassment is not discouraged or in fact encouraged. Our article does not make that distinction and treats the movement the same as the GG hashtag users, and thus prejudges the entire group as guilty of a crime, which WP absolutely cannot do. We should also not be prejudging the ethics group based on the dismissed claims - as Rhoark has pointed out, no matter how much a claim has been dismissed by reliable sources, it is still WP's role to document those to the best of our abilities (which we can with the current sources and without violating UNDUE). We should be making the same assumptions that the highest sources have made, that it is difficult to separate who is harassing, who is just using the hash tag, and who is arguing for ethics, and give those that are engaging is legal free speech (the ethics sans harassment) the appropriate objective treatment we have given to the victims and not presume they have done anything wrong. Several sources explain the situation as a debate about ethics that has been sidetracked by harassment, which is a very conservative, non-judgemental approach. We still focus first and foremost on the historical facts - harassment has happened, the victims have had to take actions, there's attempts to go after the harassers - and we still need to give due weight to the amount of criticize of the use of harassment and how it ties to a culture war. It is simply that we should be covering the GG movement in a non-judgement, objective manner to explain their points, how their points have subsequently been dismissed by the press at large, and how the unorganized movement is not helping their cause. All this information is in the article, already supported by the RSed, but not written in the tone or organization that presents this more academic approach to the topic and following more closely the less-aggressive stance of the more reliable sources on the matter. And that requires a thoughtful and slow rewriting process, so it's not just a few changes, so it's difficult to beg one for "what edits do you want made". --MASEM (t) 02:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no GG movement outside the hashtag because there is no organisation and there are no leaders. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you've been told you can't use your OR for this. And it is OR, because the RS do not support your position. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR here. This is a summary of what the sources says - the users of the hashtag, the harassers, and the movement are treated as different aspects but with possible (and perhaps fully 100%) crossover. They make it clear that the ethics people are likely not harassing but they aren't helping the situation that much. EG from NYTimes "The instigators of the [harssment] campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." [37]. It makes it clear the harassers are not necessarily the same as the ethics. WA POst "That isn’t to say that everyone flying the #Gamergate banner is sexist/racist/crazy, and that isn’t to say there aren’t some decent arguments about journalism ethics being made. But whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob." [38] (And the last sentence there is the criticism I've said should still be in the article to say that any reasonable attempt to talk while flying the GG flag has been tainted) --MASEM (t) 06:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no academic sourrce has ever given the slightest credence to Gamergate's purported concern for "ethics", because no academic source, or any source at all, can explain what threatening to rape software developers could accomplish in reforming journalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I believe you just proved Rhoark's point. As I'm sure you know, few academic sources have written about Gamergate. But as it turns out, it's actually quite possible to give credence to Gamergate's ethical concerns without justifying rape threats. Case in point, one of the few referenced academic articles, from the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, is quite interesting. You should read it, because from your comment it appears that perhaps you have not. Here's a direct quote from the paper: "[Gamergate] has become a focal point for a range of grievances in game culture, but ethics in game journalism and the role of women in games and game culture are the most prominent and polarizing. For those concerned with the role of women in games the movement, which has been repeatedly linked to cybermobs harassing female game critics and -makers, has itself become proof that games and gamers are sexist. For those troubled by corruption and politicization of the games industry, #gamergate is a much needed grassroots movement." The authors discuss how Gamergate is actively pursuing ethical goals: "#gamergate has, among others, resulted in a sub-campaign called 'Operation Digging DiGRA' in which gamers band together to read through game studies papers to demonstrate that the research on gaming is actually ideologically compromised activism that aims to impose a censorial content control on games." Toward the end of the article, the authors actually call Gamergate a consumer group: "Last but not least, in the case of #gamergate, they remain a large and wealthy consumer group. This of course underlines the old insight from power politics: Whatever the discourse, money talks." Now for the NPOV part. The current Wikipedia article uses only a single out-of-context sentence from that well-balanced and neutral paper to prove that Gamergate has "anti-feminist ideologies" (which is borderline original research -- the paper says absolutely nothing about feminism). Can you see the problem now? The other academic papers, "Sexism in the circuitry" from the Association for Computing Machinery and "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity" from the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, are behind a pay wall. I'm unashamed to announce that I have not read either of those articles, though I'd love to see what kind of credence they give to Gamergate's ethical concerns. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. That's not an academic article, it's an editorial (as it says at the top). It cannot be cited for statements of fact, only used to illustrate an opinion. In this case you should probably be thankful that it is only an editorial, though! Even as far as its opinion goes, I think you're misreading it; it notes that "The success of #gamergate and #operationdiggingdigra is debatable, as is their intent" and goes on to explicitly state that "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." It also states that "In light of this, how should we address the antidemocratic voices of #gamergate?" In context, it fits in with what the Wikipedia article currently says -- that there are people who claim GamerGate is about ethics (for a variety of different, often contradictory and poorly-expressed definitions of 'ethics', generally centered around a belief that there is some sort of progressive / feminist conspiracy among game designers and / or the gaming media), but that that claim is generally not taken seriously, with writers who have analyzed it in depth finding many people behind it to be instead primarily driven by a desire to use the hashtag as a platform to advance an ideological agenda. In the case of that paper, say they specifically identify the agenda behind many people in GamerGate as an attempt to "exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens" and as "anti-democratic" (note that they don't couch this part in he-said, she said the way they do the parts you quoted -- they state this as fact.) Those are pretty strong words, but that's just me quoting what it says; like I said, you should probably be thankful it is just an editorial! --Aquillion (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request close

As there is no specific content proposal, I suggest this section be closed as WP:DEADHORSE . I also suggest that any major re-writes be proposed in the draft space first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support close per no content change suggested. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see this section bring about some actual suggestions for changes to our article- this broad discussion makes it very hard to pick up on the exact things those posting would like changed (or not) in the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If you can't discuss policy without a concrete proposal at hand, here's a proposal: Change the first sentences of the lede to "The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. It widely known for the online harassment directed at multiple participants, particularly Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian". Rhoark (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be UNDUE. So no to that edit. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously impossible. Moreover, to call Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian participants in the Gamergate Controversy suggests that they chose to participate. In neither case is this apparently true, and in the case of Zoe Quinn is it both known to be a lie and is a libel. Does anyone remember this use of Wikipedia as a murder threat? Please redact and call oversight to expunge. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous histrionics. "Participant" does not connote willingness, and even if it did you'd be stuffing words in my mouth with a crowbar. Here's a better intro anyway: "The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspect of the controversy are the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, among others. Such threats are believed to come from a tiny minority of participants on both sides of the debate." Rhoark (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion for a re-write of the intro, that is a: No. Not even close to representing what the reliable sources have found notable and worth covering.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Participation & Lede change

Participation means taking part and is always volitional. Again, you second suggestion is risible. "Tiny minority" is by its nature unprovable; for all practical purposes, since the only notable activity of Gamergate is its threats of rape, murder, and mayhem, the only notable participants are the people sending those threats -- and so ALL of Gamergate is involved in the harassment. I know of no evidence whatsoever that Gamergate opponents have threatened to murder Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn. Please stop this. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone say Gamergate opponents have threatened to murder Sarkeesian or Quinn? I know I didn't say that. I don't think any RS's have said that. RS's have certainly documented death, rape, and bomb threats from Gamergate opponents. Only unreliable blogs come close to even implying that every last one of the 10's of thousands of gaters are involved in harassment. In fact, "small minority" is a phrase used quite often. Just what sources are you relying on for your information? Rhoark (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any reliable source that reports that any specific Gamergate supporter files a police report regarding threats comparable to those reported by Gamergate's victims. Because the only notable activity of Gamergate has been its threats of rape, murder, and mayhem, the only notable participants are the people sending those threats. Gamergate does not have official members or adherents; a Gamergate supporter can only be known as such because they support Gamergate's notable actions, to wit, misogynistic harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what sources do you base the assertion that all, or even most, Gamergate supporters are involved in harassment? Rhoark (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What article content are you wishing to add, modify or remove? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose (a slight c.e. of my last suggestion) that the first sentences of the lede be altered to

"The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspects of the controversy have been the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Such threats against these and other individuals are believed to come from a small minority of participants on either side of the debate."

I would not ordinarily begin with the lede in rehabilitating an article, but under duress I've offered this suggestion off the cuff. Even so, there has not been a credible rebuttal to this suggestion. Besides Mark Bernstein's murky comments, it has been claimed that the proposed edit is either UNDUE or not reflective of the reliable sources. That has been the response, even within this section establishing exactly this type of language as being what the most reliable sources have chosen to use. Rhoark (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• strong oppose the suggested wording grossly fails to represent the reliable sources which, not surprisingly do not consider relentless misogynistic harassment campaigns as "discussions" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? As I have pointed out, this description is consistent with reporting in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, NPR, CNN, CJR, The Washington Post, and Al Jazeera. There's also Pacific Standard, Vox, Forbes, Slate, Nieman Reports, TechCrunch, Spiked, Reason, RealClearPolitics, Metaleater, CinemaBlend, Polygon, Adam Smith Institute, and Daily Caller. Sources running the "ethics are a smokescreen" angle include Wired, Ars Technica, Jezebel, and Boston Globe - making a minority opinion and still differing from my suggestion only in terms of emphasis rather than outright contradiction. Rhoark (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out multiple times above, even the sources that you have cherrypicked do not support your interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of the kind has been pointed out. What has been pointed out is that 1) The sources emphasize the importance of harassment, which I believe my suggestion states explicitly. 2) Many of the arguments are motivated by a position in the "culture war", which would be a fine thing to go into in the subsequent sentences. Rhoark (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: In the wildly unlikely event that this ever appeared as Wikipedia's opinion on Gamergate, it would instantly be the subject of scorn and derision. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It already is the subject of scorn and derision, and that's not a policy-based argument. Rhoark (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is a clear difference between being the subject of scorn and derision by people who matter and are respected for their opinions and being the subject of scorn and derision by people who dont know what "ethics" means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not judge people in that manner, that is a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we judge sources upon whether or not they understand basic concepts that they are utilizing. You personally might decide to give weight to opinions of a horde of harassers who have no concept of what "ethics" means, and that is just fine if that is how you want to structure your personal ethics. On Wikipedia, however, we do not care nor give weight to nonsensical views in relation to presenting the content that is widely supported by actual reliable sources - like those analysts who actually understand what "ethics" means. You need to stop pushing your gamergate apologetics viewpoint against those sources because of some special personal knowledge that you claim to possess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many personal attacks do editors have to endure before you are topic banned? Didn't arbcom discuss this about you? Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say anything about sources? I am talking about editors' attitudes and opinions that are the basis of trying to soapbox the issue. If an editor can in, insisted that all GGERS are murderers and refused to move off that base, that would be disruptive. Note that no source says that GG ers do not know what "ethics" mean - the ethics concerns raised have claimed to be in actionable or not true, but not that they aren't invalid use of the word ethics. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Masem, I believe you are mistaken. For example, [39] is quite clear that, while Gamergate insists ethics are their chief focus, they aren't: "You guys know as well as I do that a movement based on the stated goal of regaining gaming ground lost to feminists and so-called SJWs would not do very well from a PR perspective. But you’re in a bind, because other than that, the ethics charges are all you’ve got and they happen to be (1) 98 percent false; (2) complicated to follow for the layperson; and (3) pretty clearly a ruse given the underlying ideology of the folks pushing this line forward." Read the whole piece -- there's lots of detail on ethics claims. The CJR piece is definitive and similarly dismissive. No valid ethical complaint has been advanced, and no notable action of Gamergate could reasonably be expected to advance any grievance regarding journalistic ethics. A close reading of TRPoD also reveals no hint of a personal attack; he is refuting (again) the constantly-iterated and endlessly refuted argument that one editor's expert knowledge of Gamergate motives should be used to unskew the consensus of reliable source." MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for referencing some sources; however, they do not support the positions you have taken. Singal alleges that ethics issues are a ruse, but a ruse for fighting the culture war, not for harassing women. The culture war business is different from journalistic integrity, but still an argument about ethics in a different domain. This is something I accounted for in my proposed edit, placing "gender" and "censorship" ahead of "journalistic integrity" in describing what Gamergate is about. Singal also contextualizes his dismissal of the journalism angle with his defense of the JournoList, of which he was a member. This makes it clear that what he writes should be attributed as opinion and should not have overriding weight in the lede. CJR is mostly summarizing the spectrum of reporting, with the thesis that it's difficult to tell just what's going on. It says ethics issues have been debunked by way of summarizing two articles. The first is in Ars Technica, where Kyle Orland says his mailings to GameJournoPros were errors in judgement and "crossed the line", but disputes that what he said influenced other journalists. The fact there was smoke but no fire doesn't mean criticisms were unjustified or insincere. The other source that CJR links is Kotaku editor Stephen Tolito sharing his opinion that Nathan Grayson did not act improperly. That's an opinion that should be in the article for sure, but we have sources explicitly saying the Grayson issue is much smaller than the totality of ethics allegations. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nor what I said. There is a huge difference between taking the ethics claims if GG as invalid (which is reasonable for us to include per sources) and assuming GG do not know what a word means, implying stupity. No source has claimed GG as not knowing what ethics means, only that their ethics ideals are flawed. Starting from the assumption that GG are stupid is a nonstarter.--MASEM (t) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, these anti-intellectual players, who want games to be “just games” and want criticism of them to be devoid of things like political and social context, are almost as worrisome as the horrifying, and criminal, actions of the harassers. If not directly stupid, anti-intellectual as to be as dangerous to society as massive harassment campaigns.
• Some denounce harassment but consider the tag a demand for better ethical practices in video-game journalism, including more objective reporting and a removal of politics from criticism. (Never mind that Gamergate itself is awash in politics). either stupid or completely hypocritical.
• And yet Alexander's piece — and others like it — has taken on a central role in the larger narrative #GamerGaters tell themselves about why they're fighting, despite the fact that they've completely and utterly misread it. Incapable of interpreting a straightforward article correctly.
• And lets not forget what the incomparable Kluwe had to say about that "Dear #Gamergaters, Do you know why you piss me the fuck off? Because you’re lazy. You’re ignorant. You are a blithering collection of wannabe Wikipedia philosophers, drunk on your own buzzwords, incapable of forming an original thought. You display a lack of knowledge stunning in its scope, a fundamental disregard of history and human nature so pronounced that makes me wonder if lead paint is a key component of your diet. You think you’re making piercing arguments when, in actuality, you’re throwing a temper tantrum that would embarrass a three-year-old. ... Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. ...You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming “Gamers are dead” is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to use this combination of sources to support the claim Gamergaters are stupid? I believe that would be WP:SYNTH. Rhoark (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Medium.com is not a reliable source as an SPS and obvious an opinion piece so that one doesn't apply; Of the others, they do criticize the chain of thought and logical fallacies of GGers which I don't question, but that's far different from calling them as "not knowing what 'ethics' mean" or stupid. To say otherwise is soapboxing or original research, or otherwise against policy. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly Masem, WE KNOW these are widely held beliefs and so even if medium.com is not a reliable source that we can use to call poop sock sniffers, poop sock sniffers we need to write the article accommodate the white spaces that the reliable sources are not covering so that the stupidity of the claims of gamergaters is not hidden. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference between calling the claims of GG stupid (which I could argee you can probably find some support in sources), and calling the people of GG stupid, which is not at all supported by sources, and would be a violation of NOR, NPOV, and SOAPBOXing. It is a significant difference to understand for proper consensus building. --MASEM (t) 05:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right Masem. People who make stupid claims, even multiple stupid claims, even repeatedly and even after the stupidity of the claims has been demonstrated are not necessarily stupid. They are just.... wellllll, gamergaters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where claims seem particularly stupid, take care to examine whether the claims are being described by their proponents or their opponents. Claims about gamers hating politics are generally straw men. Pillars of Eternity asked hard questions about abortion and medical ethics. The Twitter outrage machine only cared there was a joke about a transvestite. Deus Ex was ahead of its time in commenting about income inequality and government surveillance. It's been frequently voted as the best PC game of all time. Critics are upset that the next installment will explore racism through the well-worn scifi trope of using robots/cyborgs/aliens/etc as a stand-in for actual minorities. Gamers adore Thief and Dishonored for offering the challenging option of a completely non-violent play-through, but reject Thompson-esque moral panic about violence in general. This is the sort of thing that gamers mean when they say they don't like politics. There are some RS's that deal with these incidents individually and tangentially, but stitching them together would be SYNTH. As far as I know, this dynamic hasn't received the coherent unified exploration it deserves. May another editor is aware of such a source? Or Auerbachkeller (talk · contribs) could come to the rescue and write one ;) Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could look at the actual claims being made. I would suggest buying a gallon or two of Visine first, your eyes will never feel clean again, but eye drops by the buckeloat will help some. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. QED. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reliability and due weight

