Talk:Zoë Quinn: Difference between revisions

Contested deletion 2

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

I've added additional details to show her importance. Besides her role in Depression Quest and the subsequent harassment, she:

1) produced the first Twine game released on Steam

2) took part in the failed YouTube indie game developer game_jam reality tv show

3) created the Game Developer Help List to bring together veteran and novice game developers

Hopefully this provides sufficient evidence of her importance, particularly to the indie video game community!

Thank you,

--ShaunEdmonds (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

96.127.244.224 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)So based on that list, she did not in fact do anything of importance at all.

Deletion

Why hasn't this wiki been deleted yet? Even JonTron's wiki keeps getting deleted and he's much bigger than her. 8:08 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.48.114 (talk)

What, you want to delete the whole of Wikipedia? ;) Joking aside, your answer is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Quinn. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the deletion page. If you work in the games industry long enough, chances are you have plenty of articles talking about you or interviewing you, etc. There are at least hundreds of more "notable game developers" out there with more interviews and press mentions involving games they have worked on (and no wikipedia page). They're just not on twitter, so people don't know who they are. I think the problem is "notability" for a person (these days) really means "social media famous" rather than "demonstrably important in their industry." And indeed, Zoe is famous for social media advocacy on certain topics, not for the game she has made. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not criticizing her game or her fame... but I think over time we're going to see an increasing dilemma with individuals we feel are noteworthy (because they're Internet-famous and a lot of people know who they are) and trying to find some tenuous logic to keep their page under the current notability rules. And this gets back to self-promotion. In this new landscape where income is a function of followers, *everything you do* is self-promotion in some sense, and everything said about you impacts your income one way or another... and I don't want this to be misinterpreted as a value judgement here, rather it's just the way things work. It used to be "you need money to make money" and now it's "you need to be famous to get famous." The real long-term question is, what should the modern metric for personal notability actually be? Lasati (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you read closely enough. In her deletion discussion, I listed 4-5 independent, reliable sources that reported about her. None of them twitter. She passed per the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea I read it. My point was that if you consider Kotaku and RPS "reliable newsworthy sources," then a countless number of people in the games industry who don't have wikipedia pages meet that requirement. Heck, I meet that requirement. And quite frankly, if you are a design lead or sub-lead or producer on enough AAA titles, chances are someone from Kotaku or RPS, etc interviewed you at some point. Now I'm not saying I deserve a wikipedia page -- I don't. And that's my point... Wikipedia should probably pick a notably requirement that doesn't include me. :) Because nobody knows who I am (or honestly cares). But this is not a function of news articles, this is a function of social media and what it means to notable in 2014. And also, that Kotaku and RPS interviews/mentions lots of people in the industry. I'm not saying Zoe isn't notable, I'm saying if she is notable it's not because of mentions on those sites. Lasati (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, Sergecross, my point is that Zoe is notable because of twitter and social media and her advocacy there, and the reaction to her advocacy on gaming forums. Thats how people know who she is. Not because of news articles. And that's a weakness with wikipedia's notability, that's all I'm saying. Lasati (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:N ≠ famous. They often go hand-in-hand, but not always, and one can also be notable for one thing and famous for another. Zoe Quinn was notable as a developer prior to being famous, though it was the fame that led someone to write an article about her. I would imagine that's usually the case. Woodroar (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how was Zoe notable as a developer (enough to warrant a wikipedia page) prior to being famous? What separates her from everyone else that has 3-4 interviews on independent gaming sites? In what way (other than internet fame) is she more notable? Give me a set of criteria that doesn't also include a ton of people you've never heard of, that nobody thinks deserves a wiki page. Because the only criteria I can think of that distinguishes her is fame achieved through social media advocacy (and being well-known on various online communities), since lots of people in the industry have articles written about them on gaming sites. Lasati (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources in this article from prior to August 2014 when searches on her skyrocketed. If you're concerned that articles don't exist for others who may meet our general notability guidelines, then feel free to create them. But please understand that other stuff exists is a terrible argument: given infinite time, we'd have perfect articles on every notable subject, but we're unpaid volunteers with limited lifespans. Woodroar (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not about that. So please consider what I have to say here, and try to have a neutral POV about this. Also let me put it in a different way, and I'll use myself as an example as someone completely not-notable. I've worked in AAA (and indie) for many years, so I've been interviewed in that capacity by the gaming media. There are at least a dozen articles about me floating out there from sites that pass the notability requirement. This is normal -- there are a lot of gaming sites out there, and a lot of slow news days. But I *guarantee* you if someone for whatever reason made a wiki page about me, you would advocate for deletion because you've never heard of me and have no idea who I am, and you would call it self-promotion. You would call me not notable, and you would be right (don't make me go through a charade to prove the point). I guarantee it, because a couple of articles in the gaming press alone is not evidence of notability. That fact means the notability litmus test being claimed here is flawed, and indeed the news cycle is vastly different for video games such that non-notable people (like me) have more than 3-4 articles about them. The real reason Zoe is notable (and and we are even having this discussion, and a miles-long talk page) is because of the social media advocacy and the rising popularity of social justice issues, and the harassment stuff, and really her presence within that conversation. Basically, twitter and message boards. Not because she worked on a game that got released on steam that somebody wrote an article about. To think that is in any way notable, in my mind, is really absurd. Lasati (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Or to look at things from a completely different angle, do you *really* want every game developer with 3-4 articles about them to come here and write a wikipedia page about themselves? And then use the standard laid out here for why they're notable (when clearly they're not)? Lasati (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the subject certainly shouldn't write an article about himself or herself, but if there are multiple sources that meet our criteria for reliability about the subject, then I would absolutely !VOTE to keep the article. This doesn't happen so much with video games, but I find the majority of the music I listen to through watching several list articles on bands. Often times they barely meet our requirements, maybe via articles in Maximumrocknroll or Decibel, and these are bands that will never get played on commercial radio or win a Grammy or release a music video that goes viral. And I'm cool with that, both the existence of just-notable subjects, and notable-but-not-famous subjects. Woodroar (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. I appreciate the consistency, which indeed was my concern. Now I have a vision of taking every random person I know in the industry with a few interviews (I can think of a ton off the top of my head, just from my last AAA job) and giving them a wikipedia entry. The bands is a good analogy. I'll get to it after *this* current thing blows over. It's actually a project with merit -- documenting every dev with an article (there will be tens of thousands at least, so maybe crowdsource?). But the industry is (in)famous for keeping devs in obscurity who also don't coincidentally have good social media skills... and it's only those devs who people know. So this could be a really positive thing, because our industry sucks at representation. Lasati (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one clarification that I hadn't addressed, and it may be important: interviews alone do not have broad support across Wikipedia as they stray into primary source territory. An ideal, watertight source will be about the subject—i.e., not solely about their project—and show some element of journalistic research, something like this article in Wired. (And hey, he has no article on Wikipedia!) The best type of interview you'll find is something like this—with some biographical background first and followed up with questions about him—which is great for rounding out an article but may not be clear-cut for establishing notability. Just a head's up. Woodroar (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Unprofessional conduct

No WP:RS for this. Dreadstar ☥ 03:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would go as far as to say, if we can talk about it on Bill Clinton's page, we can post it here? It's relevant controversy, and goes further than defamation. Zoe Quinn's Lewinsky Scandal [7] 24.170.47.108 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Completely agree. If people think this page is such of valid importance, her notorious cheating scandal should at least be mentioned. It was all over reddit when it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.206.96.149 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.67.218 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.186.150 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.160.76 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Fifth. I logged in to do it myself, to override the lock, but I would rather that the very public information be handled in a way that reflects more consensis. "The Link." http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/ The Zone Post. Artoftransformation (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Sixthed. 118.209.21.232 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Disagree. To publish information on Wikipedia, that info can't merely be high-profile in an online self-publishing community. It must also be covered by a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia policy states: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For non-scholarly examples of these sources, it lists: "university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers, [and] electronic media, subject to the same criteria." In other words, even if the whole planet is buzzing excitedly about something that allegedly or actually happened, that info can't go on Wikipedia until a reputable outlet reports on it. That may seem like an unfair or limiting restriction, especially if you perceive an event or rumor as very notable, but it keeps the quality of accuracy of Wikipedia much higher. The website "thezoepost" is not a secondary source, it's primary, it's not from a reliable outlet, and it's self-published. So even if the content is very interesting or widely disseminated, it's not usable. A bigger outlet has to cover it. 75.119.242.175 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC) This. The places covering this do not count as reliable per Wikipedia's rules, so we can't use them to source the article. And even if this did somehow appear in more reliable sources, we would have to be very careful about how, and if, we covered it. That is because Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy forbids editors from passing on gossip. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 100% agree! Either the Article is important because of this and it gets included, or the article is not important and gets deleted! Without details about the corruption scandal in the gaming journalism industry she has part in, the article lacks importance! Anybody (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC) @Anybody: We've had this discussion already, and the article was kept - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Quinn. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Here is a reference link for the Controversy subsection:

Wirtanen, Josh (17 August 2014). "Phil Fish Goes on Epic Twitter Crusade to Defend Zoe Quinn". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

I think the Controversy subsection should be rewritten to be more neutral, i.e.:

In August 2014, an ex-boyfriend alleged that Zoe Quinn had had affairs with various video game journalists, developers, and content creators. His blog post led to an online controversyWirtanen, Josh (17 August 2014). "Phil Fish Goes on Epic Twitter Crusade to Defend Zoe Quinn". Retrieved 17 August 2014. and suspicion that impropriety was involved in Depression Quest's presence in gaming publications. One alleged sexual partner writes articles for Kotaku, a site which devoted significant attention to Depression Quest. Another of her sexual partners was alleged to be her married employer, who had also achieved some success within the gaming community. There was speculation about Zoe's methods for promoting herself, her games, and her career: online communities began to accuse her of manipulating the media by falsely representing herself as a victim of online harassment, presumably to draw attention to, and support for, her work.

Willhesucceed (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We're not here to repeat gossip - see WP:BLPGOSSIP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." By your same logic, this too is gossip and should be removed. Articles that cite twitter as references, and a complete lack of evidence make this statement gossip. Don't try and fool anyone, you simply are burying anything that can be construed as negative by abusing rules, and ignoring cases that make the subject look positive. Your obvious conflict of interests makes you an editor who abuses his position to censor information he finds unappealing.73.32.61.213 (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's say for a minute that 100% that you were right, it was faked entirely and it was an all an elaborative marketing ploy...Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought, and we stick to what the sources say. The reason on why it would be in the article is that there are reliable sources documenting it. I invite you to find some reliable sources for the counter view point, if there are any, for any possibility of adding/omitting anything from the article. Tutelary (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the harassment was documented in reputable, edited sources. The infidelity claims weren't. That's really all that there is to it. Euchrid (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "reputable edited sources" are exclusively links to Zoe Quinn's twitter account. Seriously, click the [2] and [3] button on the bottom of the main article, and find one hyperlink that IS NOT Zoe Quinn's official twitter page. What you are saying is Zoe Quinn's official twitter page is a reputable source for what goes on Zoe Quinn's wikipedia page. What a joke. http://kc-vidya-rants.tumblr.com/post/95004433478/zoe-quinns-kotaku-staff-cheating-scandal-and-how-she http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx Not considered reliable under wikipedia standards, but they sure as hell aren't just twitter screencaps. 73.32.61.213 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We allow journalists who publish in reliable sources to make the judgement of whether a subject's Twitter account is a reasonable and trustworthy source for their stories. We don't allow Wikipedia editors to do the same thing. Why the difference? Because the reliable sources have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, but there is no such system in place for Wikipedia editors. And if the reliable sources don't have such good reputations for fact-checking? They aren't so reliable, and maybe we shouldn't be using them. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - particularly the section on news organisations - to see the criteria we normally apply to sources. We can always review the use of specific sources here or at WP:RS/N. If there is a source you think is dubious, please list the source here, along with the statement you don't think it is reliable for, and we can take a look. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't cite Twitter directly, it cites The Mary Sue and The Escapist, both of which easily pass the criteria for reputable sources. THEY draw from Twitter, it's true, but as they've made the judgement that the information is significant, we should include it. WP doesn't determine what information is significant, or which information is 'true' - we reflect what appears in reputable sources. Euchrid (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187 Wow look at that, The Escapist is admitting it published an article with no evidence other than Zoe Quinn's word (The article in question is sourced on the main page as [2]). Undoubtable evidence of a bias, and makes the escapist link in the main article an untrustworthy source. And to top it off the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF is commenting on this scandal which wikipedia editors refuse to acknowledge. Zoe Quinn's entire article is written with a bias, with no efforts in sight to correct that. 73.32.61.213 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that that's the post you meant to link to? It says that the harassment was real, that it's harmful to individuals and the industry, and that there have been no breaches of ethics. I think that you might need to read up on confirmation bias before you try to interpret sources. Euchrid (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet." This is the relevant part, it shows that the article was published without any fact-checking, and as I showed before the original article used Zoe Quinn's official twitter for all of its references. As for your point, Editors in other section of this talk page refuse to cover this scandal because they refuse to admit that it exists. This comment shows that it does in fact exist, as it had to be denied by the Editor-In-Chief of The Escapist. 73.32.61.213 (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not this 'scandal' exists, but whether or not it's appropriate to be included in a Wikipedia article. As has been stated many times, we don't publish gossip, and we definitely don't publish potentially libelous material in biographies of living persons. The policies in this case are very clear. Furthermore, if you're trying to piece a point together by picking posts out of a forum, that's original research and synthesis, something else that we don't do here. So that's three WP policies, any one of which would be sufficient to block this material. Please stop pushing for it, you're only wasting everybody's time. Euchrid (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read this section before replying. The main issue of contention was the inclusion of alleged reports of harassment from wizardchan. As was already demonstrated both reference materials solely used Zoe Quinn's official twitter as sources. Now we have evidence of bias and a lack of editorial process for the referenced material. As you said, "...we don't publish gossip..." the current article citing harrassment is purely twitter gossip with no evidence. That section needs to be removed or edited to reflect wikipedia standards.73.32.61.213 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

73.32 is calling The Escapist article's reliability into question. The Chief Editor said nobody researched the article when it was published, and they used it to signal-boost someone's pet cause. Can a specific article be unreliable? Wikipedia must have a policy for rejecting poor articles from otherwise reliable publications. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We trust journalists to make the judgement about whether their sources are reliable when they write their articles. We tend to be cautious in the case of claims that seem far-fetched - see WP:REDFLAG - but otherwise we aren't allowed to second-guess an article's reliability if the publication is generally reliable, there are no corrections, and there are no conflicts of interest involved. And even without the Escapist article there is still the Mary Sue source to back up the harassment claim - and here are three more.[8][9][10] — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged"

I don't want this to become an edit war, but the word 'alleged' is inappropriate when describing Quinn's harassment. At WP we follow the sources, we don't provide our own editorials or commentary. Both reputable sources - The Mary Sue and The Escapist - indicate that what happened was harassment, and our article needs to reflect that. It's not up to editors to determine what really happened. If there are any reliable sources that suggest that it didn't, or that reports were overinflated, then that information can be added as well. Until then, the word 'alleged' has no place. Euchrid (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself. If anyone wants to read the Wikipedia policy behind this - and it will make things a lot easier for all the new users here if you do - you can find it at Wikipedia:No original research. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who IS interested in reading up on policy, in addition to the Original Research article, it's worth bearing in mind that it needs to be interpreted particularly strictly when, as in this case, the article is a biography of a living person. Anything which could possibly be seen as being insulting or defamatory needs to be very well sourced, and to not say or imply anything that does not appear in the source article. Euchrid (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So, if The Mary Sue and The Escapist were to report that Zoe Quinn was from outer space, and the only source they were to cite was Quinn's personal Twitter account, would her Wikipedia article have to state that she was from outer space as though it were a fact? Why should Wikipedia be limited to the bad reporting of The Mary Sue and The Escapist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephf5 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes sources do make factual errors, of course. For that, we have WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. Neither of those policies seem to be relevant here, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this as well, for the same reasons given by Stradivarious and Eurchrid. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist article starts with the following header "[...] developer Zoe Quinn has REPORTED several instances of harassment". The Mary Sue article mentions "Then she took it down after a wave of misogynist harassment that APPEARS to have been levied simply because she was a woman attempting to talk about depression". I wish the Wikipedia article reflects the cautionous mentions. Therefore, the sentence "[...]Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." should be replace by something like "[...]Quinn has reported harassment...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.27.31 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist article has been updated to say they never verified any of the claims Zoe Quinn made before or after publishing. "Update: This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources would suggest that due to the potential bias of the source, in-text-attribution should be used in order to create a neutral stance. Alleged might be a bit too gossipy for WP (frankly I feel the whole situation is), but stating "Zoe Quinn has claimed" is not. 21:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.204.25 (talk)

We should state that she "reported" harassment as the Escapist article says early on. Also we have WP:IAR, and we have our own internal editorial standards to maintain. If a dozen RS's reported "John Doe murdered his son" instead of "John Doe allegedly murdered his son" then we would use our own judgement and use the latter sentence. Part of the reason for IAR is to make sure we are not bound to defer our own editorial judgement to RSs who report things as fact without having any evidence.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the best option (24.215.125.41 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Done. — flying sheep 10:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Source Bias

Carly Smith's and Susana Polo's articles are used as sources in the claim the article's subject was harassed online and via phone because of her work. However, both writers only use the subject's own tweets as evidence. It is also one of the publishing site's policy (The Escapist) to not fact check articles of this nature. A subject's own claims being used as a source is not up to Wikipedia standard and these articles should be set aside. It is gossipy, as there are various claims about the nature of what happened. In order to keep the sentence about harrassment there needs to be a another source that is not self referring. [Edited]~~Ron 70.185.196.205 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We have been discussing this in an above topic, and this case of bias is very clear. The publishing site (The Escapist) has also posted http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187 in reference to the 2013 article the wiki page is using as a reference. The take-away is this statement by the Editor-In-Chief of the website, "The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet." This shows that The Escapist is not a trustworthy source for this piece of news as it had not done any fact-checking and the Editor held a clear bias toward the subject. I recommend removing the mention of harassment from the main page, or changing it to state that Zoe Quinn made claims of harassment.73.32.61.213 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I went trying to find reasons not to do this, and oddly, I ended up agreeing with this edit request. Quinn's own tweets about the harassment fail WP:SELFPUB, and the cited articles just cite her tweets.

I think changing it to "claims of harassment" would be inappropriate, because it sounds gossipy and feels like Wikipedia is casting doubt on her claims, which should not be our intent. I am going to be bold and remove the sentence as contentious and insufficiently sourced for a BLP. Please feel free to put it back if you feel it was wrong of me to do so. I didn't realize the article was fully protected now, so nevermind! I do think it might be a good idea to remove that sentence, though. --Ashenai (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. I'm pretty unfamiliar with the background (I only became aware of the story yesterday) but I feel that statement from the Escapist does somewhat question its credibility as a reliable source, particular that they did no fact-checking before publishing the story. I'd suggest changing to state that she has alleged that she suffered harassment without weighting the statement one way or the other. Maybe replace that paragraph with something like:

"Zoe Quinn created Depression Quest, a game which details what it feels like to live with depression, and submitted the game to Steam's Greenlight platform. <edge reference here> Following its listing, Quinn alleged that she had suffered harassment from members of the Wizardchan image-board. <mary sue reference here> In August 2014, Depression Quest became available on Steam."

I reckon that would be a fair compromise as it mentions Quinn has made the allegations, as is done in the Mary Sue and Escapist sources, but does not comment on their validity which the current version appears to. -- Teh Cheezor ^Speak 11:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As well as the Escapist and Mary Sue sources, I found three others which I've already linked above.[11][12][13] That's five sources that say that she was harassed, and no sources which contradict that. Per the third bullet of WP:YESPOV, facts in reliable sources that are uncontested by other reliable sources should be stated as facts, not as opinions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. Also, the 3 additional sources listed have prior consensus as being reliable per discussions at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone point me in the direction of these "their policy is not to fact check" claims? Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In the Semi-protected Edit Request on 18 August 2014 discussion it was brought up that The Escapist 's Editor-In-Chief Greg Tito stated a special policy concerning sources for the publication. Here is the link to it for convenience: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187

Here is the quote again: "The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet. I do not support behavior of that kind and will strive to protect those who are feeling the effects of it. We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change, and will only choose not to post such stories if I decide they will do more harm to the situation."

This statement shows that this publication gives the special privilege of not fact-checking to articles dealing with online harassment. Thus this particular publication does not meet the WP:IRS standard which states "Articles should be based on...sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to that topic. I propose that the citation to The Escapist be removed from the Wikipedia article. ~~Ron 70.185.196.205 (talk)

Here is a list of the sources that claim Quinn was harassed online in response to her attempt to publish her work. The main problem is that Quinn is the only source.

Mary Sue Article - The article only cites Quinn's own tweets. So this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

The Escapist Article - Article only cites Quinn's own tweets concerning the harassment. So this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy. It should also be noted that the article opens with description of the event as "...Zoe Quinn has reported several instances of harassment." This language means that the writer, Carly Smith, acknowledges that the article has only one source and that the source is the person being described and could be bias. It should also be noted that this publication has a policy of not fact-checking when dealing with topics of harassment(as detailed above), thus this citation not meet the WP:IRS standard.

Computer and Video Game Article - This article, published August 12, 2014, covers the launch of Quinn's game and does not directly report on the harassment directly. It only cites Quinn's own tumblr account and does not specifically link it to what Quinn described in December of 2013. It is possible that Quinn is not referring to the event, thus it could be a miscitation. Regardless, this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

Venture Beat Article - This article, published August 12, 2014, covers the launch of Quinn's game and does not directly report on the harassment directly. It only cites Quinn's own tumblr account and does not specifically link it to what Quinn described in December of 2013. It is possible that Quinn is not referring to the event, thus it could be a miscitation. Regardless, this source seems to fail WP:SELFPUB policy.

Game Revolution - The citation for this article is another article from the site Edge-Online listed below. Verifiability of this source should be contingent on that article.

Edge Article - Published on January 23 2014, this article is unique in that it seems the anonymous staff writer at the Edge has had an interview with Quinn. The details of the interview are not explained, but a number of quotes are attributed to her. However, it still fails to find any source that is not Quinn herself and thus still fails the WP:SELFPUB policy.

So there seems to be three sources for all these articles, Quinn's Twitter, Quinn's tumblr or Quinn's interview. Ultimately this entire ordeal concerning harassment seems gossipy and below Wikipedia's standards. I would propose one of two actions: Removal of the mention of harassment from the main article or a rewording of the sentence making it more reflective of the singular source nature of the event. An example:

"While attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported several instances of online harassment and a sexually explicit phone call." ~~Ron 70.185.196.205

You misunderstand SELFPUB. We're allowed to use third party sources if they are reliable and have a history for fact checking. CVG, VentureBeat, Edge, etc, all do. I mean, everything eventually traces back to first party accounts. This sort of logic would prevent anything ever being useable... Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite that, I think the IP makes a pretty convincing argument to write this in context and attribute the claims to Quinn herself - as the sources have. The IP's proposed sentence seems good to me.--v/r - TP 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I suspect a violation of WP:SELFPUB policy is that the primary sources used in the article ultimately are a handful of tweets by Quinn. When a living person's self published material has such a great influence on their Wikipedia article, it seems to risk violating that policy.

At the very least the language currently used to not reflective of what the cited articles state. The The Escapist article uses "...developer Zoe Quinn has reported several instances of harassment." and the Computer and Video Game article says "Writing on her blog, she explained that the benefits of publishing the game outweigh the risks of generating further abuse." The current sentence is "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." The suggestion is to change the wording to "In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported several instances of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls." which reflects what the cited articles are acknowledging. ~~Ron --70.185.196.205 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is for information (I cite) “about themselves [as long as] it does not involve claims about third parties [and only if] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity”. This clearly excludes disputed claims about being doxxed. We can use her as source on her views, and facts about her person (birth date, …), but not events about third parties targeting her in an attack. I’m sure we can’t just repeat her claims as fact, no matter how many times they are indirected from a single source failing WP:SELFPUB. — flying sheep 09:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what a self-published source is. Zoe's tweets are self-published, but news articles based on those tweets are not. An article published by a news agency is published by a news agency, not an individual. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Alleged harassment

I truly understand why the controvercy or "Quinnspiracy" is not mentionned due to lack of substainable proofs. But I don't understand why the harassment Zoe Quinn has supposedly suffer is thus mentionned in the article. Referenced articles link only to Zoe Quinn tweets which mentionned the harassment. How can it be a proof?

If the harassment has to be mentionned, it should be with absolut precaution like: "According to Quinn, she has been the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.27.31 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above - see #"Alleged" and #Source Bias. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We should wait until it calms down to do this, but yes, eventually the harassment itself should be covered, some of it is even happening on this talk page --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless a reliable website did an article on harassment on this talk page (unlikely), it wouldn't warrant mention. Same goes for anywhere the harassment is happening. Only if reliable sources are documenting it. If they're not covering it out there, we wouldn't cover it here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that she was harassed by that 4chan virgin group (sorry, forgot what the subforum's called) has actually been pretty debunked. She claimed it, then it happened as a result of people being angry at her accusation. Weird stuff, but yeah.

It's /v/ideo games. But I suppose /v/irgins works for us too. Starly396 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia trusting inaccurate sources?

Every single "citation" Stradivarius posted were mere reposts of the original, false article that was based solely on Zoe's word.. It's defamatory to Wizardchan to claim that they were harassing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.176.245 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Because another source covered it. Also, the Wikipedia article makes no accusation as to who did the harassing, only that it happened. No harasser is defined, so it's not unfair to anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the dox info that Zoe publicized was found to point to an unrelated motorcycle shop. Due to this controversy, it is also clear that Zoe's own words may not be able to be trusted.Starly396 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, even if the authors of the articles all come out and admit to outright lying, there is no process to have them removed because the only standard is verifiability, not accuracy. This is the problem of having an untrustworthy press. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that (we have, for example, decided that sources were unreliable on a case-by-case basis when their methodology was deemed to be untrustworthy), but in general, yes, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. Tezero (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well shucks, we'll just have to create our own news outlet then. But I'm sure the world has depended on such a standard for hundreds of years, and this controversy is no reason to dishevel it.Starly396 (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Think about it this way: If we can disregard sources based on them being incorrect, how do we determine they're incorrect? If it's from another source, we can just use that source and the cycle restarts. If it's not, it's just original research, the opinion of a Wikipedian rather than a published, reasonably respected author - whose opinion is the average reader more likely to value? Tezero (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been quite fascinated for the opportunity to learn about encyclopedic standards and wiki's policies. I have tried to edit wikipedia before, but never given thought about what goes into building an encyclopedia. It certainly makes sense.72.89.93.110 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There are pros and cons. For example, Wikipedia is more trusting than print encyclopedias are in regards to reliable sources, which is one reason we're able to be much more current, but this comes at the possible expense of readers feeling they can trust everything we say. (On the other hand, we're more conservative in this regard than KnowYourMeme, with sites like TVTropes and fan wikis standing even further into the zone of quick yet spurious updating.) And I'll admit I'm sometimes frustrated with Wikipedia's standards, some of which I see as hindering common sense in the name of meaningless details, but I stick around because I consider that an acceptable sacrifice to make for being part of an enjoyable, educating, generally good-natured community. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would probably enjoy editing articles for fun, if I had an editor that didn't have colons for indents and tildes for timestamps and jesus christ how do I read this markup Starly396 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's like using a PC (or, more accurately, Linux) as opposed to a Mac: less user-friendly, but you can do whatever you want. Tezero (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Starly396: We have this: go to the top of the page, click on "Beta", and then enable VisualEditor. VisualEditor was made opt-in on the English Wikipedia (don't ask - it's political), but will do exactly what you just wished for. And for all the anonymous editors reading this, the ability to enable VisualEditor is a very good reason to create an account. :) It doesn't work on talk pages yet, though - there's another piece of software in the works for that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edited Source

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130525-Depression-Quest-Dev-Faces-Harassment-after-Steam-Submission-Update The escapist put out an edit to a linked source after it was found that the article was published without any 3rd party confirmation. Please change the main article to reflect the change.73.32.61.213 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist is still a major, relatively mainstream gaming news source that falls within the definition of a reliable source. I'd still prefer to have more sources to draw from, of course, and I'll try to find some more soon. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Quinn was the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls."

Please follow the sources and change it to "Quinn reported that she was..." 2.102.185.204 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Most of the sources out there continue to say that Quinn was harassed without qualifying that with "alleged" or "Quinn reported that", etc., so that is what we should do too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide those sources? As the two that are used say it came from her. Also, if you can find a different source that does state it on its own without noting that the only evidence is her word, that doesn't mean we should too (both as we have sources noting it came from her as well as the fact that we're individual editors who don't need to mimic a source's shoddy journalism). 2.102.185.204 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We report what the sources state. To do otherwise would be original research. Woodroar (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And the two sources we're using say it came from her. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine. They're secondary sources and they can use whatever primary sources they feel are appropriate. WP:OR goes into all of this. Woodroar (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They note that this is not confirmed and it is a claim by her. We should too, otherwise we're being dishonest and making it look like this is a fact when it's actually just a claim with no evidence. 2.102.185.204 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This wording has been changed now - see #Removal of original harrassment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

News about how did Zoe Quinn got there:

Hat nonsense Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this true? I need clarification. What is it exactly that you're asking? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Past Modelling Career

The article lacks information of her modelling career as an alternative model.

She modelled for Deviant Nation and for Broken Dollz under the name Locke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.64.110 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that covers this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Easy. Her Brokendollz profile is still up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.64.110 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If its not documented by any third party reliable sources, it probably doesn't warrant any mention on the page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the profile and that is her, took me about 10 seconds to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.65 (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How about her public statement to GamesNosh, where she condemns the practice of disseminating pictures of her as a form of harassment? "What I *am* going to say is that the proliferation of nude pictures of me...Suddenly it’s acceptable to share pictures of my breasts on social media to threaten and punish me...As much as those leading the charge against me will do mental backflips to make posting pictures of my tits about “ethics”..." Garonyldas (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GameNosh is not a reliable source, and even if it was, your quote only references pictures, not modeling itself. Sergecross73 msg me 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Please explain why? 2)The only pictures/nudes released allegedly containing Quinn contain watermarks from the Broken Dollz and Deviant Nation sites, as gallery images available for purchase, under the pseudonym "Locke," and "Locke T. Valentine." Quinn herself is (perhaps inadvertently) verifying this by protesting its use as leverage against her. I've yet to see a photo without an accompanying watermark, so they're clearly not "private," except in that they're locked in behind a paywall. I would obviously never post as a reference, but they do specifically talk about modeling here: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=131780&page=1 Additionally, the pictures contain Quinn's signature dyed hair, glasses, piercings and matching tattoos in all photo sets. It's very, very obviously the same person. I get that we're trying to be stringent about what's being posted on the page, in lieu of the recent scandal, but if you'd see them you'd know these are not simply "pictures." It's very clearly stuff produced for commercial use. Garonyldas (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not whether or not she models, it's whether or not reliable sources discuss it as a noteworthy part of what she does. Messageboards and her profiles don't constitute as useable sources documenting that. Saying "gamesnosh" shows her discussing pictures is WP:SYNTH as far as covering her modeling goes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the controversy?

The article currently doesn't mention anything about the current controversy relating to the "thezoepost". Why? Is it because no one has gone ahead to write about it or are editors going against WP:CENSOR and WP:NOTABILITY? [Soffredo] 16:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You need reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And its regarding a real person, so the sources need to adhere to the stricter WP:BLP standards as well. So far, the sourcing isn't even meeting bare bones WP:RS standards, let alone that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like all we have for now is this. Not sure we'll get more coverage since the news is against gaming journalism. [Soffredo] 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn has also made a post about it on her own Tumblr. [Soffredo] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The first source doesn't look like an RS, and the second is basically her saying she's not going to delve into the details. Not sure what you'd use it towards. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, with these sources, we could already try to include the event in her article. There's no point in pretending all of this isn't happening.

In August 2014, Quinn's ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni created a Wordpress blog detailing how she cheated on him with multiple people, some of which work in gaming journalism. Quinn commented on the incident saying "It’s a personal matter that never should have been made public,".

Thoughts? [Soffredo] 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! It's discussed upthread [[14]]. But basically, we aren't trying to pretend it isn't happening - the issue is that Wikipedia policy is really strict about what kinds of sources we're allowed to mine for content, especially when the article is about a person. So far, the existing sources simply don't meet Wikipedia's standards. It's one of the hard things about being a Wikipedia editor: our job isn't to write the truth (or what we think is the truth). Our job is only to present an accurate synthesis of what scholars and reporters and journalists and major media outlets say is the truth. Often that means we can only cover something very late in the game, and sometimes not at all. 173.239.141.98 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Though WP:V no longer states it like that (unfortunately), it's still pretty close to that idea. No matter how 'true' something may be, it cannot automatically be included in Wikipedia just because it's true. Rather, Wikipedia collects information from reliable sources and reflects what is stated in those sources - regardless of whether or not Wikipedians find it true or not. (Instead, the consensus among sources is described as the main view, with other notable views represented as such.) In other words, if all sources mentioning the moon landing were to conspire to say there is indisputable proof the moon landing was faked from tomorrow on, then henceforth the Wikipedia article on it will state the moon landing is faked; we go by what the reliable sources say unless we have reliable sources saying otherwise. In a situation like this scandal, if all notable gaming sites refuse to even mention it, we have no reliable sources to work with and can't include it in the article. To point out what the problems are with your current sources:

• thezoepost is a blog written by an ex-boyfriend with an agenda (revenge for being treated like shit). Blogs (except under some special circumstances, when written by notable people specifically on a notable subject) are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The blog's complete lack of neutrality further makes it unreliable.
• Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people.
• Zoe's own blog is an acceptable source for her response on the incident. However, it's not an acceptable indicator of the notability of the incident as it's not a third-party source. Until other reliable sources make it notable enough for inclusion, Zoe's reply is unusable.