The commentary added to the above sources seems to fall in two groups: expanding the quotations to capture some nuances that might have been missing, and reservations about due weight of opinions. The first set seem perfectly reasonable, but don't really alter the larger equation. When it comes to editorial opinion sources, I have a few points to make.

• Reliability and due weight are two different policies. There are inevitably going to be a lot of reliably attributable opinions that just don't make it into the article for one reason or another. However, the requirements of NPOV are first and foremost about the range of views rather than the range of sources. If we go through all the small outlets one by one and say "nope, not due weight" we can go through the whole pile that way. At the end of the day, some representative samples of significant viewpoints still have to be selected.
• This is not the same as giving weight to views in unreliable sources. This is about reliable sources. Proportional weight can be smaller, but it can't be zero.
• Unreliable sources can not be used as a source of material, but they can be used to guide editorial decisions about how to use sourced material. Reactions and republications of minor reliable opinion pieces in unreliable media could easily help determine which ones are most representative of significant viewpoints.
• Whether or not a claim is opinion is often fuzzy. A piece marked as opinion can present facts in support of its argument, and factual reporting can have emotive interjections. It's up to editors to determine the context.
• Size and notability of a publication are part of reliability, but so is expertise. Game publications, technology publications, political publications, etc. bring to bear domain expertise that a generalist newspaper doesn't have. Smaller publications can be the best for certain matters of fact, as well as describing points of view.
• A publication's circulation is also not the only driver for due weight. Some aspects of the topic are simply too complicated or not interesting to a general audience. Wikipedia should not subsume encyclopedic interest entirely to the weighting decisions of newspapers, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.
• On the whole, most of the views that need to be present are present, but they are not presented neutrally. Mostly this is through WP:STRUCTURE, but also through overgeneralization in summarizing sources. The overall effect is that the article fails to explain sides, while also appearing to take a side - opposite of what WP:NPOV prescribes.

Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional weight can be smaller, but it can't be zero Yes it can. We're not required to include every opinion about all matters in some form as WP:UNDUE and WP:V make clear. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, I have never at any time made any false allegations in The Guardian. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted. — Strongjam (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't take a "side" - the article presents what the situation. some people affiliated with GG have made claims such as "but ethics!" - the reliable sources have reviewed the claims and laughed them off the stage. to report that some farcical claims have been made and no one takes them seriously is not "taking sides" when that is what has happened. It is reporting with appropriate WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional weight can indeed be zero. In fact, it very often is. Per WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis in original), and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." If you cannot name prominent adherents of a view, it is inappropriate to cite obscure ones simply for the sake of "balance". In fact, doing so is a violation of WP:VALID. Therefore, we probably cannot cite them for statements of opinion without giving them undue weight, and we certainly cannot use them to inform the structure of the entire article or the phrasing of the lead, the way you are requesting. As far as using them as a source for facts goes, that's even worse; WP:V states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:RSOPINION states something similar. Given that the core of WP:RS is that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and that none of the sources I dismissed really seem to meet that standard, it seems trivially absurd to suggest that we could use an opinion piece for them as a basis for statements of fact -- the issue is not size or circulation (though those are sometimes correlated to this), the issue is that they lack an established reputation. Anyone can create a small start-up news site to publish fringe articles, but until they've built a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, their site will not be a reliable source on Wikipedia. From your posts, I've gathered that you don't trust the mainstream media, and I can sympathize with that to an extent. But for the most part, an encyclopedia is not the appropriate place to push back against that and try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; we reflect the mainstream consensus among reliable sources, touching on minority views to the extent that we can find reliable sources covering them (but from a perspective that makes it clear that it is the minority view, without giving it equal validity under WP:VALID). WP:FRINGE viewpoints for which there are no prominent reliable sources are not covered at all. (Again, I'll point out that for the most part, the positions you're talking about already are covered in the article; they're just covered from the perspective that they're a minority view among reliable sources, which has to be reflected in the entire article structure per WP:UNDUE.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly did not qualify my statement enough. There can obviously be many circumstances where the due weight of a view is zero. However, the aggregate weight of dozens of low-weight sources saying similar things is not zero - especially when they are elaborating on views that sources like CJR and NPR thought was worth at least mentioning. The view is significant, even if any single publisher is not. As for the rest, its highly contextual, but I think you're giving far too little credit in particular to TechCrunch and RealClearPolitics w.r.t. their reputation for accuracy. Rhoark (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the aggregate weight of no weight sources is zero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:BLPN discussion

This is a notification that Auerbachkeller has started a WP:BLPN discussion regarding the discussion above, the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gamergate_controversy. Zad68 19:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph of "History" talks about "Gamergate supporters" but nothing explains who this is. Another use of that term a few paragraphs later suggests it's the term for some or all of the anti-Quinn people.

Can someone either explain the term early on, or use a clearer term?

One problem is that nothing says whether "Gamergate" is the term used by the anti-Quinn people or the not-anti-Quinn people. I mean, is a supporter of Gamergate someone who says "Let's Gamergate this woman!" or is it someone who says "What's happening is unacceptable, let's make Gamergate an issue!"

"Perpetrators" (the people who carry out something) seems more accurate than "supporters", but with the above mentioned naming problem, I don't think just replacing "supporters" will be enough to make this term understandable to people who don't already know the topic. Gronky (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that because GG is amorphous and anonymous with unclear goals, the language to describe the people involved is messy. In broad strokes, "gamergate supporters" are generally taken as those that have been speaking negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems, but some sources, in their definition, include anyone that uses the #gamergate hashtag or tag, and that would include those that are engaging in harassment and threats. (Regardless, they would all be considered "anti-Quinn" in your question) Trying to make the distinction between these various facets has been a long running problem on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who "speak negatively about gaming journalism and ethics problems" but are not in any way supportive of "gamergate" . There are those who are involved in /"support" "gamergate" for the fact that gamergate is opposed to feminism and not because of any concern of "ethics" in gaming .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be clear, GG supporters are people that speak negatively about gaming journalism under the hashtag GG. And on the last part, it's not just feminism, but any social or politicial issue (eg such as LBGT), though feminism appears to be by far the largest one. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No,to be clear GG supporters are those who support any part of the multitude of facets of GG - some "supporters" participate and approve of the harassment and death threats to women, some "support" the antifeminist drive to remove social criticism from games, some few "support" GG lame and incomprehensible "but ethics" stance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was focusing more on the issue that just being critical of gaming press doesn't make you a GGer - GGers nearly always associate their complaints with the GG hashtag. There's several facets after that within it, obviously. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. "speaking negatively about gaming journalism" as in, saying it's pro-women biased ("Quinn got attention too easily")? Or saying it's anti-women?

I'm not going to fix this article (I had only a very passing interest, just wanted to see what this thing is), so I'm just posing the question so that people who are editing can see the comprehension problems that a casual reader will have.

If I were to try to fix the article, I think I would start by removing uses of "Gamergate supporters". The term doesn't seem to serve the intended purpose. Maybe there's no term that can serve all the needs presented in the article, so it would be better to have a descriptive sentence, which can be different for different contexts. Gronky (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it's primarily against seemingly pro-feminist journalism and game development but there's other issues too (hence why "social justice" is a connected term). But we've been at strong odds, repeatedly, to struggle to find a good way to define things given the undefinable nature of what the claimed GG movement is, in contrast to what it actually demonstrates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about it's RS status, but the title alone of this paper says it well: Molden, Dan T. "How Do You Catch a Cloud and Pin it Down? The struggle to define and identify the GamerGate" movement"." (2015). — Strongjam (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that sourced described as a "department bulletin paper" , which means it likely lacks peer-review for an internal newsletter-equivalent, so its RS-ness is iffy, but I hope we'll see more papers like that to describe the problems. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We might consider using "Gamergate adherents" in some contexts, and "Gamergate followers" in others. When speaking of planning the operations that culminated in threats or discussed attacks, "Gamergate conspirators" would certainly be a suitable term amply supported by the sources. Under the circumstances, a Gamergater is anyone who claims to be one, typically by using the hashtag; there are no card-carrying members of Gamergate because they don't (as far as we know) hand out cards. As noted above, the motivations that lead people to endorse sending threats of rape, murder and mayhem in order to dissuade them from pursuing careers in computing are not very well documents; it is better for the encyclopedia to define Gamergate supporters by their action of supporting its notable activities or writing in its name. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most or all of you are missing the problem. As an outsider having read the intro and the History section, I can't tell if Quinn is a Gamergate adherent/supporter or not.

I've read further down the article now and it seems "Gamergate supporter" is someone attacking Quinn (and related actions). When reading just the start, I was wondering if "Gamergate supporter" was someone fighting back against these attacks by making a big social issue of how women are treated in the gamer community. (Would a "Watergate supporter" be someone who supports corruption or someone who supports the investigation into the corruption?)