VDZ (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it looks professional enough, Gamer Headlines is not a notable site. It's been around for less than a year and as far as I can tell its existence hasn't even been mentioned by notable sites or people. How would you say that? It appears to have editorial control over their own content,] and it is used by other articles as well. I would say that it's a reliable source for the instance. In addition, just because something 'looks' like it might not be a reliable site or of the sort does not make it not a reliable source. Its existence does not need to be mentioned by notable sites or other people, where are you getting that from? In essence, I would like to ask specifically what parts of the website makes you think it's -not- a reliable source per WP:RS? I'd like to comment on the boyfriend's blog as well. thezoepost is a blog written by an ex-boyfriend with an agenda (revenge for being treated like shit). Blogs (except under some special circumstances, when written by notable people specifically on a notable subject) are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The blog's complete lack of neutrality further makes it unreliable. We do not exempt sources from being biased, we may exempt them for other reasons but being biased is not one of them. For example, in this case, since it's a BLP, there should be better sources than blogs and that might be a legitimate reason to omit. But not for simply being biased do we exclude sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. We need some reliable third parties discussing it or there's no indication of importance. This isn't a gossip magazine or a tabloid. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are two different third-party sources. The first is a post by TotalBiscuit, confirming the controversy exists. The second is a series of tweets by Stephen Totilo with this one in particular confirming there was a relationship between Quinn and one of the men she was accused of sleeping with. That's two notable people referencing the controversy with one of them confirming that at least one small part of the accusations against Quinn are true. Though, whether or not Twitter posts can be counted as reliable sources will have to be your call. Ihatevidyagames (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Those absolutely don't meet Wikipedia's standard for being a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this Know Your Meme article count for being reliable. Yes, KYM can act like a Wiki and anyone can add a "meme", but the page's current entry editors (seen on the right side) includes staff members and moderators. [Soffredo] 01:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would you think a meme website would be a reliable source for a BLP. Please, re-familiarize yourself with reliable sources and BLP guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Because Know Your Meme is a reliable source and has been used many times by editors of Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on this, which is a reddit post made by a moderator of a default subreddit? [Soffredo] 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We should at least try to assume good faith in this instance. What Serge is talking about is that it needs to be a reliable source. See WP:RS for more information. Additionally, what he's talking about when referring to 'BLP' is Biography of a Living Person; the reason why this is important is that Wikipedia is very strict about information about living persons, due to legal, moral, and ethical reasons. What is put on Wikipedia has effects to the real world, so we have to be careful about what we write. The BLP policy link can be found here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP I also should've added a qualifier for me using the 'link tool' to suggest something is a reliable source. It was being used to establish that Gamer News was being used as reliable sources on other articles, and I believe cements that support. KnowYourMeme is not a reliable source as they're essentially a group blog and reddit isn't either as it's a forum. Tutelary (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't get why KYM isn't considered a reliable source, and the reddit post in question here was created by a moderator of a default subreddit. Well let's try using this as a reliable source then? [Soffredo] 01:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It fails WP:SPS if it allows for use submissions. And beyond what you were told above, it's a common sense thing. A website on memes - jokes - isn't generally going to be a good authority on someone's life. There's a list of commonly usuable VG related sources at WP:VG/S. If you're having such a hard time understanding what makes a source reliable, maybe it'd be easier to look for ones that already have consensus for being reliable. Sergecross73 msg me

Motherboard, owned by Vice, is now reporting this. Can we add this whole incident yet...? (reliability check) [Soffredo] 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That article is dangerously biased. The comments section shows extreme disapproval. I would refrain from using this as the catalyst for discussion of the scandal yet.Starly396 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A new article has appeared from Talking Ship. It appears reputable, but I will leave that open for discussion.Starly396 (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the reliability of Talking Ship, seeing as all of their contributors use pseudonyms. Motherboard appears to be an acceptable source, though. Having said this, just because we have reliable sources about something doesn't mean that it should go in the article. In this case WP:BLPGOSSIP is of particular concern: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." I don't think that this story has cleared the level of gossip yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They appear to have editorial control over their own content, as exposed by here; http://talkingship.com/wp/about/ and just because the editors use psydonymns does not make the source not notable. To add, BLPGOSSIP is referring to questionable sources reporting questionable things. We have reliable sources with editorial control reporting on it. Tutelary (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind people that Wikipedia is not a news source. The notability of an event is often very hard to determine while it is happening, and will usually seem far more notable at the time than it will in the future. Wikipedia content needs to not just be notable now, but be likely to be notable in the foreseeable future as well. It is very likely that, over the course of Quinn's career as a games developer, her boyfriend making claims about who she slept with will be of very little significance. This is sufficient reason - in addition to all the other very good reasons - to not include this 'information' at this stage.Euchrid (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's as much a conjecture as those saying this will change the face of the gaming journalism industry. I could make the same "It is very likely that" claim for the opposing side of this issue. It all depends on who breaks that story.Starly396 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we list and give appropriate due weight to all the reliable sources that have been established on a subject. To omit them would be contrasting that neutral point of view. If the sources are reliable, then I'm not seeing the need to omit the material. Tutelary (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question, especially for Sergecross73 and Mr. Stradivarius. VDZ explained above that the standard is verifiability, not truth. Something can be true, but not verifiable, and it does not belong on Wikipedia. But what if the opposite is true? What if a source is verifiable, but you believe it is not true? I am referring to the Escapist article, whose verifiability I believe is in question, but am not sure which guidelines are relevant. What policies are relevant?72.89.93.110 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The policies involved here are WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT. For a good overview, see Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :3 72.89.93.110 (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So we have these following reliable sources showing that such a controversy exists:

First-party

• The Zoe Post (The Zoe Post)
• Once again, I will not negotiate with terrorists. (Zoe Quinn's Tumblr)

Third-party

1. Kotaku and Zoe Quinn Accused of Exchanging Positive Press for Sex (Gamer Headlines)
2. Quinnspiracy (Know Your Meme)
3. What qualifies Zoe Quinn’s personal life as gaming news? (N4G)
4. The Anti-Feminist Internet Targets 'Depression Quest' Game Creator Zoe Quinn (Motherboard)
5. Depression Quest Dev (Zoe Quinn) Scandal; Exploiting Games Press for Coverage. (GamesNosh)
6. Phil Fish Goes on Epic Twitter Crusade to Defend Zoe Quinn (GeekParty)

We have all these sources. Can we stop pretending "Zoegate" hasn't happened? [Soffredo] 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, as stated up and down the talk page, none of those meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, or stricter standards for Biographies of a living person. They're all obscure, not well known or reputable video game websites, or they violate WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The only person who stated that blatantly all those sources are unreliable is you. Just because a source is obscure, not well known does -not- make it unreliable. The sole indicator is whether they have editorial control over their own content. Geekparty, Motherbboard, and N4G, and GamerHeadlines all ultimately have editorial control over their own content, thereby making them reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do they pass WP:BLP? The whole thing seems dubious, there is some controversy about her personal life and the sexist gaming community has taken part in a weird kind of modern witchhunt, posting her personal information, telephone number, address, and even nude photographs, without really knowing the full story. The only source that I'd say is reliable is the Vice article and even that seems to have its own editorial slant. This is hardly a news story and I'd say the witchhunt itself is what is notable --94.175.85.144 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If given with appropriate due weight and attribution as well as a neutral point of view and a disinterested viewpoint, yes they would. In addition, I invite you to not use wording like 'sexist games industry' as it kind of polarizes the discussion and whoever tends to be on the including side (like me) will be seen as arguing for some sort of malicious cause, when that's not what I'm trying to do. Try to keep the sourcing and content in perspective, not try to make it a you vs me sort of thing. Discussion is healthy and that's what I'm attempting to do here. Vice is not the only reliable source, the other four that I mentioned (and only those four, considering KnowyourMeme isn't considered one) would be reliable for the instance given their due weight. Tutelary (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are at all, I also think they would constitute a BLP violation. We don't know for sure that any of these events happened, that is to say, there has been no questioning of her. It honestly does appear like me to be a witchhunt based on an angry blog post by her ex-boyfriend. It should be polarized, I think there is a severe BLP violation here and various ethical reasons why we shouldn't include this until more information has come up, we'd be no different to reddit or 4chan. Wikipedia doesn't exist to spread rumours or reinforce other offsite harassment. I'd suggest we wait a few days for better sources to appear --94.175.85.144 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that we have nothing more than circumstantial evidence and the words of her ex-boyfriend in these sources. I'm sure you feel like you're unearthing some feminist conspiracy running beneath gaming journalism but it's just one person potentially using sex to promote her free online game. We really need better references for something like this, it could ruin this persons career, if the spreading of her contact details and the rest of this sexist witch-hunt hasn't already put her off working in the gaming community, which is presumably what these people want. I do think that it should be covered, don't get me wrong, but when we get better sources, ones that will no doubt frame it as the harassment of an individual by a large sexist community, which is what is happening--94.175.85.144 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLP, and I mean really read it, in depth, and try to understand why we need good sources for something like this --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You could say that exact same things about the 'harassment' she achieved. Most of the sources rely on her own words for it, rather than having any actual proof. Note that besides that, I have not contested that she was harassed. Will we simply omit that because it was sourced primarily via the sources to her Twitter account, and she hasn't backed up her statements? No. Same in this case, we have sources covering it who primarily have read the ex boyfriend's blog, and they are to be considered just like any other sourcing in this case. Also, is it a BLP violation to state that Chris Brown hit Rihanna? Or that War Machine beat up his girlfriend? No, because there were reliable sources and all in all, it was presented in a neutral point of view. WP:OSE I know All in all, we already have at least 4 reliable sources with editorial control reporting on the substance of the controversy so to speak. Some people have said that they aren't 'reliable' but when I proved they had editorial control, they have not contested that. To your comment at the end, please read WP:DUE, specifically the first sentence. Tutelary (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Is it a BLP violation to state that Chris Brown hit Rihanna? Or that War Machine beat up his girlfriend?" I honestly find it very disturbing that you feel this is an adequate comparison but yes, it would be, if there wasn't sources that proved that it had occurred --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Brown turned himself in to the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire station at 6:30 p.m. and was booked under suspicion of making criminal threats... on July 20, 2009, Brown released a two-minute video on his official YouTube page apologizing to fans and Rihanna for the assault, expressing the incident as his deepest regret and saying that he has repeatedly apologized to Rihanna and accepts full responsibility" That is how we can say that it happened. If a Wordpress blog said that he had hit Rihanna and if that was the sole evidence then we obviously couldn't have included it in his article --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make. it would be, if there wasn't sources that proved that it had occurred which we do have for Zoe Quinn here. We have Vice, Gamersnosh, Gamernewes, and Gamenstein all which have editorial control documenting the controversy. Tutelary (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources don't say, without a doubt, that she did sleep with these people. We know near to nothing about that. I'd say the fact that she has been harassed by the gaming community based on the words of a disgruntled ex-boyfriend is better sourced than the controversy itself and we really don't know what happened other than that. How would you propose we cover it? Without any words by her on the subject? It is far too soon and we could quite easily breach WP:BLP with this, many of the sources are of sketchy notability at best --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't first argue with in relation to content until we establish that the sources that I've named are reliable. You saying that the sources are of 'sketchy notability' is relevant as even if I propose an entirely NPOV and BLP compliant sentence mention, you could contest it by saying that the sources are unreliable. So let's make this about the sources; Which of the sources, if any specifically do you contest being reliable about Zoe Quinn? If you do, please cite evidence that they do not have editorial control. I've cited links (above under third party sources) that they do have editorial control over own content. I can repeat the links if you wish. Tutelary (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See below --94.175.85.144 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance, to say, "the sources don't say, that she slept with people". The articles for her initial harassment were poorly sourced, and were later proven to be false, but they are verifiable sources so that is irrelevant. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While we don't have any articles from major news sources in the gaming industry, the fact of the matter is that many of them have refused to comment on it, and the controversy itself has to do with corruption in the gaming journalism industries. Any articles from those sources wouldn't be useable as sources anyways due to conflict of interests. I am against putting anything up that is unsourced or cannot be proved, but there are a wide variety of pieces of proof and evidence, unfortunately, a lot of it is from individual people, and even if statements or evidence from individuals are self evidently factual, they cannot be included. One of the flaws with wikipedia is that it requires sources from reputable agencies or individuals,, and unfortunately, in a situation like this, that becomes impossible.

The sources listed above are as good as it's probably going to get, especially since a lot of sources have been taken down due to DMCA requests or by URL hosts.71.75.136.51 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Vice is probably the only source which constitutes a reliable source and Vice isn't exactly the most reputable news outlet. It's possible there will be an opinion piece on a news outlet sometime but for now we just have gaming websites of varying notability --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Gamesnosh and Geekparty look like blogs who have bought a domain name, not news outlets, I don't think either should be considered. N4G and Gamerheadlines are a little better, N4G has its own Wikipedia entry, but they seem to think that the story itself is of dubious notability. I personally think calling Knowyourmeme a reputable source for an encyclopedia ridiculous, we may as well use reddit posts if we're going to reference Wiki based contnet. Really, if we are going to do a write up, I think we should use Vice and N4G as the basis for it. It's been sensationalised by online sexists like the whole Anita thing, it's not like she broke the law or anything. I'd wait a week and see if any better sources surface --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Gamesnosh and Geekparty look like blogs who have bought a domain name, not news outlets, I don't think either should be considered. That's not how these things ultimately work. Something that looks like a blog = we are not going to discount it entirely. What you should be doing is researching whether each source has editorial control over its own content, a managing book of editors/editor in chief/contributors are usually a sign for that, but not always an indicator of being a reliable source. WP:RS has information on how to do that. I can't find any editorial control about Gamesnosh, but for Geekparty I did find this; http://geekparty.com/contact/ Tutelary (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it, well do you think Phil Fish posting tweets about this is notable enough for article space? --94.175.85.144 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading the N4G article itself in more depth, we can't really build an article section from it. I'd say we either go for the Vice article, which begins:

"Hordes of angry gamers attacking a woman on the Internet, just like any other day in cyberspace, yeah? This week's target of the largely anonymous hivemind (re: 4chan, reddit, gaming forums) is indie game developer Zoe Quinn, who recently released the interactive fiction novel and educational aid Depression Quest."

or not write anything at all. I'm leaning towards the latter as this source doesn't seem NPOV either, although it makes more sense than the people who are acting like she has committed some horrible crime --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well the people who are throwing all their weight at her are a subset of the opposition. The issue here should not be Quinn's personal choices of who she has sex with, but the industry's clear intention to shove this under the rug, as well as whether this had any affect on the publicity of her game. Truthfully, she would never had had the rocket to stardom (deserving of a wiki page) that she did until she publicized the attack from Wizardchan, whether real, or fake as the opposition would have.Starly396 (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The people throwing their weight around are the gaming community itself. I saw her personal details before they were blanked out and I've seen the images circulated on 4chan. I would find that hugely intimidating. The witch-hunt that is going on is the issue here and the community should be ashamed of itself. I doubt any of them had even heard of the free online game itself before this --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the 'personal' details, and a lot of the 4chan/Wizardchan posts are being actively contested (alright, they are being contested over imgur images, but still) as being inaccurate (some of the phone numbers 'leaked' points to Honolulu, but her address is cited on first-party sources as being in Boston), so I wouldn't actively blame a community that may not have even tried to participate in a witchhunt. arivie (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I'm aware of how to identify reliable sources. I'm one of the main contributors to WikiProject Video Games area for determining source reliability. N4G is actively listed as an unusable source, and none of the others have ever been discussed, which in itself doesn't eliminate them, no, but it certainly isn't a good sign, considering the huge number of websites included and relative activity of the project in general. I'd recommend listing them there, and seeing what people say. My guess is, that when you're getting as obscure as your "GamesNoshes" or whatever, its going to be a lot less likely that you're going to find qualified writers with authority and experience in the industry, and much more likely to find a website founded less than 9 months ago by a bunch of random people who like video games. No qualifications. No history of reliablity (or anything). Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's add another source to the list of ones being ignored? [Soffredo] 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's now being mentioned by The Daily Dot and Kotaku itself. (There's also this article from GameRevolution.) Are these sources somehow not reliable enough? [Soffredo] 02:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic of heavily biased articles, here's another one for the pile (Word of the Nerd) And why did you smalltext GameRevolution?Starly396 (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's reliability could be disputed, unlike The Daily Dot and Kotaku. [Soffredo] 03:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the page since we've collected plenty of reliable sources. [Soffredo] 03:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have moved down to here. [Soffredo] 03:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte's just put up a piece about this in The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html. At this point there's enough mainstream discussion about it that it seems really odd not to include a mention.JamesG5 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Zoe has recently been accused of a matter which infringes the entire gaming journalism field. This speedy deletion would inhibit this important fact being added to the article

The article has -already been- speedied and prodded and afded (articles for deletion, a discussion with the community on whether to keep an article) and has been kept in every single one of them. People trying to delete or speedy this article I wouldn't say are trying to 'censor' or 'inhibit' the information. They're just taking personal conflicts into Wikipedia without knowing the background facts. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

She is caught up in a scandal [redacted] Mikex166 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Yes, I've pointed this out over here. Seems that we can't post this controversy and Reddit censorship until we get reliable sources. [Soffredo] 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's totally unacceptable to post allegations like that about a person's private life on Wikipedia. Familiarize yourself with the BLP policy before you go any further in this matter, Mike. Raudasta (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No sources for her occupation

According to her own website, she is not a 2d artist nor a programmer. The only tasks so far she has done was work in QA and as a minor voice actress. 2003:6A:6C2A:E401:18F2:4224:41D3:E172 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So Depression Quest wrote and coded itself, then? Euchrid (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We do need to have sources stating her occupation, else what's stopping me from changing 'Game Developer' to 'Game Programmer' or other tangentially related variants other than my own integrity?

We actually do have sources;

• http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2014/05/08/zoe-quinn-installs-a-chip-in-her.html
• http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/207278/Game_Developer_Help_List_rallies_industry_vets_to_aid_rookie_devs.php Tutelary (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't have time to work them in right now, but here you go: personal website, which uses the term "game developer", patreon which does the same. They're primary sources, but those are fine for identifying how somebody self-describes and the work that they've done, provided that those facts are undisputed, which they aren't. If you want a secondary source, I'm sure that there are plenty of articles about GAME_JAM that refer to her as such as well. Euchrid (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe somebody seriously added a citation needed tag for her occupation --94.175.85.144 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That person was me. I added it for a millisecond due to my assumption of good faith for the IPv6's thoughts on there being no source. Nope, immediately looked at source list and spotted two sources making statements of her being a game developer, and rollbacked (reverted) my edit. Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, I took it as a passive aggressive remark, the misogynists have crawled out of their corner of the internet to debase her at the moment, I figure that is why the article is protected --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What? WP:AVOIDABUSE Don't just label people as misogynists. She falsely accused a depression forum of harassing her, which a lot of people are upset about since the Escapist editor admitted he didn't ask for evidence of her claims. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, I know exactly what this is, I've been following it quite closely, there's no way posting somebodies personal information and circulating naked pictures of them is acceptable behaviour from any community, you've disgraced yourselves --94.175.85.144 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't call people misogynists for referring to policy. Nobody here has posted "naked pictures" of her. Also, stating that you "know exactly what this is" is original research, unless you can provide sources. Please also not tell editors that they've "disgraced themselves", as that is rude. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only has Zoe herself disproved her own claims by mentioning phone harassment while the 'doxxed' number belonged to a gas station in a state different from her own residence, the pornographic photos in question have been produced by a company and as such have been public ever since they were made. If you have actually followed this controversy from a neutral perspective you'd have known that although not all claims are solid, something very fishy is going on in the industry wherever Zoe is involved. Whether this is relevant for the article or not is an argument that cannot be approached in a constructive sense by marking its participants as misogynists. 94.211.225.204 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, we could cite a quote in the credits or title screen of Depression Quest that names her as some kind of designer for it. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still disputing the claim that she is a programmer. The first link provided above doesn't say so. It cites a Kotaku story which merely quotes her as saying she programs. Please note that Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy requires us to assume good faith on the part of other Wikipedia editors, but not to assume good faith on the part of article subjects. The second link doesn't even actually say she's a programmer. And no-one is claiming that she is a professional programmer, as far as I can see.--greenrd (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Motherboard piece calls her a "game developer" - does that work for you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

Please change "... and has implanted a chip in the back of her hand that contains the game Deus Ex..." to "...and has implanted a chip in the back of her hand that contains a link to a download of the game Deus Ex..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erreib (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) The RFID chip in her finger contains a link to a download of the game Deus Ex, not the game itself. RFID chips do not have the storage capacity to store such data, and the way the article states this is incorrect. Erreib (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done First of all, edit requests need to give the exact wording that you want inserted or removed. Second of all, that's original research. Euchrid (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it, the initial ref was based on a kotaku article, the kotaku article clearly states the chip contains download codes, not the game. Have changed ref and altered text to suit. - X201 (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for an RFC (next week or so)

In one week, I think that we will figure out whether there are enough reliable sources to support the recent controversy that Zoe Quinn has been embroiled in. Since most major news stories are big for a week or so, I think this is an adequate amount of time. It might be covered in quite a few, over the next week, or it might not. We can start an RFC sometime in the next week. Sounds reasonable? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, the witch-hunt against her highlights a huge problem within the gaming community and reinforces a lot of what people have been saying about their sexist values. It definitely warrants a section in the article once we have better sources --94.175.85.144 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding of this talk page over the past day or two, Wikipedia will draw from credible sources to formulate its description of the events that have transcribed, and attempt to remain impartial considering evidence on one side and morality on the other. But your biased attitude will not be of aid.Starly396 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited with various IPs/accounts for quite a while, the article will reflect what the sources written say, what we think on the subject matters very little. I imagine any reputable journalists that do pick this up won't be so easily swayed by an anti-SJW youtube account --94.175.85.144 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Residence

I removed where she lives from the lede since it certainly doesn't belong there unless there is a very good reason to do so. Please see/read WP:BLPLEAD. --Malerooster (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for removing it? Also, what's the deal with the male pronouns? You've done it at least twice, especially in this subsection. Also, BLPLEAD specifically says Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to start off by saying that I come at this familiar with how a single-purpose account looks and is treated, and I trust the clue of the people who deal with sensitive information enough not to worry if things go south on this page. I'm also familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia style conventions like the war to delink dates. Last I checked, the cited guideline was to ensure we append the word American to whoever we're talking about, not give the person's residence. The latter seems especially ill-advised when there are concerns (real or imagined) about stalking. I'll stay out of the edit process because of the aforementioned issues with new accounts. That's my two cents. --Hemingwary (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made on whether the information really needs to be on the page. Considering there's no real importance to have it state which portion of Boston she's in, I've removed the specific portion of it but kept Boston in. Though also, even though it's causing a bunch of flurry on the Interwebz, that doesn't necessarily translate to real life physical residence threats/intent. People on 4chan try to troll and make people angry, not try to get arrested. Tutelary (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Date linking... man, that takes me back. That was, what, 2008, 2009? Tezero (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a source/citation for her residence? Starly396 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if we did have a reliable source for her residence, WP:BLPPRIVACY means that we can't be more specific than the city. Though I would argue that just saying that she is an "American video game developer" would be fine. The city she lives in doesn't have much at all to do with why she is notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was actually referring to broadening it to the Boston area, rather than pinpointing a city. Still, I would like to see a source on it somewhere. Starly396 (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice that that was unsourced - I've removed it. I'm not too bothered whether we include the area/city or not, although I'd prefer not (and area rather than city is my second choice). It does need to be properly sourced, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary, sorry about the male pronouns, I was completely unfarmiliar with the subject to the point of not noticing it was a she. Also, removing where she lives from the lede has nothing to do with idontlike and take exception to your edit summary saying that. BLPLEDE mentions location, nationality, or ethnicity. You pick ONE of those based on relevance. 99.5% of well written bios follow the format, Joe Blow is an xyz(nationality) nose picker(occupation) who broke the record for consecutive nose picks(why they are notable). PERIOD. THEN you go into other details that I care little about. OK? Questions?--Malerooster (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

User:Soffredo made the bold choice to insert content into the article regarding the incident which has been boiling almost over the top for the past few days and has made gaming communities go absolutely crazy. This is the 'bold' of WP:BRD. I did the R, and now we will commence the D for discussion. I reverted because in its current form, we can't state that someone allegedly cheated on another unless there is absolutely solid sourcing for it. Additionally, primary sources (the tumblr source) have very strict limitation on their use in this. I think that given its sourcing to Daily Dot, Vice, Kotaku, it does merit some mention. But the specifics of that mention should be clear, take a non-interested POV and be entirely neutral, all while compiling for BLP. Something like Zoe Quinn was the subject of an Internet controversy when her ex boyfriend produced a blog disputing her infidelity during their relationship; Multiple popular websites like Reddit, 4chan, and others went into a flurrygood wording, huh? about this, spouting allegations that she was gaming the system for positive press about her game, Depression Quest. Daily Dot and Vice have called these allegations as 'sexist' and 'harassment' against Zoe, contesting the notion and the credance of her boyfriend at all. Other websites have not collaborated these allegations. I'm open to any and all suggestions considering I just wrote that up on the spot and it has some weird wording...I don't usually do content creation. Tutelary (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to avoid controversy by using the word "allegedly" instead of stating she cheated on him, but ok? Make this even more complicated.. Also, you claim you want it to be neutral yet you go on to say "Reddit, 4chan, and others went into a flurry". What I wrote seems to work: In August 2014, Quinn's ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni created a Wordpress blog detailing how she allegedly cheated on him with multiple people, some of which work in gaming journalism. Quinn commented on the incident saying "It’s a personal matter that never should have been made public,". Kotaku stated that it had found "no compelling evidence that any of that is true." [Soffredo] 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that stating that she cheated on another person, even if it is 'allegedly' is a BLP vio, especially since we only have the words of his ex boyfriend for that fact. Again, we need to take the disinterested viewpoint as outlined at WP:NPOV. 'Allegedly cheated' also sounds inflammatory. Also, what I stated was not out of context, The Daily Dot and Vice both mention Reddit and 4chan by name and their exaggerated reactions towards it. Maybe take a gander at the sources you're trying to use. Tutelary (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well we both know the articles may be biased. Let's use my addition, which is 'neutral' unlike yours. [Soffredo] 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell Crisis his KYM and reddit citations are great, hahaha. Also, is it fair to cite Eron's blog as well? Starly396 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The KYM article actually has more cites about this than WE do. Conversely, the article on themarysue cites nothing apart from Quinn essentially saying "I'm being harassed, no seriously, just believe me" Crisis.EXE 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote The Daily Dot about these issues: "Thing is, there are no publicly known facts to support this theory. There is, however, a lot of hot air." And "[the gaming community] has twisted Gjoni’s dirty laundry into a narrative of industry corruption—a tale that is not based on provable fact." Claiming that this passes WP:BLPGOSSIP seems to me optimistic at best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was the one to originally insert "allegedly", "alleged", etc. into the section, but that's apparently frowned upon because it's too gossipy. When we finally do write this section, we can use these as reliable sources for all of it:

• Social media and gaming websites would not discuss the story. When this website did, "myself and my colleagues have been subject to threats, illegal attempts to obtain personal information, and illegal attempts to hack the editor account of the site." "YouTube personality TotalBiscuit has also reported that he has become a victim of harassment from defenders of Zoe Quinn and other indie developers for his Twitter post on the subject" "JonTron, has also come under harassment" "Zoe Quinn’s claims that 4chan hacked her personal Tumblr account to obtain nude photos has been debunked, after attempts to spread the images made it apparent that they are crude Photoshops." http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/the-kotaku-zoe-quinn-scandal-the-aftermath-and-thoughts/

• Most websites refused to cover the topic, while being willing to cover other such topics as and when they've been revealed if the offender was a man: http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/the-schism-of-gaming-zoe-quinn-nepotism-and-white-knight-journalism/

• The Editor of Kotaku states that Grayson and Quinn have been in a relationship: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

• "John Bain aka TotalBiscuit has been raked over the coals by a significant segment of the indie dev Community [including Phil Fish] over his comments regarding the Zoe Quinn Scandal": http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-of-justice-total-biscuit-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/

• "The main thrust of the anger over Quinn involved her perceived nepotism in having what many gamers believed were unethical relationships with other members of the gaming industry and the gaming media." "Quinn's friend Phil Fish came to her aid, launching a strident defense of her character" His company's site was hacked and much personal and business information was released. http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/

• Quinn hampered a project for female game designers. http://nichegamer.net/2014/08/the-quinnspiracy-continues-vivian-james-indiegogo-is-reportedly-hacked/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/indiegogo-campaign-hacked-this-weekend-but-wasnt-part-of-a-widespread-attack/

• Refers to a Reddit thread which states, among other things, that Ben Kuchera funds Quinn on Patreon, and has written about her; and the article states that in the wake of this two gaming sites have changed their policies with regard to such situations: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Polygon-Kotaku-Revise-Their-Policies-Amidst-Controversy-66962.html

Apologies for lack of formatting. I've only occasionally edited Wikipedia, not sure how this all works.

Willhesucceed (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These are useful sources that could be used to write a section on this, yes. (See also #Reliable sources recap and content in article and some of the other sections further down.) However, I don't immediately see anything in the sources that confirms the allegations that you made in the post above, and we can't insert poorly sourced, controversial claims about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, per the biographies of living persons policy. So I've redacted them. We need to be very careful about including claims about Quinn even here on the talk page, as they may unwittingly contribute to the harassment she is currently under. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I tried to organise and summarise them in some fashion above. I'm not trying to start a witch hunt; how are we supposed to decide what goes into the section if we're not allowed to discuss the topic here? Willhesucceed (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the WP:BLP policy, contentious claims about the living person can be included in the talk page exactly once. Any other mention to them should be made through a hyperlink to the section where they were first discussed, so as to avoid repeating them everywhere. Diego (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Due to the number of reverts and BLP violations recently, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on Zoe Quinn. Woodroar (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

Crisis just added a {{POV}} tag to the article, but I think that's excessive. We already have a {{disputed-inline}} tag for the material that's disputed. Needless to say I don't agree with the inline tag either, but why do we need two tags just for one disputed statement? If we have to have tags, then inline ones are more specific and lead to more productive discussion between editors, and usually give better results. POV tags on top of articles are vague, and frequently sit at the top of articles for months or years despite the original issues being resolved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No need for it. Woodroar (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

With the likely massive influx of people finding this link, a banner is much more likely to be seen than the inline comment and may deter anyone from attempting to correct the article on their own, without having read our numerous discussions. Starly396 (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Screw this. I'm not gonna willingly keep up with this article if it's all deleted revisions and crap. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors here are not interested in the truth, only in assisting with covering up negative information. Every new source introduced is rejected, and when old sources are found inadmissible they remain. We have to keep fighting to keep Wikipedia from being turned into a platform for propaganda and misinformation. 73.32.61.213 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The standards of Wikipedia have generally favored credible sources over truth, and they always will. I understand the concern, but this is more of a necessary evil, because sometimes it's impossible to find the truth, and sometimes two sides will never agree on a single truth. The best thing we still have going for journalistic integrity is silence on the article, for now anyway. Starly396 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors of the article have arbitrarily decided that the sources alleging harassment against Quinn are all credible and the sources alleging a sex scandal are all dubious and unreliable. Seems like pretty obvious bias to me. Amendment50 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not arbitrary at all. You're only 7 edits in - perhaps you should familiarize yourself with how the website works before throwing around accusations like that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So Daily Dot, Vice, and Kotaku are not reliable sources, then? Tutelary (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "Kotaku" tied up in all this? Doesn't seem like they'd be a third party. They're also more of a "use with caution" type site, and this is a BLP. Haven't looked into the other two yet, those seem to have popped up more recently. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Amendment50: What you see as arbitrary, we see as appropriate process. There are several policies on this site which predate this game and this issue by years. The first of which is our policy on reliable sources which says that social media and blogs are not reliable sources. Our verifiability policy says that all material must be verifiable and not connected to the subject financially, personally, or any other connection - they must be an outside third party. The biographies on living persons policy requires that negative material be verified through reliable sources with editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. Controversial, libelous, or challenged material must be supported by multiple reliable sources. TL;DR: If you want to include the material, you'll need multiple outside third party major news publishers supporting the negative material you want to add. That's why it keeps getting removed. We're not being arbitrary or biased about the issue, we are implementing policy which predates this issue.--v/r - TP 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good move. People need to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, that depends on what can be verified through Wikipedia's standard of reliability. We're not a tabloid, nor are we a blog for ranting against people. There's other (infinite?) avenues for that on the Internet. Go take it to your blog, or the comments section of a video game website that's writing about it and allows for personal commentary like that. But don't out it here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

I propose that this article should be deleted entirely. The ongoing controversy is the ONLY thing that's really notable about Zoe Quinn. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't find the controversy or this woman notable enough to warrant its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopHatProfessor1014 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The most recent discussion showed almost unanimous support in keeping the article, and that was well before all the "controversy" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The most, if not only, significant thing about Zoe Quinn is this Five Guys controversy but we're not even allowed to include it in the article due to difficult editors. The article itself is a stub and not much more can be added other than the controversy. [Soffredo] 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more the policies of Wikipedia than the editors themselves. But to exercise my First Amendment rights, difficult difficult difficult. Starly396 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misusing the policies of Wikipedia to censor negative information. We have reliable sources. We even have a response from Kotaku and Zoe Quinn herself. [Soffredo] 04:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not our place to break this sort of news. Best to just keep it on the cooler for now, see how it plays out, and then do a post-mortom write up. Regardless of your personal position on this controversy I think that, given that her encyclopedic notability has already been established, keeping it off of the page is without question the correct decision right now from an editorial point of view. ResMar 05:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Starly is on your "side" if anything if he's on a side. It doesn't make any sense to accuse him of censoring stuff.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "difficult" wasn't why the post was (initially) removed. But there's not much point talking about your first-amendment rights, because you don't have any right to free speech on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014

From my understanding, she is not a developer/programmer, but a video ideologist. YSPilot (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - You are mistaken. See sources like http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/08/14/depression-quest-now-available-for-free-on-steam Also, VG ideologist isn't really a term that used much anywhere anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about Kotaku article reliability

I just wanted to point out that, unlike the vast majority of sources which rely on Zoe Quinn or her ex-boyfriend's personal statements, the Kotaku article actually performs "original research". In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author. The article refers to an investigation of Gawker/Kotaku staff and, implicitly, Nathan Grayson as sources. The article is a primary source for refuting the allegations since it relies on an internal source. However, I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable secondary source for the *existence* of the allegations. Press releases, like this article, would usually work as sources, but in this case, Kotaku could be seen as a participant in the drama because of Nathan Grayson. Corax rarus (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That link goes to a 404. Euchrid (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corax rarus, this is a common misconception about sources. WP:OR and WP:V means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to base our edits on reliable, third-party published sources, and cannot reference our own personal knowledge or experiences. These policies do not prohibit journalists from original research; on the contrary, they require it. All of the persons mentioned in this article and their works (Tweets, blogs, etc.) are effectively primary sources, and Kotaku is a secondary source because it is investigating and writing about the primary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks User:Woodroar. I was just concerned of WP:NPOV since the journalist's colleagues are also at the heart of this drama. So this source should be sufficient to at least the existence of the controversy? (Also, User:Euchrid, I've fixed my original link above) Corax rarus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is another policy that only we as editors need to follow. Sources can and often are subjective, sometimes in a good way but sometimes in truly horrible ways, but it's our job to remain objective in how we reference them. But to answer your question, I don't think it's a particularly good source for that claim. Not because of Kotaku's reliability, but that the source doesn't adequately cover the controversy. It essentially says "several people inquired about allegations and we found they didn't have merit for these reasons" but nothing beyond that, no mention of harassment or trolling or anything like that. Since we would have to read between the lines and that's original research, the most we could get from this article is that they find the vague allegations are without merit. Obviously just my opinion, and I'd welcome others to chime in. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to also add that the article also states that "Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship." which was a point of contention (whether Zoe actually had a romantic relationship with others between November 2013 and July 2014 as the ex-boyfriend claimed). Corax rarus (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it does, per WP:SYNTH we can't use multiple sources to combine material or imply conclusions, especially on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What review are you referring to? The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review. This appears to be supported by other sources. It also appears to be supported by simple OR since AFAIK, even opponents of Zoe Quinn haven't been able to show any review. (They appear to now be discussing "favourable coverage" or similar rather than a review. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's either a typo or a misunderstanding. "The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review." The Kotaku article discusses a review by refuting the rumors that one exists. The second "review" in my comment refers to the mention of Quinn's game in an article which was a review but not a review of Quinn's game (this was a review of a reality TV show). Anyway, the point was that both Grayson and Quinn's ex-boyfriend mentioned that they had romantic relationships with Quinn during the same timeframe despite being enemies (Grayson threatened to seek legal action against the ex-boyfriend and Quinn over libel). Kotaku would be the reliable third-party confirming the conflict (since Quinn and her ex-boyfriend were biased primary sources), but apparently we can't say A+B=C as per WP:SYNTH. Corax rarus (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how "In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author" was meant to imply there was no game review but only a TV show review. It seems to imply there was a game review but Kotaku claim it was written and submitted before Quinn cheated so you comment does seeming unnecessarily confusing. At no stage did you mention a TV series review, or mention there was no game review.