Maybe the article can be improved by using a less vague intro. I'll make an edit to the first sentence. As an outsider unaware of previous discussions, my edit is unlikely to please everyone but maybe it will add some fresh ideas. I won't be sticking around for long though. Gronky (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supportive of your edit, but I feel it won't be uncontroversial. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronky: Do keep in mind that the lede of this article has already been subject to extensive discussion. A Gamergate support is a person who says, "I support Gamergate!" or "I am taking part in this Gamergate action!" or, more broadly, a person who works to promote Gamergate. For example, someone threatening to murder a female software developer and using the #Gamergate hashtag in the threat would certainly be a Gamergate supporter. The person receiving such a threat is unlikely to be a Gamergate supporter. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it has! I gave it a try and I actually think my new version is not bad. I mostly just reused all the existing words. What do you think?

The problem I want to solve is that I don't know who would say "I support Gamergate!" I didn't know if Gamergate was the attacks or the fight back. I think some parts of this article are written by people who are so informed about the topic that they assume certain things are obvious/clear when they're not. Gronky (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's far better than most proposals that have been made. (There are likely people who will ardently object.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- that's far better than most proposals that have been made. I have made some small revisions which do not, I think, affect your clarification at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronky: I concur that the article is not doing well in explaining what is going on or who is responsible, but the changes you made are not consistent with reliable sources. First of all, "Gamergate" is frequently used to refer to a controversy, a movement, or a group of people. All these things are frequently related to misogynistic attacks, but it is not a common usage to define Gamergate as being the set of attacks themselves. Furthermore, the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Wikipedia should not take a side on those issues in such strong terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An edit I have proposed that makes it more clear what is going on, while reflecting the range of reliable sources is,

"The Gamergate controversy is a set of interrelated debates about gender, censorship, and journalistic integrity. The most widely publicized aspects of the controversy have been the violent threats made against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Such threats against these and other individuals are believed to come from a small minority of participants on either side of the debate."

There have been concerns this doesn't give sufficient weight to certain facets of the situation. I could support changing "gender" to "sexism", for instance, but I think this is a better starting point for revision. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)the connection between Gamergate and the specific attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian is contentious. Source for that? Based on the sources in our article it seems pretty widely accepted. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there is relatedness is not contentious, but the level of relatedness is. Most of what happened with ZQ is older than the name Gamergate and involves a much smaller group of people. The highest profile threat against Anita had no connection with GG. Some sources don't care about these distinctions; others do. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the highest profile threat absolutely had an absolute connection to gamergate. stop trying to whitewash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the facts well enough to reply on the substance, but if what you say is correct then "Gamergate" is not a defined thing that people can be a supporter of. What if the first use of "Gamergate" in my version was replaced by "the Gamergate attacks", and then uses of the term "Gamergate supporters" could be replaced by "supporters of the Gamergate attacks". Would things then be clear and correct? (In your opinion and in the opinion of the others here.) Gronky (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that would be an improvement, but the lede ought to start with defining the subject of the article and only then explain why it is notable. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give that version a try. As for more generally changing how the lede is written, I'm going to leave that to yourself and others :-) Gronky (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict The misogynistic attacks are the only notable activity* of Gamergate, and as explained above by Masem (!) attacks using the hashtag #Gamergate are nearly the only things we can actually attribute to Gamergate. It is extremely common to use Gamergate to refer to the attacks: the attacks are all that Gamergate has accomplished. The connection between Gamergate and specific attacks is not contentious: dozens of impeccable sources draw the connection -- which is inescapable -- and only the most rabidly fringe sources question it -- if indeed they do. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One other activity of Gamergate has drawn significant attention in reliable sources: their tireless and unremitting attempts to use this encyclopedia and this page to whitewash their harassment campaign and to broadcast sexual innuendo concerning their rivals. At the moment, I think it best to resist the temptation to add a section concerning this; as Gamergate's campaign against Wikipedia continues, it's likely best to wait for the problem to be resolved. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This thread is still there, waiting for you to back up any of your claims. Rhoark (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, cool it. We don't need to go over (for the umpteenth time) all of the reliable sources which correctly describe gamergate as the death rattle of a woman hating niche. Consistently asking again and again for it to be shown to you is not constructive. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the highest quality reliable sources (like NYTimes or WAPost) do not say that GG is that; they do say there are factions within GG that clearly out to harass females and critics, but they are also clear there are factions within GG that want to discuss ethics, and do not describe these as "women hating". The group/concept, as a whole, has elements of fighting against feminism, and of contributing towards an environment where harassment is not seen as a criminal act, and that by associating with the group, those that want to talk ethics are guilty by association, but to present every member of the group as against feminism or directly involved in the harassment is completely against these sources. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say there are posts claiming "ethics" that have nothing to do with ethics. Many used as a smokescreen to attempt to rationalize sexual harassment of the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't need umpteen times if we could get an honest consideration of the sources once. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take back your unsupported accusation that fellow editors are not giving "honest" consideration. That is flat out false. Even crappy sources have been given excessive consideration. 39 god-damn archive pages of consideration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it personal is telling but not indicative of the collective failure to give sources honest consideration. 39 pages show it by the shear number of complaints over the same lack of consideration. --00:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take wild unsupported and unsupportable accusations about editors honesty personally. Provide evidence or retract your false accusation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being specific each time

I've made a new intro which is just my original proposal but with the first "Gamergate" replaced by "the Gamergate attacks".

I started to update the article body then to say "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" instead of "Gamergate supporters" but I stopped when I got to the 5th paragraph of the "Subsequent harassment" section which says that Milo and Christina Hoff Sommers organised an event for Gamergate supporters, and some other woman (I skimmed the ref but couldn't find who she was) received hacking attempts for supporting Gamergate. Did these people actually support the attacks and doxing? (I'm guessing they didn't) Or, in the context of this paragraph, is "Gamergate" something else? The "Gamergate supporters" who don't support the threats and the doxings, what do they say they're supporters of?

If people think the new intro text is good ([the link again), then the article could be fixed by someone who knows the context better than I do going through it replacing "Gamergate supporters" with either, depending on the context, "supporters of the Gamergate attacks" or description_number_2. (The latter being a few words to describe people who don't support attacking people but do think gamers should resist whatever Milo and Christina think they should be resisting.)

Is this a path to improvement? Gronky (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it "Gamergate attacks" would be extremely bias and soapboxing. Yes, there were and still are attacks, and I did check that there are some sources out there, but there's a reason we call this article the "Gamergate controversy" - it is a controversy over why and the nature of not only the harassment but other means that have been used by GG supporters to sway others to their view, and the critically-negative reaction to these, and it implies that all supporters of Gamergate were directly involved or supported the attacks, which is not the case. It is the case that the harassment has taken center stage, but if you took that out and left the rest of the commentary in this, there's still plenty of criticism about the GG movement/supports about their otherwise legal but questionably moral methods of enacting change and their ideals that the propose, all centered around issues of sexist and feminism in the VG industry, so it is best to leave it at a middle ground as a "controversy" which also follows from searching the most common name on Google. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, i dont see how "Gamergate attacks" could be "extremely" bias or soapboxing. The gamergate attacks are what the sources are ALWAYS covering. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's why I want to be specific each time. The article currently lumps everyone together, as if all supporters of GG support threatening and doxing women. As I learn more about this, it seems a distinction can and must be made between those who support the attacks (associated with GG) and those who support something else which I can't define yet (a fight against pro-women discrimination? Radical feminism? Affirmative action for women???).

I don't want to call everything "Gamergate attacks". I want to call the attacks "attacks", and the non-attacks something else.

Using the term "controversy" isn't a middle ground - it's a decision to not tell Wikipedia readers what GG is. Gronky (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A controversy is what Gamergate is. It's a ton of people arguing on Twitter (and Reddit, and Wikipedia.) Some of them are really dicks about it and send threats. The threats come from both sides, and are not in themselves a side. Rhoark (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the article uses the term "Gamergate supporter". Can someone be a supporter of a controversy? If so, what does that mean here? If not then all instances of "Gamergate supporter" are misleading or wrongly used and must be replaced, no? Gronky (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cluster of issues, any of which may be more or less important to any individual supporter. They include the ideas that gamers are not in general hostile to women and minorities, that cultural critics of games are promoting censorship, and that games journalists have skewed coverage on these issues. Rhoark (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so "Gamergate supporter" can't be attributed a meaning. That means it can't be used (without qualification). Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"without qualification" GamerGate doesn't really draw a meaningful distinction between these facets and neither do the sources. (Probably synth/OR, but I've noticed GG seems to lump the anti-feminism in with 'ethical' concerns, because they think the games press shouldn't push an agenda.) The controversy is the harassment which comes from the hashtag and whether the harassment is a goal of GG or just incidental. GG supporters decry harassment, yet harassment comes from the hashtag. Ergo, the definition of a GG supporter is somebody who says they support 'ethics' in game journalism but might be sending death threats. This is what the sources (and thus the article) refer to when they say "GamerGate supporter". I don't think we can put that exact phrasing in the article (synth), but I doubt anybody will disagree with it. Radiodef (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's hard to tell from the article, its by design. As you should be seeing by now from these threads, certain editors are fighting hard to keep it out. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We mustn't accept unclear articles. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

let's be clear and follow the most reliable sources, then. We absolutely know the connection between Gamergate and harassment:every source discusses harassment. all the rest? It's debatable at best.Gamergate is about harassment, period . Full stop, end of story; Wikipedia still follows The Mew Yorker, The New York Times, TheGuardian, and all the rest of the good sources. 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Following the sources, I see they all identify that while harassment is what clearly is the only real major aspect produced by people using the hashtag, the supporters of Gamergate (a subset of the hashtag group) say it is about ethics. New Yorker [41] "The Gamergate hashtag has been used more than a million times on Twitter, for myriad purposes. Some denounce harassment but consider the tag a demand for better ethical practices in video-game journalism, including more objective reporting and a removal of politics from criticism.". The New York Times [42] "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women." (and to note, discrediting/intimidating w/o harassment/threats can be seen as a unethical but it is far from illegal since this is the bulk of what happens in political circles during elections). The Guardian [43] "As the hashtag has grown beyond its origin, there are supporters of the campaign who are unaware of – or unconcerned about – its roots [in the disproven accussations]". Only the most narrow, specific reading of the sources can come out with "Gamergate is only about harassment". There are plenty of questions these sources beg about those that claim to only be in it for the ethics angle, but that's far different from flat out stating they don't exist and GG is only about harassment. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, but he is not notable for being a saxophone player. Some people who say they support Gamergate may, like Bill Clinton, play the saxophone. Some people may claim to be concerned about ethics and they may say they are Gamergate supporters: how would we know? Gamergate's only notable activities are (a) its widely-discussed and infamous attacks on female software developers, and (b) its persistent attack on Wikipedia in order to improve its public image. This is lots of fun to discuss, apparently -- you're revisiting a discussion from last week for some reason -- or it's a nice opportunity for foruming. Gamergate's harassment and misogyny are well documents; its fig-leaf of ethical "concerns" are scarcely document save to dismiss them. Until Gamergate actually does something notable involving ethics, or until Gamergate plays the saxophone, we pay no WP:UNDUE attention to these purported concerns. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's not how UNDUE works, especially if we are talking contentious statements that fall under NPOV. The statement "The Gamergate movement is only about harassment" is, just at face value, contentious due to being a labeling statement. While I'd argue common sense means we should treat that as a claim not fact, the three sources (as a tip of the iceberg) are sufficient evidence from highly reliable sources to show that that statement is contentious, and cannot be said as fact or used as the basis to develop the rest of the article. UNDUE does apply that we're not going to spend anywhere equal time discussing the GG supporters concerns as there simply isn't that balance in the sources; but sources do describe enough to warrant fair, unjudgemental discussion of their ethics concerns. The largest part of this article will still remain the history/events that are primarily on the harassment, and the criticism about the use of harassment/threats, and the nature of the gamer identity that led to this situation. And I am addressing the comment you added yesterday, which you claim that the New Yorker, New York Times, and the Guardian all state that GG is only about harassment, and I've just pointed out that they clearly don't say that unless you take a very selective read of each article, which we don't do as an objective work. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Bill Clinton/Saxophone analogy is flawed to your point: yes, he is not most notably known for playing the saxophone among his other accompishments, but we do mention his saxophone playing and how that affected his public image on the article. GG is most known for the harassment, but the ethics aspects are well known, even if the major journalists like to mock that with "but it's about ethics in video game journalism!" memes. The ethics aspect exists, period, and to pretend otherwise is purposely whitewashing the article in favor of one side which WP cannot do. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until reliable sources report notable actions arising from Gamergate's supposed saxophone playing, they're merely speculation. If major journalists broadly dismiss the existence of saxophone-playing in Gamergate, Wikipedia doesn't discuss Gamergate saxophones even though we may ourselves "know" that Gamergaters play saxophones and make most eloquent music. If we believe that journalists have banded together to unjustly ignore saxophonic Gamergaters, well, the queue for conspiracy theories is thataway. ----> MarkBernstein (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrong for a neutral encyclopedia. Dismissal of claims in reliable sources does not mean they don't exist, they just don't believe the claims have merit. For us as a neutral, non-judgemental encyclopedia, that means we should be documenting the claims and the dismissal of those claims, as long as we use RSes to do that (which we do as noted), with the only caveat in that any unnecessary BLP-violating accusations without relevant support are removed. Taking the stance that because the claims are dismissed means we shouldn't discuss them is extremely judgemental and something WP cannot do at all. Documenting these claims of the GG supporter side does not mean that WP is endorsing or supporting them, simply staying true to being an objective documentation of a controversy. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources give no credence to "controversial" positions like the CIA-sponsorship of the Kennedy assassination, Obama’s promotion of Islam, black helicopters, the incompatibility of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics, or Gamergate’s enthusiasms for ethics. Would you do me a big favor? If you've not actually read it in the last month or two, go take a fresh look at WP:FLAT. Take a deep breath, approach it with an open mind, forget it's me asking if that's what it takes.