Yet what we know is Kotaku refuted the "allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased" not by saying the "review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author", but simply by saying the review on her game doesn't exist. They also mentioned that the only time Grayson wrote anything "involving Zoe Quinn" was the article on the reality show which they state was from before the relationship begun.

Note that the article Kotaku linked to about the reality TV show wasn't what would generally be called a review either (particularly not in reference to a TV show). It was a "behind the scenes" news or story style article look at how everything allegedly was wrong with the reality show. It's not a review or evaluation based on having watched the TV show and offering an analysis/review/evaluation of the TV show based on this viewing (or reading or listening or playing or whatever). Which is what most people expect when someone mentions a review of a TV show (or book or play or song or game or whatever), as per our article. It doesn't even sound like the author has seen the show, and they definitely don't seem to be claiming they have. (To be honest, I'm not sure if the show was ever actually shown to anyone or because it was cancelled, it basically never became a product anyone could really review.)

If you want to nitpick, you could perhaps say the article was a review of allegations surrounding the filming of and problems behind the show. But calling it a review of the show is a real stretch.

The simple fact is, if you had an equivalent story about the latest Star Wars film or The Big Bang Theory or whatever, very few people would be claiming it was a review of the film or series. If the people making allegations about Quinn are claiming that article is a review, it's no wonder no one trusts them since it's sounds a lot like a lame attempt to deny they were wrong about the existance of a review. (Although as I've said, as far as I know most of them have now moved on from claiming there is a review, instead talking about favourable coverage or whatever.)

Note that this isn't simply nitpicking, it's an important point. If we were to ever cover the story in this level of detail (which I doubt), it would be important we mention Kotaku's primary defence in relation to allegations of a biased game review is that there is none. Similarly, considering that many people would not consider the article on the TV show a review, it would be fairly confusing for us to call it one (except if we are quoting someone who does call it a review) or to imply a review exists since most people who have followed the story will be wondering "what review" and many people following our links to the "review" will think they must have followed the wrong link.

BTW, I stand by my comments. The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any game review. The only thing it does is mention there was no game review which isn't what I would consider "discussing a review". Still, if you disagree and feel this is "discussing a review", we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't consider it an important point since I made sure my comment was clear in saying they did mention there was no review. So there should have been no confusion that they did deny there was any review from my comment.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources recap and content in article

Hello. I know that there are a bunch of sections regarding this but the discussion should be centralized towards one specific section, and that I feel as if I were to continue discussing it in other sections, that the discussion would be the focus of one specific person which I would be responding to, not the entire page. So, I'd like to recap; There have been a bunch of different 'questionable' sources which have reported on this, and we have to be able to separate which are reliable and which is not. Here are a few 'indisputable' (one that wouldn't have its reliability called into question)

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html
• http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal/
• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest
• http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/22/hackers-post-fez-developer-phil-fishs-personal-information-and-take-control-of-his-studios-website/
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-01-game-jam-reality-show-cancelled-as-indies-wouldnt-put-up-with-its-s
• http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-chilling-effect-of-misogynistic-trolls

Here are the sources that -may- be reliable and usable but needs further investigation;

• http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/747559-embarrassing-week-gaming-industry-concludes-welovegamedevs-twitter-campaign

Surveying all the 'indisputable' sources above, I feel that it has a place in the article as what has been done to her and Phil Phisher is a reasonable thing to mention. One line of 'sexual explicit phone call' doesn't do itself justice. I am proposing the following content be added to the article in section called 'Harassment'. The 'sexual explicit phone call line' would be moved to this section. The 'indisputable' sources would be used for this section.

After her ex-boyfriend contested her infidelity and asserted other allegations on his blog about her, Zoe was the subject of harassment in her day to day life. This included the doxing of her personal information, the alleged hacking of her Tumblr account by 4chan, sexually explicit phone calls, including 'an individual jerking off into the phone', the calling of her place of work, death and rape threats, as well as other threats. The motive was the unfounded assertion that she had used sexual favors for favorable reviews on gaming websites.

Phil Phisher, after defending her on Twitter, had his personal information doxed, name and address as well as banking information and passwords.

So yeah, I'm open to any suggestions you guys might have but I feel that the way she was treated belongs in the article, and the line of 'sexually explicit phone calls' doesn't do her justice. Tutelary (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk about bias. Wasn't it you who said we should take a non-interested POV and be entirely neutral? (See here.) I don't get why you reverted my original proposal which was neutral. It's as if you're not content until we agree to bashing on Reddit and 4chan. [Soffredo] 16:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions I'll remedy that, but we have multiple different BLP violations redacted on the talk page and I'm trying to make it adhere to that...whether that's wrong or not. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We have several types of sources on this:

1. Screencaps and other primary sources. Primary sources are not only appropriate, but preferable, to cite when it is about whatever the primary source is - videos, still images, Tweets, ect. are cited for many articles about the specific events involved in said videos, still images, Tweets, ect., and this is entirely appropriate. Mister Angry Boyfriend is not a RS for anything but his claims, but it is not inappropriate to cite his claims directly as a source for his claims, along with other sources. Given that he has been noted by several press outlets, and the allegations were responded to by Kotaku, it seems like his claims are at least notable enough to be worthy of mention.
2. Media reports - we need to be careful on this front, especially given that the accusations include those of press corruption, silencing people, attacks on people, threats against careers if the subject matter is covered, ect. One of the major axes of criticism on Zoe Quinn is that she and her friends had been using social justice issues as a cover for their own ill behavior, and several of the links cited above were involved in such activities.
3. There is evidence to suggest that her claims of harassment and "doxxing", both the initial ones on Depression Quest and her more recent ones, were partially or wholly fabricated. This needs to be noted, and there are primary sources which attest to this. Again, we should cite actual people for this, not do OR, but this research has already been done externally, and therefore is not OR. What we need is to choose RS's wisely.

We need to keep a NPOV about this stuff, but censorship of Wikipedia is unacceptable. We have some sources which are prominent enough to be picked up by Google News for Zoe Quinn sex scandal, and as such seem like reasonable enough sources to use:

• http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/zoe-quinn-between-anger-and-depression-quest-27793
• http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/08/sex-scandal-involves-female-game-developer-zoe-quinn-kotaku/
• http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/kotaku-and-zoe-quinn-accused-of-exchanging-positive-press-for-sex/
• http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest

I'm not super happy with the Motherboard article, which reads very much like a rant and has been amended several times due to factual inaccuracies, which doesn't speak well of it being well-researched, but eh, it is potentially usable with some caveats. There are some other things as well:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M - Internet Aristocrat's video is noted by several of the sources on this subject matter; is it worth using? It contains a lot of information, but is pretty much a rant. On the other hand, several sources pointed towards him, he has over 60k subscribers on YouTube, and the video has about as many views as anything on the subject matter. A lot of ordinary news articles don't pull 600k views.

Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing clear right now is that she claimed that she was doxxed and harrassed. The sources only report that claim: They cite her twitter and blog and use “alledged”, “claimed”, “[Quinn] reported” all over the place. Until this is settled, we shouldn’t turn those claims into a undisputed fact. I have made a small edit in this vein. — flying sheep 10:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• We do now have enough reliable sources that we could write a section on the controversy. Thank you, Tutelary, for taking the time to put them together, and for indulging my strict interpretation of the BLP policy while we discuss this. I remain unconvinced that we should include a section about this controversy, though, in light of WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'm thinking particularly of the part that says Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. We have satisfied the first of these three points beyond all reasonable doubt, but I do not think we have satisfied the second or the third. None of the stories linked above present the allegations against Quinn as true; in fact, most of them actively say that they are false, and Motherboard and The Daily Beast both say that the controversy isn't important. I find the idea of adding a section on the controversy very hard to reconcile with the wording of the BLP policy here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  Assertions of what happened don't need to be true to be documented in articles, only what is substantiated in reliable sourcing and with regards to BLP and NPOV, which is what I attempted to do.. Which is why I put the 'unfound assertion that she did X and Y for Z' because that's what the RS stated, that it was an unfound assertion. But why I really want to add this is because again, a single line mentioning the harassment doesn't do itself justice, and leaves the readers with more questions than answers...like, 'Why was she harassed?' and 'Why did she get that sexually explicit phone call?' Maybe a good model to take after would be Anita Sarkeesian's article, where it was substantiated that she was harassed and describes in depth what happened with regards to BLP. It's been in stable condition (absent a few {{cn}} and {{pov}} tags) so it might be a good thing to look at. Maybe we'll need to get discussing that future RfC if we can't come to an agreement. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  In most types of articles, assertions don't need to be true for us to be able to include them. But I would argue that assertions about living people do need to be true, because of the part of the BLP policy that I linked. WP:BLPGOSSIP is an extra requirement on top of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and means that our criteria for inclusion of material is stricter for BLPs than it is for other kinds of articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and it makes sense. But did you look at Anita Sarkeesian (the article) and how it's formulated to document the harassment but not the allegations? Tutelary (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to set up a standard for which sources are considered reliable in order to cover the controversy. In the spirit of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and given the recency of the event, I believe we shouldn't depend on the past reputation of their review process but on the way they cover this particular incident - any source covering the event should provide direct hard evidence for their claims about the persons involved, not rely on hearsay. Please remember that this is a BLP, so any disputed or controversial content needs to be held to the highest standards. Diego (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I've read the Anita Sarkeesian article now, and I agree that it does a good job of sticking to BLP while still covering the harassment she received. There is a key difference between Sarkeesian's case and the one that we have here, though. Sarkeesian began being harassed as a reaction to her announcement that she would make Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, and there's nothing in the BLP policy that prevents us writing about that. In Quinn's case, though, discussing the reason that the harassment began would inevitably involve writing about Quinn's private life, and however we word it, that is on much shakier ground with regards to BLP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying {{An ex boyfriend made allegations about their relationship}} doesn't give away anything private. Especially since it's been reported in numerous reliable sources. Zoey Quinn herself has published a response to the fact that the allegations exist, as a press release. The controversy exists. We don't need detail about the specifics of the cause. There were allegations, from an ex boyfriend, one of them related to a Kotaku journalist, some people responded with concerns relating to professional misconduct on both Zoey and the Kotaku journalist's part, Quinn reports being harassed in response. But written more neutrally. No private details, nothing excessive just enough to cover the RS without leaving room for accusations of censorship in either direction. SPACKlick (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there're multiple sections on the controversy I'm not sure where best to put this, but there's a new citable article on the topic: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/ JamesG5 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would consider Ars Technica reliable, but not in this case. Anyone following this mess via 4chan or reddit is pretty aware that Ars Technica and possibly twenty other sources are shouting this whole "gaming is dead" narrative all at once only because they've exhausted trying to censor the majority of people not buying whatever narrative these traditionally reliable sources are saying anymore in regards to the controversy. If it has to be used though, I would take it with a grain of salt. Honestly, I wasn't even aware they were going into this drama. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Real name

Enough, find a WP:BLP compliant Reliable source for the 'real name' or leave it be. Dreadstar ☥ 03:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As this article is technically a biography of a living person shouldn't we be using her real name and not "Zoe Quinn"? WP:COMMONNAME. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not saying we should change the article's name, only make a mention of her actual name in the introduction, as is commonly done in other biographies where a alias name is used as a title. What's her real name? I haven't seen any variation but I may not be looking. Tutelary (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) [redacted] Yeah, we might not be able to do that considering that it's a primary source and it's not clear it's Zoe from the image. We need a better source. Tutelary (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC) For all we know, [redacted] could be the alias and Zoe her real name. Either way, we need a reliable secondary source meeting WP:RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC) [redacted] The screenshot posted on Twitter shows her ex boyfriend confirming she uses a alias. [redacted] Furthermore if you click on the flickr link on the [redacted] page it leads to Zoe Quinn's flickr. Please refrain from posting any personal information from a primary source. If you have a news article which discusses another name, you may post that, but do not post personal information about living individuals. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Just out of interest could you show me which rule states we can't post a person's actual name on a biographic page about them because it's "personal information"? IP, I think that there is definitive overpolicing of this page and misapplications of BLP policy here, but the relevant citing policy would be WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Tutelary (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Point 1 of Wikipedia:Oversight may also be relevant, "Removal of non-public personal information, such as . . . identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public" We do not exist as a mechanism for aiding the targeting of death threats and other material towards living people, nor are we a publisher of original investigative research. Please note WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and so forth. At a point where this information is published by a significantly reliable secondary source with editorial oversight, of course, it would no longer be original research. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I wasn't going against the status quo, just in general, I feel that there's too much overpolicing in regards to BLP when much of it is related to content choices. It's of my understanding that no, we can't have someone's real name when it's not substantiated to sources, but other examples such as removing sections designed to discuss the recent controversy citing 'BLP violation' when it's the most 'hot' topic of what's to be discussed. That's not to say that there isn't a reasonable line to draw on what is related to content and what is not, it's making me frustrated as a long term editor to not be able to discuss -anything- about it without it getting deleted as a 'BLP violation'. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I hear ya. I have made that precise argument in a very different case in the last week, so I'm not entirely unsympathetic! --j⚛e deckertalk 22:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I thought with her using her real name on social media it would waive the privacy concerns cited. Furthermore who said anything about death threats? I'm just trying to help improve an article. Agree with Joe Decker on this one. RS entirely necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 22:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) Who did? I did. (But I'm not suggesting that that that was your intent. I'm focused on the effect of the material only.) I looked through the material provided and didn't see anything that looked like it demonstrated an intentional effort by the subject to connect the two names involved. You are welcome to enlighten me, my email is open. As to social media, Wikipedia's BLP policies have been interpreted by the community historically as respecting people's pseudonymous identities where it's true that both the subject hasn't intentionally made the connection between the two, and where those haven't been covered by reliable sources. You can see some implication of this at the policy I pointed you at above. But I understand why you might find this needlessly hamstringing the article development process. In this case, I feel that we're making the right call. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 22:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Gah, I hate to have this off track just because I didn't make myself clear. I support the redaction of the name. I just feel that it's being misapplied in other sections of the talk. Tutelary (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC) When it comes to personal information about Quinn, BLP needs to be applied as strictly as possible, given the level of personal invasion she is experiencing. We need to bear in bind that the majority of the IP accounts editing this Talk page are not here to build an encyclopedia.Euchrid (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Not really. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says 'never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance' or something like that? They probably view the Wikipedia page. They see something wrong/not covered and see it as a problem. As a result of semi protection, they can't edit it. Therefore, they contribute on the talk and propose things that would be contrary to BLP, not knowing that we have a policy/guideline against it. I don't see where the malicious intent comes in view. Now I'm sure there are a few outliers, like the IP that continued to readd a section calling Zoe a slur, but from what I've seen, those are a minority. The majority of them have good intentions, just ignorant of BLP. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Most of the evidence comes from Zoe Quinn herself, and part of the controversy surrounding her is making up harassment in order to avoid criticism or documentation of her behavior; we shouldn't enable that behavior, either. However, I agree that until we have an RS or Zoe Quinn identifies herself by their given name, we shouldn't be including it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Potentially biased wording

In the description, her game is described as a game which details what it feels like to live with depression which seems both biased and misquoted - the referenced article explicitly highlighted that it's an attempt. Perhaps a change to a game which attempts to detail what it feels like to live with depression or something less definitive would be more proper? Pomfland (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

'Attempts' implies the opposite, though. I'd prefer the less flower "a game about the experience of depression." Euchrid (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of original harrassment

I don't want to get into a revert war here, but editors are now removing reference to the original round of harassment - the one that followed the release of Depression Quest in 2013. I know that some feel that the most recent round is in question, but surely that incident (or incidents) isn't also in question? If it is then I haven't seen any debate. Euchrid (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is well documented by reliable, third-party published sources. I think that some editors take issue with the secondary source being based on a primary source, but that is the definition of a secondary source. A reliable secondary source gains the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require by using what they consider to be quality primary sources. The sourced statements should be restored and tags removed. Woodroar (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It does look like Diego Moya and Mdann52 are confusing the two incidents here. Quinn is the victim of two bouts of online harassment - one last year, debated in the #"Alleged" section, and one that is ongoing, most recently debated in the #Reliable sources recap and content in article section. The comment of mine that Diego referred to in his edit summary was about the ongoing incident, but the content that he removed was related to the 2013 incident. That said, I'm in two minds here. One the one hand, most of the "dispute" about the 2013 incident is merely an extension of the online abuse that Quinn is currently receiving - in actual reliable sources covering the incident, there is very strong agreement that she was the victim of actual harassment, not mere "alleged" harassment. On the other hand, one of the key sources covering this, The Escapist, issued an update saying that they got their information from Quinn's Twitter account and from no other sources. This means that the sources aren't completely unified in their coverage of the 2013 incident, so there is room for discussion on what exact wording to use. I think that WP:WEIGHT indicates that we should not add "alleged" or similar qualifiers to the harassment wording, but we shouldn't pretend that The Escapist hasn't issued an update, or to try and stifle debate about it. I think that removing the material from the article is a reasonable step to take while we discuss this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Concor with the above. I removed the material as it have been contested, not due to any previous discussions here, especially as the sources may not be as reliable as they first seem. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no question that Quinn reported harassment, and The Escapist seems to be being very cautious, but not unreasonable, in highlighting that they did not independently confirm the issue. This, though, is because much of the harassment was alleged to have occurred over the phone, and therefore cannot be independently verified. Given this, I have no problems with having a statement that Quinn reported being harassed when Depression Quest was listed at Greenlight, per the wording here, as the report is not an issue that is in dispute. This much should remain in the article. Part of the current round of attacks and harassment also includes the rather unsavoury claims that the original harassment didn't occur, but beyond including "reported" we should avoid entering into that. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of the two separate incidents, the problem with the removed sentence is that it was written in an ambiguous way that could applied to both - as the new wave of harassment has also been linked to re-publishing the game after Robin William's death. I chose the reported wording as a neutral term to avoid alleged, thus getting round the WP:ALLEGED problem of uncertainty. I could agree to restore that wording if it's made clear that it refers only to the 2013 episode. I also think it could benefit from more references supporting it, specially from journalists that report on the king of sources they've used to reach their conclusions. The references in the article (the Escapist which explicitly denies having confirmed the claims, and The Mary Sue who doesn't explain how or whether they contrasted the information) don't set a high enough standard for a BLP. Diego (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard we are looking for is not proof that she was harassed, but proof that she reported being harassed when the game was put on Greenlight. The Escapist seems perfectly reasonable for this, but if there is a question, Quinn's talk at GDC, as summarised by Polygon [15], also covered the issue. Then we have Gameskinny, Edge, Digital Spy and Forbes. Even those attacking her now acknowledge that she reported harassment. This point isn't in dispute. What some people are arguing now is a different issue, and we're right to take that cautiously. But that doesn't mean we can't cover something that happened many months ago, has no direct BLP issues, and is relevant to the release of her game. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

At no point I said we should not cover it - just that we have to be delicately exquisite in the way we include it in the article; and the existing sentence -with its ambiguity and its disputed tag- was not that. From the sources you provide, I think the one from the Edge would make a good addition - it actually names YouTube, Reddit and 4chan commenters so that readers can follow the track of the harassment for themselves. The Forbes one also does a good work in providing context, although some editors at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian have objected before to using Forbes commentators as references. Last but not least, the Polygon article is interesting in that it provides extensive coverage of Quinn's own words, which may allow us to expand with due WP:WEIGHT the article including a sentence or two about her take of the whole matter.

As for the August 2014 incident, it seems too soon to say anything about it yet - the recency of all it makes it unlikely that coverage from journalists can be considered reliable. Let's wait some time after the significance of it settles and give time for writers in professional media to do their job and research the topic with care - or at least let's include only references that are backed up with hard evidence. Diego (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, those sources listed above - the GameSkinny, the Edge, the Digital Spy - don't just say that she "reported harassment", they say that she WAS harassed. GameSkinny says "Because for the SECOND time, Zoe Quinn is being excessively harassed by online users, reportedly from the site Wizardchan", Edge says "The backlash filled Quinn’s Twitter stream" and Edge "Quinn has received sexist abuse and been harassed with phone calls." For us to reword them, rather than reflect what they say, smacks of synthesis to me. Euchrid (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept "reported", simply because it is also accurate to what happened, and works as a compromise. I'm unwilling to accept not covering the issue at all. Personally, I'd rather leave of the "reported" as well, but if it removes the "dubious" tag then it is a step forward. In regard to Diego Moya's point, I also have no desire to see us covering the current round of harassment at this time, because it represents a significant BLP problem, being based on gossip and unfounded allegations.

Assuming that the current proposed wording is:

In attempting to publish the game through Steam's Greenlight service, Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls.

How do we approach making it less ambiguous? Would adding the date (December 2013) address the issue? - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding the date would make it clear that the sentence is not about this month's re-release. Diego (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible sourcing for controversy.

This source seems to address supposed subjects like censorship of posts on Reddit and 4chan. Leaving this up to debate, but when the majority of sources like Kotaku and RPS are being accused of taking sides, this one particular article seems to be a good add to an otherwise controversial, ongoing scandal. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/08/25/gamers-revolt-another-take-on-the-zoe-quinn-scandal/ Citation Needed | Talk 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting read. I've not heard about the Bright Side of News site, can it be usually considered reliable? They are a commercial web site with editorial staff founded in 2009. The author of that piece isn't listed within the staff but seems to write regularly for the site, and it seems that all contributions are sent to the editorial team for review.

I like that the in-depth analysis is grounded on links to external sites, rather than being mere opinions from the writer (this piece contains a good dose of those too, but I don't see it all that relevant for the BLP; the sources it links to are verifiable though, as all of them are online). This means it could be used as the basis to provide some brief background of last week incident if/when we decide to cover it, in particular if other reliable sources happen to highlight some of the same points reported by this analysis. Diego (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of it's reliability, it definitely doesn't read like an blatantly biased opinion piece, and the in-depth analysis looks good enough at the very least for a grounds for debate over inclusion. Citation Needed | Talk 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This other article linked from the first is also a non-videogames news site, that provides a very different perspective on the topic, and also gives external links to the websites where all the drama is happening (including to the originating abuse post from Quinn's boyfriend). It appears to me that this is a clear case of two competing points of view, which emerge as significant when the news are covered by professional writers and are given quite different spins. Diego (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at the author alone and looking at her other articles already wasn't doing favors for that particular source. Here in lies the big issue; being that the majority of people who are reporting on the scandal either have an agenda that is pro-Zoe or pro-SJW amidst a damning pile of evidence provided by people who supposedly got screwed over and a unholy triple alliance between 4chan, Tumblr, and reddit over the whole issue, so what we're left to work with is basically on par with tabloids. It's a complete NPOV nightmare. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"a damning pile of evidence provided by people who supposedly got screwed over" And what pile of evidence would that be? Also, I do not see how the Bright Side of News article is any less POV than Marcotte's.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe what would be useful is reading what WP:RS says about biased sources. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be included. I'm just saying that Citation Needed seems to be selective in what constitutes a biased source, since both the aforementioned sources read as conflicting POV. Also, the "damning pile of evidence" was not mentioned in Bright Side of News. The closest thing to evidence is the mass Reddit etc. ban, but that by itself does not contradict the accusation of harassment. So I'm still waiting to see a reliable source for this "damning pile of evidence".The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this source considered reliable(http://www.themarysue.com/mighty-no-9-dina-abou-karam/) but brightsideofnews isn't? Stevenbfg (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the story itself and not Wikipedia itself, here is a "damning pile of evidence" that goes through the sources for the original harassment story in December and explains how there was never any evidence it took place. Obvious, this isn't a reliable source. https://imgur.com/a/4VOcx72.89.93.110 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally articles from publications with editorial standards are seen as more reliable than imgur folders as potential sources for the encyclopedia --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't submitting it as a reliable source. But it is "damning evidence", in the sense it proves to a reasonable observer there was no evidence for the harassment mentioned in the article.72.89.93.110 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Somehow this post appears relevant to the conversation, with respect to accepting internet crop images as evidence of anything. Diego (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mary Sue, bias, WP:RS and double standards

An editor has rightfully removed the The Mary Sue source, as it a) is very biased and b) isn't a reliable source. This double standard is frankly ridiculous. You guys deny any source that presents the other side of the controversy as not meeting WP:RS, biased, and WP:BLP, but not a single shit is given when the source is pro-Zoe Quinn! Why? Does BLP count for nought on the other end of the spectrum? I DO NOT SEE THE MARY SUE BEING LISTED ON ANY RELIABLE SOURCES LIST, SUCH AS WP:VG/RS! Not only that, but The Mary Sue has said THEMSELVES that the write articles based on a feminist perspective, therefore they have PROVEN THEMSELVES to be biased pro the subject. Using The Mary Sue in this article while discounting other sources than offer an alternative viewpoint is the equivalent of using only North Korean state-run newspapers on the North Korea article then dismissing and removing all the other Western/American sources that criticize North Korea as "biased". WTF Wikipedia? Stellarcomet (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention as already said above the following RELIABLE SOURCES are not allowed in the article

http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/zoe-quinn-between-anger-and-depression-quest-27793

http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/08/sex-scandal-involves-female-game-developer-zoe-quinn-kotaku/

http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/08/kotaku-and-zoe-quinn-accused-of-exchanging-positive-press-for-sex/

http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/zoe-quinn-slut-shaming-the-feminist-conspiracy-and-depression-quest

because, as I quote User:Sergecross73, "regardless of its writing, it supports the sentence in the article." WTF Sergecross73? How about WP:BIAS and WP:RS? Stellarcomet (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't even try to play the ridiculous North Korea card because no one on any side of this minor controversy has gone before a firing squad, been arrested, disappeared or sent to a re-education camp at hard labor. Gamers have no conception of hard labor anyway. Pretty much all the sources under discussion are gossip sources, pure and simple, and gossip is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. We would all be better off if people would take their gossip elsewhere. Like the rest of the big wide internet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, a source being biased isn't the same thing as it not being reliable. Almost all newspapers have some kind of political leaning, for example. See WP:BIASED for Wikipedia's guideline on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Every source that we could possibly choose to use will have an opinion one way or another. The fact that The Mary Sue is a feminist site doesn't have anything to do with its reliability. It's a professional blog with an editorial staff, so it's fine to use. This article would fail the bias check only if it included only one opinion, or excluded one, though bear WP:UNDUE in mind when considering that. Euchrid (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not avoid my argument. The Mary Sue is not listed at WP:VG/RS, so you guys CANNOT deem to to be reliable by yourselves, especially not on a WP:BLP. As for your reasoning, you say "professional blog with an editorial staff", well guess what, Gamer Headlines has one too! And not only that, Game Revolution is listed at WP:VG/RS, so you have no reason whatsover to not use it!. Hilariously, User:Mr. Stradivarius, you claim that a source can be biased but still reliable. Nice job contradicting what you said above. User:Euchrid, "This article would fail the bias check only if it included only one opinion, or excluded one" well guess what, this is EXACTLY what is happening here, we only show Zoe's side of the story and not the other side. Checkmate. Stellarcomet (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A source can be biased and still reliable (because at a certain point, *all* sources are biased), but The Mary Sue's reliability seems to be in question. "A blog with an editorial staff" doesn't seem to be a good standard since anyone can make a blog with 2-3 people and call that a source.72.89.93.110 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problems with removing the Mary Sue source. We have three other sources for that sentence, after all - if anything, having four is a case of WP:OVERCITE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stellarcomet: Which argument above are you talking about? I've made quite a few posts on this page. Also, WP:VG/RS isn't necessarily definitive - new sites can always pop up, and consensus about a site's reliability can change. Also also, Wikipedia is not about winning. We are all here for the same reason - to create a quality encyclopedia article. Or at least, that's the idea. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

VG/RS only documents video game specific sources. You'll note that the New York Times isn't listed on there either, but it's still a usuable source. So that complaint us invalid. And as already stated, it's not a definitive list anyways. But regardless, there's a ton of sources that support the claim, so it doesn't really matter if we use the Mary Sue source or not. I do think one of the other RS's should be tacked on just because people have complained endlessly about the statement. I can see someone, down the line when the article isn't heavily monitored, trying to remove it because they think the Escapist is biased, and then removing it altogether because they think it's at that point "unsourced", when it would actually be easily sourced. (EDIT: I'm suggesting sources Stadivarius listed in other sections, not the crap sources listed in this section so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What problems do you find with the sources listed by Stellarcomet? They don't seem much different to The Mary Sue in terms of reliability (except for Kotaku, which is an involved party at this issue and could be used just as a primary source). Diego (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I'd rather use the sources that are commonly used and have an active consensus in favor of their use, rather than some of these random websites that aren't very prominent at all. I'm not sure why this is such a big to-do. After the new rewording, no one appears to actually object to the actual content. Why the heck does it matter if it was sourced by a feminist source if they accurately support the statement, and no one's actually contesting the statement? It's not being used to make an especially pro-feminist statement. It can just as easily be sourced by prominent websites like Computer and Video Games or Venture Beat, so let slap them in the article and move on, rather than wasting our time on bickering. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If a source is used for one sentence, it's usually considered reliable to use it for other unrelated sentences in the article. Then, for fairness we'll have to admit any other reference with the same publishing standards, such as those at the beginning of this thread. If the criteria is to use sources with "an active consensus in favor of their use", then The Mary Sue must be removed, as there's no consensus for it given the above comments. Diego (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one's really established a good case for it being unreliable, or specifically that the other's are equivalent for that matter. But again, it doesn't matter, there are several undisputedly reliable sources in there now, and there's nothing in the Mary Sue source that can't be found in those other ones, so this is resolved. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the burden of proof on having to demonstrate the reliability of a source rather than the other way around? I think this is the problem people have, other sources were rejected up above as being unreliable, probably fairly, and there seems to be no basis for themarysue's reliability.72.89.93.110 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't relate to the current controversy, but rather to something in December of last year regarding her game. It should be mentioned, as well as the current controversy cited by sources from both perspectives besides just the majority SJW ones or just the ones claiming journalistic integrity or she's lying. That being said, two of the sources from Gamer Headlines and Game Revolution could also be used. 75.76.124.246 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I've started a discussion at the WP:VG/S Talk page. The Mary Sue is part of a media company started by a co-anchor of Nightline and they've been cited by USA Today, Wired, PCMag, and Time. Woodroar (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

coverage in a reliable source?

Might this piece from Slate help break the logjam? David in DC (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an well-written, thoughtful opinion piece, but it's not news coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Really great piece, thank you for sharing, but I agree that it can't be used as a source --94.175.85.144 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll keep trying. How about this, from the Daily Beast, this, from The Globe and Mail or this, from the Lake County Record-Bee. Please keep in mind, some opinion pieces include reportage that can be used. There's some wiki-acronym for this principal. I'm off in search of it. David in DC (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION permits opinion pieces appearing in reliable sources to be used for the author's opinion, as long as the prose starts with something like "Tech expert Cornelius McGillicuddy says...." This is a genuine controversy. The way to tell the story may well be to use quotes from writers without ties to the parties, who've done some independent reporting, and written opinion pieces in reliable sources about what they've learned.

For an example of this approach, check out the Aaron Swartz and US v Aaron Swartz articles. David in DC (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the Slate is a [[[WP:RS]] and the quote is in the scene setting devoid of (most opinion). This source seems to be absolutely worthy of including a brief NPOV outline of the issue in the article. There are many sources showing this controversy exists. Slate, Globe and Mail, K Pop Starz, BrightSide of News, The Mary Sue, Motherboard, Daily Beast, Gamer Headlines, Kotaku to name just a few They're not all top rate sources but Slate and Kotaku are pretty solid sources. It seems clear that;

1. There were allegations
2. Some people responded to the allegations with regard to professional misconduct
3. Some people claim people responded to the allegations with harassment [I suspect true but not certain any source establishes it]

Surely those three things can be worked in to a short neutral paragraphe without violating WP:BLPSPACKlick (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You removed a statement that was sourced reliably (by The Verge), I would just like to point out. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Was that aimed at me? If so I apologise, could you post a diff because I can't find the edit. SPACKlick (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A few more mentions of a controversy: Adam Baldwin is currently describing the Quinnspiracy as #GamerGate on Twitter. Several days ago Engadget also mentioned a "mess". Old Guard (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

harassment?