As to discussing these claims, we have discussed them. You have personally written hundreds, nay thousands of posts about them. But the situation is absolutely clear: nearly no authorities recognize any substantial Gamergate accomplishments regarding ethics, while every authority discusses misogyny and harassment and the best authorities, when examining the purported ethical concerns, find them implausible..

When you come back from WP:FLAT, step back and ask yourself, how do you envision this turning out? Do you enjoy this? I don’t! Do you believe in the plan they're advocating over on Reddit -- that having bagged TRPoD, they can easily get me out of the way and do what they will? Is that the endgame -- and, with all your experience here, do you think it will accomplish its goals? And if it did work, even briefly, can you imagine the outcry in the mainstream press -- which would lead plenty of people back to repair the article?

You have a simple and superior alternative. Pick up a pen, and write about Gamergate’s ethical accomplishments. Publish in the Times, or The National Review, in CJR or in PNAS. Get yourself on CNN and MSNBC and Limbaugh. Do a keynote at Web Science or the WWW Conference or Wikisym or GDC. Go talk to your Congressperson and your Senators, get them to give speeches about Gamergate ethics and introduce legislation. Give interviews. Or, if you're bashful, help someone else do it. Take care of that, come back here, and you'll have no trouble at all discussing ethics here, because we'll have a clear and reliable discussion in plenty of great sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter to us as a non-judgemental work - if we have multiple sources that say that some of the group is about ethics - even if the sources follow that with harsh criticism, dismissal of the claims, or the like - then we still write that this is what some of the group claims to be about and do not author the article pretending that these claims never existed. It doesn't matter if there have been zero activities or results of GG's ethics side that can be documented, as long as we are able to document their motives. This is how we approach articles on convicted murderers, formally-recognized hate groups, and the like. We do not belittle - in WP's voice - what the persons behind these believe to be their motives, but just document them, and then document the criticism and rebuttals and dismissals of these motives from other sources.

And I stress that the sources are clear that there is a side of the GG supporters that claim to be about ethics (see the three statements above as a start). The sources use words like "ostensibly" to express doubt that some or all of these people are true to this motive, but they do report that this side with this claim of being about ethics exists. To ignore this is purposely twisting the sources to soapbox. The goal is not to elevate the GG side to make them look good or the like, or to show their "great accomplishments", but simply to reflect that the sources are not making as extreme statements that our article is currently making when you get into the details so that WP stays neutral, impartial and non-judgemental on the topic. Harassment has been done under the GG hashtag, but the entire body of GG supporters, which also use the GG hashtag, are not necessarily involved with the harassment (they might be, but no one has proof of this either way). That is what the highest RSes say. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Gamergaters may support the New York Yankees, but we don't know that. Some may support the Republican Party, but we don't know that. The only thing we know about Gamergate from the many reliable sources that cover it is that they send threats to female software developers; everything else is pretty much speculation. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? There's no reason to mention sports teams, but from what I've read so far I've the impression that Milo and Christina and their sort don't send threats to female software developers.

What does that latter group support?

Or, are you saying that that latter group is an insignificant fringe? (I don't know this sort of detail.) They organised at least one event, how many turned up to these events? Gronky (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know there are some that do not support harassment and want to talk ethics (per Singal, NYTimes, and WApost who have talked to GG members, so that's not speculation), but we have no idea the size of this number relative to what the other internal divisions are (strictly sticking to RSes). We know the actions are what is clear, but how many involved and what proportion of GG they make up is unclear, though RSes believe this to be from a vocal minority of GG supporters. That's why the current lede, to its benefit, identifies that the actions are why GG is notable, not the ethics claims. But we should not be pretending that PP is only people that want to harass, even if that's the only notable factor that's come out of it; that's the nature of a vocal minority. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably at least half of the 38 archived talk pages concern who Gamergate is. They could have saved us much grief (and some topic bans, probably) if the movement wasn't an unorganized, leaderless, anonymous series of social media posts. The article would have been so much more easy to put together if they had agreed on a spokesperson(s). Coulda, woulda, shoulda though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Indeed. But we'll work with what we have. Gronky (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are attributed with harassment but named/non-anonymous "supporters of GamerGate" are not. Even within the anonymous subset, it's unclear how many are sending the "rape and death threats" that are covered as news. And even within the threat group, some are not even directly GamerGate. I came across a source today that explained the threat that triggered Sarkeesian's Utah cancellation was anti-feminist but not GamerGate related. The FBI made that distinction and opened a separate case. The aspects of gamerGate that are underrepresented are changes to gaming journalism disclosure requirements, the increase of the visibility of female lead characters in games as well as heightened awareness of female gamers and games, and the visibility of prominent female game developers and executives as the face of various games (in addition to the victims of harassment). WP has covered one aspect but for various reasons, these other significant developments are not covered. GamerGate coalesced a lot of disjointed pieces that revolve around women in gaming and not all of it is "rape and death threats." One notable aspect is that women in gaming are no longer fractured into players, developers, characters and various other separate pieces but now are unified more vertically in game products. That was a reaction to GamerGate threats and a recognition of the number of women in gaming but it is not the victim narrative of social injustice portrayed here, it's an empowerment narrative that plays out in events like e3 that is going on now. Make no mistake, it is gamergate related just with a different narrator. It is not a "pro-GamerGate" narrative WP characterizes as harassment nor is it the "anti-GamerGate" narrative that focuses on social justice. It's a narrative of gaming culture that is inclusive of women at all levels of gaming as a fallout from what began last summer. All these changes are covered in RSs and attributed as a reaction to GamerGate. What once was the separate groups of developer, game player, character, and software company executive is now represented in a vertical strategy of integration with a more singular voice. This source from last december speaks to its beginning in interviews with Bonnie Ross and Brianna Wu (note the problem with wikipedia coverage is evident by red and blue links - the answer as to why one exists and another does not lies at the heart of the coverage. Both are feminists, yet one wields significantly more influence in gaming and has done so for years, the other is a Social Justice advocate that runs a small indie development company. WP's article is heavily and POVishly skewed toward the Social Justice aspect rather than the gaming inustry as a whole). Ross spoke about issues but declined to detail any threats or harassment. She talked about the future. There are stories even today that talk about female gamers/consumers/developers/executives and the narrative response to GamerGate is integration, not revolution. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So create the article then instead of using it as a rhetorical device. — Strongjam (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to fix the false narratives. There are at least 10 prominent female gaming executives that don't have WP articles and are ignored by the GamerGate article despite significant influence. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"false narratives" ah... ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the same narratives that are constantly crumbling? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re" The aspects of gamerGate that are underrepresented are:

• changes to gaming journalism disclosure requirements

These changes are 1) already covered in our article. 2) relatively minor 3) hardly ever discussed in the reliable sources when discussing gamergate and so merit only small coverage in our article

• the increase of the visibility of female lead characters in games as well as heightened awareness of female gamers and games,

Given the lead time between game design and release, there really really nothing between when gamergate started and now that could have been covered in our article. There is one article i have seen that talks about the number of strong non chainmail bikini women characters in games that are just being released in concert with the recent E3. If they are the result of 6 months of serious retooling concepts and characters as a counter response to gamergate we can certainly cover that, but again, a single piece cannot seriously reframe the article's coverage. And I think we provide quite significant coverage of the renewed focus on women in gaming and in the context of gamergate what is covered about them: that they are subject to excessive levels of vile harassment. What else do the sources cover about the subject in relation to gamergate?

• and the visibility of prominent female game developers and executives as the face of various games (in addition to the victims of harassment)

I have seen none of the articles printed covering this aspect. Can you point them out? edit to add well from this [44] we could add "Bonnie Ross, the head of the Halo franchise, refused to discuss Gamergate" but i am not sure what that would add to the article. end of add

• One notable aspect is that women in gaming are no longer fractured into players, developers, characters and various other separate pieces but now are unified more vertically in game products.

Huh? If you mean that women in all aspects of the gaming community have been targeted, yes, we cover that. "Female vertical unification in gaming" is not a topic that I have seen discussed in any of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: This article and talk page are subject to arbitration remedies about the biographies of living persons and the article is under a limit of one revert per 24 hours (see details at the top of this page). Please familiarize yourself with the remedies before participating in the discussion. Diego (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is to take a small bit of middle-ground writing in the lede but without diminishing the implications or weight of sources:

• Currently The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate.
• Suggested The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by members of an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate.

This change still keeps the harassment charged to the GG movement, but leaves the question of how many of the movement was involved without getting into the details/nuances of the makeup. It also leaves the question opened of the origins of the movement without denying the possibility of it being created purposely as a harassment campaign (as opposed to the ethics as our sources also offer).

Also while on the lede, I know why we have the list of RSes in the lede about those sources that are debunking the ethics claims (editors were demanding sources), but I really think that looks sloppy, and would be all in favor of its removal, or perhaps moving that list to the start of the section about ethics. That way the list is still "right there" for someone to review. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose There is no question of how much of Gamergate was involved: the only thing Gamergate has achieved, according to our reliable sources, is the harassment. The questions of the origins of the movement can be explored when reliable sources explore that. Since the sources agree that the ethics concerns had no substance or credibility, that need not be discussed. The list of sources who universally agree that the “ethics” was an excuse, not a concern, is absolutely necessary to the lede; any attempt to water that down would require deleting any mention of ethics from the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sources, overall, do not say GG was formed only to engage in harassment, but also consider the creation of the ethics, so that current statement in the lede, saying that the movement exclusively came out from the harassment is controversal. But by adding that "by members of", it reflects the truth of the sources, that not everyone in the movement is involved in the harassment. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting confused now. What about Milo and Christina and the event(s?) they organised? I feel like I'm missing something so this might seem silly but what's your opinion of the statement "Some people in the Gamergate movement have not supported threatening any women with violence"? Gronky (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change "some" to "most", and you're on the right track. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein:: can I get your opinion on that statement? Gronky (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's still impossible. Yiannopoulos is a journalist for Breitbart and Sommers is a policy analyst for a right-wing think tank; both come to Gamergate as journalists or observers or partisans, not as leaders, representatives, or spokespeople. There is no reason to think them characteristic or typical, and certainly no reliable source has said that. For that matter, do we have reliable third-party coverage of Yiannopoulos' or Sommers' reaction to the attacks? Again, since the attacks are the only notable actions of Gamergate, trying to separate Gamergate from the attacks is trying to separate the dancer from the dance. Some people in the Confederate States Of America opposed slavery, but that does not change the nature of the Civil War. Of course, Rhoark’s "most" would require reliable sources, and would also require that a reliable determination be made of Gamergate’s composition and their opinions -- none of this can possibly be done and so it cannot possibly contribute to the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Yiannopoulos and Sommers have stated and have been stated to be supporters of GG, both in setting up the D.C. meet and its bomb threat. And Rhoark has provided plenty of reliable sources, including the NYTimes and WAPost, that clearly delineate that it is "some", not "all" people, in GG engaging in harassment. And absolutely we should be trying to do our best to separate the actions from the motives, in as much as we can from the reliable sources - if we are considering ourselves a neutral academic work trying to teach the controversy, this should be our goal, even if our hands are bound by sourcing policy. We can't do a full breakout as , say, Occupy Wall Street, but we can approach it using existing RSes. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide these sources. Even in the most right wing circles it would be political suicide to state you supported rape threat campaigns. Everything I have seen they are very careful to be supportive of the antifeminist rhetoric/ the conspiracy and collusion claims, but not supporting "gamergate" itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon and Kotaku confirming Yiannopoulos and Sommers organized and attended the meetup. And to them, they do not see GG as a harassment campaign, or at least show awareness that those engaged in harassing are not part of those trying to talk about the ethics angle, but for Sommers, it's about gender/feminism issues (the difference between early feminism goals and more contemporary ones) [45], and Yiannopoulos, a consumer's revolt [46]. They both show awareness that harassment occurs, agree it is not a valid tactic, but attribute it to a vocal minority that is not part of the core part of GG that is trying to talk about ethics. And it's still remains a claim that GG is only a rape threat campaign. Harassment and threats are the most noted and reported factor from it, but that doesn't mean that is the only reason it exists, as demonstrated by NYTimes and other RSes. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources if anything confirm my initial evaluation "Both have written about GamerGate and have criticized liberal and feminist critiques of video gaming, calling them politically motivated and egged on by a liberal media agenda." Not "Both have supported gamergate" Gamergate is full of men who have no real interest in the video game community. Their only cause is anti-feminism -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they all say they are supporting GG, though state that they support GG as a gender movement/consumer revolt, and both speak out against the use of harassment by the minority of those in the groups. We should not be questioning their intent at all without violating BLP. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone says "I support Hamas's humanitarian works" it is completely unacceptable to present that as "I support Hamas". And it is perfectly legitimate to point out that reliable sources have REPEATEDLY questioned their intent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except as has been argued repeatedly here, anyone using the hashtag is part of GG and thus guilty of harassment. You can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources indicate Sommers has hashtagged for gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked one just above but here it is again [47]. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that explicitely quotes her as stating " I have said some kind words about gamers. But speaking about a group does not mean I speak for them"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So she's not a spokesperson, but she still supports GG's motives. And per the definition that some want to use here, anyone that supports GG via using the hashtag is part of the harassment campaign. Which obviously is not correct. It is clear that some people that use the hashtag are directly responsible for harassment, but we can assert from the RSes that there are some different factions within the hashtag, including some members that claim to disapprove and try to stop the harassment while wanting to discuss ethics. That's clear facts we can get from the strong RSes.

Certainly there are sources that believe that the ethics side is a front, but that's not a fact, that's an opinion. It's also the case that even if the ethics side are truthful about not engaging in harassment and wanting to talk ethics, we have numerous sources that indirectly blame them for creating the environment that allows harassment and that by staying with the hashtag, their voices are drowned out by the vocal minority of those engaging in harassment. That's all completely fair claims and opinions, but it doesn't change the fact (pulling from RSes) that the makeup of GG, while vague, can be separated into at least two groups (with possible overlap): the harassers, and the groups that want to talk ethics and claim they don't harass. The actions of the group taken as a whole, as seen by the RSes, are considered deplorable and illegal, but that does not mean all the people within it should be considered the same way. Otherwise, we are associating anyone that has spoken in favor of GG (which includes Sommers, Yiannopolous, Baldwin, TotalBiscuit/John Bain, etc.) with an illegal crime, and that won't fly under BLP with named individuals. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She supports SOME of GG's ostensible motives and their opposition to feminism. However i am pretty damn sure you will not present any sources stating she supports THE ONLY motive/action that GG is notable for - rape threat campaigns against women-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, since all major sources say one of the motives of GG is about ethics even if that is an obstinatable or disproven claim, it is notable still (just as the claim the earth is flat by Flateaters, their claim may be bogus, but it still is the reason they exist and part of their notability). Yes, the only significant action that we can source and that has come out of the #GG hashtag (which include multiple groups as noted) is the harassment and threats, but that doesn't mean the only motivation is harassment, and our RSes are clear there's at least the ethics angle involved here. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the major sources say "ostensible but ethics" and all the major sources that review the "but ethics" utterly dismiss them and so the notability of gamergate is SOLELY from the death and rape threat campaign. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, absolutely wrong. Even if they said , 100%, the ethics claims were bogus, they have been documented and reviewed and thus exists and thus part of notability of GG. Just because it is wrong does not mean it does not exist. Purposely ignoring as to only claim that the motive is harassment is soapboxing and biasing the sources in a specific way. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I seriously doubt your WP:COMPETENCE if you think ANYONE would have given ANY coverage to a group, even an actually organized group with a platform and spokesepeople whose objective was "Reviews shouldnt contain cultural critiques!" . The only reason for the coverage is the sustained troll harassment campaign of a scope and scale and vileness far beyond even the typical harassment that exists on the web. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But because sources have took up looking at the GG situation, they have identified that there is a facet of it about ethics. I totally agree that if there was zero harassment or threats and was simply just chatter on forums and social media about "objective reviews" and other facets of the ethics platform, there would be almost no coverage of GG at all; it certainly would not have spread past the video game media. But because there was harassment, the reliable sources had to look to understand where it came from, and found there was this ethics side. They soundly dismissed all the claims but affirmed there were claims about ethics by a subset of the people using the GG hashtag. As such, we cannot pretend these claims don't exist and that harassment is the only thing GG exists for. Harassment is the only action we can readily document out of what the GG hashtag has show, but the motives are far different. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Masem. No one has found a facet about ethics. They have found ostensible claims of "but ethics" to cover up/excuse/attempt to distract from harassment campaign, but no actual ethics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, some sources claim the ethics is a front, but other sources like the NYTimes and WAPost simply state there are people in GG that want to talk ethics, and do not call the ethics a "front". And regardless, that still means there's an ethics aspect. So to present it any other way is purposely twisting the reliable sources to soapbox an attack against against the GG movement to claim they are all directly engaged in harassement. WP cannot do that. The sources do not support this. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in the long term The list of sources is its own can of worms that hasn't even been opened yet. It paints a false picture of unanimity and overwhelming weight, when those sources are actually making distinct points about different parts of the controversy. I think this is a case where a change in the lede first needs to be supported by a change from below. The article needs to explain independently what various ethical claims are, and attach each specific rebuttal to each specific claim. Then a detailed list in the lede will be unnecessary, since the assertions are supported from below. Rhoark (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The sources make it clear that harassment has occurred under the Gamergate banner. But the depiction of the group is usually quite nuanced, and very few (if any?) reliable sources state that the group exists solely to conduct harassment against women. Further, there are now many known supporters of Gamergate who have been named in reliable sources (including developers, critics, journalists, etc.). To suggest that those individuals support a movement whose sole purpose is harassment is, I believe, problematic from a BLP perspective. While it's true that, so far, coverage of Gamergate has focused on harassment, it does not logically follow that Gamergate's sole focus is harassment. I think this is made abundantly clear in the sources, but maybe I'm reading different ones than everyone else. However, no matter how sensible this request is, I do not think this change will receive enough support on this talk page due to reasons that have been repeatedly discussed at WP:AE, so I'll wager that my vote of support is mostly symbolic. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• strong oppose there is no indication of any "membership" of any kind in any source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As far as I know, Gamergate does not collect membership dues, does not issue membership cards, and does not even have a generally accepted statement of principles that someone can endorse. Accordingly, how can we call someone a "member" of an amorphous disorganized leaderless harassment campaign? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the word "members" to refer to people in a group is common English (eg "members of the audience"); it does not beg the question if there is official "membership" as one would to an organization, etc. Using members also attributes that the harassment was being done by the people involved, not by the movement (which cannot do anything as a concept). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That knife cuts both ways. How can we describe it as organized harassment if there is no membership? The reality is that Gamergate is not one thing and different groups react differently. The industry did not react the same as Social Justice campaigners. Gamers did not react the same as Industry or Social Justice campaigners. One common thread is that everyone has condemned harassment so it seems very odd to identify anyone as being a member of harassment campaigns. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We dont describe it as an "organized movement" and neither do the sources. it is a bunch of trolls striking out against women using a hashtag and some people crying out BUT ETHICS!!! as cover using the same hashtag. thats not a "movement" and its certainly not "organized". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "teach the controversy"? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a neutral encyclopedia our goal is to explain what the controversy is but take no side on it, at all. That means being careful when some sources use superlative claims and other sources - equally as reliable - use more conservative, cautious claims. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cautious perhaps, but clarity also matters. And I still think your general thrust in this area runs toward OR and SYNTH. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teaching is not indoctrination. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wiki entry is supposed to teach? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support GamerGate has touched many aspects of gaming including journalism, development, consumers and characters. The harassment campaign is notable but the least compelling. Ultimately it is the beginning of an integration of female gamers, developers, characters and executives in the gaming industry and gamergate is the reason why both social justice revolution and female exclusion has failed. Currently the narrative is the assertion that there has been a social justice revolution but this is not borne out by facts that show existing female role models integrating their presence into game development and hiring. Indie/SJ game developers have never been more irrelevant as the industry reacts to GamerGate as a whole and AAA games provide the experience that the Indie scene thought they dominated. --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got RS to back this up? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose It is not our job to do public relations spin on behalf of an anti-feminist "movement". Gamergate is known for it's vicious harassment campaign. That's it. Anything else is PR whitewashing that we don't have strong sources to support. There's no membership, no solid plan, nothing - there's no way for us to determine that any one position (including "ethics!") is the actual, real platform of an amorphous, anonymous movement. So we can only look at the actions of the group, which are foul.--Jorm (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not PR spinning. This is recognizing that the most reliable sources like the NYTimes and WAPost do not consider the movement solely participating in harassment, which the currently lede implies. These sources are able to make statements that there's factions within GG, there's no reason we can't take the same approach to stay more neutral on the topic. Harassment is still the most apparent output of GG by RSes, no question, but that doesn't mean the only ppl involved in GG are directly engaged in harassment. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong indifference (it's a thing, I swear!) I can't understand all the hubbub and outrage this proposal has caused. The proposed change seems to keep the meaning exactly the same in my eyes. I disagree with Masem's description of the change: "in" and "by members of" both leave the question of how many members were involved present. Neither implies every single person involved in Gamergate is a harasser or in any way quantifies harassment. Bosstopher (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Oppose: While this doesn't do what Masem claims it does, I dont think "members" is a helpful word to use with regards to Gamergate. Bosstopher (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Normal Oppose This is a silly suggestion. Using 'members' to describe people in an anonymous group that anybody can join/leave at the drop of the hat is not good wording. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless you can specify what characterizes "membership" in an unorganized movement. It is not simply the use of a hashtag on Twitter as there are message boards and blog posts that argue for Gamergate issues that do not use the hashtag. Also, people who argue against Gamergate can use #Gamergate in messages order to identify the subject they are discussing and they are clearly not part of a pro movement.

If a person stops talking on social media about Gamergate, does that mean they no longer support the movement? Membership is self-ascribed which means it is not measurable or documented as we can not get inside people's heads to see if they identify with Gamergate or not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support According to this article, there were approximately ten thousand people who used this hashtag, only a few of whom have been shown to have engaged in harassment. It is not clear from the body of this article that all these people are guilty of harassment. It is not right to say they all harassed people. This is against the spirit of WP:BLP and constitutes guilt by association. This edit to the lead is a small acknowledgement of this fact. Chrisrus (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to identifiable living people, not anonymous online trolls. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many would we have to identify for you to agree that many are identifiable? Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't whether any people who have used the hashtag are identifiable; the issue is that BLP is only intended to apply to descriptions for individuals, not groups or categories. It can sometimes apply to very small groups, when the group is small enough that no distinction can be made between the group and individuals that make up that group; but when it's large, WP:BLPGROUP makes it explicit that BLP does not apply. Ten-thousand people would certainly put a group far out of the range where BLP could be applicable. (Otherwise, people could say "well, every political party or company or organization consists of people, and by insulting it you're insulting all those people, so BLP applies to this!" WP:BLPGROUP was specifically written as a response to the argument you're making here.) Additionally, note that it says that when there is doubt about characterizing a group in that manner, we should use high-quality sources; that is what the article does. Reporting the coverage of reliable sources as to the nature, goals, ideology, notable activity and purpose of a large group carries no serious risk of harm to individual people in that group; they are not being personally identified and therefore are not accorded any special protection. Some of them might disagree with that coverage, but our purpose as an encyclopedia is to report the general consensus of reliable sources; we accord a degree of special protection to individuals, who might suffer immediate harm from damage to their personal reputations, but a label or large group gets no such protection -- if they feel that reliable sources are covering them inaccurately, they must appeal to those sources, not to us. For BLP to apply, the group in question would have to be far, far smaller. --Aquillion (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. It's not the size of the group, but how well a likely reader separates a group from its members when we describe them as terrible people. More specifically, the spirit of BLP is to worry when our words can hurt people. Chrisrus (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as the potential for separating anonymous online trolls and sockpuppets is near zero, we are safe then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the reader cannot separate the guilty from the innocent, the later might be harmed. Many of these people are identifiable individuals. Are we accusing each one of wrongdoing? Chrisrus (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Does not improve the article or clarify anything. Artw (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. History-wise, the overarching coverage of reliable sources is that the anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate grew out of the campaign to harass Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian. At that point in the timeline (at least as described in our article), the harassment was not being performed by some members of a movement with other overarching goals; it's talking about how the Quinnspiracy evolved into GamerGate, so at that point going after Quinn was the movement. I will reiterate something I mentioned earlier and say that my personal suspicion as to why many people are confused by this is because people are going by different definitions of "harassment"; among reliable sources, the consensus is that the attacks against Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian -- especially Quinn, who is the main focus of coverage with regards to the history -- are transparently groundless; most sources are therefore going to take it as a given that any attempt to repeat or spread them is harassment via trying to destroy their reputations. That is, more concisely: Repeating ethical allegations against someone that you know to be false (or doggedly repeating allegations which you logically should know to be false, if you checked them) is a way of harassing them. Since, prior to Gamergate, this proto-movement was the Quinnspiracy, it's natural for that perspective to lead to reliable sources describing it as growing out of harassment of Quinn (and, later, a few others.) Even when it became GamerGate, most sources continue to describe it as a movement centered around harassment based on a similar logic -- to them, there is no divide between the people "pushing for ethics" and "harassment", because they've concluded that the ethical allegations are either trivial or transparently false and that people who continuously repeat them and attempt to push them against individuals are therefore using empty allegations as a way of harassing those individuals. The real crux of the disagreement you're talking about here therefore isn't "members of GamerGate say most of them weren't responsible for harassment", but "the people pushing the #Quinnspiracy say they didn't personally feel that what they were doing was harassment, even if the mainstream media said it was." It's an argument over definitions and semantics rather than facts, even if they're somewhat loaded semantics; but either way, we must go with the definitions used in the majority of reliable sources, which clearly take the position that the #Quinnspiracy stuff, at least, was straightforward harassment through and through. --Aquillion (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There are enough reliable sources making this distinction to make this is a legitimate issue and a worthwhile change. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Masem. Diego (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per sources. All of the "we can't be sure" and "maybe not all" hand-wringing is easily answered by Ars Technica, among others. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't contradict the Ars Tech sources. Working on the assumption they accept the logs as legit, Ars Tech's conclusion that 4chan users conspired to create harassment under the tag GG is clear. But even taking this as a fact, that does not mean that everyone involved in the GG movement entered it for the purpose of performing harassment. Only some, and we have documentation of others that entered GG and fight against that harassment as they don't accept it as a tool either. Taking the conservative stance is a requirement of NPOV. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