I looked up this article because I just heard about the story, and found it pretty disappointing. All it says is 'Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls' - that's hardly the sum of it, is it? This is a woman who's been subject to one of the largest and most severe campaigns of misogynist online harassment in recent memory, to the point where that's what she's arguably best known for. Better coverage of this is surely justified, and sources exist. (Contrast Anita Sarkeesian, another high-profile victim whose article rightly devotes considerable material to the harassment against her.) Right now, this article makes it look as though Wikipedia is trying to play down online harassment (it doesn't even describe it as fact, it just says 'Quinn reported'), which is really not a good look for us. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it's a topic that's under discussion at the moment. Take a look at the rest of the Talk page to get an idea of what's going on. Euchrid (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is the balance between covering the harassment and furthering the harassment. With Anita Sarkeesian we had an easier problem, in that repeating the nature of the harassment was not a BLP concern, as the harassment was generic and didn't generally (with some exceptions) make direct and problematic allegations. On the case of Quinn, repeating the allegations in covering them gives oxygen to some very nasty and questionable claims. Thus the task of covering the issue without causing further harm is complicated. I'm confident we will cover it, and based on what I've seen of the approach here, I'm confident that we'll cover it well and with full deference to BLP. But (like with Sarkeesian) it might be a slow process to work out how. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I already attempted to do this with a NPOV and BLP in mind in my 'reliable sources recap' section. It was wholeheartedly rejected. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, reading the comments here has made reconsider my earlier position. Covering the controversy is problematic, but it's getting to the stage where not covering it is also problematic. Perhaps the best balance would be to cover the allegations in the most generic way possible, and then describe the harassment itself in slightly more detail. I still worry that covering the details of the harassment itself could be unwittingly furthering it, however. It's one thing to have details of harassing phone calls, Twitter messages etc. on news sites that may be forgotten about in a few years' time, but it's another thing to have the details forever enshrined in a Wikipedia biography. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is accurate. There's been a lot of rumors about Zoe Quinn, and reports by Zoe Quinn of harassment, and very little evidence of either. We have little to go on and the benefit of being able to wait for better sources to become available, and we should use that benefit rather than jumping to conclusions and posting things as facts.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

.AioftheStorm is absolutely correct, "jumping to conclusions" is a BLP violation, I strongly recommend not doing that - on either side of the issue. Dreadstar ☥ 03:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? A warning that we shouldn't jump to conclusions is a BLP violation now? We need to be cautious about what we say, but then, that seems to be the point that AioftheStorm was making. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Very seriously. Very...and I suggest you carefully read WP:BLP before you post your jumped-to conclusions here as fact. Attacks against BLP's must be supported by reliable sources; and attacks against other editors here is not allowed at all. Don't jump anywhere on a BLP unless it's sourced. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly respect your intentions, but I think there may be a bit of confusion about what AioftheStorm was trying to say. I'm hard pressed to see the BLP violation in warning people not to risk BLP violations by jumping to conclusions. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One way of 'jumping to conclusions' is if I read source X, then source Y, and say, "well if source X says this and Y says this, then unsourced Z must be true. Violation of OR and BLP, quid pro quo. but, you know, if it's not clear to you, then maybe you should ask that question on WP:BLP/N on why jumping to conclusions my violate BLP. If it happens here again, I'll make sure it's very clear. Dreadstar ☥ 04:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the policy you're citing, WP:NOR, specifically excludes talk pages. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. Tutelary (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And you have my statement wrong, it's actually an application of BLP that makes OR on a talk page violate BLP. You cannot synthesize sources to make an unsourced allegation in an article or a talk page. If you care to discuss this concept, the do as I suggest above and take it to BLP/N and stop discussing it. I'm telling you unsourced attacks will be met with sanctions even if you think jumping to conclusions protects you from violating BLP. Period. Dreadstar ☥ 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just saying that NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, that's all my statement consisted of. BLP does and still applies, but I think you're overapplying it here for stuff that just isn't a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the question of what I'm attempting to address won't come up again. No OR to make BLP-violating statements. That means in the article, where it violates both BLP and OR, or here on the talk page where it violates BLP. Don't jump to conclusions and post unsourced criticism either in the article on or on the talk page. Can't be clearer than that. Dreadstar ☥ 04:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think (I hope) Dreadstar is agreeing with AioftheStorm and not admonishing them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm reinforcing what AisoftheStorm said, certainly not admonishing them for a very correct and wise statement. Sorry for any confusion.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you updated your statement to make that clearer - I clearly misread your intent, but the wording seemed ambiguous at the time. That is fixed now. I am generally concerned that we find a balance between discussing the issue and making BLP violations, in that it is difficult to work out how to address the issue in the article if all discussion is shut down. The balance is tricky, although I have no disagreement that accusations and potential BLP violations are just as bad on the talk page as anywhere else, and should be removed on sight. - Bilby (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think calling the 'attacks' as being made by misogynists to be an unsourced attack, but I'll allow others to make that determination. I've removed it from the section heading because it's inflammatory and unnecessary - this is not a forum people and using it as such brings one awfully close to WP:NPA and WP:BLP violations, and I don't think we need to be lenient on these articles, too many attacks already. I've clarified above. Thanks for pointing that out...! Dreadstar ☥ 03:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that user Robofish took issue with the line 'Quinn reported being the target of harassment both online and through sexually explicit phone calls'. This sentence is in reference to Quinn's December 2013 release of Depression Quest and not the more recent controversy and flame war. The two issues should be considered separate and thus the Wikipedia article is accurate. As of now there is no entry on the ongoing issues. ~~Ron --70.185.196.205 (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally there is reason to doubt the harassment occurred to anywhere near the extent it was reported as. That's not related to the article itself, but it does mean Robofish is likely mistaken to think it is /under/represented in the article.72.89.93.110 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh good lord, covering the current controvery requires no OR, no Sunthesis It's all clear as day in the sources. To copy my bulletpoints from above.

• There were allegations from an ex boyfriend
• some allegations related to a kotaku employee
• Some people reacted in relation to PRofessional misconduct
• Quinn reported receiving a lot of harassment in response. [I phrase it this way because of the sources I personally have seen perfectly willing to *rephrase on new sourcing]

Each of those points can be sourced to slate, kotaku, quinn's statement and/or Mary sue. So someone with better writing skills write a proposed paragraph. SPACKlick (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well almost every source focuses on the harassment itself, so we could very briefly summarise that. The real BLP issue is that we can't assert that the things that she is being harassed for actually happened as there is no real evidence, but it is difficult to cover it at all without at least touching on it. If we detail why she is being harassed, there is a definite risk of a BLP violation in how we word it. If we even suggest that she may have slept with people for coverage then we have breached it. Remember, there are tabloid rumours that are better sourced than this. Nobody reliable has touched the topic or supported what happened. At the moment the harassment campaign is ongoing, so I imagine that editors here are very wary that Wikipedia does not become a part of it. The website has faced a lot of criticism for not being friendly to female editors anyway. Furthermore, it's hard to say, reading through this, that some of the people here are not part of this harassment campaign on other websites. That is why it is not included yet, it's too complicated an issue, the people on the talk page have polarised views, and including the information in article in a way that breaches WP:BLP could get the editor who does so banned. We need strong consensus to include it, and that won't happen until people can agree on it. Ultimately, we should be cautious. I imagine the anti-Quinn camp won't be happy with a write up that doesn't explain what she is said to have done, but it would be nearly impossible to do that without breaching WP:BLP --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit

I just edited the article to include a harassment section with npov and BLP in mind. This is primarily the content from 'reliable sources recap and content' section. Do revert me, I just want to see some accelerated discussion happen. There are millions of RS documenting the harassment and we should too, but without certain small sentences of context of her ex boyfriend and what not, it wouldn't make sense. I tried to minimize that with BLP and NPOV in mind. Tutelary (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've pared it back a bit, removing things I couldn't find in any source (except the doxxing because I remember seeing that in a source, just not which one). I still think between the allegations blog and the reported harassment there should be a sentence about the misconduct responses but I don't yet have a phrasing for it. SPACKlick (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think the last sentence needed to be deleted, it's looking better than I expected. Is there really no provided reference for the doxxing? I saw the phone number multiple times and I swear a few news sources have wrote on it --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's looking stronger after the edits by Ongepotchket and David in DC, I would suggest removing the "alleged" from hacking --94.175.85.144 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I added it back (since it was removed) because Daily Dot, the source that's sporting it also mentions it's alleged, so the article should reflect that as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person who started the section above, just wanted to say I approve of this addition to the article, which as I was saying really needed to be there. Thanks for being the one to bite the bullet and add it. I still think referring to 'alleged harassment' is a bit weak when there's not much reasonable doubt that it took place, but I guess there are reasons for wanting to strictly adhere to NPOV and reliable sourcing on this article. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh...a recent edit did that. I just changed it back, because the only 'alleged' thing that I saw was the 4chan bit...maybe someone saw something that I didn't, but I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that she was harassed. Tutelary (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• A problem with this line:
  • reportedly including publication of sensitive personal information online[14] and alleged hacking of her Tumblr account by 4chan.[14]
• What happened was a post was placed on Zoe Quinn's tumblr account stating she's been hacked by 4chan and posting personal information later shown to be false. At the time of the tumblr post an anonymous post was made on 4chan stating "I have hacked Zoe Quinn!" and directing people to the tumblr account. This post was responded to by hordes of 4chaners claiming the anonymous post to be from Quinn and claiming the post to be a set-up. This line should therefore connect the alleged hacking of her Tumblr to the publication of sensitive personal information because they were one in the same act, and this sentence should acknowledge 4chan's claim that it did not hack her. A significant issue that we have though is that there are no RS's which don't lazily skip over and misrepresent details, if you look through RS's you will notice slight contradictions and missing info between them. I do think though that overall the additions right now are fine.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

{{notability} 177.125.213.212 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As the article has recently survived a community deletion discussion related to notability, this does not seem to be an appropriate tag. Kuru (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of Personal and Professional Misconduct

I added a new section about the recent scandal. Lemme know if you see any problems. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already reverted it. You really need to look over some of this talk page. You used a lot of sources that should not be used, especially on a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Zoe Quinn blog post - you are quite right, I misunderstood the standards for using such things (though it was not my primary cite on the information anyway, save for one thing which I sourced elsewhere; was sloppy in the first place). Do you want me to remove the Reddit cite as well? It is more of a press release on Reddit re: the removal of the posts than anything else, and it is not inappropriate to cite sources on themselves. Given that the cite is about the removal of the posts, and the RS confirms that the posts were removed, AND that it was the original source of the explanation given in the RS, it seems logical to cite the Reddit post the same way we might cite a press release or something similar. I can remove it (the information is available in the other citation), I just thought it would be logical to link to the original source as well, given the specific situation. Were there any other sources you took issue with? Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What was the particular source and the Reddit link? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here:

• Quinn privately contacted Reddit mod el_cupacupcake, who subsequently purged thousands of posts from Reddit in the name of preventing harassment and the distribution of personal information,

As I noted, I could remove the cite to Reddit, as it is sourced elsewhere, I just thought it would be appropriate to cite the original source re: the cause of the removal of the posts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One other thing he may have objected to was the citation of TotalBiscuit's video re: why it was made, which is also sourced by a secondary source but I thought I would link to the primary source as it is talking about itself.

• A video documenting the scandal on YouTube was pulled down due to a false copyright claim by Zoe Quinn, or someone claiming to be Zoe Quinn, leading John Bain to create a video documenting the accusations.

References

You should probably learn what proper sources means. Youtube isn't a source for a wikipedia page, and neither is a blog post.Countered (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the cite is not necessary but I thought it would make sense to link to the primary source, as it is about itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem if you're able to back it up. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted - this text is what has been debated above, and needs consensus before including. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Even the section header is a BLP violation. Who are Wikipedia to claim what is "personal misconduct" (frankly, what even is that?) Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

On further perusal, I've rev-deleted the whole thing, there are accusations of impropriety not only against Quinn but about others, and the sourcing simply isn't strong enough to support stuff like that (not to mention issues of WP:UNDUE). Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By those standards, this article should not exist. I'm fine with deleting it if you believe that this does not meet notability standards, but claiming that the "sourcing isn't strong enough" when there are over a dozen articles on the subject matter (and many, many thousands of non-reliable sources asserting the same thing - Zoe Quinn sex scandal gets north of 72,000 hits on Google) seems really iffy to me. The stuff about harassment has a similar amount of weight; Zoe Quinn is a very borderline case for notability, and almost all of her notability is as a result of this and the previous episode of harassment. Note that Joshua Boggs and Loveshack Entertainment, her employer and the company she works for, don't even have wiki pages. Why do you feel it is given undue weight, given that this episode is precisely why she is (possibly) notable in the first place? Kotaku, Grayson's employer, even commented on it publicly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a section header? I'm not married to the section header, but I'm not sure what else to call it. Scandal? Allegations of misconduct? Ted Haggard uses "scandal and removal from church" and "other allegations surface". Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the rev-deletions. Even counting the /pol/ sock, there has been 36 complete deletions of revisions on an article that was made four months ago for a indie developer that is only notable for a Twine game and an ensuing controversy over journalism that probably makes up 75% of the reason she even has an article on here. How many of those are honestly violations of WP:BLP? I'm not accusing any admin or anybody else of a cover-up, but I've never even seen this happen on some high-traffic articles. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 23:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think folks are going a bit overboard on it; when something is sourced using nothing but RSs, and isn't a personal attack or anything of the sort, it probably doesn't need to be reversion deleted. And now some folks are trying to keep it from even being discussed on the talk page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the rev-del. I was contemplating it myself. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing Zoe Quinn to Ted Haggard? Because no, just no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP

Look - let's be very clear about this.

• Some of the claims in that "proposed" section are not sourced to reliable sources. They also imply - without exactly saying it - impropriety on the part of living people apart from Quinn. Posting them on the talk page is just as much a BLP violation as putting them in the article.
• A huge section titled "Scandal" or " Misconduct" in an article which is otherwise practically a stub is not going to fly. If the reason for the article existing is to disparage the subject then it should not exist.
• A discussion of what should be in the article can be achieved without posting the exact text.

Thankyou. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Talking Ship describes the issue of her relationship with Joshua Boggs, Nathan Grayson, the claims of sexual impropriety, and the allegations of nepotism. It is {strikethrough|a reliable source.} labelled soapbox, and thus should probably not be used as a primary citation.

Bright Side of News describes the issue of her relationship with Nathan Grayson, the accusations of corruption, nepotism, unprofessional behavior, and the greater context of the issue. It also talks about the censorship which ensued, as well as documenting the actions of el_cupacupcake regarding the removal of posts, and questions of his neutrality. It also talks about the GamesNosh thing, in addition to GamesNosh itself discussing the issue with its host. It also addresses the whole "social justice warrior" issue and the backlash against people like Zoe Quinn who speak down to gamers and accuse them of bigotry. Again, Bright Side of News is a reliable source.

Game Revolution goes into a number of the allegations - the issue with Nathan Grayson, censorship, the backlash against TotalBiscuit, notes about Zoe Quinn being doxxed, Kotaku's response, and the attack on The Fine Young Capitalists' game jam. Again, they're a reliable source.

Kotaku confirmed that Nathan Grayson had been involved in a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn but claimed that the relationship started after his article about Zoe Quinn, and noted that he did not write a review of her game (something I'm not sure if we should include, because it is known to be factually untrue - i.e. should we include a denial of something which is known not to be true in the first place? Not sure.) and that the only article he did write for them for Kotaku was written before their relationship began. They claimed that they had no evidence of misconduct on his part. Kotaku is a reliable source.

Slate is a biased source, but we can still make use of them for documenting the response; they documented harassment of Zoe Quinn, as well as beseeched gamers not to pursue Zoe Quinn but pursue men instead. I think they're a reasonable source to use for the response, and they did document the broad strokes of the scandal. Slate is a reliable source, even if they are biased, and so we can use them so long as we take care to do so.

Daily Dot covers the issue as well, and while the title of the article is offputting, and they obviously have their own take on the issue, they again document a number of the issues - the allegations of impropriety, the censorship on Reddit and elsewhere, the YouTube takedown, the anger of gamers over industry corruption or the appearance thereof, as well as talking about misogyny and harassment of Zoe Quinn, and the questions surrounding the original coverage of Depression Quest. They are a reliable source, and much of the article is very useful.

New Media Rockstars is fairly brief, but notes the accusations regarding her affair with Boggs and Grayson. If we needed another source for the "he did not cover Depression Quest", it hits that as well, though I think that's covered and I don't think it is really worth including to begin with given that no one is asserting otherwise in any RS (or at least, if they are, I missed it). It also notes some of the TotalBiscuit issue. I'm not super fond of this source, but it has editorial oversight, so it qualifies as a RS. Everything I had cited to them I cited to another source as well.

The Daily Beast is a biased source and was only used for documenting some of the reaction, as well as the harassment of Zoe Quinn. It, too, is a reliable source, even if it is biased and not at all trying to be neutral. It can still be used for documenting the response of feminists, which it does, and given that is a part of the story, it seems reasonable to use for such.

There are some other potential sources we can use, but I think all of the core issues are covered by the above sources. Now, which of these do you feel are not reliable sources?

Contrary to what you say, we do in fact have articles which exist wholly because of a scandal - Monica Lewinsky being an obvious example, so obviously it does "fly", and it isn't unreasonable - if someone is mostly notable for one thing, their page is going to reflect that. On the one hand, I do agree that Zoe Quinn is borderline in terms of notability, but on the other hand, we're talking about something which has tens of thousands of hits on Google, and the most notable thing about her is the controversies which have surrounded her, and previous attempts at getting the article deleted have failed, so I think the consensus is that the scandals are clearly enough to keep her in, which means we need to document them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "TalkingShip" is not a reliable source. It's an pseudonymous group weblog and the piece you cite is an anonymously-posted op-ed in their "Soapbox" section. Entirely unacceptable for disputed material about living people.

Similarly, the BrightSideofNews piece is a clearly-labeled op-ed post ("Analysis" = opinion in a journalistic sense) and is not suitable for sourcing disputed material about living people. It contains literally no evidence of anything, and simply uncritically repeats anonymous rumors.

Again, the GamesRevolution piece is an op-ed post and is not suitable for sourcing disputed material about living people.

The New Media Rockstars piece notes clearly that there is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone, and that the claims are based on nothing more than "misinformation floating around on 4chan" and other unspecified sources.