break

Observation: It is now clear that this proposal has no chance of gaining consensus. It should be closed and we should move on. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, given that there are good arguments based on reliable sources, the proper procedure should be to expand the discussion by requesting more uninvolved opinions. I think a Request for Comments would make sense, given that the suggested change to the wording is very specific. Diego (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

given that there are good arguments based on sources Where are you seeing these arguments based on sources? I see no sources. — Strongjam (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several provided by Masem in the reply to MarkBernstein. Diego (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that? I thought that was just a tangent, it didn't seem directly relevant to this change. Which frankly I'm indifferent to, although I'd suggest a synonym for "member" that doesn't have connotations of organization, maybe participant or such. — Strongjam (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any need for an RfC on an incredibly minor change to the lede that barely effects the sentences meaning? Seems a bit over the top.Bosstopher (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the next step listed in the WP:Dispute resolution policy for a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE when there's a stalled discussion like this one, as MarkBernstein pointed out. Diego (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a small change but it is significant to avoid assigning a WP:LABEL across the entire group of GG Supporters - that they started the movement purposely for harassment, given the sources identified earlier that shows that there are supporters that claim they are in the movement for the ethics. It leaves a conservative margin of error to avoid WP stating something as a fact that is sourced as contested in the RS. We cannot deny that there is a strong possibility that a number of GG supporters used the hashtag as a campaign for harassment - that's got some factual support in the sources (per Ars Tech review of Quinns IRC logs), but because of the haphazard way the movement grew, stating it was all for harassment is inaccurate. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Just as one example of why this might not be a great idea: are talk pages under a 1RR restriction, as @Diego Moya:’s notice at the top of this section suggests? I ask because custom holds that reverts -- in the normal sense -- are almost never done on talk pages, the exceptions being BLP violations and other impermissible content. So thoughtful readers will know that something is different here, but they won't know what they can and cannot do. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Masem writes above that "We cannot deny that there is a strong possibility that a number of Gamergate supports used the hashtag as a campaign for harassment." This is a very strange statement! The use of the Gamergate hashtag in harassment has been widely reported by many, many impeccable sources -- the New Yorker, the New York Times, The Boston Globe. This has been discussed here numerous times. Moreover, suggesting that there is only "a strong possibility" of harassment borders on a BLP violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) If I recall correctly. 1RR does not apply to the talk page. This was decided HJ Mitchell over the great press box edit war of early '15. I can't find a diff at the moment, so apologies if I'm wrong on this one. I see no reason to get into an edit war here on the talk page though. 2) I don't see that bordering on a BLP violation. It's an odd way to phrase it, but that's about it. There is a strong possibility I did not win the lottery this week (especially since I don't play.) — Strongjam (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the notice accordingly. (BTW, there was a few small edit wars at the talk page over the 500/30 rule and the hatting of threads IIRC). Diego (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Given that ArbCom has asked for more eyes to be involved, an RFC is nowhere close to being out of line. 1RR still applies, the warning on the talk of the page alerts that 30/500 edits and BLP concerns still applies, etc. Anything to open more discussion on entrenched views.

2) I never say that there is doubt there was harassment. That is 100% fact, harassment has happened and it has occurred by users of the GG hashtag, and that fact should not denied. What is in doubt is exactly who those users are relative to those that say that they support GG or that are part of the movement, and that say that the movement is about ethics/etc. No one knows for sure who is who, so we cannot 100% identify that everyone in the movement is there for the harassment - it is a possibility (albeit a very slim one). We still struggle with the definitions of what the "GG Supporters" or movement are, and this is a conflict that also exists in the reliable sources, with some saying anyone using the hashtag in a critical manner is part of the movement, while others focus only on the users discussing ethical aspects as part of the movement but not the harassers. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Legobot asked me to comment, and I have read all the new comments since I first commented here. I am still opposed to using the word "members". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "members" can be changed to "participants" or something else if that's the issue. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then: The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by participants of an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate.. This is not an endorsement on my part, but I wanted to see it in print. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly new. http://time.com/3923651/meet-the-woman-helping-gamergate-victims-come-out-of-the-shadows/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I added this (there was also a NYTimes bit on GTFO), and it was edited to add quoted, [48] this diff is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox to be used to condemn any group, period, regardless of the severity of their actions. We have more than enough sources that show general condemnation of the GG movement, we don't need yet another quote about it that it irrelevant to the documentary aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to have a quote like that there in this case, I think, to give an understanding of what the documentary's take on the situation is and what perspective it's written from. Without it, the impression it gives is that the documentary is saying "oh, GamerGate wasn't a big deal, because the harassment really just came from a larger cultural problem"; what she's actually saying (as I understand it) is that GamerGate, itself, was harassment, and that the harassment that makes up GamerGate should be seen in the context of a larger cultural problem that temporarily adopted #GamerGate as a label as one way to attack its victims. Covering this aspect is important because it defines the documentary's entire take on GamerGate, which is the reason it's being mentioned here at all; and because omitting her condemnation could give a misleading impression about what she's saying. --Aquillion (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can the quote that directly relates the documentary to the subject of this article be irrelevant? And it is not soapboxing to represent the fact that EVERYONE looks at the subject with complete disdain - it would be WP:NPOV violation to whitewash that fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is soapboxing. We do not take sides, so even if 99% of the press is clearly on one side of an issue, we have to remain neutral in tone and approach. That's required by NPOV. Otherwise, we are making WP involved and that's not our purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking sides. We are accurately representing that the director is in no uncertain terms stating her position on the subject of this article and her position is not that "its just something that happens" and we cannot misrepresent her position as if that is what she believes.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding her opinion of GG is not misrepresenting it. The fact we have excess number of sources that already condemn Gamergate means we do not need to repeat a condemnation given by any source, especially given the way that any opinion from a RS that is supportive of GG is heavily argued against inclusion - that is biasing and not being impartial. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really get where you're coming with from this at all. The paragraph is meant to explain how Gamergate relates to the documentary, the quote explains how Gamergate relates to the documentary. It's informative, not soapboxing. Bosstopher (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "terrible, terrible thing" is given in a standalone aspect, which makes it piling-on to the already covered facet from numerous sources on the public perception of GG - as currently included, it is yet another gab at GG and thus feels like soapboxing on how GG should be taken by the reader as bad. (They should come to their own conclusions without the help of WP's prose). Now, if there's a way that that quote or a different quote from the articles could be include to explain how the producer's feelings on the GG matter contributed to how it was included in the documentary, that might be reason to include. But just a quote of them saying "it's bad" without any other context beyond what we already have is just excessive. It goes back to the quotefarm issues before, where we were citing everyone left and right which was unwarranted. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will restore the latter half of the quote which was originally there so that it isn't just a quote saying it's bad.Bosstopher (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that, we should use the whole quote phrase instead of splitting it up since as it was added originally, it looked like two separate quotes. But the NYTimes version does say why she says it was a "terrible thing" in the same quote line, so that's fine as a single whole quote to address the point above. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Specifically "It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem." is the full quote, and I feel that "but it's actually"... is a key part of why GG is highlighted in GTFO. So the whole quote w/o interruption should be used). --MASEM (t) 23:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so like sores oozing foul smelling pus are symptomatic of gangrene. i guess its important to make that connection clear.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because just as gangrene is not the only reason one may have oozing pus (there are other reasons it could happen), the nature of GG could be representative of other things, things that we as WP cannot connect as it would be original research. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you justify ignoring Occam's Razor in this case with RS that doesn't go into UNDUE? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"GG is a symptom of a larger problem" is not a clear fact, though one I would certainly not deny and that claim is well documented all over. There is no clear reason why GG has happened that Occam's Razor would apply (there's no simple explanation). --MASEM (t) 02:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In it's current state in the article it's not clear what the film's connection with GG is beyond just sexism in videogames and that it was in production during the controversy. I'll take a try and making it a bit more clear what the connection is. — Strongjam (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feedback welcomed. — Strongjam (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/06/19/brianna-wu-we-are-winning-we-are-changing-the-games-industry ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ForbiddenRocky: If there is something about an edit[49] you feel needs discussion, you should start that discussion. Please look over WP:BRD and WP:ONLYREVERT for advice on reverting in a collaborative manner. By WP:POVNAMING it should be preferable to describe sections in simple, nominative terms, rather than using titles to advance a point of view (even the majority view). Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Had to step out. This had gone around before. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the top results that speaks to this point. If there are good reasons for keeping it the way it is, it should be possible to articulate those reasons. Rhoark (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE mainly. It's in the archive. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BRD. You need to justify your edit. Edits like it have been against consensus multiple times. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's UNDUE to use simple, nominative section titles instead of endorsing opinions about peoples' motivations? That's going to be a tough sell. Rhoark (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, creating a section just for this is UNDUE. Not to mention all the extra words - what we have now is good clear and concise. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the section is named as such because it encompasses more than just gamergator efforts to impact public perceptions via TFYC. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the splitting of that section in my edit. Rhoark (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any reason to split it into its own section. There were numerous efforts to impact public perception, of which this was just one; giving it its own section or going off on a tangent about the logistical details it involved is definitely WP:UNDUE, especially given the relatively slight attention this particular attempt seems to have garnished among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a reason, which is that the section title is endorsing an opinion. I'll edit to address just that, and then we can move on to the other matters. Rhoark (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; nothing in the section implies that there is any disagreement that those were efforts to impact public perception, and we cite several reputable news sources to that effect (meaning that we can state it as a statement of fact.) As far as I can tell, it is entirely uncontroversial fact, which means it's a violation of neutrality to describe it as an opinion per WP:YESPOV. There's nothing shameful or wrong about trying to impact public perceptions, either; it's not an accusation, merely a neutral reporting of what occurred according to all reliable sources. If you want to argue that it's controversial, you'll need to produce sources saying that those things were not intended to impact public perception in any way, which I don't think is an assertion anyone is seriously making. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Efforts to impact public perception" is a title that needs immediate changing, there's nothing POV about it to me, either. It's awkward-wording for a section title and there might be phrasing more succinct to capture it, but that's far different from a POV situation. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/gamergate-fail-the-rise-of-ass-kicking-women-in-video-games.html
• http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/22/john-oliver-tackles-gamergate-revenge-porn
• http://www.themarysue.com/john-oliver-internet-rant/
• http://time.com/3929724/john-oliver-internet-trolls-last-week-tonight/
• http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/06/john-oliver-internet-women-online-abuse
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-oliver-talks-online-harassment-804077
• http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/10/gamergate-explained Was there a reason this wasn't used?

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on E3 (and the noticeable increase in both female presence and female protagonists, which many commentators have commented on and linked to a backlash against GamerGate) to the industry responses section after digging up a few other sources to make sure that that perspective wasn't WP:UNDUE. The last Mother Jones piece seems like a valuable source in general; I don't know why it wasn't used, since it covers almost everything our article does in a lot of detail (at least up to the point it was published, although really, that E3 edit aside there haven't been many noteworthy developments since then.) The John Oliver bit is probably worth a mention, too, given the amount of coverage it got. --Aquillion (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Last Week Tonight" stuff I added yesterday to the last section. Keeping in mind that GG itself figured under less than a minute of a 20 minute segment on cyberharassment and revenge porn, out of longer episode, it's basically interesting to note it was brought up on a major comedy/commentary news show. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe the e3 female representation sentence should move to the gamer identity section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the sources are stating in their words and not as direct statements from any publisher/developer/expo organizer, I think leaving it where it is - about industry response - is better. There's nothing there to affirm the introduction of more female characters/larger female attendee proportion was intentional, which would be an aspect of addressing the gamer identity. Also a thing to keep in mind is that E3 is a closed event, limited to press and industry reps, and not the usual gamer population (save for a small # that the ESA allowed this year for the first time), the E3 proportions aren't really reflective of the gamer identity today. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, http://techraptor.net/content/gamergate-really seems to be a potential source for this article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Chrisrus (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position, there is a relevant RSN discussion. Also, in this pages archives. — Strongjam (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with the points User:Woodroar made in the RSN discussions. Techraptor doesn't seem to be a reliable source. However that article's mention of the HuffPo interviews has reminded me of something. Should we use statements from Gamergate supporters in the Huffpo interviews, to better describe what they portray themselves as? (Should I split this into another topic section?) Bosstopher (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Should I split this into another topic section?". Yes. — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My perception of TechRaptor has declined somewhat since bringing them to RSN. Other sources should be preferred. However, I do not agree with applying exceptional standards to sources with uncontentious claims. TechRaptor should be usable in principle for uncontentious claims and describing points of view. I do not think there is a claim which at present needs to be represented in the article for which TechRaptor is the best available source. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TechRaptor? You mean the site whose editors post in KiA and who coordinated the subjects of their articles on GamerGate in the same IRC chats discussed by Ars Technica? To be fair, I don't consider either of these illegal or necessarily unethical, but it does make them the exact opposite of an independent source. By comparison, TechRaptor makes Kotaku—which is "involved" simply by being the recipient of childish harassment based on debunked claims—look like the most independent bunch of independents that ever independented. I actually discovered this less than a week ago, or else I would have mentioned it in the RSN discussion linked above. But even without these details, TechRaptor lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require of our independent sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Totilo, Kotaku editor-in-chief, posts in KiA too. Almost like its a open forum where people can civilly discuss game journalism. And the IRC logs are as much a tempest in a teapot as GameJournoPros was. TechRaptor would certainly be involved with respect to some claims that could be made, but at the moment no claims are being made, so its a moot point. Rhoark (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the above section, do you folk think there's anything that can be got out of the Huffpo Live gamergate discussions (such as this one)[53] for the article? The big issue here is that there is no one person who represents Gamergate, so it would be hard to decide what weight to give a certain GG supporter's statements. Would perhaps the discussion including Brennan be one of the more useful ones? His opinions would be worth mentioning regarding the intersect between 8chan and gamergate. Bosstopher (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a transcript? I don't have the patience to sit through a video. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find one and it's been half a year since I watched this (how time flies!). I'll rewatch tomorrow and come back with proposals. Apologies for bringing this up without looking through things properly. Just sort of got reminded about it by the above section. Bosstopher (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... no one person who represents Gamergate, so it would be hard to decide what weight to give a certain GG supporter's statements." What a can of worms. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, there is a reasonably assumption of reporter reliability that if a RS says "we have interviewed people we think are part of the GG movement even though its anonymous and unorganized", we should be able to trust that the reporter has done as much possible background checking to make sure it is not some random person pretending to be as such. Case in point: Singal's famous dive into KIA to try to get a feel - Singal's expresses the concern he didn't know who he was talking to but does believe he learned about GG from the proGG side. I'm not 100% sure of that credibility to the Huffington Post (which while a RS is still struggling to establish itself) for this specific facet. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-arkham-knight-includes-reference-gamergate-1507896 - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added that from an MCV source at the end. I would not be surprised if there are other sources that will come out in the future on it. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a little bit to clarify what the gist of the parody was. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2014, Twitter announced a collaboration with the non-profit group "Women, Action & the Media" (WAM), in which users of Twitter can report harassment to a tool monitored by WAM members, who would forward affirmed issues to Twitter within 24 hours.

This report was released in May: [54]. Radiodef (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this (though had read it before). It seems to downplay how much presence GG harassment was (in that they only found it was 12% of all reported cases), but still appropirate to include to note the report finished. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the finding is specifically that 12% of harassing accounts were linked to GG by inclusion in the autoblocker list. Radiodef (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I noticed is their population is skewed. The reporters had to specifically report to WAM! and they didn't have to be the recipients of the harassment. It seems that it is very difficult to deskew that into any meaningful number that has statistical significance. That method is very prone to bias (very much like an online poll from a site that generally attracts a specific segment rather than a representative sample). It appears to be a way to motivate Twitter to deal better with harassment. Not sure anything about GamerGate is numerically pertinent other than it coincided in time with the survey. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The first thing I noticed is their population is skewed." The sample of reports is limited. What impact, if any, this has on the findings is entirely speculative. I have serious doubts about whether such speculation is something we should be doing as Wikipedians. WAM is, as far as I know, a respectable and notable organization. What's more important is that we accurately portray the nature of the report. Personally I think the number is interesting, because it gives a ballpark estimate of how much Twitter harassment comes from GamerGate. Radiodef (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this shows the problem of relying on WP:PRIMARY sources. There are cases where we can use them, but it can be tricky, especially for raw statistics like these. For instance, when you're saying "it gives a ballpark estimate", that's your opinion, not a fact (and putting it in the article would make an implicit statement of "this number is meaningful and relevant to the topic, look at it and draw conclusions from it.") For that reason, it's best to wait until we have reliable secondary sources that we can use to put raw statistics in context and analyze what they mean; for an editor to say "I don't feel the meaning of these numbers is as clear" is a reasonable objection to a primary source. If the paper itself provided some details on the meaning or significance of those numbers, we could use those, but since it doesn't, I don't see how we could include them in the article in any useful way. (Is 12% a lot? Is it a little? How does this compare to other hashtags or sources of harassment? Etc etc etc. We can't say or even imply any answers to any of those questions without treading into WP:OR, and without the ability to answer them the numbers are pretty useless.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is getting into OR, but a point the report makes is that a majority of harassment on Twitter during their sampling period was not related to GG, even though when they announced this report, they and other sources thought GG was in the spotlight (eg [55]). No, we can't say that exactly but we should document the report being done (which was big news) and this result without any added comment beyond explaining how they quantified the number. The reader can infer from the data if this means anything. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not OR to point out their own, cited, deficiencies. Page 41 titled "Limitations" in section 1.7 shows a number of uncorrectable samples. The lack of GG harassment may be notable but it's pretty clear from their own analysis that their methods are insufficient for any statistical report. --DHeyward (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If the paper itself provided some details on the meaning or significance of those numbers, we could use those, but since it doesn't, [...]." Yes, it does: "Although WAM!’s reporting period occurred during the controversy, only 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts could be linked to GamerGate." Radiodef (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is 12% of all the accounts reported as harassing to WAM were linked to Gamergate. There are other people who harass (alas) and of course not all harassment was reported to WAM. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, it is 12% of the accounts responsible for 811 incidents during November. The WAM report itself is geared more towards the types of harassment and what Twitter did in response, less towards GG. Radiodef (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed the above discussion and gather that there is a problem with primary sourcing. A quick Google News search shows an article in Fast Company that covers the results reasonably well:

• A Snapshot of How Twitter Deals with Online Harassment

I hope this will be useful. --TS 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The one part of that FC article that stands out is what I was implying above - the amoutn of GG-related harassment turned out smaller than some had expected. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reasonable conclusion to draw. The nature of the study means that you cannot determine anything about the percentage of harassment. The only thing that can be drawn is about the nature of the specific tweets reported to WAM, and in that case the only solid statement that can be made is the "12% of harassment reported to WAM came from accounts that had been linked to GamerGate". Anything else - such as whether or not this is a significant or insignificant proportion of GamerGate supporters, how this relates to Twitter harassment on the whole, and whether or not 12% is a significant number - cannot be drawn from the study. For those statements to be made, the study would have had to be based on sampling a statistically significant number of tweets and looking for instances of harassment, rather than following up on reported cases. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it's not reasonable for us to conclude this from the phrasing of the sources, or that it's not reasonable for the sources to conclude this from the data? Radiodef (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was stating, and I believe Bilby was also stating, that the source makes no statement about the extent of harassment in the world, or the proportion of harassment that stems from Gamergate, or the proportion of Gamergate supporters (whatever that would mean) who have engaged in harassment. It makes no statement about any of these questions because the data do not support any statement. It is meaningless (as I think Masem knows) to say "the amount of Gamergate-related harassment turned out smaller than some had expected" because the study was not capable of measuring the total amount of harassment, nor the amount of Gamergate-related harassment, and how would we know what "some" had expected? The study also did not indicate how many Gamergaters play saxophones. Let's stop this. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/gamergate_attacks_racegender_baiters_like_apple_for_pulling_confederate_themed_games_from_app_store/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to see an article that didn't just present its message as various twitter replies but actually analyzed/summarized the issues, but this would still be something to include. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They did. It pretty clearly states Apple’s decision to remove games featuring the Confederate flag from the App Store is drawing the ire of GamerGaters, who see this as yet another attempt by those on the left to muzzle expression they don’t approve of.(sic). It's an article about GamerGate concerned about so-called "social justice warriors." It certainly isn't the narrative of WP's article, though it's closer to the actual beliefs. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never meant we can't use it, just that I'd prefer if we could get a better source that explains or tried to explain everything by just presenting tweets and leaving the reader to figure out their meaning (since some of the tweets use wording/presentation approaches that are ingrained in the Internet culture but not clear to all users). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's terrible writing, but perhaps there will be another article. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)“It’s closer to the actual beliefs.” -- how would you know? How would anyone? We do not make windows into Gamergate souls. We can only know their actions -- chiefly harassing women in computing, true, but here (apparently) taking some time from that great work to support the flag of the purported Confederate States of America. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect of the Gamergate controversy that is most noteworthy is the harassment of women. There is no disagreement on that point. It has been explained to you - repeatedly and patiently - that the most reliable sources report that the activities and attitudes that are most prevalent under the label of Gamergate are opposition to censorship, or political correctness that is feared might lead to censorship. Your continual WP:NOTGETTINGIT is bordering on disruptive. Rhoark (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you assert that hard enough, Rhoark, you'll convince people one day. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that the assertion of the twitter tag here is not about harassing women in this article. Though not sure why Wu would antagonize them with GG tweet. This is an article about the anti-social justice aspect of GG. It speaks to broader themes that have recurred such as "ethics in journalism" as it relates gaming journalists being cozy with social justice advocates, as well as other themes such as opposing pushes for politically correct portrayals in games that are inherently not politically correct. These are not new themes and reflects why the article is in such poor shape and also why an out-of-the-blue article that highlights it is easily understand by most readers without confusing them about what GG is. If you are confused because there was no rape and death threats, you aren't getting it. --00:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no way to judge -- and no reliable source to my knowledge has attempted to judge -- what attitudes are most prevalent under the label of Gamergate. How would anyone know what is most prevalent? How would we measure prevalence? Has Mr. Gallup conducted a poll of Gamergaters? If you believe that this is disruptive, please: AE is thataway ---> The Gamergate boards are all chattering today that my scalp is their next target, so be their hero and my guest. But this page is not that page: here we discuss the article and the sources, and no source reports a reliable survey of the attitudes of Gamergaters. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the article and sources is precisely what I think you should do. Mr. Gallup has not conducted a poll, but Mr. Bokhari has. To use it in the article it would need a consensus that he is an expert, but to use it to guide editorial decisions is perfectly permissible. For statements in the article, there are plenty of reliable sources that have sought opinions from people who identify with gamergate, singly or in aggregate. Do you need a link to my list? Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already cover the position you're referring to, I think. The problem is that reliable sources have near-universally described it as a conspiracy theory or words to that effect -- see NYmag, CS monitor, Forbes, washington post, Ars Technica and The Guardian, among others. Our coverage must reflect that; we can't take one or two editorials and treat it as equally valid, since giving every position equal weight is actually a violation of WP:NPOV. Almost no reliable or reputable sources give any credence to the idea that the "progressive conspiracy" angle has any basis in fact; we touch on the bare one or two editorials that do, but it would be WP:UNDUE to treat the opinions of those editorials as having weight equal to the entire rest of the mainstream media. And it would be undue to even discuss it in those terms at too much length; we have to weigh aspects of the controversy according to the attention they received in reliable sources and according to the relative prominence and reliability of those sources. If you believe that Bokhari's editorials contain some dramatic revelation, you could send them to other major news outlets in hopes that they'll cover them, but it would be WP:UNDUE to devote huge amounts of time to his beliefs here. Even if you're not citing him directly, using his editorials as a justification to say "well, our article insufficiently shows what Bokhari says is the real issue here, so we need to add more on..." is clearly undue weight to his personal conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which you mean. I'm talking about the poll of Gamergate political attitudes at gamepolitics.com, which it unfortunately disclaims as Bokhari's opinion. Rhoark (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Mr,. Bokhari was a pollster or a social scientist! How did he select the sample population for his poll? What method of statistical sampling did he adopt? What margin of error was reported? I overlooked all that! An interview with one or two people who say they are representative of Gamergate has no claim to represent the prevalent or preponderant opinions of Gamergate, any more than an interview with a colorful sign-waving fellow in Tulsa necessarily represents the prevalent opinions of the Republican party. Preponderant requires measuring a numerator and a denominator; to the best of my knowledge, we have neither. What we do have -- all we have -- are the notable activities of people calling themselves Gamergate; these are amply discussed in the sources and well represented here. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible grouping here with another trending aspect: Tauriq Moosa