The Daily Beast is generally a decent source, not "a biased source." You may not like their take on the issue, but they are far more of a mainstream source than literally any of the gaming blogs you posted.

Slate is also a mainstream and well-respected reliable source; the fact that their take on the issue disagrees with yours does not make them "biased."

The Daily Dot, which is also a decent reliable source, states that "Allegations made by Quinn’s ex have brought about an Internet maelstrom, a sustained campaign of harassment—again—against Quinn and her family, and widespread accusations by gamers that Quinn’s alleged personal relationships are a sign of corruption in the gaming industry. Thing is, there are no publicly known facts to support this theory. There is, however, a lot of hot air."

This article is not a place to repeat and extend unsubstantiated accusations, scurrilous rumors and anonymous tabloid garbage about Quinn. The fact that a few gaming blogs are repeating that anonymous tabloid garbage uncritically ("Gee, we don't know if it's true or not, but someone on 4chan said that Quinn did XYZ") does not make it worthy of inclusion in her Wikipedia biography. The reliable sources that are discussing the issue unanimously state that it's nothing more than scurrilous rumormongering bullshit wholly unsupported by anything factual. We are not here to drag Quinn through the mud for you and this article will not become a dumping ground for "anti-SJW" loons to spout nonsense.

Your entirely-inappropriate comparison of Zoe Quinn to spree killers is absurd, ridiculous, offensive, out of order and I request that you voluntarily remove it before I redact it for a violation of BLP. Good God, do you have any sense of proportion whatsoever? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should review the guidelines about news organizations in reliable sources. As they note, news articles are very frequently a mixture of fact and opinion. None of these sources are The New York Times, but on the other hand, they don't have to be. Pretty much all of the material can be verified - there is actual documentation of many of the claims available, which these articles frequently link to - which makes the reporting considerably less dubious as they are citing their sources and providing evidence of what occurred. As all of these groups have editorial control over their content, they are (at least potentially) reliable sources, though you are correct as regards the Ship article that it may not be the best of choices either. If you have another good source for the subject matter, feel free to suggest it!

The idea that these are "scurrilous claims" is more than a little off; the identities of Arnott, Boggs, and Grayson aren't in question, and that she had a relationship with Grayson shortly after he wrote a positive article about her has been confirmed by Grayson's employer, Kotaku. There is no indication of slander or libel in any of this, and the fact that it is so well documented due to social media sites and instant messaging makes things pretty easily verified. People have been questioning Zoe Quinn's integrity and the integrity of those she was involved with. The whole thing is a scandal, so it certainly isn't good for her reputation, but that is not our call to make as editors; it is our job to present things neutrally. If they reflect well or poorly on people, so be it, but we should not be the source of such - it is our job to document and explain, not to push for a position on an issue.

The Daily Beast and Slate are both biased sources, at least in this case; the fact that they are widely read by people who agree with you does not make them unbiased or neutral, and popularity has nothing to do with NPOV - do you think Fox News is neutral? It is certainly popular, but I don't think anyone is about to claim that Fox News is unbiased. That doesn't mean that we can't make use of things reported on by Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Slate, The Daily Beast, ect. A cursory examination of the front page of Slate reveals an article which is positively shocked that Michelle Bachmann told the truth about something - hardly the epitome of unbiased news reporting, however much I may personally approve of the sentiment. The articles in question both are full of bias and do not attempt to act from a neutral point of view, and indeed seem to be amongst the least fact-checked of the articles. If you want to talk scurrilous, claiming that all the people who are interested in this are misogynistic - now that is scurrilous, and simply untrue, though there undoubtedly have been a number of people who have said nasty things to and about Zoe Quinn (and she has responded in kind). Undoubtedly harassment has occurred, both by Zoe Quinn and her friends and her detractors, and there is ample evidence of such, though people being unpleasant to each other on the internet is hardly new.

I was not comparing Zoe Quinn to spree killers or Monica Lewinsky beyond noting that we have no policy against writing biographical articles for people who are primarily known for a crime or scandal. I happen to be interested in serial killers and spree killers and thus was aware of the fact that we do indeed have numerous biographical articles of that nature. I'm not really sure why you got so upset; I was not implying that Zoe Quinn murdered anyone. Certainly no RS has alleged such.

The only reason she has a Wikipedia page is because of what you called "scurrilous accusations". It has been decided that she is notable; if you feel that she is not notable because everything about her comes either from "scurrilous accusations" made by her or made about her, then you are free to recommend the page for deletion. She is borderline, and I could see saying that episodes of alleged internet harassment and personal misconduct do not notability make. On the other hand, tens of thousands of google hits for Zoe Quinn sex scandal indicates a great deal of interest in the subject matter.

The allegations that she slept with people are far from unsubstantiated; the allegations that she slept with people to get ahead in her career are unsubstantiated. However, a great deal of the controversy around her is precisely because there is the perception of impropriety, as is documented by these articles, so it is pretty much impossible to talk about it without making note of them; they are precisely why the whole thing became (possibly) notable in the first place.

My intention here is to document the scandal; she has a page and the scandals she has been involved in are the only notable thing about her. If you feel that these scandals do not rise to the level of notability, that's fine. But please assume good faith; I'm not out to demean or smear Zoe Quinn. However much I may personally disagree with her behavior, it is my job as an editor of Wikipedia to present content in a fair, even-handed and neutral manner. There is a considerable amount of interest in the subject matter and I feel that we can source it and document it, and that we, indeed, must do so if this article is to exist on the encyclopedia.

Incidentally, regarding analysis, I think you misunderstand what news analysis is; news analysis is not meant to be an opinion piece but a deeper analysis of the subject matter. Someone writing a news analysis article about ISIS would go into the roots of Suuni-Shia conflicts, regionalism, oppression under Saddam Hussien, support and opposition from neighboring countries, the weakness of the central government, ect. Rather than reporting the news it is about dissecting the news and giving a deeper view into the subject matter. It is very different from an opinion piece, where the author adopts a stance on an issue. The Bright Side of News differentiates between analysis and opinion; they tag them separately and have them marked out separately. You'll find news analysis, analysis, opinion analysis, ect. Opinion articles, likewise, can be attached to a wide variety of other things. An opinion article is obviously difficult to use as a reliable source, per the RS page, but news analysis is not the same thing as an op-ed. See this page from the Boston Globe for an explanation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea that these are scurrilous claims is a little off - No, it isn't. None of them have been reported and verified in actual reliable sources. What you have is a jilted ex-boyfriend's blog and a feeding frenzy of speculation and harassment. Social media sites and instant messaging are exactly the opposite of what we consider reliable sources, and "documentation" in the form of alleged screenshots is worthless.

We have absolutely no interest in publishing "allegations" that an unmarried person had sex with someone based only upon a jilted ex-lover's blog post. Comparisons to Monica Lewinsky are entirely inapt for reasons that should be screamingly obvious but since they apparently aren't, I'll list them: 1. had sex with the president, 2. had sex with a married man, 3. became the focus of a Congressional investigation and impeachment proceedings, 4. went on TV a lot to talk about it, 5. cooperated in writing a book about it.

By your own admission, the other "allegations" are entirely unsubstantiated and, as such, have absolutely no place on this encyclopedia. We aren't here to republish rumormongering and whisper campaigns.

Your claim that "the scandals she has been involved in are the only notable thing about her" establishes your interest here - you are here only to smear her, because by your own admission, your only interest is in publicizing things you think make her look bad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

All of her notability comes from three things: claims of harassment which boosted Depression Quest through Greenlight, the failed Game Jam reality TV show (which is pretty borderline, as it was a flash in the pan), and this. That's it. Most game developers aren't notable enough to have Wiki pages, and that's especially true of many independent game developers with sparse resumes. Note that most of the people involved in this are not considered to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles; neither Grayson nor Boggs are considered to be WP:NOTABLE.

You seem to be upset at the idea that the press reports on sex scandals, but they do this on a regular basis for public figures, and for better or for worse, Zoe Quinn has tried to make herself a public figure. We have articles about Princess Diana and Prince Charles and that whole fiasco. We don't judge whether something is sordid or not; our job is to report on notable things, whether that be a scandal or some new disease or a popular amusement park in Florida.

Wikipedia's job is not to speculate, but to report and reflect and communicate information about noteworthy things. If you don't feel that Zoe Quinn is noteworthy, then I suggest that you push for deletion of this article. If you do feel that she is noteworthy, though, on what basis do you exclude this? Merely because something reflects poorly on someone does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion; I'm sure Ted Haggard and Monica Lewinsky and everyone else who has ever been involved in a public scandal would rather the world forget about it, but that doesn't mean we don't report on it. On the other hand, we don't report on someone exchanging sex for a promotion at a local Burger King unless it gets substantial coverage. This little fiasco has garnered enough attention to make it to the press, and thusly, we should report on it if we consider Zoe Quinn a noteable subject.

You also seem to not understand the meaning of the word "unsubstantiated"; it means "not supported or proven by evidence". Is there evidence here? Yes, there is; the RSs link to it and present it. So it isn't "unsubstantiated".

I'm not opposed to the idea that she isn't really notable, but I'm not really for it either; there is a lot of interest in the subject matter, and it has persisted for a while now, which suggests that it may be notable. On the one hand, the coverage regarding the harassment re: Depression Quest may not qualify as being independent of the subject as it was all repeating what she said, and this scandal pretty much messes up the whole Game Jam incident as well as regards her notability precisely because of the [conflict of interest] which has made this incident a scandal. This incident thus may be the only thing about her which actually meets the notability criteria for her as a person, as there is actual coverage of her which is independent of her, not merely repeating her claims about herself, and which has no conflict of interest. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR so I'm not sure what else there really is here.

Reporting on something which happened is not smearing someone. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One is not required to assume good faith when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and you have repeatedly made negative, derogatory comments about the article subject which have clearly established your POV about this person, your particular interest in this person and your intent to include as much negative material as you can possibly include.

The meaningful claims (of some sort of quid pro quo) are entirely unsubstantiated by any meaningful evidence. Someone's YouTube video or Photoshopped screenshot does not qualify as actual evidence. You just admitted above that "the allegations... are unsubstantiated," so which is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof - in fact yes, you are required to address other editors using the recommendations of behavioral policy always. If you are unable to avoid commenting on the motives of other editors instead of discussing specific claims about content and the references supporting it, you should step away and take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak, at least from this topic. Diego (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya - Once again, I don't need to assume anything here. The user's own statements about their feelings about the article subject are now public record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof You need to avoid making personal attacks. If you keep making edits like this one against any editor, I'll report you as disruptive. Diego (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya Report that all you wish, because it'll go nowhere - it's not prohibited to note that a user is here to push an obvious POV about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like /v/'s work is paying off for them, as they've added Milo Yiannopoulos to their ranks alongside Adam Baldwin (yes, the actor), TotalBiscuit, and Christina Hoff Sommers. The fruit of this has produced a Breitbart article that is likely to be given a follow up by him later. There is also an Examiner article that has just been put out there, but I'm unable to use it due to a edit filter (which is also giving me the assumption we aren't allowed to use it).

• http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/01/Lying-Greedy-Promiscuous-Feminist-Bullies-are-Tearing-the-Video-Game-Industry-Apart

I'm also noticing that the more articles we have coming out, regardless of what side of the conflict is putting them out, the less they're starting to do more with Zoe Quinn, and more about the whole "GamerGate" movement. While it's probably a long way from having it's own article (Gamergate doesn't count), it is getting more attractive to me and possibly others to start a completely new article. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "GamerGate" could be a section of a larger article about video game journalism controversies - there's long term coverage of criticism of the media *and* the trolls creating campaigns against it, with things like the Doritos-gate and other episodes of harassment against feminists such Anita Sarkeesian and other women developers. I've just found this reference that (tongue-in-cheek) summarizes the various documented points of view about the Quinnspiracy, I think it can be used to structure a section with various references covering all POVs with balance. Also this piece provides in-depth analysis about the background of misogyny in gaming. I think there's more than enough material for a combined piece that explained the cultural background of the whole thing - or maybe there's enough for two new articles, one about VG journalism controversies and another about harassment in tech culture. Diego (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The breitbart article is absolutely unusable in any way. We might as well discount that. In discussing Quinn and games journalism in general, it is worth remembering that so far there have been lots of accusations, but the one journalist that she is accused of being connected to never reviewed her game. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Breitbart, that seems about right - see previous discussions at the RS noticeboard, in particular this one. Diego (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag with a longstanding reputation for publishing garbage. The company you keep. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag" isn't exactly being civil or helping anybody trying to collaborate on an article. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article - "Lying, greedy, promiscuous feminist bullies..." is fully indicative of the mentality from which these arguments are coming from. It's actually helping a lot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doubting for a second it's an opinion piece. I'm stating that directly pointing the finger at me by saying "your cause" is completely being uncivil because it implies I'm blatantly trying to turn this article into a blame piece. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The case in point is that there are sources, both from the perspectives of various journalists and people involved (regardless if they're pro-Zoe/devs or pro-4chan/Reddit/Tumblr/anybody else with an opinion against Zoe or game journalism supposedly being corrupt. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Another ANI thread

An FYI: I've just opened up a thread on ANI about this article: see WP:ANI#Zoe Quinn again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What the BLP policy requires

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This is black-letter policy.

In reading the reliable sources, what this mess boils down to are allegations that Zoe Quinn had relationships with some people, and half-spoken whisper-rumors that one of these relationships amounted to a quid-pro-quo with a game reviewer.

1. Wikipedia doesn't care who Zoe Quinn had relationships with; it is neither notable nor encyclopedic and we are not a tabloid catalog of a person's sexual relationships.

2. Wikipedia doesn't republish unsubstantiated rumormongering; there is no substantiated evidence that there was any sort of quid-pro-quo and we are not a vehicle for spreading titillating claims. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find any sources really discussing it because none of them actually want to make the claim themselves - it amounts to a whisper smear campaign.

Bearing in mind that we are required to write biographies conservatively and that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is my belief that the existing discussion of this issue in the article is more than sufficient, and that anything more violates both the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who writes "LOL, congratulations, your cause has been adopted by a terrible right-wing trash-rag with a longstanding reputation for publishing garbage" is, I feel, incapable of telling me how to speak neutrally. Starly396 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Breitbart is an acceptable source for anything shouldn't be editing BLPs. It's not a partisan thing - same goes for DailyKos, LittleGreenFootballs, etc. Although Breitbart does have an especially bad reputation even among partisan hackery sites. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a reliable source for anything, let alone a BLP. We have had a number of issues on Wikipedia where their "journalism" has turned out to be, simply, stuff they made up to suit their agenda. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does, in fact, care who you have sexual relationships with if it is notable. No one cares who Bill Clinton slept with when he was in college, but Monica Lewinsky has a biographical page because Bill Clinton had an affair with her while he was president. The idea that this is some sort of general policy is simply false; it is relevant if it is notable.

2. Wikipedia does publish unsubstantiated material if it is notable, or is necessary for understanding notable things. Just look at any of the various Conspiracy Theory pages. Again, this is general Wikipedia policy. It is important to note that the fact that Zoe Quinn slept with three of these people has been substantiated - in fact, Kotaku even made note of the fact that Grayson had a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn. And this is the source of the controversy, and should be noted - the fact is that who she slept with is precisely why people made a big deal out of it. We cannot omit that fact.

Wikipedia cares about WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and other things. It does not exclude either of the things you listed, and indeed, we have numerous articles covering exactly this.

However, the page should not support unsubstantiated material but describe it if it is notable. Wikipedia does not say that reptilian aliens run the planet, but we do have an article about the conspiracy theory. Wikipedia has an article about the Shooting of Michael Brown, and people's reaction to the issue.

Which is precisely what this article should do. It should:

1. Report notable facts from reliable sources - and the fact that she slept with these people has gotten tons of attention means that it is probably notable.

2. Report the reaction from the gaming community, much as we reported the reaction of people to the shooting of Michael Brown.

We should not be saying that Zoe Quinn traded sexual favors for career advancement, any more than we should say that Michael Brown was shot because he was black. But we can - and should - report on what reliable sources are talking about in terms of the reaction. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that we do not publish conspiracy theories about living people, and we do not mention conspiracy theories in their biographies.

Again, your comparison to Monica Lewinsky is entirely inapt for reasons already discussed on this page repeatedly. If Zoe Quinn was to become the subject of congressional investigations, to go on television and write a tell-all book about her experience, the comparison might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We do publish conspiracy theories about living people all the time; the 9/11 conspiracy theories are an example. Heck, some of the stuff about the shooting of Michael Brown qualifies as a conspiracy theory about living people. We only publish conspiracy theories about living people in their articles if they are notable for them - David Icke's page makes note of them, for instance, and Barack Obama's page made mention of them at one point, before they were pushed out into the 2008 election sub-article because his biographical article is so long. It really depends on the person in question and their notability relative to their general notability - most presidents have conspiracy theories surrounding them, for instance, but generally don't rise to the level where they are worthy of inclusion in the main article, though they are usually mentioned in various sub-articles.

As I noted, I was pointing out that the idea that any of this stuff isn't included in Wikipedia is simply false; Lewinsky is simply an obvious example of someone who is notable soley because of a scandal. And frankly, it is very comparable with Zoe Quinn, because the only reason Zoe Quinn is notable is because of various controversial incidents she has been involved with.

In the case of Zoe Quinn, she isn't especially notable outside of said controversies - she is more of a scandal attached to a person than a person attached to a scandal, seeing as her notability outside of this is sharply limited. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)