The Mary Sue regarding the issue around Tauriq Moosa, a freelancer that wrote an article regarding some lack of racial diversity in video games, which led to him getting harassment under the GG hashtag but others standing up against this for him. I want to think there have been other cases, beyond the flag issue about and this, where harassment like this has come from side issues not directly related to sexism/gender. But I'm not 100% sure if we can work this in, in addition would be nice to have another source or the like to confirm this since Moosa's written for Mary Sue; since the story seems to be breaking now, it might be a day or two to see more. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate seems to increasingly be encompassing ever broader aspects of intolerance, such as racism. Would these two sources be enough for including this development in the article? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the direction, I'd like to see one or two more sources backing up these two points (the Moosa incident I'm sure we'll hear more soon about from RSes), but's that's the suggestion I was going for. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and it's quite the leap to now claim racism. The intolerance is for political correctness in arenas that inherently are not politically correct. When the opposition was to game ratings and rap lyric censorship proposed by Tipper Gore, et al,, it was the same demographic that fought it. It's not intolerance, it's tolerance for anything someone wants to create with objective reviews of the material. There are many gender and racial barriers broken by that demographic flocking to material that entertains them. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watched some of this unfold and that article appears inaccurate. As I understand it, the hashtag was hijacked in retaliation to Moosa's Twitter activity today, not over the article (which was published 3 weeks ago). I would definitely wait until more sources back up the story. Radiodef (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2207377/gamergate-drives-critic-tauriq-moosa-off-twitter/ , but I'm unfamiliar with inquisitr.com WRT RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is an opinion piece: fact + opinion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one does explain GG's beef with Moosa's article which is useful. But it also calls GG's tweets "too inappropriate for publication anywhere" which smells WP:BIASED if we actually go look at the tweets. I saw a racist-looking cartoon and some softcore hentai but most of it is pretty tame. Radiodef (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the quality of the writing of the inquistr piece - picking apart the fact and opinion is not easily done. "I saw a racist-looking cartoon and some softcore hentai but most of it is pretty tame" OR v. RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion, and inaccurate opinion at that. Neither of these articles are adequate to support a contentious claim. Rhoark (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely suggesting we exercise caution in deciding what information to include and how to include it. Viewing the tweets ourselves to assess the opinion of the article is no different from viewing any other public record. Radiodef (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[56]. While Huffington Post (a site that I personally try to replace but use if necessary), the article is penned by William Cheng, an associate professor at Dartmouth College (read: not a random person). Importantly, he stresses that both sides are at fault that GG is continuing as it is, though placing blame on anyone (either side) that threatens but "find[s] safe harbor in excuses about verbal and playful make-believe, shirking all responsibility and reality." (Yes, more of that from the GG side, but he refers to the DC meetup bomb threat in the same tone as the other harassment and threats that have been issued). --MASEM (t) 06:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not just the Huffington Post, it's the Huffington Post blogs. It's an opinion piece (more technically, a WP:NEWSBLOG) so I don't think it's usable as a source. (You can see a related discussion about using the Huffington Post blogs as a source here.) It definitely cannot be used for statements of fact; it could possibly be used for statements of the author's opinion, but I'm not seeing why their opinion is particularly relevant -- I don't think just being an associate professor at Dartmouth makes them someone whose opinion is automatically important to the subject. Regardless, we probably want to avoid having the article swarmed with opinion pieces the way it once was. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HP Blogs would be SPS but that would not mean that an "expert" or otherwise core involved party to GG that used that to publish would not become unusable; eg if Quinn decided to publish a piece on there about GG, it would certainly be a RS for us despite the SPS nature. I don't disagree that just being an associate profession who had yet to appear as part of the GG narrative is necessarily an expert, but it is an opinion that might be seen in the future by others, and if that is the case, would make this a source to include in paraphrase (eg w/o long quotes) with the other opinions. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could see if he has a published paper on this. The HuffPo blog is odd. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication of Prof. Cheng's field of study? And do we feel it would make a difference to the usefulness of the source? E.g. if a professor of mathematics, then not really different from a "random person"; if related to the subject matter, then potentially more germane. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's an Assistant Professor of Music. Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So normally you wouldn't use this source, but you'll make an exception because it implicates both sides in GG. That's neutrality. I salute you. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's just move on. Yes, it would be great if due diligence were our watchword, but as we're under discretionary sanctions we're also supposed to avoid antagonising one another.

And yeah, due diligence before proposing content should be our best practice. We're not newcomers. --TS 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on this controversy at TotalBiscuit#Consumer advocacy appears to be written from the non-neutral point of view of GamerGate supporters — stating that the video that started the controversity was one on which Quinn was "discussed" without any mention of its false and misogynistic attacks, claiming that TotalBiscuit was "attacked on twitter" for his support of this video, pushing the ethics in journalism aspect of the case, and claiming that the misogynistic attacks associated with GamerGate were isolated instances unrelated to the actual movement. Might be worth a look, paying the same attention to neutral reporting of high-quality mainstream sources that editors here have been doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Aware of the paragraph. The video in question there is not the same video as the one that Baldwin was talking about when he coined the term, not sure what the video actually contained though. — Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. In any case we should go by what the actual sources say about the video, which in this case is that it was "discussing the subject" (i.e. the controversy) rather than Quinn herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest removed [57] a quote from Brianna Wu, with an edit comment that read "Brianna Wu is not an industry expert, so her opinion should not be cited for video game history." According to Wikipedia, "Brianna Wu is an American video game developer. She cofounded Giant Spacekat, an independent video game development studio with Amanda Warner in Boston, Massachusetts. She is also a blogger and podcaster on matters relating to the video game industry." A quick Google reveals articles by Brianna Wu, or about her work in the game industry, published in Inc, Bustle, Jezebel, VentureBeat, The Boston Globe, Polygon, The Guardian, Kotaku, and WBUR.

On the other hand, just above we have a seemingly serious proposal that a music professor be treated as an expert.

I suggest that the edit summary ought to be oversighted. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious to me that she is an industry expert. However, no need to oversight this. Reasonable people can disagree about a persons credentials. — Strongjam (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wu is definitely an industry expert in terms of game development and running a studio (and certainly unintentionally as a target of harassment). However, one can ask if that is sufficient credentials to be able to comment on the industry as a whole particularly for "30 years"; Journalists, who are those that should study the history of the field, would be more suited than a developer. I personally have no issue with keeping the quote since it's not out of aligned with others in that same para, but there's absolutely nothing requiring revdel or the like - as a tertiary source it is our place to be asking fair questions about expertise as it relates to reliable sourcing and weight of those reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's barely thirty years old herself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)She has no research background, only her personal experience. She's just an independent developer who has made comments on the industry that are simply her own views. There are thousands of independent developers with essentially identical credentials. I'm honestly a bit amazed at the claim that someone being a blogger and a podcaster makes them an expert on anything other than their own opinions. There are thousands of bloggers and podcasters that we do not consider reliable sources. And to be clear, founding a game studio gives you no special industry expertise. The point is, we should be quoting someone who has some research, not someone who has an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that she has reasonable experience with the technical side of development. I'm focusing on expertise with the industry as a whole, and its history. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like reliable sources treat her as an expert w.r.t. sexism in the industry.

• SF Gate
• Bustle
• Bloomberg

Strongjam (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu is unquestionably an expert in terms of reliable sourcing; however, as a source who is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, we should not be relying on her for the kind of contextualization in this edit. Rhoark (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By this reasoning, Gamergate fans could disqualify any woman as a qualified expert on the subject of her own profession, simply by sending her some anonymous threats of rape or murder. I wonder how many editors who are arguing Wu is not an expert previously argued that Somers (not involved in the game industry, no special training or expertise) is? Or Auerbach? There's a technical name for anecdotal evidence from extensive experience: History. And every good executive understands the history of their profession, even if they themselves are under 30. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we have to be careful that "receiving harassment" immediately disqualifies a source but does affect how dependent the source becomes. We do have to be aware that as one of the most central figures of the situation, Wu's take is dependent, which doesn't mean it's not usable, but that we should try to make sure to use her opinions in context of other similar opinions in discussing the nature of the GG situation (her statements on what she experienced directly, that's fine to use). I'm sure there are other sources we've used that have also received some type of GG harassment but this has hardly affected them as central parties to the GG situation, so they're still sufficiently independent. (For example, Tim Schafer's role in Gamergate is so small as it would not make his comments fully dependent, though obviously he hasn't made any further comments).

Separately, the best way we judge expertness is to look at what that person has produced as reports/stories, etc. on that topic before in reliable sources. Somers is an expert on gender, feminism, and sexism studies, so her takes on how the GG situation overlaps with those areas is clearly in line as an expert. Auerbach is a proven journalist on discussing "on the media" topics, so his take on press and reporting aspects is appropriate. Wu has not produced anything comparable to either of these so we have no way to readily judge her expertise. She clearly has entrepreneur skills to run a game development company, so on the topic of game development and operations, yes, she's be an expert. But you can't assume that every executive knows the history of their profession, and Wu hasn't produce any work for us to evaluate in this manner. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's just a single quote from her with in-text attribution, I think it's all right. At this point (even if it's mostly because of the controversy) she's clearly a noteworthy commentator on the subject of gender politics as they relate to the game industry. Additionally, maybe more importantly, it's in the context of discussing the views of several other noteworthy commentators in order to establish and summarize a widely-held position; in that context, there's less risk of putting undue weight on her views. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about context is a fair one. By that same token, I don't see any mention of the study that came out a couple months ago saying there's no link between gaming and sexism. I've looked through the archives and don't see any previous conversation about it either. I'd say an actual study should be given more weight, or at least as much weight, as what are essentially opinions based on anecdotes. I'd like to work out a place to add some information from that source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note [58] Link to the actual study though the full text is behind paywall, but it is a peer-review published work.) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Study not really useful here I think. It was looking at if playing games had any link to sexist attitudes amongst Germans who played video games and found no link between the amount or type of games played. I don't really see where that would be useful for this article. — Strongjam (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Gamergate fans apparently argue above that having received harassment makes someone's viewpoint “dependent” (on what?) and thus questionable. This is a convenient policy for Gamergate, as (for example) I know of no female critic of Gamergate who has been reliably reported not to have received disturbing messages or experienced other harassment; the proposed policy would presumptively exclude all women in the game industry from expertise with the possible exception of outspoken Gamergate fans. And, in fact, we propose replacing or balancing this female expert with a male expert who once told a joke at an awards banquet. We argued days ago to include an editorial opinion from a music professor, but here want to exclude the opinion of an experienced industry executive. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the degree of involvement that is the matter of concern, as well as context; as described at WP:IS the more involved a person is to an event, the higher the chance that their writing on that event will be biased; it does not invalidate the use of that person's writing as a reliable source but we need to be aware that these sources will have more potential bias than others. This is why when it comes to Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian, we have to be aware that as key targets of prolonged harassment, they likely have a very swayed view of GG and the reasons behind it. Their opinions are useful to include but should not be presented in isolation due to their involvement. Just receiving a harassing message in no way makes that person involved (they can't control that), so the idea that viewpoints could be eliminated simply by being sent harassing messages is a bogus idea. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- it's only speaking out about the rape threats that vitiates or invalidates their opinions? Is reporting the threats to the police sufficient to cast doubt on their opinions, provided that they don’t give interviews and are otherwise demure and well-behaved? Or does that show they're too involved? Isn't it conceivable that, having viewed Gamergate's only notable activity at close hand, they have a better view than, say, a conservative pundit working in a DC think-tank? And, again, Gamergate can by your proposed policy devalue or discredit any person’s opinion and expertise -- or at least any woman’s -- by sending a few anonymous Twitter messages. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a dependent source is not a invalid source. It simply means we have to be aware that dependent sources will have a higher likelihood of bias and we should be careful of their use as isolated statements; the more they are involved, the more this possible bias will increase, and as editors we just have to be aware of this as documented at WP:IS. Simply being a target of harassment on Twitter, or even reporting this harassment to authorities, is nowhere close to sufficient to make someone so involved to invalidate their statements. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, neither receiving rape threats, reporting rape threats, or objecting to the threat of being raped (I'm just assuming that you think it's OK for victims to object to rape threats, do correct me if I'm mistaken ) are sufficient to lead us to question the validity of the expert’s views of her profession. In that case, why are you raising the question? Since the rape threats make no difference in our assessment of Brianna Wu’s expertise, why are we discussing this?MarkBernstein (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]